May 15, 2005
My Final Silly Texas Bill Update
The Texas anti-cheerleader bill is dead.The measure was approved in the Texas House on May 3, with supportive lawmakers waving pompoms as the bill moved to the Senate's Education Committee, where the cheering abruptly stopped.
'We will not be hearing it,' committee chairwoman Sen. Florence Shapiro said Friday.
'We have some very important work to do in the next two weeks, and that's not one of them,' said Shapiro, R-Plano.
Rather than being a 'mandate from the state,' she said, the problem of students performing suggestive acts should be addressed by parents and school districts.
Isn't that what i'd been saying all along? Sheesh. What a waste of legislative time. That's the type of thing they do in the California legislature, but at least the boondogglers out here work full-time at it.
Hat tip to gcotharn, who is now atop the leader board in my fantasy league. Guess who's at the bottom?
Posted by: annika at
07:33 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well he won't be in first for long! And i had no idea about this cheerleader bill...it seems this bill combined with the recent one to take foster kids out of the homes of gay parents shows that the Texas legislature is full of nincompoops, pretty much like the rest of the country. Of course they're never as bad as California...and I'm a california boy so I know!
Posted by: Scof at May 15, 2005 10:14 PM (OHbSQ)
2
It's what we've come to expect from the Texas Republican Party. At least if they're wasting their time with cheerleaders they are unable to push their Platform: http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2004.pdf
p.4 #10: "We oppose conservation easements on our natural resources administered by organizations unaccountable to tax payers and voters." (That means land trusts and conservation groups would be declared unconstitutional.)
p. 4 #18: "We oppose the Endangered Species Act."
pp. 7 and 8: "We reject the establishment of any mechanism to process, license, record, register or monitor the ownership of guns."
p. 9 The party opposes highway speed limits based on environmental standards of any kind.
p. 10 The party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseaseas.
p.13 " ... gradually phase out Social Security tax for a system of "private pensions.."
p.15: Supports abstinence only sex education
p.15:"The Party urges Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development
p.18: supports teaching of intelligent design
p.17: prohibits reproductive health care services in high schools.
p.23: The party opposes one-world government...
p.24: The Party urges Congress to evict the United Nations from U.S. soil.
Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 08:00 AM (wkfsI)
3
Preston,
I don't see where any of that is objectionable. For example, we've been paying excessively high Social Security taxes for years. Congress took that money and spent it. Tell me where we wouldn't be better off with the money invested in a private account?
Move to New York. Your kind will be happy here.
Posted by: Mark at May 16, 2005 08:29 AM (oQofX)
4
So much for the 'big tent', Mark. Well, the easy ones: 'intelligent design' isn't true and 'abstinence education' doesn't work.
Is it so radical to ask for a government that bases its decisions on reality?
Posted by: preston at May 16, 2005 08:34 AM (wkfsI)
5
Some of that shit is okay, some is well, shit. But saying that prohibiting a private organization from claiming an easement on public lands would make such organizations unconstitutional betrays a lack of understanding of easements, constitutional law and just plain sense.
Posted by: annika at May 16, 2005 08:39 AM (zAOEU)
6
It would sort of defeat the purpose of founding a conservation land trust if your work was illegal. You could do it but what's the point?
Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 08:49 AM (wkfsI)
7
Buy the land. Then it's yours and you can do what you want with it. Including not building strip malls.
Is it radical to ask that the federal government stick to its enumerated powers and leave the rest up to the states to decide? It's not going to happen, but I can dream...
Posted by: Mark at May 16, 2005 09:58 AM (oQofX)
8
Mark, conservation land trusts are not a 'public taking' of property:
http://www.lta.org/aboutlt/faq.shtml
Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 10:13 AM (wkfsI)
9
But on the larger point: Do you feel like a community has no right to shape its future? Is it ok if a slaughterhouse or a Wal-Mart opens next door to your house?
Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 10:16 AM (wkfsI)
10
for Preston - a smaller point: The bill was introduced, and tirelessly promoted, by a Democrat: State Rep Al Edwards, D-Houston.
Posted by: gcotharn at May 16, 2005 01:13 PM (OxYc+)
11
That's too bad, but like I said: at least if they're wasting their time with cheerleaders they aren't threatening Texans with the GOP platform.
Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 01:27 PM (wkfsI)
12
p.13 " ... gradually phase out Social Security tax for a system of "private pensions.."
you've obviously not read the 1932 speech by FDR proposing SS. that/this was his plan.
Posted by: louielouie at May 16, 2005 03:00 PM (i7mWl)
13
p.24: The Party urges Congress to evict the United Nations from U.S. soil.
I'm moving to texas!!!!!
Posted by: louielouie at May 16, 2005 03:02 PM (i7mWl)
14
"you've obviously not read the 1932 speech by FDR proposing SS. that/this was his plan."
I'm afraid you've read too many right-wing talking points... FDR was talking about a transition _to_ Social Security _from_ the temporary payments to the elderly who hadn't contributed to SS as workers.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003
Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 03:13 PM (wkfsI)
15
using KO as a source?????
moonbat publishing.
Posted by: louielouie at May 17, 2005 10:43 AM (i7mWl)
16
Eh? it was the first thing to come up when you Google 'FDR phase out'
The point is that Britt Hume took FDR out of context and rearranged his quotes to make it seem that FDR supported 'privatization'.
Would you prefer the Nation?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/07/opinion/main678638.shtml
Posted by: Preston at May 17, 2005 10:55 AM (wkfsI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 04, 2005
Silly Texas Bill Update
Back in March i alerted you to
the silly Texas bill that seeks to outlaw suggestive cheerleading routines. As a former high school cheerleader this is an issue close to my own heart, although i will admit the routines have gotten racier in the ten years since i used to shake it on the track. But i'm still a libertarian on this issue.
i'm sure there's a heck of a lot more urgent problems that they could be worrying about in Texas than sexed-up cheerleaders or even this lowlife? Both are symptoms of bad parenting - a failure to teach kids the meaning of "respect" - but not a reason for the state to crack down on freedom of expression.
The committee's revised bill was weakened somewhat, removing the former draconian punishment of suspending the team for the rest of the school year and the punitive reduction in the offending school district's funding.
Instead, the revised bill gives the school district the authority to "take appropriate action against the performance group and the group's sponsor, as determined by the district." Pretty vague, but of course the whole law is hopelessly vague, in my opinion.
Speaking against the bill at the March 29th hearing were two ACLU representatives (see trolls? i can agree with the ACLU sometimes), including eighteen year old high school senior Margeaux Goodfleisch (that's got to be a stage name, right?), who made this quite reasonable point:
I agree that sexually suggestive performances are inappropriate for school events and school-sponsored competitions, but exactly what is a sexually suggestive performance? It could be someoneÂ’s opinion that any time a group of young, attractive girls dance, itÂ’s sexually suggestive. If you put on paper those moves we specifically cannot do, we would be more than happy to comply.
Well, you had to know that the legislature wasn't going to do that. Too much work and too easy to get around. A law like this has to be written vaguely or not at all. And the vagueness is what makes it so ridiculous.
Texas House Bill 1476 was voted out of committee by a vote of six to nothing, with three committee members absent. Today the Texas House of Representatives approved the bill by a vote of 85-55 with three present but not voting. Next, it goes to the Texas Senate for consideration.
See also: Grits For Breakfast with props for Margeaux.
Yet more: Blogger Jason Plotkin was apparently in the chamber for the debate and recorded these fun snippets:
What was funny is how they also had the song 'shake, shake, shake, shake, shake your booty' in the background at one point, I'm assuming, someone in the gallery played it.
. . .
'This is a ridiculous bill. I don't know how it got to the floor,' said Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston in a Chronicle article. 'We don't have any business mandating anything. We are spending time on "2-3-4, we can't shake it anymore." It's an embarrassment.'
. . .
Rep. Carter Casteel, R-New Braunfels, who agree legislators should not be legislating morality or telling people what to do, but she voted for the bill.
. . .
