« May 2007 | Main | July 2007 »
Monthly Archives: June 2007
Bong Hits for ATL’s Guest Blogger
Yesterday over at Above the Law (the second funniest law blog on the Interwebs), David Lat allowed a colleague from his sister site, Dealbreaker, to take a few unnecessary, kind of stupid, and not entirely well thought out swipes at Dahlia Lithwick, who among many lawyers and non-lawyers alike, is a favorite over at Slate. In fact, she kind of rocks — and her Supreme Court round-ups are the absolute best in the business. She manages to do for the Supreme Court what Chuck Klosterman does for bad tribute bands — make an otherwise tedious topic incredibly fascinating. And she’s been doing it for years.
John Carney, the guest writer in question, apparently doesn’t agree (he’s the one pictured above, in the middle — the homicidal lookin’ fella). He calls her “a deeply frivolous person,” suggests she is not of “normal intelligence,” and can’t decide whether she’s a “liar or a fool.” And he makes all of these oh-so-astute observations based upon one paragraph in Lithwick’s entire body of work — this, despite the fact she’s been writing for Slate for eight years.
But, the topic of this entry really isn’t John Carney and his dumbassery (the commenters on Lat’s site took care of that). Instead, I want to focus on David Lat’s disclaimer ahead of Carney’s entry. Lat clearly is a very intelligent man (and sexy, too!) — loads smarter than Mr. Carney — and because Lat rightfully appreciates Lithwick’s contributions, he attempts to separate himself from Carney’s piece. So, let’s pick apart his disclaimer. Lat’s actual words will be in italics, while what I imagine he was thinking when he wrote it will be in parenthesis. Let’s do it:
Ed. note: Today we’re pleased (not really) to present a guest post by John Carney. He’s the editor of our sibling site, DealBreaker (I’m really sorry, they are making me do this), and a non-practicing attorney (he’s a little rusty on the law, and let’s be honest: When he was a practicing attorney, he was a Skadden douchebag).
Please note that the views expressed in this post are those of John (and John alone) (please don’t lump me in with idiots like him. PLEASE). Unlike John, we HAVE met Dahlia Lithwick, and think she’s fabulous — one of the sharpest and funniest writers about the Supreme Court working today. (If she weren’t married and I weren’t of an unknown sexual persuasion, I’d hit that). We admire many members of the SCOTUS press corps — e.g., Jan Crawford Greenburg, Tony Mauro, Lyle Denniston (these are people that Carney has never heard of — see how much smarter ‘we’ are than him? — and by ‘we’ I mean, ‘I’) — but we don’t know of another writer who marries insight and humor the way that Lithwick does. (Carney blogs for a Wall Street site — he marries insight and humor like Britney Spears marries reason and birth control, i.e., not at all) As you can see from our Facebook profile, we are proud members of the We Love Dahlia Lithwick group. (Really — we, er, I would hit that. I’m not even kidding.)
Okay, enough disclaimers. John has a different view (A very unreasoned, irrational, kind of stupid view) — and since we value viewpoint diversity here at ATL (seriously, they’re making me do this), here it is. Enjoy.
Silly retard, murder’s for sane people.
Convicted murder Scott Louis Panetti got a reprieve from his execution when the Supreme Court decided that the lower court should have considered psychiatric evidence about his mental illness.
In 1992 Panetti was convicted for the murders of his in-laws whom he shot to death in front of his wife and daughter. Now, I’m no rocket scientist (but I do play one at home when I’m sufficiently hopped up on Mountain Dew and Sour Patch Kids), but if I kill someone in cold blood just for shits and giggles, I’m gonna bet even money that keeping me around much longer isn’t good for anyone’s safety in the long run.
The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution bars “the execution of a person who is so lacking in rational understanding that he cannot comprehend that he is being put to death because of the crime he was convicted of committing,” they said in court papers.
There’s gotta be “douchebag” clause in there somewhere, right?
*The above image is not Scott Louis Panetti. But ain’t he adorable? Cowabunga, Corky!
A record day in Tacoma, Washington
Forty-five year old Rebecca G. Lingbloom pleaded not guilty to a DUI charge earlier this week. Cops say she nearly swerved into a pedestrian and was all over the road. They later found her passed out in her car.
The record in question came into play when the toxicology was done on her blood. She tied the lab’s record for the highest blood alcohol level they’ve ever seen with an unfathomable 0.50. As the lab manager explained it, “it certainly would kill many people.”
The Daily Memo - 6/29/07
ATL’s got a guest-post from John Carney, who makes a rather idiotic attack on my favorite Supreme blogger, Dahlia Lithwick. (Above the Law)
A New York court has decided that driving after “huffing” doesn’t fall within the confines of the state’s DWI laws. (The Legal Reader)
South Dakota is adding Indian Law to its bar exam. (Legal Profession Blog)
An Oregon man is suing the Feds over an accident involving his Lamborghini and a Cessna airplane that some G-men piloted into his Lamborghini. (The Seattle Times)
A Rastafarian prisoner is claiming a violation of his rights resulting from a city jail forcing him to shave off his dreadlocks. (PilotOnline)
Good to know that “stupid political correctness BS” can travel across the ocean
England’s Justice Ministry has drafted legislation that would strip the term “prostitute” from all of the country’s criminal statutes. And the wonderful reason behind this is simply that the Ministry thinks the word has too much of a stigma. The label of “common prostitute” has been around since 1824 and is “a bit outdated,” said a Ministry spokeswoman. Plus, she said, “it just wasn’t really helpful to label people.”
So under this bill’s proposal, prostitutes would now be referred to as “persons who sell sex persistently,” with “persistently” meaning they sell sex two or more times in a three month span.
This is beyond idiotic. They’ve taken a simple word and replaced it with legal mumbo-jumbo. And now there’s a loophole - if you only sell sex once every three months, you’re not a criminal prostitute. You’re just an entrepreneur!
When I first read this story, I turned to the British woman who happened to be in my office at that very moment, and asked her if she could explain what the hell was going on with her country.
She had no response.
Ah, Philly, I really miss you sometimes
Norberto Cappas was a Philly police officer. First of all, I love the name Norberto. That’s just great. Second of all, please note that I saw “was.” See, on Tuesday, a police tribunal found him “guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer and lying during a departmental investigation,” which means he ain’t no longer a cop. And what did the former man in blue do?
Well back in 2003, he stopped by a jail cell where two women were being held (they were brought in on suspicion of having drugs, but no charges were ever filed). He then ordered them to put on a sex show for him, demanding that they kiss and fondle each other and show him their boobs.
And god bless Philly PD’s internal affairs - they never did anything with this case until last year, when the Philadelphia Inquirer started pestering them to find out what was up.
Of course, the real tragedy here is that Norberto didn’t even give the gals some singles or some beads after they complied with his “show me your tits” demand. …Ingrate.
The Supremes Bid a fond Adieu for the Term
I’m a busy bird right now, so I can’t really tell you much about the big Supreme decisions that came out today, and I certainly haven’t read the massive opinions themselves just yet. But here’s a quick run-down on what some other folks are talking about (and you can also check out a nice round-up over at SCOTUSblog).
Taking a general look at the state of things, Slate’s Emily Bazelon asks what “the liberal and moderate lawyers who supported John Roberts’ nomination say today?” She notes that he’s pretty much always sided time with the conservatives Alito, Thomas and the Saclia, and that this week’s rash of 5-4 decisions were all pretty much wins for conservatives and losses for liberal-moderates. In fact, if you look at his record over the term, says Bazelon, “John Roberts is proving to be an extremely conservative chief justice,” even if he doesn’t “go in for the rhetorical swashbuckling.”
