4038 Stuff

Sunday, May 17, 2015

The baby bird in the bathroom is getting feistier.  He sits and opens up if he's hungry, but if he's full he runs away and hides.  That's good, I guess.

If your feelings about modern art are anything like mine, you'll like the following video.  Seems like today, art is not about craft, or talent, or uplifting beauty, or leading us to see more than a simple picture, it's all about marketing.  About convincing people that this "creation" is art.  Usta be art was obvious, something extraordinary, something I couldn't do.  Well, I don't have the words.  This guy does:


[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc]

Would you like to commit a murder and get away with it?  Even if there are witnesses?  Even if you confess?  See http://nowiknow.com/the-perfect-crime-scene/.  That article is very short, and has all the info you need, but it contains a link to an analysis by a law scholar that's quite a bit longer, but well worth reading if you happen to be, like me, a law wonk.

And now a list of my latest peeves:

• It's not free reign.  It's free rein.  Like a horse that's allowed to go where it wants.
• It's a necklace, not a neckless.  Sheesh!  I'm seeing this one more and more lately.
• It's a mock turtleneck, not a mock neck.
• To obey the rules is to toe the line, not to tow the line, unless you happen to be a mule on a canal towpath.
• Wander and wonder are different words.  Even my SIL Hercules screws this one up.
• You don't wreck havoc; you wreak havoc.
• Massive means having great mass.  It is NOT a synonym for huge.  A rock can be massive.  A large balloon is probably not.  And a spat is definitely not massive, no matter how angry anyone got.

It's Mensa election time, and I'm getting emails with candidate campaign statements.  A lot of people have been unhappy with the direction Mensa has been taking, so many of the candidates are promising to change things.  One woman's proposals sounded really good to me, I was ready for go out and campaign for her, and then she screwed it up royally, turned me off completely.  She started a paragraph at the end with the sentence, "If you have a complaint with no potential solution, then stop."  She doesn't mean that if there is no solution, then shut up.  The remaining paragraph made it clear that if you see a problem, don't bother bringing it to her attention unless you already know how, and have the means to know how, to fix it.  Provide a solution, or don't mention it at all.

I HATE that attitude.  Ran into it several times with managers in IBM. 

Sometimes you are in a position to see that a certain course of action is guaranteed to run into disaster, but you are not in a position to do anything about it.  You can see the danger, but you don't have all the pieces to figure it out what to do about it. The solution requires that several disciplines work together to figure it out.  Like engineering, financial, and legal, who each have their own view of the situation, their own goals.  No, you are not allowed to raise a red flag with someone who can take it up the line, pull multiple divisions together.  Nope.  If you can't tell them what to do to fix it, then you are supposed to just sit there and watch the train run off the tracks.  In parts of IBM, bringing up a problem without also supplying the complete ideal solution is known as "Eek-a-mouse".

I really really hate that.

I especially hated it when in the end, the train ran off the tracks, as predicted.
.

3647 Protect your rights

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Countering someone's negativity with your positivity doesn't work

because it's argumentative.

People don't like to be emotionally contradicted and if you try

to convince them that they shouldn't feel something,

they'll only feel it more stubbornly.

--  Peter Bregman --

-----------------------------------------------------------

Well, about a week ago I saw the first neighborhood house and yard decorated for Christmas, multicolored lights strung up all over everything.  I guess I can understand why they'd want to do it now, rather than wait for freezing temperatures and snow, but the distaste and sinking feeling I had upon seeing them surprised me.

I hate hate hate those gaudy displays. It ruins the whole Christmas thing for me.

--------------------------------

I've got a bunch of eBooks on my Kindle and a few more on the Nook.  I'll bet lots of people have huge music collections on iPods or whatever.  Did you know that if you die, you may not be able to leave those collections, unlike vinyl, CDs, DVDs, and real paper books, to your heirs?

You paid a small fortune for those collections, and it all goes poof when you are no longer around.

It appears that you don't legally own the bits and bytes you paid for.  Your account purchased the right to read, watch, or listen to them.  When you die, your account is terminated, and that terminates any right to the materials.  Story at http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-08-23/finance/33336852_1_digital-content-digital-files-apple-and-amazon.