'When I was 15, anything a cheerleader did was interesting to me. When I was 17, I knew better' said [Rep. Rene Oliveria (D-Brownsville)]. Oliveria brought up how President George W. Bush, Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson were cheerleaders and we should recognize them to vote no.
i should "revise and extend" my previous comment regarding the Democrats legislating morality with this bill. Despite being introduced by a Democrat, it appears that on the floor quite a few Dems were on the right side of this one.
Finally, In The Pink Texas gives us a timely warning about what happens to cheerleaders gone bad. And Frank J makes the connection between terrorism and slutty cheerleaders... sort of.
Posted by: annika at
07:20 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 649 words, total size 5 kb.
1
You know what worries me? George Carlin is now going to feel compelled to fly to Texas, put on a cheerleader outfit, and shake suggestively.
And I really don't want to see George Carlin's pom poms.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at May 04, 2005 11:36 PM (HKflx)
2
Actually, I think we shouid let them shake as much as they want to, but just make them wear bhurkas.
Have the Taliban moved to Texas? Maybe that's where Osama Bin Laden is hiding?
Posted by: shelly at May 06, 2005 03:23 AM (pO1tP)
3
Ya know, I just disagree with all of you about this. From Annie's post:
"... the revised bill gives the school district the authority to 'take appropriate action against the performance group and the group's sponsor, as determined by the district.'"
In today's legal climate, WHAT is wrong with a state legislature strengthening school districts' authority to "take appropriate action"? NOTHING is wrong with it, that's what. The legislature has apparently left the judgment call to the individual local school districts - which is where it belongs.
You guys are knee-jerk reacting over a bill which, once it got debated and worked over and whittled down and approved by the legislature, looks like it came out good and reasonable.
Now, on your next 25 knee jerk reaction issues - I'll be right there with you!
Posted by: gcotharn at May 06, 2005 02:48 PM (3Bn47)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 22, 2005
Dura Lex Sed Lex II
i've read
Judge Whittemore's ruling on the Shiavo case. The question before him was narrow, and i am persuaded by his reasoning. Reluctantly and sadly persuaded.
Judge Whittemore was constrained by the well established law regarding the issuance of restraining orders and injunctive relief. It cannot be otherwise. Ultimately i blame the trial court for getting it wrong, but the appelate process has limited ability to question the findings of fact made by the original trial court.
"The law is hard, but it is the law."
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”
Posted by: annika at
09:39 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Annie,
Professor Hewitt disagrees with you. Check out his site. I'm not a lawyer and don't understand the procedure surrounding all of this. At the end of the day, though, we are killing a fellow human in a horrific manner. The entire episode is sad. Very sad. Wish I had something more learned or clever to add to the conversation.
Posted by: Blu at March 22, 2005 12:10 PM (j8oa6)
2
What about the de novo case?
Posted by: Casca at March 22, 2005 11:58 PM (cdv3B)
3
I think the problem is that the lawyers for the Schindlers are asking only for a temporary restraining order (TRO), which brings in the "substantial likelihood of prevailing at trial" They probably should have asked for an expedited hearing at the same time, since the law specifies that the federal courts should do a hearing de novo, when a hearing is called for.
Posted by: JJR at March 23, 2005 10:25 AM (HxEi3)
4
A week or so ago it became unconstitutional for Congress to check the authority of the courts at all, in any way, so they aren't constrained by anything, they can do whatever they want.
Posted by: Dave Munger at March 23, 2005 01:57 PM (s8Is4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 18, 2005
Silly Texas Bill
Currently pending in the Texas House of Representatives is H.B. No. 1476, which i've posted below, in full:
AN ACT relating to regulation of sexually suggestive performances at certain public school events.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter D, Chapter 33, Education Code, is amended by adding Section 33.088 to read as follows:
Sec. 33.088. SEXUALLY SUGGESTIVE PERFORMANCES PROHIBITED.
(a) A school dance team, drill team, cheerleading team, or similar performance group may not perform in a sexually suggestive manner at an athletic or other extracurricular event or competition sponsored or approved by a school district or campus.
(b) A school performance group that violates Subsection (a) may not perform for the remainder of the school year in which the violation occurs.
(c) If the commissioner determines that a school district or a campus in a school district knowingly permits a sexually suggestive performance prohibited by Subsection (a) or knowingly permits a school performance group to perform in violation of Subsection (b), the commissioner shall reduce the funding the district receives under Chapter 42 by an amount the commissioner determines appropriate.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2005.
This silly bill, introduced by Al Edwards of Houston, a Democrat (what a surprise), is currently in committee.
i'll keep an eye on it.
i don't understand why people think conservatives are prudes, when it's Democrats who want a new law for every perceived threat to morality. Remember Tipper?
Posted by: annika at
08:59 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Schools can control what kids do at school events, it's that simple. Hey, I'm a complete degenerate now, but I continually thank my parents for instilling moral principles so I understand the difference.
That's the true problem with the moral relevance that has dominated schools for 15+ years. Unfortunately, the bill will come due (soon) in difficult to forecast ways.
If the cheerleaders are smart, they'll have a fundraiser off campus where they do the forbidden dance (I hope "Push It" by Salt and Pepa is on the list) and split the proceeds 60/40 between tsunami victims and the team itself.
Posted by: Jason O. at March 18, 2005 09:56 AM (2CAKL)
2
I agree with you that the law is silly. But as far as that last line. Newsflash!: Southern Democrats are notoriously conservative on social issues and morality.
Posted by: Melinda Barton at March 18, 2005 10:49 AM (vouy0)
3
My experience working for the Florida Legislature, which may or may not translate perfectly to Texas, was that if a bill didn't have a majority (R) sponsor, it probably would never even be put on the agenda by the Chairman to be heard, let alone reported out of committee. However, the bill's lone cosponor, so far, is Corbin Van Arsdale, a Republican, so who knows?
Regardless, however, it also doesn't have a Senate companion bill as far as I can tell. Until it does, it's almost certainly DOA in the Senate.
Posted by: Dave J at March 18, 2005 11:52 AM (cZ/tT)
4
It is a bad law because it would be impossible to enforce.
But it would be nice if we could let kids be kids until they reach the age of 15 or 16 instead of making girls of 12 sexual objects.
Posted by: Jake at March 18, 2005 05:45 PM (r/5D/)
5
Unlike maybe everyone here, I have child in high school - a son, 17 years old, superfabulous, a National Merit Scholar, a very talented musician with several instruments, who shall save all our lives by getting a combo scholastic/music scholarship to college. The upshot is, amazingly enough, I'm hip to the high school scene for this moment in time. I'm at high schools for football games, baseball games, honors band competitions, jazz band competitions, drum line competitions, and the odd miscellaneous event.
As always, a law enforcing morality(instead of protecting rights) can never work. WHO would be the legal arbiter of what constitutes a sexualized movement? I'd like to hear(or see!) the evidence in that inevitable court case. Such a law is impossible to enforce, and always will be.
HOWEVER, cheerleader moves and drill team moves are extremely sexualized, and school districts should demonstrate more leadership in this area. I am not anyone's prude, but that's just the truth. The lower income schools trend towards more sexualized choreography. The lower income black schools have the most sexualized choreography of all. This sounds silly, buts its simply a fact that the black girls like to dream up as many ways as possible to get their butts into their acts. I don't think it would be that hard to allow these girls to get their butts into their routines, and have some fun, yet maintain some standard of proper behavior for young women who want to have fun and represent their schools at the same time. Topless dancers have their place in society, but high school drill teams should not be their training grounds.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 19, 2005 03:23 PM (OxYc+)
6
I AM surprised that a Democrat would propose a bill like this, since it's usually the Republicans that want to dictate people's personal lives (i.e., abortion, stem cell research, Terry Schiavo, homosexual lifestyles, etc.). But I guess there's one in every party.
Posted by: sam at April 07, 2005 11:51 AM (L3/Bk)
7
If you observe things objectively, i think you'll find that it is the democrats who are quickest to legislate morality. Many liberals don't notice this because they just happen to agree with the type of morality that democrats want to enforce.