You surely heard the big news from today, which was that the Court was “bitterly divided” in its landmark decision “ruling that race cannot be a factor in the assignment of children to public schools.” Chief Justice Johnny gave the smack-down to two programs using race in Lousiville and Seattle to create diversity (SCOTUSblog has a breakdown of the school plans that were at issue in the cases), saying that diversity should be achieved without considering race. The money quote? “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” However, Justice Kennedy’s concurrence is really the decision with all the meat here, and he did hedge things a touch, saying that there are narrow circumstances when one might be able to use race to properly integrate a school. If one believes David Lat, Justice Steven’s dissent consists of little more than a spot-on impersonation of a certain celebrity Scientologist, calling Chief Justice Johnny glib.
Over at the WSJ Law Blog, there’s a great Q&A giving you the nuts and bolts of the “big race case.” Among other things, it makes it clear that this decision does not flat-out overturn Brown v. Board of Education, although “it does reflect a deep division over Brown.” And Professor Dorf finds “the silver lining” in the integration cases, which is that the end result of the decisions isn’t “as drastic as suggested by some of the rhetoric” in Chief Justice Johnny’s opinion.
Oh yeah - there were two other decisions as well. In those decisions, both of which were also 5-4: (a) the Supremes overturned an almost-one hundred year old antitrust decision by ruling that challenges to vertical price restraints should now be judged with a rule-of-reason analysis; and (b) the Supremes said that the Fifth Circuit was being too strict in deciding whether someone is mentally competent enough to get thwacked with the death penalty.
The Court is now in recess until October 1.
Great Moments in Presidential Speeches
If you any of you watch Letterman regularly, you’ve no doubt seen the series of “Great Moments in Presidential Speeches” he does every night. It’s really a testament to George W. Bush that there’s enough material to fill the small segment five nights a week — and I think Dave has been running it for a couple of years now. And some enterprising young YouTuber compiled a series of them into this nice five-minute clip — it’ll be the best laugh you have all day. If only it didn’t come at the expense of the leader of the free world.
Jon Stewart is funny. But George Bush is hilario …. an idiot!
Give it up, folks, for the Arkansas police!
Earlier today, when Seth suggested that the Arkansan geezer who shot a kid in the neck(!) for throwing rocks was overreacting and that, perhaps, he should’ve called the cops — well, I’m not so sure the Arkansan police force would’ve acted much differently. I think maybe the heat is just getting to them down South. Everybody is overreacting. Take a gander of this video, filmed in the great city of Hot Springs (great, if you like horse racing and deadly theme parks). In it, a few kids decide to do a little skateboarding. Turns out, that’s a violation of a city ordinance. You know what that means, right?
Beat down! And Jesus — was the choke hold on the chick (at the 1:50 mark) really that necessary?
The police officer in question has been place on administrative leave.
The Daily Memo - 6/28/07
In Rome, an Italian man was on the stand, testifying as to charges that he killed his American girlfriend, when he had a heart attack and died. (SignOnSanDiego)
“The Utah Court of Appeals rejected an ex-fiance’s request to recover thousands of dollars spent during his engagement on a vasectomy, a cruise to Alaska, a trip to France and other purchases.” (My Way News)
So wait - it’s illegal to register your dog to vote? Since when?! (The Seattle Times)
Should the taxpayers have to cover the costs of a murderer getting a sex change? (Newsday and Overlawyered)
The Eleventh Circuit has overturned a lower ruling, saying it’s A-ok for folks to be subjected to a pat-down prior to entering the stadium for Tampa Bay Buccaneers home games. (SI)
Is it worth taking a case for the sake of publicity? (WSJ Law Blog)
David Lat and Ann Althouse, live and in person … but more importantly, who knew they’re both New Jersey folk! (Above the Law)
Netflix and Blockbuster are making nicey-nice over their business method patent dispute. (Engadget)
Ah-one, ah ta-who, ah-threeghjtumgpu
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? We may never truly know.
How many chews does it take to get temporal mandibular joint dysfunction? Exactly three. Romero, Mich. resident Victoria McArthur is suing the parent company of Starburst, Mars Inc. Why you ask? Well, it seems that Starburst Fruit Chews are … Wait, are you ready for this? Maybe you should sit down. Comfy? Good. She’s suing because they’re too CHEWY. Oh! Are you OK? You took a bad spill there. Didn’t see that one comin’, did ya’?
McArthur claims to be having difficulty chewing, sleeping, and talking and is suing for the usual $25,000 for “permanent personal injuries” she suffered after her run-in with the conniving confection.
McArthur is said to be contemplating suing Evian water after she used the brand of bottled water to loosen the sticky substance, citing excessive moisture and lack of drymouth due to her parched thirst.
In related news, peanut butter is filing for divorce from chocolate citing “irreconcilable differences.” Custody hearings over Reeces and Pieces to begin soon.
Man, Wiley Miller really don’t like lawyers
(Yesterday’s “Non Sequitur,” from GoComics)
This sounds like just a touch of an overreaction
In Dustin’s wonderful home state of Arkansas, 9-year-old Demotric Moore was being the type of little miscreant that young lads often, by their very nature, simply are. In this instance, that miscreant nature took the form of him hucking rocks at the home of one Jonathan Watts. According to the captain of the police (we’ll get to why he’s talking about this in a moment), Watts has had problems with kids hucking rocks at his home before. In fact, the 50-year-old Watts responded to one such incident by hurling a brick at the kid who was responsible for the rock hucking.
And sadly, one wishes that Watts had simply hurled a brick at Moore. That surely would’ve led to a better outcome for Moore than being killed by a gunshot wound to the neck. Said the surly Watts as he was being cuffed: “I’ve had it with these kids and the rock throwing.” Well that’s fine - I hear you on that, Mr. Watts. But, uhm, maybe you call the cops. Or get some shutters to protect the window. Hell, get a guard dog. But shooting a kid in the neck? For shame.
Oh, and if you were sick of the rock throwing, I can’t wait to see what your thoughts are on the salad tossing you’ll get in the big house. Bastard.
We’re #3! We’re #3!
A little over a decade ago, after the initial late night wars died down and Letterman settled into the ratings behind Leno and, occasionally, even behind “Nightline,” “The Late Show” put out what I think may be the smartest billboard ever designed. The only image I could find (to the left) is hard to make out, but the story went like this: As soon as Leno ascended to number one in the ratings, the hack-show host — whose show is based in L.A. — put up a big billboard with his grotesquerie and a huge “#1” emblazoned across it, in Times Square, very near The Ed Sullivan Theater (where Dave is taped). So, Dave — proving exactly why he is the best — put up his own billboard, a few blocks in front of Leno’s, with his own wiseacre grin, proudly declaring himself and his show to be “#3.”
And now, we get to feel a certain kinship with Letterman this week, having been named The Third Funniest Law Blog over at Legal Antics — making Phila Lawyer the Leno of the bunch and, somewhat appropriately, Above the Law as the “Nightline” of law blogs (the good Koppel “Nightline,” to be sure). And sorry, Ted — I guess that makes Overlawyered the Jimmy Kimmell. (You’d still be #1 in a landslide for Sexiest Legal Blogger).
But, as everyone knows, number three is the best. Just look at the evidence: Starship Troopers 3, Matrix Revolutions, Godfather 3, X-Men III, Revenge of the Nerds 3 and Porky’s Revenge — all the best installments in their respective trilogies. Right? Right? Awww, hell.
Congratulations Tucker Max, Phila Lawyer. I’m sure your victory had nothing to do with the free hand jobs that were promised in exchange for votes.