----------------------------------

Something else to watch out for if you have a PayPal or an eBay account.  The user agreement says that if you have an argument with the companies, you abdicate all rights to sue them and can't join a class action suit.  You have to go to binding arbitration.

Now this is bad.

• That leaves you out in the cold paying your own legal bills, going up against a corporation with an in-house legal department.
• They might do the same nasty thing to hundreds of thousands of people, but very few will take it to arbitration.
• This means that even if they lose every single one of those arbitration rulings (and arbitration rarely goes against the corporation, since the arbiters are not required to rule according to laws), it costs them relatively little, and therefore there's no incentive to change their practices.

Corporations LOVE arbitration!

Yeah, class action suits enrich the lawyers and rarely result in any real money for the damaged parties, and that's why people hate class action attorneys, BUT they DO make the offending companies change their practices.  It hurts them financially, but even more from bad publicity.  You can't do that all by yourself, and definitely not in arbitration.

Oddly enough, PayPal and eBay will allow you to opt out of that clause, but you must meet the deadline to do it.  You have to write each of them a letter in a particular format, to be received by early November for eBay, and the end of November for PayPal (exact dates are at the link).

Go to http://consumerist.com/2012/10/15/here-is-a-downloadable-template-for-opting-out-of-paypal-arbitration-clause/ for details.

Pass this around.

--------------------------------

Now, I'm a little confused, because when I took a class in commercial law about 16 years ago, it was pointed out to us that you cannot be forced to give up the right to sue.  Even if you sign a contract that specifies arbitration, you still have the absolute and irrevocable right to request redress from the courts.

Did something change?
.

3564 Bits

Friday, July 6, 2012

If you don't know, it doesn't hurt to ask. It does hurt if you don't.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Supreme Court recently ruled that life sentences (which some states mandate for certain crimes) for young offenders (below 18, I believe) is unconstitutional, being "cruel and unusual punishment", on the theory that someone that young is heavily externally influenced.  They may have had rotten upbringing, terrible adult models, a life of hopelessness, bad peer pressure which they are too young to resist, and so on, which must be taken into consideration.

Yeah, ok, I can see where they're going with it.  And yes, a lot of kids who did heinous things can still grow up into responsible adults with the right positive influence.

However, the ruling scares me because some of those kids are unredeemable.  They're already broken well past any chance of repair.  The thought of their being turned loose scares me.

I'm thinking of kids like those two in their early teens who kidnapped a toddler from a mall in England, and tortured him in multiple creative ways before finally killing him.

Who could torture a toddler?  There's something more wrong with those kids than just bad influences.

I do hope that all the Court shot down was state mandates, not judges' discretion. 

---------------------------------

Similar topic, some guy (18 when he committed the crimes, so the above doesn't apply) has been sentenced to an aggregate 130 (or maybe 135?) years after being found guilty of a series (7, I think) of armed robberies.  His buddies in crime took the plea-bargain and testified against him.  They each got much shorter sentences.

The guy thinks it's very unfair, because, after all, "it's his first offense!" Even his idiot lawyer is saying that.

Uh, no, you committed at least seven armed robberies (who knows how many more), discharging the gun at least twice, and were found guilty of all of them.  I figure that's at least seven offenses.

It's just the first time you got caught.

---------------------------------

 I don't know if everyone sees the same thing when they watch videos on YouTube.  On my screen, I see a column of videos on the right that seem to be related to the one I'm watching - same topic, same creator, same keywords, whatever.  The top video in that list is a "paid distribution" video.  Someone paid a bunch of money to get prime position on the recommended list.  It's not related in any way to the one I'm watching.

For the past very long time, it's been Mormon videos.

Someone is paying a truckload of money to get me (us?) comfortable with Mormons.

I wonder why.

---------------------------------

Well, it's summer, and we're getting news stories about kids and hikers lost in the woods/desert/mountains.   Some kids have been lost for days, with hundreds of searchers looking for them.