Posted by: annie at April 07, 2005 08:32 PM (3o/ru)
8
i had to pick a bill to research, in government class and i chose this one to see the motives behind it. and it is clear that from reading the whole thing that "edwards is clearly not "getting some" i dont hear him saying i wish these hoes will back up off me"....
Posted by: luciano at April 19, 2005 07:25 PM (HoSBk)
9
I hope the bill passes. My daughter was involved last year in competitive cheerleading (in Texas) and I was horrified to see some of the dance moves at the competitions (other teams). Parents literally gasped at one competition when one team had girls as young as 8-12 jumping on another girl's back and imitating a sensual simulated bull ride.
My daughter recently made high school cheerleader and I have already told her Coach that she is not allowed to do suggestive dance moves. The drill team at her school performed at a pep rally last year and wore white wife beater shirts with lowrise jeans, thong straps hanging out, and black bra straps hanging off their shoulders. At one point in their dance they were sitting and twisted around to face the football team sitting on the court, spread their legs, winked, and motioned for them to "come and get it." The only thing they were missing was the stripper pole. After that, I told my daughter the drill team was out. Enough is enough. Let our kids be kids. This is not a party issue. Any rational parent (especially of a daughter) should be concerned.
Posted by: jeanie at April 20, 2005 06:02 PM (zvo9n)
10
Your comments regarding democrats on this issue is misplaced (i.e., wrong, silly, misinformed, ignorant, etc.). While the author of the bill is a democrat, it was passed by republican votes. You have to remember, this bill arose in Texas where a democrat aint necessarily liberal.
In short, it's the republicans (with some wolves in democrat clothing) down in Texas that want to regulate every bit of our lives to avoid the perceived evil besetting us from all sides.
Posted by: Johnny Feelgood at May 05, 2005 07:26 AM (W8Qxy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 16, 2005
The World's Worst Lawyer?
Robert Blake is breathing two huge sighs of relief tonight. One for being found not guilty and the other for his incredible stroke of luck months before his own trial began. Yes, when Blake was shopping around for lawyers after firing his legal team a couple of times,
Mark Geragos was busy!
i have a theory why Michael Jackson fired Geragos a few months back. Winona Ryder must have called to warn him. Lucky for MJ, he's got a much better lawyer now in Thomas Mesereau.
Exhibit 1 of the evidence that Geragos is the world's worst lawyer was introduced on Larry King Live tonight. King asked a juror whether it would have made a difference if Scott had testified. The juror said that if Scott had spoken during the penalty phase, he could never have voted for execution. It seems all the jury wanted was to see some sign of emotion from the defendant.
Instead, Geragos' brilliant strategy was to yuk it up with Scott in front of the jury during the trial. i guess the theory was that an innocent man doesn't show emotion. Not even if his wife and son have been brutally murdered, by a killer who is still out there.
Idiot.
But hey, i'm not complaining about the verdict or the fact that Geragos was so incompetent with this particular case. What bothers me is how much the media seemed to deify Geragos during the trial. Like he was another Johnny Cochran or something. When in fact, Geragos deserves to be ranked somewhere near Marcia Clark on the list of world's worst lawyers.
As a final thought, my opinion on the death penalty has moderated quite a bit since i wrote this post almost two years ago. But the offer still stands.
Posted by: annika at
06:51 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I cannot agree more! Geragos is by far one of the worst lawyers around!!! Jackson was smart to fire him. As a lawyer I must say he is an embarassment to the profession!
Posted by: SKippy at March 16, 2005 09:55 PM (ZYjie)
2
And HOW exactly did this phenom rise to prominance? Can anyone say, Susan McDougal? I never quite got G. He was always like the legal version of Enron.
Posted by: Casca at March 16, 2005 09:59 PM (cdv3B)
3
Let's not leave out the guy who sunk the yacht,Rex deGeorge.
He's served 53 months of 7 1/12 years thanks to Mark Gargleguts insipid "defense".
Does this guy ever win one?
Maybe Petersen has a chance on appeal based on incompetence of counsel...
Posted by: shelly at March 17, 2005 04:03 AM (fLlQ8)
4
It seems to me that the Peterson case could have created some kind of reasonable doubt with the relative lack of physical evidence. Or am I mistaken?
Posted by: Roach at March 17, 2005 09:54 AM (DHoAQ)
5
My only concern is that Geragos' incompetence will be grounds for a new trial. These things get drawn out way too long as it is. Also, I heard he's in a 48 square foot cell (6'x8'), but has a TV and radio. What's up with that?
Posted by: CalBear at March 17, 2005 10:03 AM (J7BEJ)
6
I dunno Annie, I think you've got it all wrong. From my point of view this Geragos guy is doing excellent work. So good in fact, that there is a guy in Atlanta who murdered three people last weekend that I'd like to introduce him to.
Posted by: Pursuit at March 17, 2005 03:47 PM (VqIuy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 21, 2005
BL Line Of The Night
We all hate our clients. It's good to hate. It allows us to overcharge and still sleep at night.
--Denny Crane
Posted by: annika at
06:08 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What a pregnant line. That's good dialogue.
Inevitably, we become what we are. If you practice love in your life, you become loving. If you give way to hate, ultimately there is no joy. That's why there are so many joyless lawyers. Way too much cognitive dissonance in that line of work.
The only happy lawyers who I ever met weren't practicing law.
Posted by: Casca at February 21, 2005 10:36 AM (cdv3B)
2
Casca wrote:
The only happy lawyers who I ever met weren't practicing law.
LOL
then that would make them.......not lawyers!!!!!
a rabbit and a snake, both blind from birth, and not knowing what they were, bumped into each other every day in a field as they crossed. on one occasion, they stopped and explained their predicament to each other. using this as an opportunity to discover each others identity as well as their own, the snake wrapped itself around the rabbit. they then proceeded to describe each other thusly. the snake said you are furry, soft, big ears, cold nose, large hind legs.....you must be a rabbit. the rabbit was overjoyed at hearing this. the rabbit said, you are slimy, scaly, you have a forked tongue, but lack a backbone.....you must be a lawyer.
Posted by: louielouie at February 22, 2005 08:53 AM (i7mWl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 08, 2005
The Oldest Trick In The Plaintiff's Book
Brittany Spears
is suing her insurance companies after they refused to pay her multi-million dollar claim.
Britney Spears has filed a $9.8 million lawsuit in New York to cover the losses for her canceled Onyx Hotel Tour.
Spears called off the 2004 tour after suffering a knee injury, but several insurers refused to make up the amount she lost because on the insurance applications, Spears checked 'no' to the question of pre-existing injuries, Celebrity Justice reports.
Spears had undergone minor knee surgery [on the same knee] five years before she signed the applications. She claims she simply forgot about the surgery because it was so long ago and she had fully recovered.
Now the lesson here is, don't lie on your insurance application. It's the oldest trick in the plaintiff's book: hide your pre-existing injuries. Usually it's done after the claim is made, but in Brittany's case, she did it on the application.
What's wrong with that? Well from a theoretical standpoint, it's borderline fraudulent. She offered to enter into a contract with the insurance company without disclosing information that would be directly relevant to the amount of premium they would agree to charge her. In other words, she was arguably ripping off her insurance companies.
People do this all the time. When i worked on auto cases for insurance company clients, the most common scenario was the person who lied about thier address to get a better rate. Other people lie about the length of their commute. Sometimes, after making a claim, they'd lie about who was actually driving the car, or whether a relative lived in the same house, in order to get around an exclusion in the contract.
When you're talking 9.8 mil, i can understand why the insurance company would use any defense they can find to get out of paying on the claim. Of course, that's what insurance companies do best anyways: weasel out of paying claims. It's all a part of the game.
Posted by: annika at
01:42 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I'll remember that. So what's the BEST way to commit insurance fraud?
Posted by: Casca at February 08, 2005 04:34 PM (cdv3B)
2
I work in property claims and the fraud is incredible. Some losses never happened, on others people figure they'll pad their claim a bit to get their premiums back.
Posted by: The Angle of Repose at February 08, 2005 07:20 PM (S1tOs)
3
Is it just me or does Britney become even more white trash with each passing day?