He does seem like a decent fella, though.
I Know … I Know … I’m a Petty Little Bitch
You’ve gotta be freakin’ kidding me. What a vindictive little shit. So, here’s the latest on everybody’s favorite fat-ass (no, not Michael Moore). Perez Hilton, who has been sued by everyone but Seth and I, has decided to fight back. Not so much by defending his own lawsuit, which is pretty much a lost cause. But by filing his own, I suppose, in the hopes of gaining some leverage during the inevitable settlement talks.
So, Perez has sued X-17 (the paparazzi agency who is suing him for $7.6 million), claiming that the agency engages in illegal business activities, namely hiring illegal aliens and improperly labeling it’s employees as “independent contractors” to avoid payroll taxes and insurance. Perez Hilton’s lawsuit comes just a week after X-17 managed to convince his host to shut him down, which left him without a web home for a few hours, at least. But this lawsuit apparently has nothing to do with that. No sir.
[Hilton’s] lawyer, Bryan Freedman, tells TheShowBuzz.com that the lawsuit against X17 was not triggered by the photo agency’s complaints to the blogger’s Web host.“Former photographers of X17 have been calling with these horror stories for months,” Freedman said. “This has been in the works for some time.”
I’m no expert in the law of illegal business practices or anything, so here’s my question: Why the hell are X-17’s business practices any of Perez’s goddamn business? I don’t know if X-17 does what Perez’s lawyers are suggesting, but even if they do, how’s it harming him? Where’s the standing? And if Perez is arguing unfair competition, how does that work? Perez doesn’t hire paparazzi photographers, he steals from them. So what’s unfair about X-17’s business to Perez?
I get so angry! And petty. And I hate myself for it, because I find myself in the position of siding with almost-as-despicable paparazzi. And discussing gossip blogs. On a legal site. But I can’t help myself. I hate him. Like, loathe him. I swear, if I could get he and Rosie O’Donnell — and maybe Dane Cook and Paul Haggis — in one room, I’d strap a bomb to myself and do the world a huge solid.
Fatty fatty two-by-four
Michael Moore is a fatty fatty two-by-four (hey - that rhymes!). But that doesn’t change the fact that his new documentary, Sicko, is surprisingly fantastic. I have actually enjoyed all of Moore’s work, but I do tend to find his persona a bit grating, and some of the more obvious stunts he includes in his films don’t always resonate for me. But this flick is much more subdued and as John Nichols over at The Nation puts it, it’s “the most important political statement so far in what remains an ill-defined domestic policy debate among Democrats who propose to replace Bushism with something better.” Quite frankly, I think this film should be required viewing for every member of Congress.
Professor Dorf agrees, calling the flick “terrific.” However, he also correctly points out the flick’s “principal didactic flaw,” which is that it fails “to explain why the U.S. [healthcare] system is such a disaster.” Dorf attributes the disaster to the fact that “so much of our health care dollar goes to administrative costs that take the form of insurance companies trying to deny coverage.” Which is definitely a pretty accurate assessment of what is probably the system’s biggest flaw (of course, that stems directly from the fact that we have a private/for-profit system, which is what Moore focuses on - he’s just not quite as explicit as Professor Dorf would like in connecting the dots for the more casual viewer). Professor Dorf’s blogging partner, meanwhile (Neil H. Buchanan), thinks the movie’s biggest error is one of commission rather than omission, because he represents Hillary’s 1990’s health care initiative as a good idea, whereas Buchanan says that initiative was “a genuinely terrible idea.”
Anyway, go read Dustin’s review of the flick to get a better grasp on what it’s all about. And then head out to the theater and watch it for yourself.
The Daily Memo - 6/27/07
Yikes - a Michigan man has been sentenced to 14 years in the clink for importing Eastern European women and forcing them to be strippers. (FindLaw)
Double yikes - a Pittsburgh man has pled guilty a slew of theft and abusing a corpse charges, after 19 fetus corpses were found in bags and bins in his garage (he was supposed to cremate the remains). (CNN)
A woman is suing a funeral home that cremated her deceased husband’s prosthetic leg, which was worth over seven grand … plus the usual request for damages for her emotional and physical distress. (Fox News)
A dude caused four cars to set fire when he tried to steal gas from one of the cars … with a drill. (WNBC)
An Illinois man has been charged with stealing lap dances! (Gazette Online)
She did WHAT with a golf ball??
The last time I went golfing, it was with my brother, a large Hawaiian gentleman, and another guy I can’t remember. We golfed, had a few beers, and generally played some crappy golf.
We definitely did not have strippers grinding on our laps and violating each other with a putter. I guess that’s what the tacky green blazers’ll get ya’.
Golfers at the Cherry Valley Golf Course complained to authorities when they spotted a private party on the golf course that played host to lap dances, “sex acts,” and the occassional bad golf swing. All I got the last time I golfed was sun burn …
The women at the private event were employess of CR Fannys Gentlemen’s Club in Wilson…and no, I’m not making that name up. I believe it’s a subsidiary of BJ Bummsniffer’s House of Spank. I could be mistaken.
After police met with attorneys for Gene Percudani (owner of Cherry Valley) some of the “performers,” and their handler, the party dispersed. Officer Ruben Torres declined to comment as it is still an ongoing investigation. Quizlaw sources are on route to CR Fanny’s for a more in depth look into the events of the day. Questions as to why they needed rolls of 1’s and 5’s before leaving were not immediately answered.
Texas Headline of the Day
Feces Parking Ticket Proves Costly
Yup. An Austin man got a ticket back in April for leaving his car parked in front of his house for too long. Seems he was less than thrilled with this result so when he paid the ticket, he included some dog poo in the envelope, dropping the whole stinky thing in the Law Enforcement Center’s drop box. “When the office employee opened envelopes from the drop box, she noticed a brown fluid leaking from one envelope.”
Er … uhm … yuck? Yeah, yuck.
So this poor employee got the fluid on her hands and all over her desk. She woke up the following day with a headache, and found herself repeatedly vomiting, leading to a two day stint in the hospital for an illness that was never really determined.
The poo man, Joshua Steven Solberg, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge, and he has to pay the law enforcement employee just shy of three grand (which still won’t cover her medical bills, which were over $5,000). He also has to pay a $300 fine and write a personal letter of apology.
Moral of the story? Keep your poo out where it belongs, and out of any envelopes you mail to your civil servants (or to anyone else for that matter).
“It ain’t a tax if we don’t call it a tax, you see?”
Virginia’s General Assembly (that is, their state legislature) has instituted a new system of “hidden fees” to avoid the need for an actual tax hike to cover transportation costs. The law has been coined the “Dangerous Driver Law,” but it really penalizes more than dangerous drivers. For example, if you get busted going 20 miles over the speed limit, in addition to the normal court fees and traffic fines, you’ll be on the hook for an extra grand. One thousand bucks for a speeding ticket! The “hidden fees” also hit “a variety of misdemeanor traffic violations including being a passenger in a hit and run or the failure to give a proper signal” and can be anywhere from $250 to $3,000. So if you’re the passenger in a hit a run accident, you may get the privilege of helping Virginia construct its roads! Lucky you.
Many of the civil fees do address alcohol as was the intent of the “Dangerous Driver Law” when it originated, but the fees also may be accessed for such daily traffic violations as rolling through a stop sign (a fee of $300), or impeding traffic—a charge that’s possible when stopping in front of your mailbox to get the mail. The civil fee alone for a conviction on the latter is $300.
