« February 2007 | Main | April 2007 »
Monthly Archives: March 2007
It’s funny because it’s about drinking…
(Today’s “Non Sequitur” from GoComics.)
“…that’s just being polite.”
The investigative team of Wilmore and Oliver take their tactics to NYC, to investigate Councilman Leroy Comrie’s attempts to ban the “n” word, and there’s not a better way to spend a couple minutes of this nice Friday afternoon than watching the results:
The Daily Memo - 3/30/07
Two Virginia students are suing a California company (Turnitin) that helps find cheaters who plagiarize papers. (The Legal Reader)
Here are some things to think about when visiting schools you’re considering for your law school career (though it ignores the underlying question of “what are you thinking in the first place?”). (Concurring Opinions)
A stupid Texas reporter is out of jail on a bail bond after being arrested for attempted kidnapping - she was mirroring the actions of a recent kidnapping case as part of an “investigative report” on the hospital’s security. (KCBD)
Former Georgia congressman Bob Barr, who used to be staunchly against medical marijuana, is now a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project. (The Politico)
A Texas college student’s mom has been arrested after going after one of her daughter’s classmates - with an icepick! - to defend her daughter’s honor. (Tyler Paper)
Sometimes it’s just more effective to ask politely, like: “Hey, can I borrow your notes?”
Eegads. Over at Salon, columnist Cary Tennis published a letter from a third-year law student who has had some issues while in school. Here’s the main one, which is quite terrible:
There were several people here whom I tried to be a good friend to….And one deliberately hit me, three times, and broke my nose — in two places. He then apologized thusly: “I’m sorry, I didn’t think it would break.” (Obviously we were both drunk.) He then got on Facebook and mocked me. He said he hit me in the face with a TEC-9. He made a drinking game out of making fun of me. He said he “beat me like your step-daddy.”
He hit her in the face with a TEC-9. That’s a a semi-automatic gun, for Christ’s sake!
You know, there are some days that I actually miss law school. Other days, I’m reminded of how many assholes there are at the typical law school, and I don’t quite miss my time there so much. This would be one of those days.
New York might want to rethink this law
The Brooklyn version of The War of the Roses continues on its weird way. If you haven’t heard of this case, Chana Taub is trying to divorce her husband of over 20 years, Simon Taub. Chana claims that Simon abused her, physically and mentally, throughout their relationship, and she’s had enough. So she filed for divorce, citing “cruel and inhuman treatment” as the grounds. Simon of course denies all of this, and says he treated her like royalty. He claims she’s just trying to squeeze every last dime out of him in light of their increasing financial problems (his company went bankrupt in the late ’90s, and he’s had two heart attacks which have also pinched the couple’s wallets).
This divorce case took a bizarre turn, however, when neither Taub was willing to move out of their house. So the judge overseeing the divorce case ordered the couple to put up a wall in their three-floor home, giving them each their piece of the pie, similar to what Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner’s characters did in Roses:
[Chana] got the top floor and the kitchen on the second floor; [Simon] got the living room on the first floor and the dining room on the second floor. The door between the dining room and the kitchen was barricaded on both sides.
A large cause of the legal complications here come from the fact that New York has a law which does not allow a couple to get a timely divorce unless there’s solid evidence that one of the spouses is at fault for the marriage’s failure (e.g., one of them was having an affair). Since Taub didn’t have such proof, she was forced to pursue the divorce through a lengthy trial.
But here’s the kicker - a jury has now ruled that the couple cannot get divorced! After the jury issued its ruling, Justice Carolyn Demarest said the case was being dismissed, although Chana can file it again on new grounds if she wants.
This is totally going to end up like a “Law & Order” episode, where one of the Taub’s kills the other, but the criminal murder trial turns into a jury referendum on the NY divorce laws. I can just see the “ripped from the headlines” advertisement now.
These are their stories, but only the ones without presidential candidates…chunk-chunk!
There’s a federal campaign broadcasting regulation referred to as the “equal time” rule which basically says all of the “free” television networks have to give equal time to all political candidates. This doesn’t count for appearances on the news, or in interviews or documentaries. But if I’m NBC and I sell Hillary a 30-second spot, I have to also sell a 30-second spot to Obama and any other political opponents that come a-knocking.
But in an interesting application of this rule, NBC may suddenly find itself putting a big hunk of “Law & Order” reruns on the backburner because of this rule. It’s widely speculated that former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson may take a run at the Republican nomination. If you don’t know his name, he’s the guy here on the right. Anyway, Thompson has a pretty extensive acting resume, and while I’ll always remember him most as the as the head of air traffic control in Die Hard 2, most folks know him from his extensive face-time on the “Law & Order” franchises. Between the original “L&O,” along with “Special Victims Unit” and “Criminal Intent,” Thompson has appeared as District Attorney Arthur Branch in 122 episodes, dating back to 2002, when he started the role on “Law & Order”. And since the “equal time” rule applies to entertainment programs, NBC could find itself owing Republicans a lot of air time if it airs Dalton’s “L&O” episodes:
“As a practical matter, [the television stations] would in all likelihood have to pull all of the Fred Thompson shows for the duration of his candidacy,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzmann, president of the Media Access Project.
However, this rule has never been applied apply to any cable station, so in theory, it shouldn’t effect the bajillion “Law & Order” reruns on TNT. However, a political rival could try to get equal time on TNT:
To do that, the other candidates would have to monitor each of Thompson’s appearances, count the minutes he appeared, and then request equal time within seven days of each episode. Only the actual time that Thompson actually appears in each episode is counted, legal experts said.
Thompson has some solid fans among the more conservative wing of the Republicans, and he’s already posting poll numbers despite not even being in the race. So it shouldn’t come as any surprise if Thompson winds up in the race, forcing NBC to dig into its pre-2002 “L&O” coffers. Of course, that may be for the best, since we all know the show was at its strongest in the mid-90s. More Lenny Briscoe is never a bad thing!
QuizLaw Pop Quiz
All right, this afternoon I have a very simple assignment for you. Simply listen to this snippet, which comes from Sean Hannity’s radio show. A call-in listener asks Republican Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani a simple question about gun laws. Listen carefully to his answer, and then answer the question below.
After listening to the segment, can you tell me where Rudy Giuliani received his legal education?
A. Yale
B. Harvard
C. New York University School of Law
D. The back of a box of Fruit Loops
Of course, it’s a trick question. While Giuliani attended New York University School of Law in the ‘50s, he obviously received his legal education from Toucan Sam, who never quite had a firm understanding of the Bill of Rights.
(Hat Tip: Bowl of Stupid)
Great Scott!
The Ninth Circuit today issued a decision (via Bashman) that offers a mixed bag to child pedophiles. The decision concerns a law enacted in 2003, which made it a crime for tourists to travel outside of the United States to “engage in any illicit sexual behavior with another person.” The bad news for pederasts is that the Ninth Circuit didn’t actually strike down the law (sorry, John Mark Karr).
But, there is a silver lining for pedophiles. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit refused to apply the law to the defendant in the case, Gary Evans Jackson, who relocated temporarily to Cambodia, where he and his partner had sex with at least three boys between the ages of 10 and 15. The Court held that the law did not apply to travelers, like Jackson, who completed their travel before the law was enacted in April 2003.
So, a word of advice to eager child molesters out there: If you can get a hold of some high-grade plutonium, a flux capacitor, and a DeLorean, you can travel back to 2002 and molest all the Thai children you’d like without fear of prosecution under 18 U.S.C. Section 2423(c).
Don’t say QuizLaw never helped out a man in need.
What’s 1/3 of 1,000?
Well this right here is the 1,000th post on the QuizLaw blog!
…kinda sorta.
Those readers who have been with us for a while will recall that we had a little problem with the Department of Homeland Security last spring. While we were able to recover some of our prior posts, a good number were sadly lost for all time. So we don’t really know the anniversary of when we first posted, nor do we have an exact count of the number of posts we’ve actually done. But going by the posts currently on our blog, including the pre-DHS posts we were able to scrounge up, this right here is number 1,000.
Originally, I was going to celebrate the big triple-zero by sharing some wonderfully hilarious/stupid legal story. But then I noticed a comment to one of Tuesday’s entries, and I decided to get serious-like instead.
On Tuesday, I talked about those shady phen-fen attorneys who decided to take more than their share in legal fees. A commentor asked:
Wait, wait. You’re telling me you think those lawyers were entitled to a scant 22,333,333.33 each?!