Posted by: Micah at February 09, 2005 06:56 AM (v/oTo)
4
Annika, you're so smart.
Jason H.
Austin, Texas
Posted by: Jason H. at February 09, 2005 07:21 AM (0pVR8)
5
She must be new at this. Insurance companies don't like to pay claims. They are selling "peace of mind". Make a claim; get a cancellation notice.
In this instance, a relevant omission is a pretty strong defense to paying the claim. Most likely she'll get her premiums back, which is more than she deserves.
Posted by: shelly at February 10, 2005 06:24 AM (6krEN)
6
YEah, I'm sure that in her warped perception of the world, the laws governing fraud don't apply to her. She's an idiot.
(Psst...Hey Annika, nice to meet you...the Maximum Leader speaks highly of you. In addition, I hear you are a law student as well. My condolences;-)
Posted by: Sadie at February 10, 2005 11:57 PM (4CLu3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 29, 2005
January 05, 2005
I Hear The Law Firm Of Gypsy, Rose & Lee Is Hiring
And in the "aren't there too many lawyers already?" department, we have
this story:
An assistant Broward County public defender who was forced to quit after charges of sexual misbehavior was cleared, reinstated and promoted on Monday.
Promoted!
Jayme Cassidy, who was forced to quit Nov. 28 by former Public Defender Alan Schreiber, was rehired on the first workday of new Public Defender Howard Finkelstein.
. . .
She was accused by Schreiber of harassing two male lawyers in the office, slapping a private lawyer at a Halloween party and dancing nude at a conference on sex cases in Orlando.
Well if a lawyer's gonna dance nude, where better to do it than at a conference on sex cases?
Finkelstein said Cassidy never danced nude but may have acted inappropriately on other occasions. He said any incidents happened outside the office and did not meet the definition of sexual harassment or creating a hostile workplace.
He blamed Cassidy's misbehavior on the breakup of her marriage.
Or could it be that her marriage broke up because of her behavior? Just a thought.
Posted by: annika at
12:17 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Hey, it was outside the workplace! Give her a break! Sheesh! It's not like law is a f***ing
profession or something!
Posted by: Matt at January 05, 2005 06:31 AM (SIlfx)
2
There's sexual antics AND a lack of professionalism going on in Broward County?! I'm shocked, SHOCKED! ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at January 05, 2005 08:43 AM (CYpG7)
Posted by: Eric Johnson at January 05, 2005 06:28 PM (84Org)
4
Damn, words fail me. I may not sleep well tonight, not even with all my guns loaded.
Posted by: Casca at January 05, 2005 07:26 PM (cdv3B)
5
Yeesh is right, but then again, it does make Chris Rock's point: it's only sexual harassment if an ugly guy/girl does it.
Posted by: Xrlq at January 05, 2005 11:40 PM (6DLYC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 18, 2004
Exams
In case anyoneÂ’s interested, hereÂ’s my take on law school exams. i finished with civil procedure, torts and contracts (my favorite). Next up are criminal law and property. i've been in school most of my life and i've mastered just about every type of test there is. But the law school exam is a different kinda bitch altogether.
One key to taking a law school exam, which i just learned this week, is panic management. How come nobody told me about the panic thing? i first discovered this phenomenon while doing timed practice exams during the week before finals. Panic attack severity seems to be inversely related to the amount of time remaining for exam completion.
iÂ’ve finished three exams so far, and iÂ’ve had three panic attacks. Each one occurred somewhere between the halfway mark and three quarters of the way through the exam. Each was accompanied by dry mouth, an increased heart rate, and a curious rushing sound in my ears; not to mention a morbid feeling of dread helplessness, as if i were drowning or being buried alive.
The first panic attack occurred soon after i congratulated myself for having completed question two of the civil procedure examination well ahead of schedule. That should have been a warning - i ain't that smart. i suddenly realized that i had completely missed the arcane issues of ancillary and pendent jurisdiction. Instead of having extra time for the third question, this blunder required me to go back and add shit to my previous answer. I ended up having to rush through the third essay. Luckily, i managed to finish just as time was called.
The torts panic attack came not from any brain fart of my own - i got that subject down cold - but from the sick realization that there was too much to write and not enough time to do it. Time management again rears its ugly head. The final essay, though easy, simply had too many issues for the amount of time left. i raced through it, abbreviating as much as i could without degenerating into something akin to IM speak.
D prvlgd by prvt ncssty b/c DÂ’s invsn of PÂ’s ppty was rsnbl 2 prtct DÂ’s ppty, t/f no trspss, hÂ’ver b/c prvt ncssty = qlfÂ’d prvlg, D mst py 4 dmg csd by non-trts cndt.
Well, not quite that bad, but i was definitely in what i like to call “finished product mode.”
By Friday, i greeted the panic attack as if it were an old friend. The thing to do is recognize that it is coming and push through it. i never had panic attacks in undergrad or grad school exams. ThatÂ’s the cool thing about the liberal arts. i always knew if i got stuck i could always b.s. my way out of it. If i wasnÂ’t sure about one aspect of the subject, i could always emphasize the stuff i knew really well. Distract the professor with my brilliance on what i did know, so he couldnÂ’t in good conscience penalize me for what i didnÂ’t know. It usually worked.
But the law school exam is not so forgiving. If there are five elements you have to apply, and you do an awesome job applying four of them, but miss the fifth, you still blew 20 percent of the grade. ThatÂ’s what worries me. i think i spotted all of the issues presented in the exams. But how would i know if i didnÂ’t? i guess i wonÂ’t know until grades come out.
Posted by: annika at
09:34 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Good luck, A. I'm sure you did fine. Stressing about a test is usually a good sign.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at December 19, 2004 02:03 AM (4uHYC)
2
"i think i spotted all of the issues presented in the exams. But how would i know if i didnÂ’t?"
That looks like a rhetorical question, but the rhetorical answer is: you can't. You can usually tell if you COMPLETELY fucked up, but beyond that, as others have almost surely told you, it doesn't get any easier. I've taken one bar exam (California) and failed by an infuriatingly razor-thin margin; I've taken another (Florida) and passed comfortably. In both cases, once finished, I had absolutely no idea how I did.
Kevin, stressing can be a good sign, but a genuine immobilizing panic attack probably isn't. Do whatever you possibly can that you know relaxes you: a solid eight hours of sleep the night before, for example, really can be much more helpful than any last-minute cram session.
Posted by: Dave J at December 19, 2004 06:46 AM (CYpG7)
3
i really do believe in a good night's sleep before exams. That's something i learned in undergrad, when i learned that i actually did worse after staying up all night.
Of course, doing "whatever you possibly can that you know relaxes you" is advice that could get me in big trouble during the exam.
Posted by: annika at December 19, 2004 08:49 AM (1epXr)
4
Yeah, looking back, maybe I did phrase that the wrong way. ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at December 19, 2004 08:58 AM (CYpG7)
5
I don't know if any of this applies to your situation, but I was reminded of panicky adrenaline moments in my own life:
-Alcoholic parent vs. child argument moments
-Sports moments in front of big crowds
-Providing first aid during health crises
It sounds like you may be doing what I did in these situations:
1) Be conscious and deliberate about where and how you direct your focus. Do not do anything in an unthinking, flighty, scatterbrained fashion.
2) Embrace the moment. Embrace the challenge of the moment. It is a fabulous moment insofar as you are playing life full-out in this moment. There is NOTHING mundane or boring about this moment. I was born to be a hero. These are the moments I was born for.
From www.theanchoress.blogspot.com:
There is a line in the movie "A League of Their Own" that I always liked. On the eve of the World Series, the team’s star player leaves the game. “It just got too hard,” she explains to the manager.
“Of course it’s hard,” he responds fiercely. “That’s what makes it great.”
That's what I think about big moments, and pressure, and adrenaline: "Of course its hard! That's what makes it GREAT!"
Posted by: gcotharn at December 19, 2004 09:40 AM (6krEN)
6
I wish that I had the "shake-your-money-maker" option.