And if you can’t afford to pay the fees? Tough - kiss your license goodbye. And judges don’t even have the leniency to to suspend the fees, as the law rigidly mandates the fees.
The only good news is that these fees only apply to Virginia drivers, since the state can’t tax collect fees from residents of other states. So suck it Virginians - I can race through your state at 88 miles per hours and just get the usual $300+ ticket, without that extra grand!
There’s hope for the future of our nation
The future rests in the hands of the children, right? Well then, as this entry’s title suggests, maybe all isn’t lost with the MySpace Generation. On Monday, a bunch of high school seniors visited the White House as part of their recognition for being in the Presidential Scholars Program. During the ceremony, a young lady presented Bush, to his surprise, with a handwritten letter signed by 50 of the visiting students. That letter urged the administration to but the kibosh on its continuing “violations of the human rights” of various terror suspects being held in places like Gitmo, and also asked that Bush and his cohorts respect the Geneva Convention.
Bush’s lackey deputy press secretary Dana Perino (who I must admit having a slight crush on even though, or perhaps in some way twisted because, she speaks the increasingly ridiculous lies that all of Bush’s spokespeople speak) … anyway, Perino said that Bush enjoyed his visit, and even read the letter, after which he assured the kids that our government totally doesn’t torture folks and totally values human rights. Okely dokely Dana.
But good on you, Presidential Scholars, good on you.
Schnikeys!
If you snatch a purse in Texas, they will run your ass over. In a truck. I am not even kidding.
That Jesus is a Funny Dude …
Yesterday, right after the Supreme Court ruled that a high-school student could not hold up a banner saying, “Bong Hits for Jesus,” a city court in Slidell, Louisiana decided, for the time being, to keep up its portrait of Jesus, over the ACLU’s objections.
Well played, Jesus. Well played.
Florida Headline of the Day
“Pregnant woman attacked over beach towel.”
What?! Well I guess the other lady just really wanted that towel.
When questioned, [Mary] Riley admitted that she knew the victim was pregnant, and stated, “Ya, I knew she was pregnant.”
She’s been charged with aggravated assault for attacking the woman.
(*Note: Pregnant woman not pictured.)
…Nun’ya who? Nun’ya business … hah!
What is the world coming to when you can’t even trust a nun? I remember my days in Catholic school, where nuns were the paragons of virtue, patience, and piety. They were the feared dispensers of justice and punishment for transgression.
And now? They’re petty criminals out to turn a quick buck, but I tell you. Sister Mary Margaret, why? WHY???
A village in Spain is up in arms over a pair of nuns who allegedly stole three sacred statues from a now-closed church. After a raging termite infection the likes of which has not been seen since Paris Hilton’s last pelvic exam, the church was forced to close. The nuns moved to Toledo and removed the three statues from the church, one of which was a veneered statue of Christ used in town celebrations.
Unable to enter the church due to the keys also having been taken, the townsfolk have turned to sit-ins, pot banging, and some whining, whimpering and general pissy-ness. They may upgrade to Terror Threat Level Fuscia if no word is received from the nefarious nuns.
The Daily Memo - 6/26/07
Woo-hoo! The D.C. asshat lost his $54 million lawsuit against the dry cleaners, and he has to pick up their court costs. (WSJ Law Blog and Professor Bainbridge)
“A battle over ownership of Michael Jackson memorabilia is headed back to a Nevada courtroom, where the King of Pop is seeking the return of items withheld from an auction of family items.” (FindLaw)
The court ignored his tears and begging, as Tom Sizemore got sentenced to 16 months in the clink. (CNN)
Blawg Review #114 is the first Blawg Review of the summer season. (idealawg)
A collective of restaurants have sued New York City over a new city regulation requiring certain chains and restaurants to list calories on their menus. (1010 WINS)
A woman is going to court to keep a scumbum absentee dad from getting a share of the Victim Compensation Fund as a result of their 30-year-old son dying in the WTC attacks. (NY Daily News)
This August, Congress will be issuing a report about taxation of virtual goods in virtual gaming environments. (News.com)
I know lawyers who did each and every one of these shady billing practices, which is one of the many reasons why, if I ever have to hire a lawyer, I’ll be checking their bill with a fine-toothed comb. (Professor Bainbridge)
Houston’s police are ignoring the intent of a license plate law so they can rack up tickets and money. (The Houston Chronicle)
Now this is the kind of environmental protection the Roberts Supreme Court can get behind!
(Today’s “Non Sequitur” strip, via GoComics.)
Common Sense Lesson #149
When there’s a warrant out for your arrest, you might should try to avoid going to a courthouse. Because, you know, you just might get yourself arrested.
That’s what the 21-year-old Jonathan Franklin Hunter learned when he took his wife to the courthouse for a quickie wedding. Minutes after the ceremony, a sheriff’s deputy got all up in Hunter’s business and arrested him. Turns out Hunter had an outstanding warrant stemming from an alleged violation of a 2005 injunction (which, in turn, stemmed from some domestic violence issues with his sister). And get this - the heartless bailiffs wouldn’t even let him hug or kiss his bride goodbye before throwing him in a patrol car and driving off. For shame. Said his new bride:
It was embarrassing. I was shocked. Everyone was looking at us. I wanted to run out of there.
Welcome to married life, Mrs. Hunter!
The Supremes tackled a hodge-podge of issues in yesterday’s five decisions
Yesterday was supposed to be the last day of the term for the Supremes, but they have so many decisions left that they decided to make Thursday the last day. So yesterday saw only some of the last decisions come down, and the rest will be out later this week. SCOTUSblog has a great entry loaded up with links to various discussions and articles about the two cases. But here’s my link-summary on the decisions for the QuizLaw faithful.
As we mentioned yesterday, the Court ruled that “Bong Hit 4 Jesus” is not protected speech when it’s on a banner being held high by a student (see what I did there with the “held high?” Don’t nobody ever accuse me of not being clever!). David Lat thinks that the Supremes ruled against “noble, crusading students” in favor of “the mean old school officials” because they prefer crack to weed. The AP’s Mark Sherman, taking a more serious look at the decision, notes that conservative groups are actually on Frederick’s side, as opposed to their usual position on the administration’s side, “out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion.” Meanwhile, the WSJ Law Blog notes that Thomas, in a concurrence, said he’d like to rule “that public school students don’t have First Amendment rights at school.”
Meanwhile, in National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, Alito penned the majority decision (in a 5-4 decision), ruling that when a federal agency is required (by law) to take some action, it doesn’t have to follow a conflicting mandate within the Endangered Species Act. In this case, the other law was the Clean Water Act, and so it would appear that while rock beats scissors, water beats the American burying beetle. …Work with me here, people.
Then there’s Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, which was another 5-4 split with the majority decision penned by Alito. Here, the Supremes said “that ordinary taxpayers cannot stop conferences that help religious charities apply for federal grants.” Or as Jason Harrow puts it, this decision means that a person cannot “sue the federal government, alleging an executive branch violation of the Establishment Clause, solely because that person is a taxpayer.” So President Bush is quite pleased, because this means that his faith-based initiatives can continue full-steam. Alito said the taxpayers didn’t have standing because Congress wasn’t providing the financial appropriation; rather the White House was simply pulling the money out of general appropriations. In his dissent, Justice Souter calls shenanigans, and says the case should’ve been allowed to move on to its merits. And Thomas and the Scalia, of course, said the majority didn’t go far enough, and should’ve banned all taxpayer lawsuits, which they see as a “blot on our jurisprudence.”