Is there any kind of fund set up where I can donate money to impoverished lawyers?
Well, Ben, here’s the thing. It’s not really a question of whether those lawyers were, or whether any lawyers are, impoverished. Instead, it’s a question of whether they were entitled to $23.3 million each. And before they turned out to be thieving scumbags, I would have said “absolutely.”
As I mentioned in the original post, one-third of any settlement/award is the customary legal fee in contingency cases. And it is deserved. You have to remember that these guys took all the risk in this case. Their clients didn’t have to pay them a dime – the attorneys paid for everything out of their own pocket and, trust me, litigation ain’t cheap. Did they spend $67 million litigating the case? Probably not.
But here, too, you must remember that plaintiffs’ lawyers don’t win every contingency case they take. So if we made their fee some smaller percentage (say 10%), or an “actual cost” type fee, it’s suddenly not worth the risk for plaintiffs’ lawyers to ever take contingency cases.
But lawyers are scum, right, so who cares?
Well most stories we see about plaintiffs lawyers (or even about lawyers in general) tend to be negative - and we here at QuizLaw are perpetrators of this as well (the bad stories are just more fun!). But complain about the system though we all might, lawyers are an important part of the process, and those plaintiffs’ lawyers willing to work on contingency are an integral part of the system.
…this soapbox was built on the 999 preceding QuizLaw entries. Thank you.
The Daily Memo - 3/29/07
Headline: “Judge pulls gun in _____ court.” I’ll give you one guess what state name goes in that blank. (Breitbart.com)
Ouch! ITT Corp. agreed to pay a $100 million fine for illegally exporting classified night-vision goggle technology. (Yahoo! Finance)
San Francisco has banned non-recyclable plastic bags. (LA Times)
Dan Brown’s British copyright ordeal is over, now that the Appeals court rejected his opponents’ appeal. (FindLaw)
An anonymous Wisconsin man just paid off a $1 parking ticket from 1980, along with a $3 late fee. (ABC News)
Linus Torvalds, a name my fellow nerds will know, is “pretty pleased” about the latest draft of the General Public License. (c|net news)
“We want a pitcher, not a belly-itching Senator!”
Major League Baseball, like the NFL before it, has given the finger to many of its fans by taking its Extra Innings package exclusively to DirecTV. However, MLB one-upped the NFL by not only flipping off its fans, but also telling Congress to get bent. Several senators, including John Kerry, had urged the MLB, during a two-hour Commerce Committee hearing, not to take its exclusive game broadcasts to DirecTV:
[D]espite congressional brush-back pitches - warning of legislation and even the oft-repeated threat to review baseball’s anti-trust exemption - MLB President Bob DuPuy didn’t flinch…”We as a business matter view the Baseball Channel as critical to our long-term survival and the interests of our fans who want more baseball,” he said during [a] two-hour hearing.
So for the next seven years, at least, the MLB’s new channel and the ability to watch most regular season games will only be available to DirecTV subscribers (non-DirecTV folks can still get their local games and any nationally broadcast games).
Said Arlen Specter: “When the fans react, Congress may react…You may be well advised to act before we do.”
Now I loathe the fact that I can’t get the NFL package, since I can’t get DirecTV. From August through January of every year, I am in constant pain over this. I’m not nearly as pained by the MLB move, however, since I don’t watch baseball (aside from my eternally pitiful Phillies) with nearly the same level of zeal as with football. But MLB’s decision irks me more. With the NFL, it’s purely a business decision that the Feds really have no business getting involved with.
But the same simply isn’t true for baseball, no matter what the MLB execs say. Congress has given the league an antitrust exemption, and MLB has reaped the benefits of it. In light of the fact that’s it’s been granted this rare exception from laws that otherwise apply to everyone in this country, doesn’t the MLB owe at least a little deference to the public?
Now it may turn out that, in the long run, it was the best decision for everyone for MLB to go with DirecTV over cable and the Dish Network. But in light of the exemption, I think MLB should’ve at least granted the Senatorial request for more discussion about this whole thing. If the MLB is so willing to thumb its nose at Congress, maybe Congress does need to fight back, and look at stripping the exemption and/or other possible legislation.
Of inadequacy and psychic orgasms
Quoc Pham is suing his ex-girlfriend for $1 million, and this story is just comedy. Pham had been dating this gal, Neli Petkova, for an unspecified amount of time. And then, in September 2003, he got her pregnant after she convinced Pham that she wanted to have his kid (so he stopped using protection).
Two months later, at a Thanksgiving dinner, Pham claims that Petkova stood up and announced that she was dumping him because she didn’t trust Pham to be a father and because she needed someone who could afford to buy her a Manhattan apartment. But Pham claims that she really dumped him to pursue a relationship with another guy.
That other guy would be Guy Compton, a dude she met on a 10-day bike trip in Arizona. When she came back from the trip, she allegedly told Pham that “she had met someone else that could make her cervix orgasmic just by thinking and that [Pham] was sexually inadequate.”
Ultimately, Pham says their whole relationship was just a big ruse, and that she fooled him into thinking she was interested in having a long-term relationship with him and having a baby with in. All she really wanted, Pham claims, was his seed. And now, he alleges that she’s told everyone that Pham “abandoned her with the baby, while the truth is that she wanted to get rid of the plaintiff so that she could pursue Mr. Guy Compton.”
So of course he’s now suing her in New York for $1 million, both for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He’s also planning to file a lawsuit in California as well, where she now lives, going after her for child abduction (she has refused to let him have anything to do with their child).
Further Proof the Legal System Lacks a Sense of Humor
Back in February, after the Super Bowl Champion Indianapolis Colts won the big one (let me just say it again, because I like the sound of it: Super Bowl Champion Indianapolis Colts), Seth reported about a man, Scott Wiese, who lost a bar bet and had agreed to have his name changed to Peyton Manning. The world rejoiced. And snickered a little.
Well, word comes today that a judge has refused to allow Wiese to legally change his name, thereby making the man an involuntary welcher. Judge Katherine “Party Pooping” McCarthy ruled that the name change was too confusing and risked infringing the privacy of the football player.
But, the most amusing part of the story comes here:
Two people overjoyed at Monday’s court outcome were Wiese’s parents, Debbie and Steve. They had filed an official objection to the name change with the court. ”Wiese is our family name, and we’re proud of it,” said Debbie, 54. ”And we just thought that if he was going to change his name, it should be for a better reason than that. I also didn’t want to go through the rest of my life calling my son ‘Peyton Manning.”’
Now, that’s just horseshit. Peyton is now in the top 100 for both boy and girl baby names, and it’s a fine name that anyone should be proud to have. It’s popular. Distinguished. And unheralded in its ability to get men cheerleading tail. And, c’mon: The origin of the name Wiese derives from the German word for “meadow,” while everyone knows that the name “Peyton Manning,” in Gaelic, means “Best NFL Quarterback in all the Land.”
Cat Rape and other Tales from the Seventh Circuit
The Seventh Circuit (my favorite circuit for sheer opinion goodness) delivered a scathing attack against what they termed “second-hand harassment” hostile work environment lawsuits, and I think they hit the nail on the head. The case itself concerns a part-time bus driver who brought a lawsuit complaining that her co-workers were creating a hostile work environment (PDF of the opinion):
She accused one of her coworkers of giving an assistant manager of the facility “red underwear made to look like an elephant’s head, with a sexually-suggestive trunk” at an office party, and accused another—the manager, no less—that among other enormities he had referred to a female bus driver (not the plaintiff) as a “fat ass,” had had an affair with another female driver, sold Avon products at work, told the plaintiff that his teenage daughter had watched him walk from the shower to his bedroom naked, and described an incident in which his male cat “raped” his female cat.
The court, I think rightly, makes a huge distinction between offensive conduct or words aimed directly at the litigant and general foul language or disgusting behavior merely delivered in the presence of the plaintiff. The court seems to feel that, for the latter “second-hand harassment” to rise to the level of a hostile working environment, it need be a lot more harsh than, for instance, overhearing a co-worker describe an incident about his male cat raping his female cat. Moreover, this woman’s manager wasn’t calling her a “fatass,” he was calling another woman by that name in her presence (which might give the other woman a cause of action, but it’s only tangentially related to the litigant here.)