Posted by: Casca at December 19, 2004 09:53 AM (cdv3B)
7
After 5 semesters of law school, I can attest: time constraint is the modus operandi of law school exams. Frustrating, no? Especially when you know that you KNOW the freaking material but have no time to perform. Good luck on your last two. (As for me, I'm done, wahoo!)
Posted by: Daniel Lowenberg at December 19, 2004 10:29 AM (HDwOu)
8
Console yourself with these thoughts:
(1) If you ace the exams, you'll get a high-paying job right out of school.
(2) If you don't ace the exams, you'll still get a high-paying job out of school, so long as you graduate.
(3) Law in the real world bears ABSOLUTELY NO RESEMBLANCE to the tests in law school. You'll learn everything you need to know to pass the bar exam in a 4-week course before the exam. Of course, what appears on the bar exam bears little relation to any actual practice of law.
Don't you feel like your money on law school is being well-spent??
Posted by: JohnL at December 19, 2004 09:32 PM (gplif)
9
Annika, I found that being tired for law school exams was not a bad thing. The low level fatigue helped to minimize the initial onset of panic that accompanied most exams. Also, it helped to stimulate the “fight or flight” response, which increases the thought process. But this could just me. As for time management it is important to remember that Law school exams are not designed to be finished! They are graded on a curve and you are judged on how the rest of your class performs and not on fixed standard. The test are designed to create panic attacks in that they are impossible to complete. Always remember to focus on the issues that you will get the most points for and try not to spend too much time on sub-issues that may only be worth 1 or 2 points. Only answer those sup-issues if you have time after satisfactorily completing the larger issues or if you know you tanked the large issue are you are trying to minimize the effect of the question on the overall all exam. Just some tips.
Posted by: lawguy at December 19, 2004 11:06 PM (U0IaD)
10
Annika:
Do you actually read the responses here?
"How come nobody told me about the panic thing?"
What do you think I was talking about when I wrote "The first year they scare you to death; second year they work you to death; the third year they bore you to death"?
Here's a good lesson to remember: Never, Never, Never discuss your analysis and answers with your fellow students after the exam. This goes for law school and especially during the bar exam.
I made one exception to that rule the first day of the bar exam. I was badgered by a good pal, who was an editor of the Law Review, to give him my analysis and answer to a riparian water question, which I knew cold. He knew that I was preparing to be a real estate lawyer and had excelled in the class and wanted to know what I saw. I finally relented, but only agreed to give him my answer if he would not comment on it or discuss his.
After I finished (we were on the way to lunch), he went in the bushes and threw up. He did not pass the bar that year.
Annie, with your intellect and keen sense of everything around you, all you need to do is sleep well and pick out the issues. The answers don't matter; we find them in the books or lexis. All the readers and graders want to know is whether or not you see the problems and approach the answer correctly.
I'm rooting for you.
Posted by: shelly at December 20, 2004 05:45 AM (ywZa8)
11
My first round of law school exams was 13 years ago (egad!), but here are the things I remember. Prepare as best you can and be as relaxed as you can. If you can do this and sleep well the night before, good for you. I never could, and often could be found at the Williamsburg Dunkin Donuts at 5 am exam day eating coffee and reading outlines. Never, ever, ever discuss exam questions once the exam is over. Never read course material once an exam is over looking to see what you missed. And always remember there is such a thing as a bad exam, so your grade on an exam you thought you failed miserably might actually turn out OK (thank god for grading on a curve). That was my experience in Tax, where I had a professor who claimed to believe that the specifics of the tax code don't really matter because they change all the time, so we spent the whole semester discussing tax theory (i.e. why certain things should be income or taxable in the abstract). Then on the exam, we had questions asking whether certain items were income or taxable under the tax code as written. Everybody assumed they failed, but of course most didn't. It was a bad exam, at least under the circumstances. As for things that relax you, I did have a friend who took a bourbon and coke into his final law school exam, which he started drinking as he wrote the final answer, on the theory that the booze wouldn't affect him that quickly, but would lead to a nice buzz as he left the room. He did just fine on that exam.
Posted by: Fred at December 20, 2004 08:34 AM (dKyuh)
12
"(2) If you don't ace the exams, you'll still get a high-paying job out of school, so long as you graduate."
Define "high-paying," please, John. Relative to whom? The workforce as a whole, who mostly don't have seven years' worth of educational debt?
Posted by: Dave J at December 20, 2004 04:01 PM (CYpG7)
13
Re: don't talk to anyone afterwards, Ginger told me the same thing. It is good advice.
Posted by: annika at December 20, 2004 08:47 PM (kNT76)
14
F***! I wish someone would tell my wife and kids that my job is "high-paying." They don't seem to buy it.
John's (2) depends on a lot of variables; it's not a universal truth.
Doesn't that make you feel better, Annie? ;-)
Posted by: Matt at December 21, 2004 08:09 AM (SIlfx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 07, 2004
A Couple Of Useful Legal Maxims
Mike (a third year):
"Annika, there is only one secret to law school and it is this: time management."
Me:
"Okay, so what's the secret to time management, then?"
Mike (with totally straight face):
"Cooking in bulk."
Posted by: annika at
08:50 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"... legal Maxims". And immediately the mind says, No, the Maxims were inventors. Hiram Percy Maxim, Hiram S. Maxim, and Hudson Maxim. Interesting family.
Posted by: homebru at September 08, 2004 07:04 AM (h4DuK)
Posted by: Scof at September 08, 2004 09:47 AM (XCqS+)
3
Good luck with law school. Do your best, and leave the rest to the Gods of the Curve.
Posted by: Mark at September 08, 2004 05:11 PM (Vg0tt)
4
Not to worry, you can always flirt with the professors.
Posted by: Casca at September 08, 2004 05:28 PM (q+PSF)
5
Good luck!!!
Posted by: Amy at September 09, 2004 10:47 AM (RpVKX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 02, 2004
Hacking Arrested
Maybe i'm getting cynical watching the Scott Peterson
debacle prosecution in progress, but i'm anxious to see how the Salt Lake DA fucks up
this open and shut case.
Posted by: annika at
01:21 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The smart money says that Mr. Hacking's lawyer advises him to change his name to something a little less incriminating, like maybe "Guiltyassin."
Posted by: Xrlq at August 02, 2004 02:02 PM (585Ar)
2
I want to know how u come up with this stuff. Ur really funny, by the way how old are u?
Posted by: Sierra at May 15, 2005 02:44 PM (rE+Y8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 21, 2004
Zzzzzzzzz
Here's a letter that Martha Stewart wrote to the judge in her recent criminal trial. i defy anyone to make it to the end of the four page letter, it's so boring. As i commented at Dawn's
(from whom i stole this link), didn't they teach Martha anything about run-on sentences at Barnard?
I have spent most of my professional life creating, writing, researching, and thinking on the highest possible level about quality of life, about giving, about providing, so that millions of people, from all economic strata, can enjoy beauty, good quality, well made products, and impeccably researched information about many hundreds of subjects which can lead to a better life and more rewarding family lifestyle.
Just on and on and on. Shit woman, just get to the point! No wonder they wouldn't let her testify. Gawd, wouldn't she be the worst lunch partner ever?
Posted by: annika at
12:08 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I thought I was the only one that noticed. I couldn't get through the first page.
Posted by: Paul at July 21, 2004 12:22 PM (Prvsw)
2
The Me Show! Starring ME! Written, produced, directed and choreographed by ME!
Get over yourself, Martha. Geeze.
(BTW, thanks, Annika. LOL)
Posted by: Emma at July 21, 2004 12:35 PM (NOZuy)
3
You'd think she'd have some kind of an editor. Ah, but I thought wrong.
I won't bother to read the rest of such tripe.
Posted by: joe at July 21, 2004 01:17 PM (ZsJeX)
4
Now you know why hubby left. There is a way to shut a woman like her up, but it has some risk attached, and I'd guess that she doesn't know much about how to REALLY please a man.