(An interesting aside - a little girl had wandered away from her family's campsite.  Hordes of searchers, all male.  Two women wanted to join the search, but were told no, that they wanted only trained search parties familiar with the terrain, so the women simply set out on their own.  The child was found by the women.


Why?  Because the child had heard the men calling her name, but hid when she heard them because she had been taught to be afraid of strange men.  She was afraid of being abducted.  She responded to the women.


Story from the "Free Range Kids" website.)

Here's what I don't understand.  Howcome they don't use tracking dogs?  Tracking dogs are used to locate criminals all the time.  Seems like finding a kid in the woods should be a snap.  Just start from the kid's bed or wherever they were last seen, and go.  But you almost never hear of that.

Yeah, ok, there aren't a lot of dogs trained for it (although almost any dog can do it once they know what you want so I don't know why there aren't a lot), so one would have to be flown/helicoptered in.  But hey, a lost kid! 

Here's a story of how a dog can follow a trail for miles in intense heat, picking out the one trail from hundreds of overlapping trails, with the least sniff of the target scent.  Amazing.

If my Nugget ever gets lost, I want a dog on the case!
.

3514 Probable Cause

April 12, 2012

There are two kinds of people: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data,

------------------------------------------------

The probable cause document filed charging George Zimmerman has been released, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/89120165/Zimmerman-Probable-Cause-Document-2.

A profile of the judge who drew the case is at http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/04/12/meet-the-judge-who-drew-george-zimmermans-case/?mod=WSJBlog.
.

3508 Zimmerman Charged!

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

It is better to be wanted by the police than not wanted at all.

-----------------------------------------------

Just watched the announcement on TV. Second degree murder! Wow! I was expecting an accidental manslaughter determination. The prosecutor didn't mention secondary charges, which means if a jury won't go for 2nd degree, he'll get off. Hmmmm.

(Again, the completely random green quote at the top looks non-random.)
.

3433 Lawsuits

Friday, December 30, 2011

Thinking is a skill, not an innate ability.
-- Northrop Frye --

----------------------------------------------------------------

Most Ridiculous Lawsuit of 2011 Announced!

[From http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2011/12/most-ridiculous-lawsuit-of-2011-announced/]

"The U.S. has been the undisputed lawsuit capital of the world for some time. And while the courts play a central role in resolving disputes and maintaining a civil society, that function isn’t easy when they are packed with frivolous suits.

Ridiculous lawsuits clog up our legal system’s dwindling resources, taking time away from legitimate grievances to devote to the vindictive, the hypocritical, the irresponsible, and the outright absurd.

With that in mind, FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org has compiled some of the most egregious examples of frivolous and abusive litigation from around the country and asked you to tell us which ones were the most ridiculous. These suits range from the comical and absurd to the disturbing, but they all underscore a real problem – lawsuits hurt businesses, families, and everyday Americans through lost time, money and job growth.

So which lawsuits are the doozies this past year? First, here’s the lawsuit that you thought was the most ridiculous:

• Convict sues couple he kidnapped for not helping him evade police. A man who kidnapped a couple at knifepoint while he was running from the police is now suing the victims, claiming that they promised to hide him in exchange for an unspecified amount of money. The plaintiff, currently in jail, is seeking $235,000 for the alleged “breach of contract.”

And here’s the rest of the top ten as determined by you who voted at FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org:

• Man suing for age discrimination says judge in his case is too old. A 60-year-old musician who is suing for age discrimination wants the judge removed from the case – because he’s too old. Ironically, the plaintiff says his fight against age-based discrimination is too important to leave in the hands of the 88-year-old judge.
• Young adults sue mother for sending cards without gifts and playing favorites. The plaintiffs, now 20 and 23, claimed the mother “sometimes didn’t include gifts in cards sent to her children; played favorites with her children . . . did not send care packages until his sixth semester away at college . . . changed her surname, thus ‘causing attention’ at her daughter’s school events; and refused to buy her a homecoming dress.”
• Obese man sues burger joint over tight squeeze in booths. A nearly-300 pound man is suing White Castle restaurants, saying that their booths are too tight to accommodate someone of his size. In fact, he’s so distraught by the booths that he hasn’t been to White Castle in months (instead, he sends his wife to pick up his burgers so he can eat them at home).
• Woman sues over movie trailer; says not enough driving in ‘Drive’. A Michigan woman who claims she was misled by the trailers for the movie ‘Drive’ is suing the distributors of the film. She says she was disappointed by the lack of driving in the film and was expecting something more similar to the ‘Fast and Furious’ films.
• Mom files suit against exclusive preschool over child’s college prospects. A New Yorker is suing a private preschool, saying the school’s curriculum has seriously hurt her 4-year-old’s chances of getting into an Ivy League college.
• Man sues bar for not disarming him before he started drinking (and fighting). A Pennsylvania man illegally brought a gun into a bar, then got injured in a drunken shootout with another patron, and now has sued the bar for not searching him for a weapon on his way in.
• Passenger’s lawsuit says cruise ship was too fast. An Indiana woman is suing Carnival Cruise Line, claiming she got sick because the boat was going too fast and was swaying from side to side.
• Woman disagrees with store over 80¢ refund, sues for $5m. A New York woman decided to make a $5 million federal case out of a disagreement over 80¢. Her suit says she used a $5-off coupon when she purchased a bevy of items for over $100. When she returned one of the items, the store pro-rated the refund to account for the discount.
• Mother sues Chuck E. Cheese – says games encourage gambling in children. A California woman has filed a lawsuit against Chuck E. Cheese on the grounds that their games are actually an illegal form of gambling and could get kids hooked. She is seeking at least $5 million; the restaurant says the games are legal and has asked a judge to dismiss the suit.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to vote. And while we can’t predict everything 2012 has in store, it’s a good bet there’ll be more ridiculous lawsuits. So remember to visit FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org monthly to vote for your favorite ridiculous lawsuits."

----------------------------

On the other hand, some of the US Supreme Court's decisions this past year in favor of corporations will make it almost impossible to sue them when they screw you. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbobelian/2011/12/28/the-top-three-cases-that-impacted-corporate-america-in-2011/.

In perhaps my oversimplification, the AT&T decision says that if a corporation puts that hateful but standard arbitration clause in your contract, you can't join a class action suit against them. That doesn't mean you can't sue them, you don't give up that right, but it does mean you have to sue them individually. Now consider going up against a gazillion-dollar corporation's legal department all by yourself. (Worse, and not mentioned in this article, there's a movement afoot to rule that the loser in a civil case pays BOTH parties' legal fees, in an effort to stop frivolous lawsuits- see above.)

The Wal-Mart ruling bothers me because in essence, it says that if a corporation allows individual managers to discriminate, then the individual managers can be sued by the individual complainants, but the corporation cannot be sued by a class of victims just because they don't have a corporate policy against such discrimination.

This is looking like corporations can pretty much do anything they damn well please, free from the threat of anyone suing them.

Now, I'm not a fan of class action suits. Too many law firms go out hunting for people to join a suit they, the lawyers, thought up, then they settle for a gazillion, and each of the citizen parties to the suit get a pittance. That's not right. But if a bunch of people have been harmed, class action suits have an important purpose. If nothing else, it's bad publicity and a threat of punishment.

Now, there's not even that. Welcome to USA, Inc.
.

3302 If I lose at the casino, can I sue?

Friday, July 8, 2011

On "image": It may not get the job done, but it makes it possible to get the job done.
-- Paul Levine, Night Vision --

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meetup crazies have started. Just had a guy drop out of the dinner group. He said he didn't realize it was a singles group and suggests that I put "singles" in the description. His reason for coming to that conclusion? He noticed that all the other people who had joined were single.

Sigh.

--------------------------------

I don't care what you think of the Casey Anthony thing. The fact remains that the prosecution was unable to prove any kind of murder charges to the jury. Period. That means over, done, finis on those counts.

At least I thought that's what it was supposed to mean.

Florida, however, has decided to sue Anthony for the cost of the investigation and trial.

Huh?

Don't let your opinion of her guilt or innocence sway you while thinking about what that means. Instead, think about a truly honestly innocent person whom the police have decided to go after, and the prosecutor's office has decided to convict on circumstantial evidence.