At any rate, I think the Seventh Court closed with an appropriate conclusion, warning – perhaps – that hostile work environment claims are getting a little out of hand:
The American workplace would be a seething cauldron if workers could with impunity pepper their employer and eventually the EEOC and the courts with complaints of being offended by remarks and behaviors unrelated to the complainant except for his having overheard, or heard of, them. The pluralism of our society is mirrored in the workplace, creating endless occasions for offense. Civilized people refrain from words and conduct that offend the people around them, but not all workers are civilized all the time. Title VII is not a code of civility.
The Daily Memo - 3/28/07
Is Monica Goodling standing on valid ground in asserting the Fifth? (Hint: the answer appears to be yes). (Is That Legal?
In Philly (and probably in other places), “smoke-easys” are popping up in defiance of the ban on smoking in bars. (Philly.com)
The biggest problem with the U.S. attorneys debacle might not be the firings themselves as much as all the current lying. (Slate)
A former Iowa inmate is suing the state over an incident from when he was still in the clink - he fell into a gopher hole that was on the prison grounds and fractured his ankle. (The Des Moines Register)
Wesley Autrey Sr., the guy who became famous for saving a teenager from getting run over by a NYC subway, is suing his lawyer for allegedly inducing him to sign “a one-sided agreement.” (WNBC)
Turns out you need to legally attach the gasoline to your old school bus when you’re using that bus as a giant oven for matzo. (WCBS)
“The Florida Supreme Court disbarred an attorney who had continued to practice law while suspended for misconduct.” (Legal Profession Blog)
The Mass Turnpike Authority wants its Big Dig documents, part of the current wrongful death lawsuit against it, sealed. (ABC6)
Common Sense Lesson #137
So a dude walks into a PostNet with a box (PostNet is a shipping company). He pays $106 for the box to be shipped from Portland, Oregon to Maryland and carries on his merry way. The PostNet clerk notices a funky smell coming out of the box, so she opens it after the guy leaves (the business has a sign posted notifying customers that they have the right to open and inspect stuff). Inside the box? Five bags of Lay’s Potato Chips.
She asked herself: “Why would anyone pay $106 to fly potato chips across the country?”
So she opened a bag and then called the cops, since it turns out that the bag contained hallucinogenic mushrooms. The cops then went and got a search warrant to open the other bags (Judge Keith Meisenheimer said, about getting the warrant request, “I was thinking ‘This is wild.’ “). In total, the cops ended up finding five pounds of ‘shrooms.
Ok, so the lesson here might have been “dude, don’t mail your drug shipments.” Or “at least odor proof your mailed drug shipments.” But no, neither of these is our lesson. Here be the lesson:
Do not call the shipping company days later to complain about the fact that your package never hit its destination, and especially don’t leave your name and phone number!
The Portland cops had no idea who the chip/mushroom shipper was until Joshua Michael Sturtevant ignored this common sense lesson and, as a result, he now faces a couple of felony charges.
Climbing our way to the top, bit by itty-bitty bit
My old pal Dave Hoffman has found a supposedly early copy of the new US News & World Report law school rankings, leaked a few days ahead of the “official” release. The top five remain virtually unchanged from last year:
1.Yale
2. Harvard (tie)
2. Stanfard (tie)
4. NYU
5. Columbia
The players are the same, and the only difference here is that Harvard crept up from third to a second-place tie, and Columbia dipped to fifth from last year’s tie for fourth.
In fact, the schools in the top twenty remain exactly the same (though shuffled from last year’s position a little) with one exception. George Washington fell down a couple of spots from last year’s three-way tie at 19, landing at 22.
And who crept into the top twenty?
QuizLaw’s very own Boston University, now sitting at a two way twentieth-place tie with the University of Minnesota. Of course, BU’s ranking doesn’t really mean shit to Dustin or I in any real sense, nor did we have anything to do with the small rise in position (unless the US News folks are QuizLaw readers – if so, give us a shout out, yo!). But since it suddenly makes us more credible, we’ll take it.
…still not enough to get into the ATL March Madness though, damn it!
Supreme Court Decision Update - Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. U.S.
Today’s other Supreme decisions is Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. U.S. (PDF of the opinion). This is a case about nuclear waste, and when someone can bring a private lawsuit on behalf of the Government under the False Claims Act.
QuizLaw Analysis: Scalia and his friends says that you can only bring such a lawsuit if you have direct and personal knowledge of the information forming the basis of your claims. But as with today’s other decision, my favorite thing about this decision a word. This time, that word is “pondcrete,” which is a block of cement mixed with toxic pond sludge. How fantastic is that?
Pondcrete? Pondcrete! And old pondcrete, at that, as The Scalia notes in the beginning of his decision: “The mixture of concrete and pond sludge that is the subject of this case has taken nearly two decades to seep, so to speak, into this Court.”
So what of this pondcrete? Rockwell International Corp. had a contract with the Department of Energy to run a nuclear weapons plant in Colorado, the Rocky Flats plant. James Stone was an engineer at that plant from 1980-1986. In 1982, he reviewed a proposal to dispose of toxic pond sludge by mixing it with cement, creating pondcrete blocks which could then easily be stored or disposed of. But he thought this process wouldn’t work - he said there was a problem with the piping system that would be used, which would result in unstable blocks that would leak toxic waste.
Rockwell went ahead with the pondcrete project anyway. After Stone was laid off, in March ‘86, Rockwell eventually learned that there were, in fact, a substantial number of “insolid” pondcrete blocks (that is, leaking blocks). The Department of Energy didn’t learn about this until 1988, however, after media reports. The Feds and EPA agents raided Rockwell in 1989, and in ‘92 Rockwell pled guilty to 10 environmental violations, including allegations about the bad pondcrete blocks, and agreed to pay $18.5 million in fines.
Meanwhile, back in 1989, Stone filed a civil qui tam lawsuit against Rockwell under the federal False Claims Act.
A “qui-what” lawsuit? “Qui tam.” The Scalia explains it for us in a footnote:
Qui tam is short for “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur,” which means “who pursues this action on our Lord the King’s behalf as well as his own.”
In other words, it’s a lawsuit filed by a private citizen on behalf of both himself and the government.
And what’s the False Claims Act? It “prohibits false or fraudulent claims for payment to the United States,” and authorizes lawsuits over such fraud to be brought by either the Attorney General or a private individual (as a qui tam suit). However, there is a limitation in the Act when the lawsuit is based on “the public disclosure of allegations or transactions…from the news media.” In that situation, the lawsuit can only be brought by the Attorney General or the person who was the “original source of the information” (that is, someone with direct knowledge and who voluntarily gave info to the government before filing the lawsuit).
So Stone filed an action under this Act, alleging that Rockwell broke all sorts of environmental laws and regulations and, in order to get paid, knowingly made false statements to the Government. There were 26 environmental and safety issues identified by Stone, one of which was the pondcrete matter. In 1996, the Government jumped into the lawsuit, and Stone and the Government filed a joint amended complaint. In that complaint, there were allegations about the leaking pondcrete blocks, however, there was no allegation that it was bad piping that caused the problem (you’ll recall that Stone predicted that it would be the piping at the root of the problem). Instead, they claimed the problem was a bad ratio of the cement and sludge mixed together to make the pondcrete.
There was a trial in 1999 and the jury found against Rockwell on the pondcrete allegations for the period of time between April 1987 and September 1988, awarding damages of almost $1.4 million (which the District Court then trippled). Rockwell then tried to have Stone’s original claims tossed out, arguing that Stone’s “claims were based on publicly disclosed allegations that Stone was not an original source.” The Court sided with Stone, however, who argued that he was an original source of the publicly disclosed allegations.
And on appeal? Well the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision, although it remanded so the District Court could figure out if Stone had given his inside information to the Government before filing his lawsuit, as required by the False Claims Act. The District Court found that he had given his 1982 written report to the Feds, but that this didn’t fully establish Stone’s allegations. The Court also found that Stone couldn’t prove that he had orally told the FBI all about his allegations before filing his lawsuit. This went back to the Tenth, which disagreed, and found that the 1982 report did cover everything so Stone was ok.
Are we at the Supreme Court yet? Indeed we are. We’ve got a 6-2 decision here, with the majority opinion penned by The Scalia and joined by Chief Justice Johnny and Justices Kennedy, Souter, Thomas and Alito. Justice Stevens filed a dissent, joined by Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer didn’t do anything with this case.