Number four for the day was Wilke v. Robbins, which contains a ruling that you can’t hold a government official personally liable under RICO if they were acting in their official capacity in trying to get your land for the government. The Jurist quickly sums up the situation behind this case, which makes this ruling more clear: “Robbins filed a lawsuit against several employees of the Bureau of Land Management … seeking to hold them liable under RICO … for alleged extortion in trying to gain a reciprocal right-of-way through Robbins’ private property.” Since the Bureau folks were acting in their governmental capacity, Robbins just can’t go after them personally under RICO.
And the biggest case of the day was probably FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. Over at SCOTUSblog, Gretchen Sund calls the 5-4 decision a “blockbuster” which “[e]ffectively, though silently … overrules a central element in the Court’s most recent prior confrontation with the campaign-finance problem at issue.” As reported by the AP, the 5-4 majority “loosened restrictions … on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections” by upholding a lower court decision “that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections.” The basis of this decision was free speech (so for those paying attention, there were two free speech cases today), and the majority said the campaign finance law was unreasonably limiting speech and violating this group’s First Amendment rights. As Sund sees it, “[t]he holding today is that the First Amendment precludes Congress from regulating any ad unless the government can prove that ‘the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate,’” and Sund thinks this “takes the permissible regulation of campaign financing very close to back to what it was before the McCain-Feingold law.”
In another post, Sund says that this decisions is, as you may have already figured out from the above quick-discussion, “a major victory for those who oppose campaign finance regulation, and will likely lead to a new proliferation of corporate and union funded campaign ads in the 2008 election season.” Well that’s just bloody fantastic - I love me some corporate campaign ads! Meanwhile, also at SCOTUSblog, Marty Lederman sees the decision’s big impact as being the start of “a major sea-change with respect to corporate speech rights [rather] than a case upending the First Amendment’s general treatment of campaign finance regulation.”
And finally, Professor Bainbridge takes a Washington Post reporter to task for claiming that yesterday was a major win for Conservatives all around, saying that the “attempt to fit these cases into a pre-conceived left-right model is a few french fries short of a happy meal.”
Sipping on Gin and Juice (Laid Back)
We have another parenting tip for you today, folks. If you find yourself knocked up at the age of 15, with child at 16, and completely bored with your 10-month-old baby’s antics, there’s always booze to enliven the baby-sitting experience. No no — not for the mother. For the daughter, of course!
A 16-year-old Florida mommy and a few of her relatives were arrested after spiking her baby’s juice with a little gin … and videotaping the results. From The Smoking Gun:
Investigators said the baby took several sips from a cup containing gin and an unknown juice, while the mother videotaped her child and Bell and Moore laughed. In a probable cause affidavit, cops reported that the teenager and her relatives were passing the cup around “in an attempt to get the victim to walk to them.” The trio was arrested after the girl’s mother discovered the videotape of her grandson drinking booze “to the point of intoxication.”
Man alive. Maybe abstinence-only education is the answer.
It’s Always Funny Until Someone Gets - Wait. He’s Dead?
A few months ago, we posted a story about Larry Manzanares, a former Denver city attorney, judge, and Harvard law graduate, who was put on leave last February when a stolen computer was found at his home. The laptop in question actually belonged to a Denver court. At the time, before we had any more details about the case, we mocked the guy for claiming that he bought the computer off a guy in the parking lot a block away from the court house.
Well, after some more investigating, police discovered that, no, the computer was not purchased from a guy in a parking lot. As it turns out, according to The Legal Reader, Manzanares was using a work computer to look at porn. He took the computer home in order to clean up any traces of porn left on the computer before he was caught. That’s when he was nabbed with it. Manzanares was charged with three felonies: embezzlement, theft, and tampering with evidence. And his legal career was pretty much ruined.
But, the story goes from — “ha ha! What a dumbass” — to, “Jesus, that poor goddamn schmo,” really quickly. That’s because, over the weekend, Manzanares shot himself to death while walking under a bridge. He left a wife and kids behind.
And that’s really … well, it’s not funny.
Friends and family members are blaming an overzealous DA and the media for overly sensationalizing the story. “There is not a male over the age of puberty that has not - at some point or another - got into adult videos or that type of thing,” said a friend. And the friend (rightfully, I think) took the district attorney’s office to task for calling a press conference to announce the charges. “Calling a press conference was unnecessary. It was designed really to savage this man. At the end of the day, he’s a public figure who at best committed the transgression of taking an item to which he wasn’t entitled, with the value of $500 or $600.”
Damn.
The Daily Memo - 6/25/07
Dahlia Lithwick and Walter Dellinger have once again started their end-of-term “Breakfast Table” analysis of the Supremes, which includes a great “Constitutional Law for Non-Lawyers” explanation. (Slate)
Dawnell Leadbetter, who got the RIAA to drop its download case against her, is taking it to them now, by trying to get her attorneys fees paid for by the plaintiff record labels. (Recording Industry vs The People)
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer say that the state’s judges “should know better” than to bring a “frivolous lawsuit” seeking pay raises. (Law.com)
Last week, two Congressmen “announced legislation that would finally restore habeas corpus rights to U.S. detainees being imprisoned indefinitely without trial.” (Think Progress)
Ouch - the new book “Chambermaid” gets trashed as being “an abomination” and an awful book “both artistically and morally.” (PrawfsBlawg via Above the Law)
Mayor Al Kelley is the bestest mayor ever: “City hall is closed so everybody can have the opportunity to shop [at the new Wal-Mart’s grand opening].” (Montgomery Advertiser
“Hell’s Kitchen’s” Gordon Ramsay has been sued over a new show of his, “Kitchen Nightmares,” with allegations of wrongful termination, lies about rotten food and rigging the show with actors and staged setups. (TV Squad)
You gotta’ love the lawyer who spent $10,000 of his own money, on principle, to fight (and beat!) a $65 parking ticket. (WNBC)
BREAKING NEWS - The Supreme Court Hates the Baby Jesus
How else to explain their ruling against the “Bong Hit 4 Jesus” kid? I mean, wouldn’t you want the Baby Jesus to take bong hits if you liked him? A stoned Jesus is surely a happy Jesus, and even if he were to get a little paranoid, that’s probably a good thing - since his return means it’s the End of Times and all that.
So yeah, in one of today’s several Supreme Court rulings, the Supremes issued a 6-3 decision against Joseph Frederick (in the case of Morse v. Frederick). Justice Alito reiterated the fact that kids in school don’t have the same free speech rights as us grown-up folks (although they still have some). Here, the Court said it was reasonable for the school’s principal to decide that Frederick’s banner was basically promoting illegal drug use, and that this is a message which is inappropriate for school.
Justice Stevens, however, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg, does want Jesus to get high:
This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message.
Another shining example of why the general public hates lawyers
Lawrence M. Lebowitz is the marketing director for Cohen & Grigsby, a Pittsburgh law firm. He recently, with the help of some colleagues, explained to a group of folks how they can get around the Permanent Labor Certificate (PERM) program. PERM says that companies can legally hire foreign workers, and sponsor them for residency in the US (i.e., for their green cards), if the company can show that no US worker is capable of doing the job. As these scumbags teach, all you have to do is cheaply run shady false advertisements that will get you lousy applicants. Says Lebowitz:
[O]ur goal is clearly not to find a qualified and interested US worker. In a sense that sounds funny, but it’s what we’re trying to do here. … So certainly, we are not going to try to find the place where the applicants are going to be the most numerous. We’re going to try to find a place where, again, we’re complying with the law and hoping, and likely, not to find qualified and interested worker applicants.
He then advises companies that, when they get resumes, they should just find easy ways to “disqualify” the applicants.