Pretend it's you, and an entirely different case. Let's say you and your significant other had an argument and then he/she went missing. You thought he/she had left you, and being hurt and depressed, you said and did some stupid things, and then even started dating again. Then some weeks later he/she is found dead, shot by your gun, which you assume he/she must have taken with him/her and you had never noticed it was missing. The only prints on the gun are yours, and the death happened weeks before and you have no idea what you were doing at the time. We have cause, opportunity, prints, and no alibi. Also no guilt. You really didn't do it - but the state decides to prosecute. You spend two years in jail waiting for trial.

Your attorney manages to get you off on reasonable doubt (the "some other dude dooed it" defense), but the state is so pissed that they lost, so sure that they were right, so angry that they were "cheated", they sue you for the costs of the investigation and trial. Of course, having been in jail for the past two years, you have no money and no savings.

So, is this right and fair? THEY decided to investigate, they decided to prosecute, they bought the ticket and placed their bets, and they lost.

I think the only time it should be ok for the state to recoup investigation/prosecution costs is from someone who reports a crime that simply didn't happen. Like people who claim to have been kidnapped, or like the Tawana Brawley thing (that stands out for me because I was living there at the time). And even then, the state should be required to prove that the claims were bogus, not just be pissed.
.

3258 Unfair

Friday, May 20, 2011

"An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it."
-- Jef Mallett --

----------------------------------------------------

If someone wrecks, totals, your car, civil court will award you the "Blue Book" value of the car. However, the value awarded is not what it would cost you to replace the car - the dealer value - which in the book includes the "costs of business". You get the private party sale value, which is significantly less.

So, if the guy wrecks your car, he has to give you $13,000, and then you have to go shopping, dealing, and pay a used car dealer $18,000 for the exact same car.

That doesn't seem fair.

I think the bad guy should be required to do the shopping, the dealing, and present you with a paid-for replacement car, which meets your mechanic's approval.
.

3251 Free clothes, unfettered police, and a semi-HOTW

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Life isn’t about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.
-- George Bernard Shaw --

-----------------------------------------------------------

A few weeks ago I mentioned how I had used a sale, a preferred customer discount, and earned coupons to get a jacket, sweater, jeans, and slacks, over $200 retail, from my favorite online boutique for just $9, the shipping cost.

Today I got an envelope in the mail. They have promoted me to "Elite customer". I still get the purchase points toward coupons and all the other goodies, but now I also get an automatic additional 5% off all purchases (no minimum, applies to the outlet, too, and can be used with other discounts and coupons), and free shipping on all purchases.

That last "purchase" would have been not only free, but they'd have owed me money!

Really, people. I buy only from the outlet and never pay more than 20% of their original retail price. I have a Visa card through them, and I get points toward coupons no matter what I use that card for. Pretty soon, they'll be just sending me free clothes.

--------------------------------

This is weird. At least three states, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Oregon, have passed eavesdropping laws that make it a crime to audio-record a conversation without the consent of all parties involved. You can go to jail for doing it.

As a contrast, in New York and a few other states, for example, only one party to the recording has to be aware, which means you can record an interaction you are having with someone, but you cannot tape/film/record something happening between other unaware people. The big difference, however, is that although the "illegal" recording cannot be used in court, you won't go to jail for doing it.

Here's what it means (from the Switched story at the link): "In Chicago, the law is drawing significant attention because, there, recording interactions with law enforcement officials constitutes a class one felony that can carry a sentence of up to 15 years in jail, even if the conversation happens in public. The New York Times has reported on two cases that are due to go before a judge this spring, and could result in serious jail time." (Recording someone other than law enforcement officials is a lesser felony and can get you no more than five years. They're serious about protecting police, prosecutors, and so on.)

The ACLU has brought federal suits challenging the law, but the suits have been dismissed by Illinois judges.

From the NY Times article, "Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his organization “absolutely supports” the eavesdropping act as is and was relieved that the challenge had failed. Mr. Donahue added that allowing the audio recording of police officers while performing their duty “can affect how an officer does his job on the street.”"