So what’s The Scalia have to say? He starts by noting that the “original source” issue is jurisdictional. So it wouldn’t matter if Rockwell conceded, as Stone alleged, that Stone was an original source. It has to be independently determined by the court because, otherwise, the court doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place. So Scalia then turns to the question of whether or not Stone was, in fact, an original source.
And? Not so much, says The Scalia. The first requirement for an “original source” is that the person must have “direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based.” The information we must look to is the information which forms the basis for the lawsuit’s allegations. The reason this is even a question is because the Act also refers to another type of information, “the information that triggered the public disclosure bar.” The distinction isn’t all that important here - what is important is simply to understand that the individual is required by the Act, as Scalia reads it, to have direct and personal knowledge of the information their lawsuit is based on.
Ok, but what allegations do we look at? That’s the right question, because the original source must have knowledge of the information “on which the allegations are based,” so we need to know which allegations are relevant. For instance, in this lawsuit, Stone’s allegations changed, so the Court needs to know where to look. Because the Act doesn’t offer any limitation or qualifier to the term “allegations,” The Scalia says he won’t infer one - so the Court should look at Stone’s allegations throughout the litigation and he “must satisfy the original-source exception through all stages of the litigation.” From a practical standpoint in future cases, this means that a court must re-evaluate its jurisdiction whenever a plaintiff’s allegations change (such as when an amended complaint is filed), to ensure that the plaintiff still qualifies as an original source (and thus, to ensure that the court itself still has jurisdiction over the case).
Just to hammer the point home, The Scalia adds:
The rule that subject-matter jurisdiction “depends on the state of things at the time of the action brought,” [citation], does not suggest a different interpretation. The state of things and the originally alleged state of things are not synonymous; demonstration that the original allegations were false will defeat jurisdiction. [citations.] So also will the withdrawal of those allegations, unless they are replaced by others that establish jurisdiction.
So we must look to the final statement of Stone’s claims which, in this case, means looking to the final pretrial order, which contains all of Stone’s claims and “superseded all prior pleadings.”
Ok, can we get to Stone’s situation already? Are you calling The Scalia long-winded?
Nah, I’m calling you long-winded! Fair enough. Ok, so Scalia says that Stone doesn’t meet this requirement, as we’ve now defined it. The only claims by Rockwell which the jury ultimately found were false were statements by Rockwell made between April 1987 and September 1988. During this time period, the only relevant environmental or safety problem Stone claimed direct and independent knowledge about was the bad pondcrete. However, he wasn’t employed at the plant by April ‘87, so he didn’t know that any of the pondcrete was insolid, that there were other problems, that there were leaks, etc. And he didn’t even know that Rockwell had made any false statements to the Feds. Instead, Stone has previously predicted that the pondcrete would be insolid. But a predication isn’t “direct and independent knowledge.”
And worse yet, his predication was wrong. He predicted the problem would be with the piping system, but the actual problem with the pondcrete was its mix ration. So even if you said a prediction of a problem should count as direct and independent knowledge, “it assuredly does not when its premise of cause and effect is wrong.”
Stone tried to argue that a separate claim, an allegation relating to a different time period about spray-irrigation, would provide jurisdiction over all his claims. Scalia says no because, even if there is jurisdiction over that single claim, the Act “does not permit jurisdiction in gross just because [an individual] is an original source with respect to some claim.” That’s “claim smuggling,” and Scalia ain’t having it.
We done yet? One more thing from Scalia. Stone tried to argue that the original-source test doesn’t matter because once the Government intervened in the case, there was an independent basis for jurisdiction at that point (because then it was as if the case had been brought by the Attorney General). Scalia says this is wrong because, under the Act, there are two distinct types of actions - those brought by a private individual and those brought by the Attorney General. When the Attorney General joins into a case brought by a private individual, as was the case here, it is only considered an action “brought” by the Attorney General when the private individual is “ousted” - either of their own volition, or upon being dismissed after a finding that the Court lacks original-source jurisdiction over them. But that didn’t happen here and, thus, the Tenth Circuit gets reversed because the District Court never had jurisdiction.
Ok, quick like - what’s in Stevens’ dissent? He doesn’t think the person bringing a qui tam lawsuit needs to have “knowledge of the actual facts underlying the allegations on which he may ultimately prevail” in order to be an original source. Instead, he thinks they simply need direct knowledge of the information underlying the publicly disclosed allegations.
In this case, as the Court points out, the fact that Rockwell was storing thousands of insolid pondcrete blocks at the Rocky Flats facility had been publicly disclosed by the news media before Stone filed this lawsuit. [citation.] In my view, the record establishes that Stone was an original source of the allegations publicly disclosed by the media in June 1989, even though he thought that the deterioration of the pondcrete blocks would be caused by poor engineering rather than a poor formula for the mixture.
Stone gave documents to the FBI and its subsequent raid was based, in part, on that information. And that should be enough.
Now there was an earlier public disclosure as well, but Stevens says the record doesn’t give us enough one way or the other to figure out if Stone was an original source there, although he thinks it is likely. So he’d vacate and remand for a determination, under his analysis, of whether Stone was, in fact, an original source.
Do Not Let Your Soul Be Your Pilot
Here’s a word of warning to all you good Samaritans out there: If you see somebody that’s hurt, leave them be. If she’s crumpled up like a ball after a car wreck, point and laugh, but do not try to help her. You’re just asking for a lawsuit.
At least, that’s the situation out in L.A., where a federal district court ruled that the Good Samaritan law only applies to people who are administering emergency medical care and not to the perceived danger of remaining in a wrecked car.
The case involves a woman, Alexandra Van Horn, who hit a light pole going at about 45 miles an hour. Lisa Torti, who was Van Horn’s friend, was in a car driving behind Van Horn’s, and after she saw the wreck, Torti rushed to Van Horn’s aid, pulling her out of the car like “a rag doll.” Van Horn suffered a lacerated liver and an injury to her vertebrae that rendered her a paraplegic. It is debatable as to whether the wreck or the rescue attempt caused the paralysis.
In either respect, Torti removed Van Horn out of fear that the car would catch on fire, and now Van Horn has sued her friend for trying to help her. And the court sided with Van Horn. As the judge wrote, “Torti’s actions toward Van Horn did not qualify as emergency medical care because any perceived risk Van Horn might have faced from remaining in the car—such as being injured in a fiery explosion—was not ‘medical.’”
Of course, had Torti allowed Van Horn to remain the car, and if the car had exploded, I’m sure Torti would’ve been sued for trying to administer CPR to her charred remains.
Dumb law.
(Hat Tip to Overlawyered)
What’s With all the Understatements?
In the state of Washington, a man was arrested and charged yesterday with theft and burglary. And what did Mr. Garth Flaherty steal?
93 pounds of panties.
How many pairs of female underwear is that? About 1500, which he stole from apartment complex laundry rooms. It was enough, in fact, to fill five garbage bags full of underwear.
As one police officer stated, “He said he had a problem.” Yeah. No shit. I’d say stealing 10 pairs of panties might be considered a “problem.” Stealing 1500 pairs is more like full-blown crazy, unless – of course – he was trying to build the first nuclear fall-out shelter made entirely of female underwear.
In an unrelated story, a woman appeared at a frat house in Michigan, lied down on one of the frat couches, took off her underwear, and started masturbating. The members of the frat kindly asked her to leave, but she refused and continued masturbating. For about half an hour. When asked if she was alright, the woman said that she was fine. And then continued to masturbate.
As one fraternity member stated, “Obviously, she was very disturbed. It was not how a normal person would respond to people.” No shit.
The fraternity members said they would throw out the two couches the woman, who was not apprehended, masturbated on. I bet I know a certain guy with a panty-obsession who might appreciate owning those two couches.