We know about this because a video of the presentation made it onto YouTube, where it currently has over 80,000 views. And those viewers include some Congressman who are rightfully ticked off. Last week, “Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex) fired off a letter to Cohen & Grigsby demanding an explanation for its advice, as well as going so far as to ask for the names of its clients.” The Congressmen also said that they were looking forward to an explanation of how this was ethical and not fraudulent. Good luck with that one.
Here’s the despicable video, so you can watch for yourself:
Well that’s one way to make the 405 log jam a bearable commute
Just last week I mentioned, for the first time on this site (I think), “the Kevin and Bean show,” which is the morning show on LA’s KROQ. I love the hell out of that show, and even though I don’t live in LA anymore, I still listen to it almost every day thanks to the wonders of the internet. Anyway, during the call-in portion of their show on Friday morning, a gal called in with an appalling example of the law gone wrong. It’s also quite a funny bit, and worth the three minutes it’ll take you to listen to it. Give er’ a listen:
If you didn’t heed my advice to listen (or if the bandwidth has already been sucked up and you’ve been blocked from listening), I’ll give a quick recap – you can skip on to the next paragraph if you did listen. So Mary was in the car with her husband on LA’s heinous 405, and she decided to go down on him. He wound up in the carpool lane and got pulled over because the cop only saw one head in the car. They didn’t get a ticket for violating the carpool lane rules, but they did get a ticket for some type of sex offense (Mary didn’t mention what the specific crime was). In court, Mary was reamed out by the judge who then found her and her husband guilty. As a result, they both have to register on the sex offender registry, which also means that Mary will lose her job, as she works with kids.
Mary’s appealing this punishment which is certainly the right thing to do in this case, because that outcome is just preposterous. As Bean said on the show: “That is such an absurd overreaction. … That just flies in the face of what the intent is of the sexual offense registry.” No kidding. I mean, sure, I can understand a judge finding it to be in rather poor judgment (for possible bad outcomes of such an act, see, e.g. the infamous scene in Parenthood). But surely this isn’t the type of crime that any of us imagine would get you on the Kiddy Piddler List, right? Since I don’t know what crime she and her husband were convicted of, I don’t know what parameters the judge had in terms of sentencing. But if there was any discretion as to whether or not they should be put on the List, Mary and her hubby will surely win this appeal, because how can you not find that sentence to be an abuse of discretion?
I bet he wishes that he had come up with the nightmare that is Pauly Shore
A hearty welcome to Nota Bene, a newcomer legal blog focusing on appellate law and criminal litigation. I specifically welcome Nota to the blogosphere at this point in time because I actually didn’t see this story on any of the regular blogs I follow, and you know I can’t resist the opportunity to post a story about a lawsuit between two celebrities. The celebrities in this instance — and you can judge for yourself whether the word properly applies — would be Wes Craven (responsible, of course, for A Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream, among other things) and Pauly Shore (responsible, of course, for being a “weasel” and for being dead).
Turns out that Craven and Shore are neighbors. And according to the lawsuit filed by Craven last Wednesday, Shore has recently done some renovations and upgrades to his property, including to his house, pool and spa (how does he still have the money to afford a spa? It must be from his mother’s ownership of “The Comedy Store,” right?). Craven alleges that all this work caused a bit of a landslide last December, and that water is now seeping from Shore’s property onto Craven’s, screwing up his land’s stability and lowering his property value. So Wes is suing the Weasel for negligence and nuisance, seeking an unspecified amount in damages. He’s also asking for the rights necessary to make his next film, The Weasel, which is a terrifying account of the trials and tribulations of living next to a washed up comedian and actor who has turned into a zombie weasel.
The World Was a Better Place to Live — At Least for a Few Hours
We have great news to report as you are going into the weekend: The most popular (to the blogosphere’s nitwits) and most reviled (to those with a modicum of taste and decency) celebrity blog on the Internet, PerezHilton.com, was temporarily taken off line this week, after X-17 (one of the many paparazzi agencies suing him for copyright infringement) convinced his hosting provider to yank him.
The site was down for several hours on Tuesday, before returning in skeleton form on Wednesday (the archives are absent and comments are not enabled). In the last two weeks, X-17’s lawyers have sent several letters to the Australian hosting provider, Crucial Paradigm, demanding that they discontinue hosting the blog. Crucial told the company that represents Perez that if they received one more notice of copyright infringement, they would be forced to shut ‘er down. Apparently, they got that one more notice. So, to protect their own asses in the case of a lawsuit (Perez is being sued for $7.6 million), they pulled the plug.
On his website, Perez explained to his legions of tiny, tiny brained readers that he was experiencing “temporary technical difficulties and other roadblocks.”
Meanwhile, the more disconcerting piece of the saga, to me at least, is that Blogads.com has decided to host Perez’s site until he can find a suitable replacement. I like Blogads — they are responsible for the ads on the sidebar of this site, and more prominently, on our sister site, Pajiba. But I am concerned, not just because Blogads is enabling blatant copyright infringement, but because the ad service is putting themselves in legal danger. I understand why, I think — Perez brings in over $30,000/week in ad revenue, 30 percent of which goes to Blogads. But now that Blogads has a virtual monopoly on blogger sidebar ads and the income to prove it, I don’t see why they feel compelled to needlessly endanger themselves or further associate their respectable ad service with the likes of Perez for a mere $9,000 a week, which has gotta be a drop in the bucket for those guys by now. So, what’s the deal, Blogads? Was this move made completely for monetary reasons, or are you under the misguided impression (as is Perez) that you are defending the First Amendment and Fair Use laws? Because, you’re really not. A couple of photoshopped coke boogers and scribbled monosyllables does not convert a copyrighted work into a fair use.
(Hat Tip: Evil Beet, for bringing this bit of news to my attention.)
The Daily Memo - 6/22/07
Wil Wheaton rightfully calls the prohibition on internet gambling “stupid and intrusive.” (WWdN: In Exile)
Congress wants to regulate the robots! (Engadget)
Dick Cheney’s office is trying to claim that there are instances when the VP’s office shouldn’t be considered an “entity within the executive branch” - I love this administration more and more with every passing day. (the raw story)
Several of the bigger internet radio stations have planned a “day of silence” for June 26, in protest of the looming hike in royalty rates. (Download Squad)
An Ohio man has filed a lawsuit claiming that red-light cameras are part of an unconstitutional scheme to extort money, and he’d like $3 million, thank you very much. And who’s guilty of extortion here? (Engadget)
“A classic Kozinski benchslap.” (Above the Law)
A Florida teen has sued a Mickey-D’s franchise owner over the sexual relationship she had with her boss. (Law.com)
Athletic associations, sentencing guidelines and shareholder lawsuits, oh my!
For the time being, at least, we’ve had to abandon our Supreme Court Updates - life and our real day jobs are just sucking up too much time for me and Dustin. But here are some links relating to yesterday’s three Supreme Court decisions for those who care about such things.
It ain’t often that you see an article on ESPN’s website about the Supremes, but that’s what happens when the Court rules that “athletic associations can enforce limits on recruiting high school athletes without violating coaches’ free speech rights” (that case was Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy).
Meanwhile the Court also ruled (in Rita v. U.S.) “that a federal criminal sentence within the Guidelines may be presumed to be reasonable when the case is on appeal,” although that presumption is not binding (i.e., it’s rebuttable). Some think this decision “has something for everyone except” for the criminal defendant, and that it’s going to create more confusion, rather than help settle post-Booker sentencing issues. Actually, others also think this is no good for the criminals , noting that this ruling will make “it harder … for most defendants to challenge their federal prison sentences.”