No shit. Is he really saying that the police would be hindered by allowing people to see/hear what they do/say in their interactions with the public? I could spend 15 years in jail for recording an officer attempting to coerce sexual favors from me during a traffic stop, even if the recording proves his guilt? Am I the only person frightened by the suppressive effects of that law, and by Mr. Donahue's implication?

--------------------------------

DeSean Jackson sure is pretty. I'd feel like a child molester if I made him Honey of the Week, but I do like looking at him. Such pretty eyes, cheekbones, smile, arms. And he's not big and bulky like most of his teammates. He's smooth and tight. If he were twenty years older, he'd definitely be a HOTW. Click on the link for the pix.
.

3026 No one's looking! Let's steal something!

Friday, July 16, 2010

"The beauty and intricacy of a person's mind
has little or nothing to do with outward appearances."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two years after installing them, Arizona has decided to discontinue use of automated cameras on Arizona freeways aimed at catching speeders. According to the New York Times article, Arizona is "bowing to the wishes of a vocal band of conservative activists who complained that photo enforcement intruded on privacy and was mainly designed to raise money."

I don't understand.

The comments on the Times story and the Wall Street Journal blog entry didn't enlighten me, either.

Apparently it's ok to invade the privacy of other people that "we" don't like (ok to hassle anyone who looks vaguely Hispanic, or ok to burst into the bedrooms of possible gays), but not ok to intrude on "our" privacy? Hey, if you don't want your wife to know you were on a certain street when you were supposed to be at work, then don't speed on that street, then you don't have to worry about her seeing the mailed ticket and photo.

Besides, if nobody breaks any laws, then nobody pays any fines, so what's the "designed to raise money" objection? That doesn't make any sense.

I was surprised at the number of commenters who had the attitude that if the police didn't see them breaking the law, then it's ok to break the law (and endanger others). One commenter said, "If the referee doesn’t call a foul, it’s not a foul." Please tell me that isn't a tenet of that "sportsmanship" thing I hear is so valuable to teach our youth.

Sorry. As far as I'm concerned, whether anyone sees the foul or not, even if the person you fouled against isn't aware, it was still a foul, and you should be ashamed. Even if a police officer did not see you speed or run the light, you still broke the law and should suffer the consequences.

Following the twisted logic of those commenters, if no one sees you shoplift, then it's ok to shoplift. It's apparently not a crime to break the law, the only crime is getting caught. And these idiots want to make the catchers follow their rules, even if the miscreants themselves don't have to follow any rules.

These people make me sick.

I wonder if they'd be happier if Arizona raised taxes to quintuple the law enforcement budget, pulled police officers out of neighborhood beats so none could come to 911 calls, hired more officers, and put a cop with a radar gun every quarter mile on the highways. I have a feeling they still wouldn't be happy --- because it's not the cameras they object to, it's the getting caught.
.

2712 Law Blog Links

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities.
-- Voltaire --

-----------------------------

I get feeds from the Wall Street Journal law blog. I click "keep" on some, when the post has a lot of links I want to read, or when I need to think about the topic a bit more, or when I want to be reminded to follow up on what happens next.

I've got an overload of kept posts out there now. Needs clearing out. I'm going to put them here, so I can find them when I want them. Perhaps others might find something interesting here. (Note: Scotus is the Supreme Court of the United States. Shouldn't that be Scotusoa?)

"Did Netflix Violate Subscribers’ Privacy? Lawsuit Says Yes."
I had to giggle at what these folks did, comparing comments across sites to identify the subjects. It's exactly what I would have done.

"Defendants’ Ability to Suppress Evidence Taking a Hit"
I don't much care for illegal searches. On the other hand, when police find strong evidence of a serious crime in an illegal search, I hate to see it thrown out. On the third hand, if illegal searches are winked at, there's an opening for abuse. It's sticky. The one thing I'm sure I don't agree with is that the law should be loosened simply because as is, it puts pressure on police to lie in court about the conditions of the search. It's a snake pit. And the thinking in unraveling the snakes is the same thinking that justifies torture.