The Daily Memo - 3/27/07
QuizLaw Story Update - that scumbag who entered into a contract with his girlfriend, allowing him to have sex with her 15-year-old daughter, got sentenced to up to 25 years in the clink. (Newsday.com
The commonwealth of Massachusetts is being sued by Diebold (a manufacturer of electronic voting machines) because the state decided to purchase another company’s machines. (Boston.com)
Sadly, our law school (BU), didn’t make the cut for ATL’s Law School March Madness. (Above the Law)
A stupid Senate aide (for Senator Jim Webb) thought it would be a good idea to bring a gun into a Senate building, and an unregistered gun at that. (MSNBC)
Bruce Lehman, the architect of the DMCA, finally admits what we all knew from day one - that the DMCA is a failure. (Likelihood of Confusion)
County commissioners in a Montana county have told the voters to get bent after they approved a referendum to have marijuana crimes treated as “low-profile.” (Slashdot)
There’s a whole mess of legal trouble lurking below the surface with these new campaigns where companies have their consumers create ads. (Law.com)
“A judge has ordered a man who pled guilty to vehicular homicide to display a large picture of the victim in his home after serving two years in prison…[with] lettering that says: ‘I’m sorry I killed you.’” (SeattlePI)
Supreme Court Decision Update - Limtiaco v. Camacho
The first of today’s two Supreme decisions, Limtiaco v. Camacho (PDF of the opinion), comes from Guam. It’s about how that cute little territory of ours should figure out its debt limitations (that is, the amount of debt it’s allowed to get into by issuing bonds.
QuizLaw Analysis: The boring part of the decision is this - Guam must calculate its debt limits by figuring out the “assessed value” of property, not the “appraised value” of property (which is a much higher value, in general). The cool part of this decision is that this is the first time I’ve ever seen the word “Guamanians” in print, and that’s just a solid word. So thanks for that, Justice Thomas.
Guam? Yes, Guam.
And what of Guam? Well in 2003, Guam found itself in financial trouble, unable to meet its debt obligations. So the Guam Legislature authorized bonds of about $400 million in total value. The Governor signed the law and was ready to issue the bonds, but the Guam attorney general stuck her nose into things. She refused to approve the government contracts necessary for these bonds because she thought the bonds would violate the Guam Organic Act, which limits the amount of debt Guam can get itself into (no more than 10% “of the aggregate tax valuation of the property in Guam”).
So the Governor asked the Guam Supreme Court to say that the bonds wouldn’t actually violate this Act. The Governor argued that “aggregate tax valuation” meant the appraised valuation of property, while the AG argued that it meant the assessed valuation of property (which would be much less than the appraisal value because “Guam assesses property at 35 percent of its appraised value). The Guam Supremes took the Governor’s side, and the AG ran off to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Here things get messy from a procedural standpoint. The Guam Organic Act gave the Ninth Circuit jurisdiction over appeals from the Guam Supreme Court. However, while this case was pending before the Ninth Circuit, Congress amended the Act and took that jurisdictional language out. The Ninth Circuit addressed this issue in a 2006 opinion, Santos v. Guam, and said Congress had not just taken away its jurisdiction prospectively, “but also for pending appeals.” So the Guam AG’s appeal was dismissed, because the Ninth said it no longer had jurisdiction. This created a new problem because, under federal law, a petition for certiorari with the Supremes has to be filed within 90 days of when the lower judgment was entered. But since the case was pending with the Ninth for so long, the AG ended up filing her petition well more than 90 after the Guam Supremes entered their judgment.
So, there are actually two issues at play here. There’s the procedural question of whether that 90-day period was put on hold while the appeal was pending with the Ninth, and there’s also the substantive question of how tax valuation should be handled under this Guam debt-limitation requirement.
So who’s on what side here? Well the main opinion was penned by Justice Thomas. One part of his decision, pertaining to the 90-day procedural issue, is unanimous. The rest of his opinion is not, but he’s still got the majority, joined by Chief Justice Johnny, The Scalia and Justices Kennedy and Breyer. Justice Souter filed a second opinion, concurring in part, and dissenting to the rest, and he was joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Alito.
Let’s get the unanimous bit out of the way - what does everyone think about that 90-day window? It’s pretty simple:
When the Ninth originally took the appeal, there was suddenly a possibility that the Guam Supreme’s decision could be changed or reversed, and that possibility suspended the finality of the Guam judgment. Only once that appeal was dismissed did the Guam judgment really become final, so the 90-day clock started running in March 2006, when the Ninth tossed the case because of Congress’ amendment of the Act.
It’s also worth noting that Thomas goes out of his way to “emphasize that our holding is limited to the unique procedural circumstances presented here. Specifically, our holding does not extend to improperly filed appeals or filings used as delaying tactics.”
And with that out of the way, the Justices divide on the question of how Guam tax valuation works? Correct. Again, the issue is what “tax valuation” means. Thomas says you should use assessed property valuation in calculating the Guam debt limitation, which is the losing argument the AG made to the Guam Supremes. Thomas and company say that “tax valuation” usually means the value which is used for applying the tax rate, and that means “assessed” value, because “assessed valuation” is “consistently defined as a valuation of property for tax purposes.” The Governor and Guam Supremes’ “appraised value” is just the market value, which has nothing to do with taxation. And so that’s that.
Now the Guam Supremes also noted that a similar debt-limitation provision for the Virgin Islands specifically used the language of “assessed valuation,” and since the Guam Act doesn’t use this specific language, the Guam Supremes ruled that Congress meant for Guam to use something other than “assed value.” Thomas says no because “if Congress had meant actual, market, or appraised value, it could have used any one of those terms as well…[o]r it could have left the word ‘valuation’ unmodified.”
Thomas also says that this decision comports with how most States handle the debt limitations they place on municipalities, also tying those limitations to assessed property values.
Finally, the Guam Governor argued that the Supremes should give deference to the Guam Supreme’s interpretation of the Act, but Thomas says that’s bunk: “It may be true that we accord deference to territorial courts over matters of purely local concern. [citation] This case does not fit that mold, however,” because the debt-limitation provision of the Act also protects the U.S., not just Guam, so “this case is not a matter of purely local concern.”
So what’s up Justice Souter’s rump? Well remember, he does concur in part, because he agrees that the writ of certiorari was timely filed. But he thinks Thomas is wrong in saying that “tax valuation” here must mean “assessed value.” He basically says that, yet again, Thomas and The Scalia (and their cohorts) have unnecessarily constrained themselves by looking mainly at statutory language:
If I could not go beyond statutory text and the sources relied upon by the Court, a coin toss would be my only way to judgment. But I look to congressional purpose, which points to appraised value as the meaning of the term, leaving me in respectful dissent.
Basically, Souter and Company think that “tax valuation” can reasonably be interpreted either as “assessed value” or “appraised value.” He thinks it’s silly to look at other territories, because of differences between Guam and those other territories, and that it’s also silly to look at what the states do, because our Congress may not have the same understanding of the term “valuation” as state legislatures. However, Souter says that “the purpose of the legislation” is very insightful on this issue, as it “makes clear that what Congress meant to provide was a practical guarantee against crushing debt on the shoulders of future generations, and insolvency with the inevitable call for a bailout by Congress.”
And Souter thinks the Governor’s approach, using appraised value, fits better with this purpose. Using “assessed value” leaves a “specter of mischief” because “the Guam Legislature could double the debt limitation without increasing taxes by a single penny, simply by doubling the assessment rate and cutting the tax rate by half.” But the market value of property reflects what Guam has the ability to collect in taxes, and it’s a true economic index that can’t be toyed with as in Souter’s “specter of mischief” example.
Maybe she was visualizing that the photographers were Charlie Sheen
So a lawsuit has been filed against Denise Richards and Pamela Anderson by two freelance photographers (a.k.a., paparazzi). Last November, the two “actresses” were at a Canadian resort working on the movie Blonde and Blonder (and with that duo of acting powerhouses, this movie is going to outstanding!). This incident was widely publicized last fall - the two paparazzi started snapping photos of the pair and, according to the lawsuit, Richards went nuts, calling them names and going after them, and ultimately hucking their laptops over a balcony.
The paparazzi allege that “Richards and Anderson [later] ‘made repeated false and defamatory statements to law enforcement and various media outlets which were deliberately calculated to embarrass, humiliate and ridicule plaintiffs.’”
Among other things, the photographers claim that this whole ordeal caused them emotional distress. So wait. Paparazzi have emotions?
It’s scumbags like this that give all us lawyers a bad rap
“Legal experts said the fraud might be one of the biggest and most brazen in legal history.” That’s quite a statement, right? Well check out what happened, and decide for yourself.