Posted by: Casca at July 21, 2004 03:58 PM (q+PSF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 25, 2004
Santa Monica Bans Beach Smoking
No more smoking at the closest beach to my house (unless you have a doctor's note, i would guess).
Even as a smoker, i still have to ask: Who wants to smoke at the beach anyway? It's hard to light up and even a small breeze will make the cig burn so fast it's gone before you know it. i tend to smoke less when i'm out in the hot sun anyways. i also feel guilty just sticking the butt in the sand like so many people do.
i got the link from L.A. Observed. There's a couple of comments from people calling this new law "fascist." Then there's an interesting rebuttal chiding those commenters for not understanding the import of the word "fascist." Interesting, if somewhat vitriolic.
i generally don't get too worked up over anti-smoking laws. Some people claim that if we smokers want to do something harmful, we should be able to do it. They also claim that second hand smoke is harmless. But i know i shouldn't be smoking and if a law makes it inconvenient for me to continue a dangerous habit, i think that's a good thing. And as for second hand smoke being harmless, that's an argument that seems to go against common sense. Why not err on the side of safety?
Still, banning smoking on the beach seems a bit much. The only logical justifications would seem to be 1) anti-litter, 2) encouraging quitting and 3) minimizing children's exposure to viewing people with cigarettes. Those are thin justifications, but hey, like i said, it's a bad habit so i'm not gonna get too upset about it.
Posted by: annika at
10:00 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.
1
To think there was even the slightest chance of my working for the Santa Mo(ron)ica City Attorney's Office still completely boggles my mind and scares the shit out of me, although I must admit that defending the indefensible on a daily basis might have been perversely interesting.
Posted by: Dave J at March 25, 2004 03:45 PM (VThvo)
2
When my sister and I saw this story on tv she said that next they'll make it illegal to be on the beach without sunscreen....
Posted by: Susie at March 25, 2004 06:22 PM (9PzdO)
3
My issue with banning smoking in the outdoors is that its awfully hypocritical.
Has anyone seen the haze that lingers over the city of Los Angeles these days?
That isn't from second hand smoke.
So. Before any of them go around telling me how MY cigarette is killing them, they better take a good long look at that haze and think about how they contribute to it with their cars.
As for the argument to keep beaches clean of cigarette butts...I'm all for that. Put more receptacles out there for smokers to use AND, find them hefty fat fines if you catch them littering their butts.
But to tell me that I cannot smoke at the beach, (I don't anyway...who wants to ruin the beautiful salty air that the ocean gives off) or at a BUS STOP for crying out loud, is taking my rights away.
I understand why they said no in restaurants and office buildings but that is the extent of my understanding.
BARS? BUS STOPS? Outdoor at the beach? Give me a break California!
Posted by: Serenity at March 25, 2004 06:23 PM (L4epf)
4
I was gonna blog about this but I'm glad you did it first.
My last thought on that kinda goes with Susie's train of thought.
Next thing you know, they'll ban people from smoking in their own cars because they don't want people flicking their butts out the window.
Maybe it sounds funny but I never thought I'd see the day that CA would tell me I can't smoke at the beach.
I guess I'll just suck the poisonous smog instead. Thanks CA!
Posted by: Serenity at March 25, 2004 06:27 PM (4A/WT)
5
Written like a buncha nicotine addicts who've never stepped on a lit butt with their bare feet. It hurts like a motherfucker for a long, long time.
Posted by: Casca at March 25, 2004 07:02 PM (BRVtJ)
6
Casca,
same can be said of sharp objects. You wanna ban seashells then?
Bans like this tick me off cause A: the are intrusions of the government where the government has no legitimate business intruding & B: the practical effects of such bans are dubious at least.
You don't wanna smoke? fine. don't smoke. You don't want to see someone smoking in a bar? fine. stay home or go to a bar whoseowner decide to prohibit smoking. Don't want the kids to see smokers on the beach? then keep your kids at your smoke free home. don't take 'em to movies either as pople smoke in them too.
as for second hand smoke being harmful...it would seem like it is, but the fact of the matter is that there's been no definitive link between adverse health & second hand smoke. Now if you have asthma then yes it'll get to ya. Same is true of car exhaust though.
But in the outdoors? nope. that BS is just too weak to even be brought up. Outdoor bans are not for a bystanders' health, but simply to discourage behavior the state disapproves of. They discourage smoking & at the same time get people used to having that level of government intrusion. Once the principle is established & accepted they can move onto anything else they like: fast food, sex, shopping, etc...
Now granted it'll be a while 'for ya have to get a license to shop or have sex, but restrictions on fast food content aren't that far off. & partly the reason is that people just don't get worked up over the state telling y'all something is bad for ya. whether smoking is bad or not is a sperate issue. The main thing y'all should be discussing is whose decision is it: the states or the individuals?
after all, wasn't it Chief Joseph who said....
Posted by: Publicola at March 25, 2004 08:54 PM (Aao25)
7
Actually, I walk down the beach in my barefeet regularly. I've walked on many shells in my barefeet, and never cut myself. I stepped on one lit butt in the sand 20 years ago, and will never forget it. It took over a month to heal since it was in my instep. The irony is that the beach was almost deserted.
If you need a cause, try the injustice of Social Security.
Posted by: Casca at March 25, 2004 09:29 PM (BRVtJ)
8
Casca,
If Annika wished to post abotu SS & I feel like I can add something in agreement or disagreement then I will. This one however is abotu a smoking ban.
So because you're not bothered by seashells you don't think there should be a ban on them. Interesting.
I can sympathize with arguments about litter or getting burned by a still lit but, it's just that I think prior restraint based laws such as this one do more harm than good; both in terms of the issue they claim to address & the bigger picture of whether we want more government control of our lives.
Smoking bans are a creeping hazard - much like seat belt laws. Here in Co they proposed a law that would make not buckling up a ticketable offense a few years back. The thing was you couldn't just be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt: you had to be doing something else & get a seat belt ticket in addition to another infraction. Now they're setting up road blocks under the premise of looking for seat belt violations. Same thing with smoking bans: once you let government get it's nose in that tent, then the rest will soon follow.
I smoke & have contacts. The smoke in bars gets to me b/c of my contacts sometimes. (& I spent a lot of time in bars). But the solution isn't to go whinign to the state or city & tell them my eyes get red every now & then - it's to either deal with it or stop going to bars. But in the People's Republik of Boulder they have eliminated such hazards for the citizen. Funny thing is they can't figure out why the only blues bands that will play up there suck (well I exaggarate - the comrades in Boulder wouldn't know good blues if Muddy Waters went around bitch-slappin' them all one by one).
First it was bars & resteraunts (which I'll be more than happy to argue with anyone about why that was some wrong shit in & of itself) now it's beaches, next it'll be anyplace in public, then anyplace except property you own (i.e. renters are out of luck) then it'll be an outright prohibition. When that happens (& it will if it's not stopped) people like me will be making a killin' running cartons across the border & y'all won't be able to figure out why the Cryps & Bloods let crack go & are fighting turf wars over Marlboro's.
Prior restraint based laws & prohibitions simply don't work. They create much more harm than good. Non-smokers should be just as concerned about these laws as smokers. The one thing y'all forget is that by saying a government can tell you you can't smoke in a place you're also giving it the authority to tell you you must smoke in a place. granted it's not likely that Hollywood is going to require mandatory smoking by everyone, but the fact remains you're giving them the authority to do just that (as unlikely as it may be).
Posted by: Publicola at March 26, 2004 04:05 AM (Aao25)
9
Publicola makes a good point. As i recall, in Cali the cops originally weren't allowed to ticket seatbelt violations without some other offense, but now i think they can pull over for seatbelt violations alone. The slippery slope in action. But still, shouldn't we all be wearing seatbelts anyway?
Posted by: annika at March 26, 2004 09:10 AM (zAOEU)
10
I agree. At least someone is being critical here. It is indeed a bad habit so why complain???
Posted by: Daniel at March 26, 2004 10:19 AM (0V6QR)
11
well like I said (or thought I did) it's not an issue of a behavior being bad or good, it's about who gets to make that determination.