"On Congress, the Estate Tax and the Constitution"
In 2001, Congress passed a bill that called for a gradual reduction of the federal estate tax over the next decade. However, the bill did not provide for continuation of the reduction. In 2010, the federal estate tax will disappear entirely, and in 2011, the tax would return to the pre-legislation rate of 55% after the first million. (When the bill was first passed, my comment was that we could expect a lot of wealthy relatives to "suddenly drop dead" in 2010.) So, now what? Which way is it likely to go? Back up or stay down? Is Granny going to get her medicine or not? Is anybody listening?

"Does N.C. City Councilman’s Avowed Atheism Bar Him From Office?"
This one really bugs me. A particular religious affiliation should not be a requirement for a job, let alone an elected government office. How did it go on so long? In so many states? On the one hand it's clearly unconstitutional. On the other hand, it's a political hot potato.

"The Death Penalty for Being Gay and HIV Positive? Uganda Mulls It"
Scary. Your church tithes at work? The missionaries are backing off from responsibility, I suspect more because of the death sentence than because of any tendency toward tolerance.

"California: Where the Death Penalty is Better Than a Life Sentence"
Death sentences across the country are not being carried out for a variety of reasons. In California, there are 680+ inmates on death row, but there have been only 13 executions since 1977, and none in the past four years. This has led defendants convicted of capital cases to request the death penalty rather than life sentences - because the living conditions are better. They get private cells, their own TV, meals delivered to the cell, better access to telephones, and private touch-allowed visiting arrangements.

"The Proposed Tax Break for the Trial Bar"
There's a bill in Congress that could/would make it more profitable (or at least less of a gamble) for law firms to pursue frivolous lawsuits.

"Scotus to Cops: You Have 6 Hours to Get that Confession"
We often hear of people confessing to a crime they didn't commit because the authorities browbeat them into it by questioning them for umpty hours without a break. The Supreme Court says no, that's not allowed.

"Philadelphia Freedom? Not For Us, Say Tour Guides"
Philadelphia says that anyone talking about history in the city center, for money, must pass a history test and be licensed. (Does this makes it illegal for your teacher to tell you about the Liberty Bell on your school field trip?) Some tour guides are objecting. I can see both sides of the lawsuit. The city wants to protect you from the tour guide who makes things up as he goes along. On the other hand, I am tired of the push to "certify" everything. Seems to me a good compromise would be to offer certification/licensing, and let the visitor hire a certified guide, or any other guide he wants.

"Chicago Trib: Use Caution While Driving Through Tenaha, Texas"
This is something that REALLY jerks my chain. Police in small towns near state lines all over the south are using the "asset-forfeiture law" -- a law which permits local police agencies to keep money and other property used in or acquired through the commission of a crime and add the proceeds to their budgets -- to rip off people without ever charging them with a crime. They just stop people, threaten them, and take their money, property, car, everything they can get, with no arrest or charge. Most of the people they select for this extortion don't have the means to attempt to sue the government. It really pisses me off. It pisses me off even more that "everybody knows" it's happening, but no one does anything about it.

"Walter Mondale: ‘Gideon v. Wainwright is at Risk’"
You know how on TV when somebody is arrested, they are told that "if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you"? That came from G v. W, and the devil is in that "cannot afford". About the only people likely to get a court-appointed attorney are the homeless. A lot of innocent poor people end up in jail because they can't put up a defense.

"Under Florida law, he could be disqualified for counsel if he has assets exceeding $2,500 (excluding a house), a car valued above $5,000, or had posted bail of more than $5,000. [Silk: Note the "or". That means that using a bondsman, he'd have to have put up only $500 of his own, so total assets of only $500 loses you a lawyer. ]

Elsewhere, writes Mondale, things are worse. In New Hampshire, [he] could be found ineligible for counsel if he had a home valued at more than $20,000. Courts in Virginia could deny him counsel because of the amount of money possessed by family members, even if [he] had no power over that money.

...As a result, people are forced to defend themselves and can be wrongly convicted."

"In Tribune Bankruptcy, Judge Caps Sidley’s Fees at $925/hr"
Confirmation that lawyers are grossly overpaid. Honest pay for honest work is ok, but $925 just doesn't seem honest, let alone the $1,100/hr. initially requested. Yes, there's specialized knowledge involved, but no more specialized, and no more difficult, than many other jobs - and in much nicer surroundings than most.