In 2001, a big lawsuit was settled with American Home Products Corporation, over its diet drug combination fen-phen. The company had been sued by 440 individuals claiming the drug had caused heart damage. There were three lawyers representing the 440 plaintiffs, and they brokered a total settlement for about $200 million. When the lawyers originally took the case, they took it on a contingent fee basis. As is typical in a situation like this, they agreed that they would only get money if they won the case and, specifically, they would get up to one-third of any money the plaintiffs got through settlement or trial verdict. Again, this is quite typical.
So that means the lawyers should have pocketed about $67 million, leaving $133 million for the clients. Instead, however, these scumbags kept $106 million for themselves, put another $20 million into a shady “charitable fund,” and only gave $74 million to the clients - almost half of what these 440 people were entitled to:
On average, plaintiffs received less than 40 percent of what the settlement agreement specified, instead of the roughly 70 percent to which they were entitled.
The lawyers lost in a civil lawsuit last year, brought by 413 of the 440 original clients, although there still has not been a ruling on just how much money the lawyers will have to hand over. And now there’s a federal grand jury looking into whether criminal charges should be thrown at these guys.
The lawyers, of course, claim that the extra money they took was totally reasonable. And they also claim that this extra amount was approved by the court, but get this - in a 2002 hearing, Judge Joseph F. Bamberger told the lawyers that they deserved greater compensation because the case was such a headache and because they took great risks in taking and fighting the case. But, the judge retired in 2004 and became the director of that new $20 million charity, pulling in a $5K monthly fee. So, you know, nothing fishy there at all (he’s already given back the money, and been reprimanded for these shenanigans). And of course, the lawyers’ “justifications” don’t explain their attempts to keep this all on the DL. For example, one client says that when he went to get his check, he was surprised to see it was for much less than he expected. When he mentioned this to the lawyers, they told him to shut up, and said they’d come after him if he mentioned it to anyone, or if he even mentioned how much his check was for. “You will be fined $100,000, you will go to jail and you will be sued,” he says they said.
I mean, talk about greedy sons of bitches. Three lawyers, $67 million. My math skills may be rusty, but I do believe that’s over $20 million per lawyer. I know that I’d be quite happy to pocket $20 million. In fact, that’s enough money to count as “fuck you” money, allowing me to retire, and live a peaceful life never again having to worry about other scumbag lawyers sullying the reputation of my profession.
It’s Fun to Stay at the … P-O-K-E-Y
There are a few police officers out there these days that are giving the rest of the police community a bad name. Take, for instance, the off-duty Chicago police officer who beat the freakin’ tar out of a female bartender a few months back, the video of which surfaced last week. There was little provocation for the beating, other than the fact that the bartender refused to serve the drunk cop another drink.
Then, just this weekend, allegations of a similar incident surfaced. This time, six off-duty Chicago police officers beat the hell out of four businessmen at a bar playing pool. There is apparently video of this instance as well, but it hasn’t yet been made public.
And then, just when you couldn’t imagine it getting worse for the reputation of police officers around the nation, the goddamn policeman from The Village People was arrested over the weekend. Victor Willis, who was arrested on charges of cocaine possession last year, was picked up again, this time under charges that he choked and threatened his girlfriend with a knife.
Man – it’s been a bad week for the po-po. Somebody best keep an eye on Erik Estrada and Larry Wilcox, the actors from “CHiPs,” because the good reputation of the entirety of America’s police force now rests with them.
Nothing Says I Love You like Decapitation
A man was arrested last week for decapitating his ex-girlfriend’s therapy dog. Anthony Gomez (that beautiful hunk of a man to your left) was charged with felony animal cruelty and torture, after he took 17-year-old Crystal Brown’s four-year-old Australian shepherd out into the woods and filmed video, with his cell phone, of some other men allegedly cutting the dog’s head off with a chainsaw.
The story, however, doesn’t end there. I guess Gomez was jealous because Crystal Brown was dating another man (and honestly, wouldn’t you? Seriously – take a look at that guy; it looks like his chin is about to eat his face off), so – after cutting the dog’s head off – he put it in a box, wrapped it with nice wrapping paper, and stuck the box on her porch. Brown discovered it, opened it up, and I presume she was horrified. (I believe her exact words were: “What’s in the box? What’s in the box?”)
But Gomez did leave some Valentine’s candy inside the box too. Aw, fuck it: All is forgiven, Anthony. There’s nothing sweeter than a decapitated dog head and some pink candy that says, “Be Mine – Or Else, You Dumb Bitch.” It’s spring time, folks – can’t you feel the love in the air?
The Daily Memo - 3/26/07
An Illinois bill which would’ve required online dating websites to disclose if they perform background checks on subscribers was killed in the state house’s Judiciary Committee because it didn’t offer any actual safety, only a feeling of safety. (ars technica)
North Dakota’s highest court has upheld the constitutionality of a local ordinance banning “excessive, continuous or untimely” dog barking. (FindLaw)
A D.C. lawyer has been convicted for misdemeanor sexual abuse for making a too-aggressive pass at a woman on the metro (and the woman just happened to work for the Office of Independent Counsel). (Legal Profession Blog)
A Florida post office employee is suing the Postal Service under the ADA because it’s forcing him to take breaks and he says he’d rather keep moving because of his arthritis. (Local 6)
This is despicable - Georgia’s state house is considering a bill that would allow billboard owners to cut down trees that it thinks are cutting into a perfect view of their roadside ads. (AJC)
Cory Lidle’s widow is suing the insurance company that’s refusing a full payout on Lidle’s life insurance policy, while she’s also being sued by tenants of the building that Lidle’s plane crashed into last fall. (The 700 Level)
The copyright dispute between James Joyce’s estate and an academic writer has been settled, depriving folks from getting an interesting trial on fair use. (The Hollywood Reporter, Esq.)
Vonage has been slapped with a permanent injunction, banning its use of technology in three Verizon patents, and possibly threatening its voice-over-internet services. (Engadget)
Well, you gotta’ give the guy credit for trying
Dale Hausner and Samuel Dieteman are (allegedly) not very good guys. They been accused of going on a random shooting spree over a period of 14 months - Dieteman faces two murder charges (plus a ton of other shooting-related charges) and Hausner faces seven murder charges. The prosecutors say they’re going after the death penalty, which sounds about right.
So Hausner was arrested for this last August, and he’s been in the clink since. And as one might expect, the local newspaper (the East Valley Tribune) wrote quite a few stories about all this. So get this - Hausner picked up the prison phone and placed a collect call to the Tribune as “Dale the Innocent.” He used this call to tell the paper that he thinks he should get a discount subscription, a “sweetheart deal,” since his story generated so many great headlines for the paper. The paper told Dale to get bent.
Why not ask the local news station for a job as “story creator” while you’re at it, Dale the Innocent?
What the hell is the Copyright Royalty Board?
The Copyright Royalty Board is a three-member panel of the US Copyright Office. But a more precise definition might be to say that it’s the government agency trying to kill internet radio.
The Board recently issued new licensing fees which are out of whack with the fees charged to either terrestrial radio stations or satellite radio stations. And because of the low revenue that internet radio stations pull in, these new rates could effectively kill internet radio. As we mentioned in a Daily Memo last week, a petition has been filed with the Board to have a rehearing on the matter. That petition was filed by NPR, one of many groups that object to this new licensing scheme (NPR also has a unique objection, that its own broadcasting should not be treated the same as purely commercial broadcasting).
The Board’s decision is rather appalling and utterly perplexing. And it’s not because the Board wants the internet stations to pay - of course they should pay for the right to broadcast copyright-protected songs. But it’s patently unfair to charge them two license fees that are well beyond the scope of practicability – terrestrial radio only pays one licensing fee and while satellite radio pays two fees, its required payments are significantly less. And it’s not just little internet radio stations (like the wonderful Radio Paradise) which will suffer - this licensing scheme will likely kill the big boys too, like Yahoo’s Launch, because it’s just not an economically feasible system.
The following interview with the founder of Pandora sheds some light on this whole situation, and also explains one of the reasons internet radio is important for music loving folks (aside from the obvious fact that it helps make the day go by faster for many cubicle jockeys). The one thing not clearly explained in the video is how the new royalty works - the per-song rate is charged on a per-song/per-listener basis. In other words, let’s say I run an internet station and have 100 listeners at the moment. For every song I stream, I pay 100 times the rate - that is, one for each listener. And that’s the real killer for these stations. And this video explains all the rest of it:
Well, I guess if you’re gonna’ do one, why not do fifty-six?