Some people don't wanna wear seat belts cause they have friends who were thrown from cars & survived while others got killed cause they were strapped in. But the law takes away that choice, even if statistically they're probably safer with a seat belt on.
If I smoke that's my business. i know the pros & cons & I'm capable of making the decision I wanna make. But the state is getting ever closer to making that decision for me.
I carry a gun. In California that's verboten cause guns are considered bad. Cali would take away my choice in that as well.
The whole point is that when you take the decision away from the individual & place it with the government what you will discover is that all manner of things are deemed "bad" for you.
Even if you start out with things that are arguably bad it will progress into things that are merely convenient for the state in some way.
But as I'm an adult (no matter what the g/f says) who are you or anyone else to tell me that I can't smoke or must wear a seat belt or can't carry a gun? Even if you think those things are "bad" for me you simply lack the authority unless I agree to it. Governments are no different - they only have authority when the ones the govern think they do. & equally if it is wrong for you as a person to limit my behavior because you think something I do is "bad" then what makes it okay for a group of people to do in essence the same thing under the guise of government?
so even though you view smoking as bad, or not wearing a seatbelt as unsafe you cannot compel me to abide by your wishes with disregard for my own. Even if that behavior is bad for me it's simply none of your business. & I see no compelling reason why a city or state should be able to intrude into a person's private affairs when their neighbor couldn't.
trying another approach, drinking is bad for you right? but prohibition wasn't a good thing was it? same w/ the war on some drugs.
The correct solution to bad behavior that doesn't directly affect someone else isn't legislation - it's reasoning. Try to teach the people (or person) why their behavior is bad. That's how you achieve a meaningful change. Prohibitions & prior restraint mainly help the government establish more control over the people while giving the black market (where applicable) a boost.
Now didn't Chief Joseph say "educate - don't legislate" or was that Rev. Ike?
Posted by: Publicola at March 26, 2004 10:53 AM (Aao25)
12
i think that was Tina Turner!
; )
Posted by: annika at March 26, 2004 12:54 PM (zAOEU)
13
Publicola has a new fan.
Posted by: Serenity at March 26, 2004 05:00 PM (3J3iK)
14
I will refrain from the temptation of offering to sell you some genuine, original, new in the cloth Rev. Ike good luck coins & just mention that the Ike I referenced has no relation to Tina. Although I'm not sure if there's a Chief Joseph connection...
Posted by: Publicola at March 26, 2004 11:01 PM (Aao25)
15
I JUST FLEW IN FROM 2 WEEKS IN THE CARIBBEAN TO FIND I CAN'T SMOKE ON THE BEACH???!!!! I'M DISGUSTED THAT THIS RIGHT OF SMOKING OUTDOORS IN OPEN AIR IS BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM ME. I KNOW SMOKING IS BAD FOR ME BLAH,BLAH,BLAH, BUT WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY I CAN'T SMOKE OUTDOORS? SURE, FINE ME IF I LITTER THE BUTTS IN THE SAND (WHICH I NEVER DO). FOR ALL YOU OTHER SMOKERS AND NONSMOKERS OUT THERE, I MAKE A PORTABLE ASHTRAY OUT OF FOLDED ALUMINUM FOIL THAT I KEEP IN MY BEACH BAG. WHEN I GET HOME, I THROW IT AWAY. IT IS SO VERY EASY TO MAKE THESE ASHTRAYS/BUTT CONTAINER POUCHES OUT OF TIN FOIL. I AM SO MAD THAT I HAVE DONE THIS LITTER FREE SMOKING FOR YEARS, AND NOW THEY ARE TAKING AWAY MY FREE RIGHTS TO SMOKE OUTDOORS. IT MAKES ME WANT TO DUMP MY TRASHCAN FULL OF BUTTS ONTO SANTA MONICA BEACH. IF THEY CAN'T RESPECT ME, WHY SHOULD I HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR ANYONE ELSE?
Posted by: AMYBETH at April 02, 2004 03:08 PM (s6c4t)
16
Have any of you particpated in beach cleanups? All you need to do is one to realize how big a problem cigarette butts are on our beaches. For some reason, smokers don't think of their butts as litter (as evidenced by how recklessly they flick them from their cars and onto the beach). Well folks, these toxic babies add up...hundreds of thousands here in California and millions world wide. They are ingested by birds and marine animals that can be killed by them. Kids pick them up and put them in their mouths, and step on lit cigarettes. Secondhand smoke coming from your neighbor on the beach is obnoxious. Why should I have to move to accommodate smokers? Why should I have to pick up after them? What about the rights of nonsmokers to a clean beach and clean air?
Posted by: cali at April 21, 2004 11:47 PM (34Dm7)
17
CALI, I HAVE CLEANED UP A BEACH BEFORE, AND YOU KNOW WHAT I SAW? THE MOST TRASH WAS FROM FOOD WRAPPERS, CUPS, CANS, AND PLASTIC BOTTLES. SHOULD THEY MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO EAT OR DRINK ON THE BEACH? ALMOST EVERY TIME I GO TO THE BEACH, SOMEONE IS BLASTING THEIR MUSIC OR SITS THEIR CRAP DOWN RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY VIEW CAUSING ME TO MOVE... SO WHY SHOULD I CARE IF YOU HAVE TO MOVE BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT ANNOYS YOU? WHEN YOU GO TO A PUBLIC PLACE, REMEMBER YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO CONTROL EVERYTHING, AFTER ALL, IT IS A PUBLIC PLACE. YOU THINK IT'S OK TO TAKE A RIGHT AWAY FROM PEOPLE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. WAIT UNTIL THEY TAKE AWAY A RIGHT THAT DOES AFFECT YOU. OH, AND BY THE WAY, WHY ARE PARENTS LETTING THEIR CHILDREN PUT BUTTS IN THEIR MOUTHS? DON'T YOU PEOPLE WATCH YOUR CHILDREN????? ALSO, LUMPING ALL SMOKERS INTO A CATEGORY OF BUTT LITTERERS WHO DON'T CARE IS A REAL SNOTTY THING TO DO. SOME SMOKERS DON'T LITTER THEIR BUTTS, AND WHO ARE YOU TO SAY SMOKERS DON'T CARE ABOUT LITTER? GOD SAYS JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED. I GUESS YOU HAVEN'T MET HIM?
Posted by: AGAINST FASCISM at April 28, 2004 04:16 AM (s6c4t)
18
Cigarette butt data from The Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanup
The International Coastal Cleanup, organized annually by The Ocean Conservancy involves more than 500,000 volunteers picking up debris from beaches, rivers and streams around the world. Volunteers complete Marine Debris Data Cards indicating the quantity and type of litter they pick up. Every year during the International Coastal Cleanup, cigarette butts top the list as the most abundant item collected worldwide:
1998 - 1,616,841
1999 - 1,052,373
2000 - 1,369,726
2001 - 1,527,837
2002 - 1,640,614 (cigarettes and other smoking-related products accounted for 30 percent of the debris)
2003 - Still being tabulated
Cigarette butts have topped the list in all the Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanups since they were added to the Data Cards as a separate item in 1990.
Posted by: joan at April 28, 2004 10:54 PM (34Dm7)
19
No Smoking at the Beach?
by Robert A. Levy
Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
Here we go again. First it was the health police in Santa Monica, Los Angeles and Malibu. Then the butt-heads in Los Angeles County. Now it's the legislature, about to consider a bill to shield every sun worshipper statewide from the tribulations of beach smoking, and defend every grain of sand along the 1,100-mile coastline against cigarette litter.
One argument for the beach ban goes like this: Cigarette butts are a major source of litter. On cleanup days, volunteers say they pick up an average of more than 300,000 butts along the beach. If so, that's a powerful argument—but against littering, not against smoking. A ban on smoking is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. It's over-inclusive because responsible smokers who properly discard their cigarette butts do not contribute to litter. It's under-inclusive because irresponsible non-smokers who improperly discard food wrappers and soda cans are major contributors to litter. By all means, let's keep the beaches clean. Anyone who flips a cigarette butt onto the sand may deserve to be fined. But let's reserve our ire, and our legal remedies, for those who actually do something wrong.