Finally, the Court looked at securities law (in Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues and Rights) and suits filed by investors. The Court held that, in order for a plaintiff to be entitled to a “strong” inference that the defendants acted with a wrongful intent, the underlying inference can’t just be “plausible or reasonable,” but must be “cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference” which would suggested that there wasn’t an intent to defraud investors. This is a blow to investors wanting to bring such lawsuits claiming fraudulent business practices, because it makes it harder for the plaintiff’s lawsuit to survive the early stages of litigation. Exciting, ain’t it? Well, the WSJ Law Blog points out some of the “exciting” battle between the Scalia and Stevens over statutory interpretation. In fact, Scalia got downright snarky, citing jade falcons. ….What? That’s not exciting either. Y’all are a difficult bunch to please.
You people just aren’t paying attention
Back in April, we presented Common Sense Lesson #139, which was very simple and very clear: “don’t show up to your DUI hearing drunk.” Well it seems that Adam T. Lundgren, a 42-year-old Montana man either (a) is simply a raging drunk (for shame!) or (b) doesn’t read QuizLaw (for shame!).
Last Monday, at about 5:30 p.m., Lundgren was busted for a DUI. The cops released him post-arrest to the custody of a sober friend, but Lundgren wound up coming back into town, drinking some more, and running into a bridge railing a mere four-and-a-half hours later. The double-drunk was captured by witnesses until the cops rolled up to re-arrest him.
And then the kicker - he posted bail late that night, only to show up to his arraignment the next afternoon, drunk again. Third times the charm! Needless to say, this earned him a quick trip right back to the county pokey, where one assumes he tried to figure out how to ferment the jail toilet water so he could keep his buzz going.
“Lawyers F up everything”
Yesterday morning, on the “Kevin & Bean Show” on LA’s KROQ, the titular Kevin and Bean went on a bit of a tear against their radio station’s lawyers. What’s all the hub-bub?
Well there’s this song getting a lot of play right now called “Hey There Delilah” by the Plain White T’s (you can catch the video at the end of this entry). So recently, the Kevin and Bean crew did a parody of the song called “Hey There Vagina.” I thought it was pretty damn hilarious in its crude misogyny, and apparently it was quite a hit with the general KROQ audience (not just the morning Kevin & Bean fans), as the song became the station’s most requested track earlier this week.
But then, all of a sudden, the station stopped playing the tune and it vanished from the KROQ website. Wha’ happened?
Well, as Kevin explained on yesterdays show, “lawyers, when they get involved, screw everything up.” Amen, Kevin. Amen.
In this instance, it seems that the radio station’s lawyers are deathly afraid of the Big Bad Wolf that is the FCC and its infuriatingly vague obscenity rules. So they simply decided, on their own, to make a preemptive strike and tell the station’s management that the song is “obviously obscene” and shouldn’t be touched anymore.
Asked Bean: “Who’s offended by vaginas? …Except maybe for Seacrest?”
Well apparently the KROQ lawyers are offended by vaginas. In fact, when Kevin and Bean said “we’ll bleep out any word that you find offensive,” the lawyers responded by saying “no sir, that won’t cut it - play no version of the song whatsoever.”
It’s utterly despicable when you live in fear, which is all this really is. The lawyers and station management fear the FCC, and fear a challenge which they would assuredly win, so they preemptively back down.
Of course, you want to hear this song, right? Well, here’s “Hey There Vagina:”
Now, as I say, I find this f’ing hilarious. But I could see folks finding it unfunny. I could even see folks finding it offensive. But “offensive” does not equal “obscene.”
In any event, the guy who recorded the track (Psycho Mike) went back into the studio to do the “most innocuous version of the song I could think of.” So here’s the new version, “Hey There How Are Ya:”
Hmmm … I think Psycho Mike might’ve slipped up a little there at the end.
(If the streaming mp3s aren’t working for some reason, you should be able to snag them over at Free To Be LA.)
What a Loser
You’d expect to see the following lawsuit funnel through the U.S. court system, but Amsterdam? The Netherlands? They’re so reasonable and hi-iiigh minded. Still, a Dutch woman has filed one of the most absurd lawsuits I’ve ever heard about. She sued her country, arguing that she suffered emotional distress over having not won the lottery.
And if you think that’s bizarre, get this: She didn’t even enter. Her neighbors did.
Like everything else in that heathenistic country, the national lottery is screwy, too. Apparently, it works like this: Random zip codes are chosen, and anyone within the zip code who entered the lottery shares the winnings. In this case, the woman who sued, Helene de Gier, lived in a very small town where only seven inhabitants entered the lottery. When their zip code was chosen, those seven neighbors won about $18.6 million apiece.
De Gier filed suit, claiming that the media firestorm that erupted in her small town was an invasion of her privacy (can you imagine the questions? “So, Mrs. de Gier — I bet you feel like a giant jackass, eh?”), and apparently her neighbors even taunted her, including one who had the audacity to buy a Porsche with his winnings and ostentatiously park it in front of his house (gasp!).
My favorite part, however, is that de Gier says that the real distress comes whenever she has to write her zip code, which serves as a huge reminder of what a huge honkin’ loser she is. The thought of the next lottery, she said, was “like a noose around my neck being tightened.”
Anyway, a district court judge rejected the claim. Because he’s not insane.
Oh Mis-ter Wil-sonnnnnn…
Look folks, the next time you want to send your kids outside to play, fine. Before you do, just please do everyone in Long Island a favor: Rip out their tongues so they don’t run afoul of Bayville, NY’s noise code (which is designed to curb “the shouting and crying of peddlers, hawkers and vendors which disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighborhood”).
A Bayville couple could face jail time because angry neighbors claim their daughters play too loudly in their backyard.William and Rachel Poczatek must enter a plea in village court today after their neighbors complained to the village that the Poczateks’ two daughters, aged 5 and 11, were making too much noise around the family’s pool.
You hear that, you little gremlins? We’re talkin’ to you. And don’t let me catch you messing up my rose bushes! I’ll be damned if that blasted Mrs. Jenkins takes first place again! Mildred! Fetch my slippers, I’m gonna get the hose and show these little miscreants what for!
The Daily Memo - 6/21/07
A Nebraska judge has made a rather poorly thought-out decision to ban the word “rape” from his courtroom. (Slate)
Lawrence Lessig has decided to move his legal battles away from copyright and the public domain, instead going after corruption. (Lessig Blog)
Ahahahahah - Tom Sizemore broke down in tears, pleading for a judge not to toss him in the clink. (Zap2It)
Holy schnikies - several people are likely to be charged after a Texas crowed attacked and killed the passenger in a car that hit a child (who suffered non-life threatening injuries). (Breitbart.com)
Two farmers have filed a lawsuit against the DEA so that they can grow industrial hemp. (KOMO-TV)
QuizLaw story update - the horrible mother who contractually bribed her daughter to schtupp her boyfriend has been sentenced to a minimum of 12 years in the clink. (ABC News)
Bush unsurprisingly vetoed the stem cell bill that made its way to his desk. (MSNBC)
The important question here is, why an outlet parking lot? He’s a lawyer - surely he can afford the good malls.
“A prominent Hunterdon County lawyer who has served as counsel to New Jersey state government allegedly masturbated Friday outside of a minivan in a shopping outlet parking lot.”
The lawyer allegedly committed this act while facing a witness’ vehicle. The article does not say whether the lawyer will try to argue that he was simply leaving a unique “need a lawyer?” message.