"Do Federal Judges Discriminate Against Discrimination Claims?"
Very few employment discrimination (pay/promotion) claims are won, and one possible explanation is a bias on the part of the jurists - that if the employer didn't acknowledge any discrimination and settle the case before court, then obviously there's nothing to the claim. This makes lawyers reluctant to press the case. It's a snowball, and if it continues to grow, why would any employer ever admit error and settle?
.

2374 Screwed up legal system

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

It's no secret that I think the US legal system is a screwed up mess. It's no secret that prosecutors are more interested in winning than in finding the truth. And it's only coincidentally a personality flaw - it's the way the system is set up. They don't get rewarded for truth, only for wins.

The same with large law firms. Juniors don't make partner by getting to the truth. Only wins count.

It's no secret that innocent people plead guilty or no contest to criminal charges because they earn too much to qualify for a court-appointed attorney, but too little to hire their own. It's cheaper to just pay the fine, or take the 60 days in jail.

It's no secret that there are people who will sue everybody in sight for accidents that they themselves caused, because "it's free money", "it's the insurance company's money, so nobody is hurt". And there are unscrupulous lawyers who will take those cases on contingency because they know that the insurance companies will settle because it's cheaper than going to court, even though they know the plaintiff has no case. No case. But it's cheaper to pay the plaintiff and his lawyer off.

There are people who are serial suers.

There are lawyers who salivate over class action suits. I, personally, get four or more notices a year, every year, that unless I opt out, I am a member of a class action suit. Usually it's either a medical or stock owner thing. Most people just throw those notices away. The few I have followed up on, I discovered that whatever it was that happened, I was not actually affected. But there I am, on their list. In every case, the award is a few gazillion dollars, and each of the plaintiffs (most of whom were not injured in any way) gets a few dollars. The biggest check I have seen from a class action suit was $3.85. The lawyers get the gazillion minus the few thousand they paid the people who allowed themselves to be used to pad the "injured" list. It's no wonder they salivate.

The local TV stations' mid-morning schedule is full of "baby-momma" and judge shows. It's interesting that when the folks are asked "and where did you get the money to...", or "Do you have a job? No? Then what do you live on?", in more than half the instances, the reply is, "I had an award from a lawsuit." It's scary that there are people who think that's how to get free money.

The system encourages it.

I found an interesting website on the topic: http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/, from the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform · 1615 H St N.W. Washington D.C. 20062-2000. They have stories of outrageous lawsuits. There are videos, but you don't have to watch them - you get the same info faster from reading the stories.

Government has been blathering about tort reform for decades. It isn't going to happen if we leave it up to them. The lawyers have the majority vote there, remember?

Frivolous lawsuits must be stopped. Law firms that bring frivolous lawsuits should be penalized. Settlements should be scrutinized and not allowed in frivolous cases. But --- you and I could be sued at the (literal) drop of a hat, and then we'd be forced to hire a lawyer to prove the case frivolous.

Crap.

This is something we could learn from the French legal system. They do it right. Well, righter.

-----------------------
Post Script -
This entry has had a lot of visits, but next to no one clicks on the above link to my post on the French system.

So I decided to copy the pertinent part here:

In France, according to Jay and his father at least, the object of the courts is to find the truth. Cases are presided over by a panel of judges, who direct the research and investigation, and choose, summon, and question the witnesses. They want the whole truth, not someone's filtered and slanted version of it, and they keep probing until they are satisfied they've got it. Contrast this with American courts, where the object often seems to be to prevent the whole truth from coming out, to pit one attorney's skill at obfuscation and blocking against another's, winner take all.

This means that in the US, the outcome of family, civil, and criminal cases is often determined not by the truth and law, but by whose lawyer could dance faster. Which actually translates to who had the most money. Which explains a lot about the demographics of the prisons.

If I were innocent, I'd want a French court. If I were guilty, I'd want an American court and a rich uncle. That doesn't sound nice at all.

.