As you know, it’s tax time. We here at QuizLaw highly recommend that you get your return out by April 17. We also highly recommend that you are truthful in your return. As such, we here at QuizLaw do not recommend that you file a false return. And we especially don’t recommend that you file fifty-six false returns. That’s what Michael Edward Adams of Denver did, filing those returns over the course of a year and a half and pulling in over $75,000 in refunds. He filed these various returns electronically under a whole bunch of different names and social security numbers.
“But Seth,” you might say, “I’d like $75,000 in returns.” No doubt you would. But I don’t think you’d like to be in Adams’ position now - he’s been indicted by a state grand jury and now faces a whole slew of charges, including theft, computer crime, forgery, burglary and filing false tax returns.
Lose Yourself … in a Court Motion
Man. Kim Mathers, twice-divorced wife of the Real Slim Shady (that’s Eminem – real name Marshall Mathers — for those not hip to the hip hop), does not like her ex-husband. And she can’t shut up about it. Take, for instance, what she told a Michigan morning radio show the other day.
“I can’t stand him. He’s an absolutely horrible person, and he gets worse every day. I vomit in my mouth whenever I’m around him or I hear his name. There’s nothing left in me for him. Nothing at all … He’s not very well-endowed. If you’re going to have sex with Marshall, make sure you have a little blue pill, because otherwise it does not work … Since he left the house in February (2006), I don’t know what he’s doing. His visits are few and far between, and when he does come around it’s nothing positive.
Eminem, however, would rather Mathers not discuss his penis size in public, so he’s going to court on Monday to seek an order to shut her up. Why? Because, Eminem says, Kim’s words are harming their 11-year-old daughter, Hailie.
The motion seeks to prohibit Kim Mathers from making “derogatory, disparaging, inflammatory and otherwise negative comments” about him in public, because, the motion claims, her comments would harm Hailie.
Hmmm. You have to wonder about the hypocrisy, here. Granted, Eminem is a helluva talented fella, but which is more harmful to a child: Hearing that your Daddy’s penis is small, or hearing your Daddy sing about slitting your mother’s throat, raping your grandmother, and throwing your Mom’s body parts in a lake?
If Emimen really wants to keep “derogatory, disparaging, inflammatory and otherwise negative comments” about a parent away from his child, he may want to start with his lyric sheets first.
A Friday Afternoon Play
Cast: RKJ (Ryan Keith Johnson, a department store loss prevention officer), GIRL (a 16-year-old-girl) and COP (a cop).
March 7, 2007. Scene opens on a Kohl’s department store in Texas. RKJ approaches GIRL.
RKJ: Well howdy, lil’ girl. I see you are shoplifting.
GIRL: Nuh-uh.
RKJ: I’m afraid so, lil’ girl. I see all the things you have. Why, there’s enough there to charge you with a felony.
GIRL: I said nuh…uh!
RKJ: But it’s ok, lil’ girl. Because here’s the thing. If you have sex with me right now, your record will be clean.
GIRL: Oh, I can like totally do that…[gobble, gobble, swallow].
RKJ: Thanks, lil’ girl. Now git!
GIRL exits. Lights change, indicating time moving forward. COP enters.
RKJ: Well howdy, lil’ copper.
COP: Good day sir. Witnesses say you blackmailed a girl and extorted sex from her. ‘Round these parts, we call that indecency with a child.
RKJ: Indee-who with the what now?
COP: That’s a second-degree felony. Come with me sir.
And scene.
The Daily Memo - 3/23/07
Harvard LLMs are a catty bunch. (Above the Law)
Author Terry McMillan wants her groove, and $40 million, back from her ex-husband. (CNN)
A New York bill working its way through the state senate would allow cameras into criminal and civil courtrooms. (Law.com)
Is our government acting a bit too much like a nanny? (Newsday.com)
When good lawyers use shady tactics. (CNN)
XM’s being sued for copyright infringement by several music publishers. (The Hollywood Reporter, Esq.)
Didn’t Batman Lock the Lipstick Bandit up in Arkham Asylum in the Late 80s?
Three female NYC welfare office employees have filed a lawsuit against the city over alleged sexual harassment by their office manager, Serena Reaves-Cain:
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, claims co-workers gave Reaves-Cain the nickname “Lipstick Bandit” because she allegedly “kissed them on the cheeks, foreheads, and necks, and sometimes left red lipstick marks on them.”
The plaintiffs…claimed Reaves-Cain “hugged the plaintiffs and pushed her breasts up against their breats, and used the palm of her hand to spank them on the buttocks.”
The women also claim Reaves-Cain referred to the spankings as “pow-pows,” and sometimes told them “come to momma” before hugging, touching or spanking them.
Pow-pows? Come to momma? …I don’t even know what else to say about this.
The Darwin Award that Wasn’t
Gregory Dean Renfroe tried, he really did. When the 44-year-old learned that his power had been cut off because he was two months behind on his bill payments, he did what any red-blooded Floridian would do - he climbed the pole to his power lines and tried to reconnect things on his own. A neighbor happened to spot Renfroe and flagged down a deputy, who says that Renfroe was “standing on the power lines tearing industrial electrical tape from power units and pulling power lines from their original positions.”
A Florida Power and Light representative said this could’ve been “near fatal” for Renfroe if he had actually managed to make a wire connection. But instead of being “near dead,” he’s just facing a misdemeanor charge of criminal mischief.
(For those not in the know, the wonderful Darwin Awards are annual awards “honoring those who improve the species…by accidentally removing themselves from it!”)
So, Does This Mean He Doesn’t Have to Pay Child Support?
In Manhattan this week, a judge allowed a lawsuit to go forward against a fertility clinic, a lawsuit filed by some parents who concluded that there was something amiss with their child. The baby’s skin, it seems, was a little too dark for the parents to believe it was their child. And, indeed, after a few DNA tests, the couple discovered that the clinic botched the artificial insemination, using someone other than the father’s semen to inseminate the egg.
Oops.
Thomas and Nancy Andrews are suing the New York Medical Services for Reproductive Medicine, accusing the clinic of medical malpractice. The couple is upset that they have been raising a child that is not the same race, nationality, or ethnicity as the parents. According to the article:
They say that “while we love Baby Jessica as our own, we are reminded of this terrible mistake each and every time we look at her; it is simply impossible to ignore,” the judge’s decision said.
Sure, it’s a bummer. And, sure, the doctors screwed up. But, we are talking about a child here. When “Baby Jessica” starts reading about this lawsuit twenty years from now, I’m not so sure how she’ll feel about learning that her parents were constantly reminded of “this terrible mistake each and every time” they looked at her.
Of course, my parents feel the same way every time they see the back of a Volkswagen bus. As my father used to say, “Dusty: I sure wish that just that once, when folks saw that damn bus a rockin’, they would’ve ignored the sign and came a knockin’ anyway. It sure would’ve saved us a lot of grief.”
Kids Love the Porn
Out in Philly, a federal court has struck down a law, the Child Online Protection Act, that would’ve made it illegal for online commercial proprietors of porn to allow children to access it.
The law would have criminalized Web sites that allow children to access material deemed “harmful to minors” by “contemporary community standards.” The sites would have been expected to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.
The ACLU and Salon.com, among others, challenged the law, and the Supreme Court suspended it in 2004, pending further review, on the grounds that it would have likely been overturned.
In a completely unrelated story, the films Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty Aroused, Sinderella, and Naked Fairy Tales have just been re-released onto the internet.
The Daily Memo - 3/22/07
Hopefully something good comes of this - the Copyright Royalty Board has agreed to listen to the objections to its new royalty rate for internet radio stations, a royalty scheme which would likely kill many stations. (The Hollywood Reporter, Esq.)
Above the Law is getting timely with its next hotties contest, taking on the U.S. Attorneys. (Above the Law)
Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick asks a very amusing question in light of the Attorney General scandal: “What if Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers had been confirmed to the Supreme Court?” (Slate)
“Viacom’s hypocrisy could defuse YouTube lawsuit.” (Gizmodo)
XM and Sirius are both being sued for patent infringement. (Engadget)
KinderStart’s lawsuit against Google has been given the ol’ heave-ho. (43(B)log)
A Los Angeles judge has ruled that “Oscar” (as in the movie award) may be a generic term in Italian. (The Hollywood Reporter, Esq.)