We may have to update our TV parody image of the Scalia
You have to love The Scalia, you just have to. He was recently up in Canada, ay, participating in a panel on torture and terrorism. One of the Canadian judge’s on the panel (Justice Richard Mosley) made a remark which fired up The Scalia. Said the Canuck Judge: “Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ‘What would Jack Bauer do?’ “
Well being a “24” fan, there’s just no way The Scalia is going to take such silliness in stride. No sir - he’ll defend Agent Bauer to the bitter end because “Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. … He saved hundreds of thousands of lives.” And most importantly, says Scalia, Bauer’s strong-arm interrogation techniques have proven highly effective on the show:
Are you going to convict Jack Bauer? … Say that criminal law is against him? ‘Youhave the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don’t think so.
So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we belive in these absolutes?
The panel went on to debate such interrogation tactics, and Justice Mosley got The Scalia fired up again when he said that any government which respects human rights can’t get its hands dirty with torture: “The agents of the state, and the agents of the Canadian state, under the Criminal Code, are very much subject to severe criminal sanction if they would engage in torture.” But the Scalia said it was poppy-cock to make agents play softball.
The excellent article from the Canadian Globe and Mail detailing this story then ends by providing us with this helpful “Gospel according to Jack:”
“Tell me where the bomb is or I will kill your son.”“I don’t want to bypass the Constitution, but these are extraordinary circumstances.”
“I need to use every advantage I’ve got.”
“If we want to procure any information from this suspect, we’re going to have to do it behind closed doors.”
“I’m talking about doing what’s necessary to stop this warhead from being used against us.”
“When I’m finished with you, you’re gonna wish that you felt this good again.”
“You don’t have any more useful information, do you?”
Blogosphere Bottom Feeders
God’s honest: I hate TMZ.com. In fact, I hate nearly all websites backed by millions of dollars of corporate money that insist on calling themselves “blogs.” It’s bullshit — it smacks of the Pulp’s “Common People.” You can’t live like “common people” when you’re shitting hundred dollar bills. Call yourself a goddamn website — don’t sully the last shred of respectability the term “blog” has with your salaried staff and an endless budget to spend on “scoops” and paparazzi photos. If you were a real blog, you’d steal the paparazzi photos, take credit for other organization’s “scoops,” and post in your underwear while drinking twice-filtered coffee and scratching your testicles.
Whatever. I mention TMZ.com because they’ve somehow found a way to lower themselves even further into the muck of tabloid amorality by getting their hands on the O.J. Simpson “imaginary confession” book that Harper Collins killed earlier this year after it was inundated by public backlash (it also led to super-twat Judith Regan’s ouster). And, of course, TMZ being what TMZ is (page view whores), they put it online in PDF format.
The problem? Well, as it turns out, the family of Ron Goldman (who was murdered along with Nicole Simpson Brown) potentially owns the copyright to If I Did It? (question mark theirs, not mine). A federal judge has allowed the heirs of Ron Goldman to go after the copyright because it’s part of O.J.’s bankruptcy estate (which he tried to shield) and TMZ, by posting the book online, potentially diminished the value of the copyright. To be fair, the Goldmans are kind of scummy too — they purportedly want to publish the book themselves and market it as a real O.J. Simpson confession, because it’s apparently fun to profit off the dead.
At any rate, TMZ.com — which likely got the book from a file sharing service — claims that it did nothing wrong. A court-appointed bankruptcy judge disagrees and wants to hold the website in contempt. But, really, how much more contemptible can you be? TMZ has kind of bottomed out in that regard.
God Save the Myspace Generation
This, folks, is just how pathetically central the role of Myspace is in the lives of teenagers these days. Out in Indiana, a severely messed up 15-year-old kid had an argument with his Ma. When police arrived to check out the disturbance, Tyler Dumstorf opened fire, ultimately killing one cop and seriously injuring another (damn).
Of course, shooting and killing a police officer (R.I.P. Frank Denzinger) didn’t stop Dumstorf from posting on his Myspace page. After the shooting, Tyler ran back inside his house, and left a message stating, “I just killed two cops. Goodbye.” Tyler then shot and killed himself.
According to his Myspace page, Tyler was a fan of classic rock, so I suppose there will be an inevitable lawsuit blaming Lynyrd Skynyrd for the shooting.
It’s also kind of weird that Tyler’s “Myspace friends” are still posting messages to him — er … he can’t hear you, folks. He’s taken the Stairway to Heav … Hell.
No, Sir, You May Kindly Go F Yourself
I used to argue against the occasional unemployment benefits claim as part of my old job, so let me see if I can remember the relevant standard: As I recall, you are entitled to benefits if you are laid off or fired, unless you were fired for misconduct.
It’s that “fired for misconduct” element that applies to the case of Douglas Williams, an employee at a Minnesota car wash. Apparently, what had happened was this: Williams was washing cars, minding his own business, when the sales manager requested that he go clean up the cigarette butts in the parking lot.
Williams, who had the flu that unusually busy day, responded in the manner that many of us might when asked to clean up cigarette butts. He said he was busy and told the sales manager that he should kindly “go fuck himself.”
He was fired for insubordination. And, given the standard, his unemployment claim would seem an open and shut case. Telling one’s boss to “go fuck himself” certainly seems to fit within the definition of misconduct. But the Minnesota Court of Appeals disagreed, granting benefits. The court stated that Williams should “not [be] disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his conduct was a single incident that did not have a significant adverse impact on the employer.”
You hear that, folks? As long as it doesn’t have a “significant adverse impact on the employer,” in Minnesota at least, you all have one freebie. So, in honor of Doug Williams, we officially pronounce that today is QuizLaw’s Fuck Your Boss Day. Do yourself a solid, and when your bossman or bosswoman asks you to do something you don’t want to do, tell them to “go fuck themselves.”
You’ll feel better. And if you get fired, rest easy knowing that unemployment benefits will not be deprived.* Besides, you can hardly hold it against Williams – he was just following the moral standard that our vice-president established not so long ago.
* This should not, in any way, be construed as legal advice. Please refer to our disclaimer.
The Daily Memo - 6/20/07
Two guys tried to avoid drug charges by using an in-car rocket to launch away the evidence of their two pounds of meth. Sadly, the rocket was an apparent dud. (Gizmodo)
Sigh … Shar Jackson is planning to sue Star Magazine because it claimed that K-Fed knocked her up again. Were I her, I’d sue her judgment for letting K-Fed stick it in her again.(The Superficial)
Seems that Paris Hilton’s prosecutor suffers from a touch of the heeby-hypocrisies. (CNN)
Overlawyered is seriously trying to argue that the $67 $54 million pants lawsuit isn’t frivolous? That’s just crazy talk. (Overlawyered)
If you’re gonna’ get arrested for stealing your girlfriend’s car anyway, why not also huck a brick at her? (TBO.com)
Four students are suing ITT Technical Institute after learning that the University of Houston won’t accept their technical school credits. (Houston Chronicle)
An LA judge has refused to approve the $49 million Bar/Bri settlement. (WSJ Law Blog)
Common Sense Lesson #148
That charmer to the right is Richard Glawson. Last month, he was on trial for a bunch of charges relating to a weeklong crime spree he apparently decided to partake in back in 2001. Well he was convicted of those charges, and now he’s got brand-spanking new charges to deal with. Some of those charges stem from something he allegedly said to the jury during that last trial.
That something?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’ll kill all of you if you find me guilty of any one charge, and that goes for your family, too.
He’s also facing charges for punching a juror from another trial of his, and for beating on a court officer.
I mean, seriously folks. When you’re facing criminal charges, treat your juries (and court officers) well. Don’t punch them. Don’t beat on them. And definitely don’t threaten them in open court. It’s just not going to work out in your favor.
|