The murder trial of a Georgia man over a courthouse shooting has been suspended because the state can’t afford to pay for the man’s defense. (CNN)
Tennessee Republicans Just Don’t Get It!
So Tennessee state senator Ophelia Ford recently introduced a resolution to honor Justin Timberlake, a Tennessee native, for “his highly successful music career and for his meritorious service to the State of Tennessee.” But that resolution has now been removed from a list or resolutions which folks expect to get quick unanimous approval.
Why?
Because state Senator Raymond Finney says “it’s not something I want my name on.”
Seems that Senator Finney and other state Republicans don’t like references in the resolution to the name of Timberlake’s (“FutureSex/LoveSounds”) or the names of certain songs, such as “Rock Your Body.” Which is just ridiculous. I mean, he brought the sexy back for Christ’s sake.
But the Tennessee legislature clearly has its priorities all out of whack because the state Senate also deferred addressing pending legislation that would make it a felony to have sex with an animal.
So honoring Justin Timberlake? No. Bestiality? Sure.
Dude - ninja attacks are supposed to be subtle!
Last Saturday, Pete Bo Sizelove (what a name!) got himself into a bit of legal hot water. The 30-year-old had gone to his local car dealership up in Sacramento, Cali, hoping to trade in his beat up old Honda for a nice new car. He found a $20,000 Chrysler that he really liked, and he started negotiating with a sales manager.
Sizelove proposed trading-in his Honda for a $7,000 value, and giving the dealership a $13,000 IOU for the rest of the Chrysler’s value. The sales manager politely declined this offer.
So Sizemore walked over to his car and took out some things. He came back to the Chrysler and tried to break into it with a crowbar. When that didn’t work, he then hopped onto the car’s roof with - get this - a sledge hammer and a Samurai sword!
Needless to say, the cops were called, Sizelove was arrested, and he now faces charges of attempted vehicle theft and vandalism.
New Zealand should use this to attract tourism, as it’s much more enticing than sheep
Man, I need to go be a lawyer in New Zealand. Last week, there was a trial going on where a guy who gives massages as part of alternative health treatments was accused of assaulting three women. He allegedly touched the women’s boobs while giving them their treatment (and even went after one of the women’s va-jay-jay). This sounds like a typical “could easily happen here” kind of a story, right?
Well, Janet Robertshawe changed all that. The 36-year-old (who’s a lawyer, just for the record), is a former patient of this guy, and she agreed to come in to allow the accused to show the jury what his massage treatment looks like:
Mrs Robertshawe entered the courtroom in a white robe, was sworn in by the court crier, disrobed then lay face down on a massage table dressed only in her bra and underwear…. The accused then began the treatment, undoing Mrs Robershawe’s bra early in the procedure.She was moved onto her left side, facing the jury, as the accused continued the vigorous deep tissue massage treatment. The movement exerted on Ms Robershawe’s body shook her bra free and a towel covering her frequently fell down, exposing her breasts to the court.
This titty-exposure went on for over 10 minutes and, one might assume, the male members of the jury are now firm believers in alternative health therapy.
Robertshawe gave testimony later in the day, once clothes reappeared, and at the end, the judge told her “you probably made history today as a barrister and solicitor of the court, so thank you.”
Winnie the Pooh Wreaks Mayhem and Carnage
A 14-year-old seventh grader out in California has enrolled the ACLU’s help in a potential lawsuit against her school. Toni Kay Scott is suing because she was sent to in-school suspension for Students with Attitude Problems, after she was punished for wearing Winnie the Pooh socks to class.
Can you believe that? What’s next? Kids will start wearing “Looney Tunes,” T-shirts? Bringing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles lunch boxes to school? Or strapping on “Dora the Explorer” wrist bands? Honestly, it’s a good thing that the Napa, California school nipped this one in the bud, before shit got out of hand. It’s a slippery slope, here. You let one 7th grader wear socks with Tigger on them, and the next thing you know, those goddamn middle-schoolers will be singing broadway songs from Annie and flinging feces at one another during class. This bullshit has got to stop. Tigger?! Clearly, he’s just a mascot for one of the middle-school gangs; soon enough, the Poohs will be bringing guns to classes and mowing down Tiggers in the hallways.
The school, understandably, has a very strict dress code:
The school’s policy requires students to wear clothes with solid colors in blue, white, green, yellow, khaki, gray, brown and black. Permitted fabrics are cotton twill, corduroy and chino. No denim is allowed.
And you know why denim isn’t allowed, right? Because it encourages denim fucking in the back of the class. You start wearing Tigger socks and denim skirts, and the next thing you know, you’ve got a middle-school pregnancy epidemic on your hands. And we’ve got to put a stop to this. Otherwise, the next thing you know, eight-graders will be pissing in their teacher’s coffee pots.
Parent’s Just Don’t Understand
Every kid’s worst nightmare has to be the perpetual fear that he or she might walk in on their parents fornicating. It’s happened to the best of us; certain among us may never erase the image of one’s father’s incisor hooked into one’s mother’s nose, while sliding around as if on a 5’4 Slip n’ Slide that grunts like a hyena having its head banged against a wall. (Thank God, my mother doesn’t read QuizLaw).
Of course, inadvertently walking in one one’s parents getting busy on the waterbed probably isn’t nearly as bad as a sex-ed class taught by your mother and her boyfriend. Unfortunately, that’s what happened to the nine-year-old daughter of Rebecca Arnold, in Woonsocket, R.I. Arnold taught her daughter about the birds and the bees the hard way – with in-person demonstrations:
During an investigation by the state child welfare authorities, [David] Prata, 33, said he and Arnold, 36, had sex “all the time” in front of the child and that “we don’t believe in hiding anything.” He told an investigator that they did not force the girl to watch.
Well, at least they didn’t force the girl to watch; presumably, they just bumped uglies in front of the TV and told the daughter, “You can look away if you’d like. But, you’ll be missing quite the show, little lady.”
It could’ve been worse, I suppose; the daughter could have been witness to the husband who tore out his wife’s eyes when she refused to have sex with him.
The Daily Memo - 3/21/07
A BC law student caused quite the kerfuffle last week when she decided to appear on the cover of a local sports mag showing lots of skin. (Bostonist)
“Pickup owner in underwear chases thief.” (Fesno Bee)
New Congress, same shit - the next war bill is chock-full of pork for House Democrats’ little “pet projects.” (Washington Post)
A six-year-old girl snitched about her mother’s drug dealing racket to the cops after the mom hit the girl in a face with a curling iron. (CBS News)
Procter and Gamble just won $19.25 million from a jury, in its lawsuit against former Amway distributors that spread rumors that P&G’s logo was a Satanism symbol. (FindLaw)
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has ruled that trial courts can divide cremated remains between different loved ones when a dispute arises over how to dispose of the remains. (Law.com)
Putting the “high” in the High Court. (WSJ Law Blog)
A Tennessee state Senator was involved in a drunk driving accident in February and it turns out his blood-alcohol level was over twice the legal limit. (Tennessean)
In Pennsylvania, the battle over whether beer should be sold in grocery stores is being hashed out by state legislators. (WGAL)
At least one Irishman has a lot more in common with Texans than just being a drunk
Yesterday, we told you about the cussin’ Canadian judge. Well, the Canuck judges aren’t the only ones issuing apologies. Last week an Irish judge had to issue his own little apology as well. Judge Sean McBride was overseeing a criminal trial of his own, this time for robbery. While he was sentencing the man, he said that he, personally, would “blow the head off” anyone who broke into his home.
This got some folks worked up, including the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, which called the comment “outrageous.” So Judge McBride apologized for the words he used, but explained what his underlying point was:
“I was trying to emphasise my revulsion at the violation of the safety of peoples homes - of the sanctuary of their private space,” Judge McBride said.“I regret my choice of language and want to make it clear that I am totally opposed to the use of guns and against all violence.”
Now Seth, you might be saying, if he’s actually “opposed to the use of guns,” the title of this entry doesn’t make much sense. Well maybe it’s just me, but I’m guessing that this part of his statement was a throwaway crowd-pleaser and that the real truth is that he thinks folks should protect “the sanctuary of their private space” however possible. Of course, he may have been drunk when issuing the statement, in which case all bets are off as to what he truly meant.
Complaints about the unnecessary stereotypes blazing through this entry can be sent to -@[SYSTEM ERROR….POST UNFINISHED]$%