The second argument against beach smoking is that secondhand smoke, even a wisp on breezy days, is a health hazard. The short answer is that no evidence exists to support that bald assertion. Indeed, a substantial body of evidence cuts the other way. In 1996, the American Heart Association journal, Circulation, reported no increase in coronary heart disease associated with secondhand smoke "at work or in other settings." Two years later, the World Health Organization reported "no association between childhood exposure to environmental tobacco smoke [ETS] and lung cancer." A 1999 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded, "We still do not know, with accuracy, how much or even whether [ETS] increases the risk of coronary heart disease."
Then there's the granddaddy of all secondhand smoke studies: the landmark 1993 report by the Environmental Protection Agency declaring that ETS is a dangerous carcinogen that causes 3,000 deaths annually. Five years later, a federal judge lambasted EPA for "cherry picking" the data, excluding studies that "demonstrated no association between ETS and cancer," and withholding "significant portions of its findings and reasoning in striving to confirm its a priori hypothesis."
More recently, in the May 2003 British Medical Journal, researchers found that passive smoke had no significant connection with heart disease or lung cancer death at any level of exposure at any time. Those results, stated the American Council on Science and Health, are "consistent" with studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. So what, you might argue. Maybe secondhand smoke doesn't kill people, but how about the harm to people with pre-existing asthma, respiratory infections, or eye allergies? After all, public beaches belong collectively to the citizens of a community. Why shouldn't those citizens decide, through their elected representatives, what conduct is permissible and what is not? Why should a minority of smokers be able to dictate public policy to a majority of non-smokers?
Ordinarily, in a democracy, we let the political process set restrictions on the use of public property. But there are limits on the exercise of political power. Under our constitutional system, a nonsmoking majority cannot arbitrarily stamp out the rights of a smoking minority. For a regulation to be legitimate, there must be a good fit between the regulation and the goal it seeks to accomplish.
That means smoking should not be banned—even on public property—without showing, first, that the ban will be effective and, second, that it will not proscribe more activities than necessary to reach its objective. Those two showings have not been made. The scientific link between secondhand smoke and various diseases is far from proven—especially on beaches. And regulations often prohibit smoking in locations that are not particularly confining, where patrons can easily avoid harm by taking a step or two away. If the scientific evidence were more compelling and the ban were limited to, say, reading rooms in public libraries, elevators in government office buildings, and restrooms at a state university, then a ban might be warranted. Not otherwise.
Government, not secondhand smoke, is polluting the beaches. Surely we can protect the legitimate rights of non-smokers without prohibiting smokers from relishing an occasional cigarette by the sea.
Posted by: frank at June 23, 2005 06:30 PM (wEcTa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 21, 2004
Results Of LindaÂ’s Trial
Last week
i wrote about the trial i was helping my friend Linda with. She represented the defendant and made her closing argument on Friday. The jury came back after about an hour and fifteen minutes.
The jury found our client negligent, but only awarded $1800 to the injured plaintiff, the amount of her medical bills. The jury unanimously awarded nothing to the wife for pain and suffering and nothing to the husband for loss of consortium.
The juryÂ’s verdict was substantially below LindaÂ’s last offer before trial. i could tell by the look on the plaintiffsÂ’ faces as they walked out of the courtroom on Friday that they regretted not taking the pre-trial offer.
We suspect that the jury did not like the way the plaintiffs were making a mountain out of a molehill, especially in regard to the loss of consortium claim. Linda tells me that it's very hard for plaintiff attorneys to get good verdicts on cases that only involve minor muscle strains. The more money the plaintiffs ask for, the less the jury seems to like them, she says.
i was impressed with LindaÂ’s skill as a cross-examiner and her eloquent closing argument. This was only her third trial, but iÂ’d never have known it by watching her. Of course itÂ’s the first real trial iÂ’ve ever seen, but i thought the plaintiffsÂ’ attorney was far less prepared than Linda.
i told Linda how great i thought she had been, but she was characteristically humble. “The facts won this case, not me,” she said.
“But you were so much better than the other lawyer,” i said. “You laid some traps for him that he had no idea how to get out of.” That was true, Linda got the plaintiff’s doctor to admit to a couple of innocuous facts during cross-examination and then during closing she sprung the trap by using those facts in a way that the other attorney had not anticipated. He didn’t see her argument coming and so he had no answer to it in his rebuttal. It was beautiful.
Linda has less of an ego than any lawyer iÂ’ve ever met. She simply refused to take credit for her trial victory. She thanked me profusely for my help, even though the judge denied both of the motions in limine that i wrote.
Friday, after work, Linda and i met up with our other team members, Grace, Paul, Patricia and Kathy for a round of Guinnesses. Finally, we got Linda to admit that she was good.
“Well, if there’s one thing I did do well,” she said, “it’s that i didn’t let [the plaintiffs’ attorney] get away with any mistakes.”
i agreed. She really exploited every weakness in the plaintiffsÂ’ case, including some weaknesses that i didnÂ’t see at first. Linda had this way of taking the arguments that the other guy thought were very clever and turning them around to use against him. i donÂ’t know how she did it, but if i ever make it through law school, i want her to teach me.
Posted by: annika at
07:41 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.
1
“The facts won this case, not me,” she said.
You may have heard this before, but if you have the facts on your side, pound on the facts; if you the law on your side, pound on the law; and if you have neither on your side, pound on the table.
Linda had this way of taking the arguments that the other guy thought were very clever and turning them around to use against him.
Rhetorical jiu-jitsu. It's a thing of beauty...much like the look on opposing counsle's face when they first realize they've made your case for you.
Posted by: Dave J at March 21, 2004 11:08 PM (+MjkF)
2
Hey Annika! Thought I would let you know that you are the "contributor" of the month for SoulParking.com. Go to www.soulparking.com/home - I wish I could send you a t-shirt, stickers, German beer, or Cuban cigars... But I can´t... Unless I travel to LA soon (my hometown actually - that´s where i was conceived and born) I can only offer you fame. Sorry to fill up your comments - actually - I am not sorry... Keep blogging girlfriend...!
Posted by: gsj at March 22, 2004 10:48 AM (8VxA6)
3
Congrats to all.
I'm happy that the husband's loss of consortium argument didn't gain him anything. Sounded like selfish greed to me.
Posted by: jen at March 22, 2004 11:42 AM (C31gH)
4
Consortium.
what a crock.
maybe if the wife
was amazingly hot.
I'm glad she won
I'm glad you helped
Many guinnei were had
Many bellies were belched.
Happy monday! it's f'in over!
Posted by: Scof at March 22, 2004 04:03 PM (XCqS+)
5
So she turned the argument around on him. I never met a woman that couldn't.
Posted by: Casca at March 22, 2004 06:50 PM (BRVtJ)
6
What a waste of everyone's time. What a stupid ass suit to begin with. This thing should have never gone to trial.
However, great practice for you Annika.
Next case!!
Posted by: joe at March 22, 2004 07:46 PM (/su5V)
7
Well, Joe, I'd point out that whether suits for consortium should exist or not (I certainly think they shouldn't) is really a policy choice to be made by the legislature, so as long as it hasn't acted, it would be overreaching by a court to simply toss out consortium claims.
Posted by: Dave J at March 23, 2004 05:13 PM (VThvo)
8
With all due respect Dave, far be from me to even remotely question the linear leanings of the legislature.
Hey, get the legislature working on frivolous medical law suits so you and I and the rest of the US won't have to pay exhorbitant health insurance.
I reiterate, "Next case!!"
Posted by: joe at March 23, 2004 07:38 PM (vcfk8)
9
Funny you would say that Dave, because in California the right to sue for Loss of Consortium was not created by the California legislature, but by an activist supreme court in 1977! the sole dissenting justice on that case said something like "I dissent because I think this is something for the legislature to do."
Posted by: annika! at March 23, 2004 09:33 PM (BqPOp)
Posted by: annika! at March 23, 2004 09:39 PM (BqPOp)
11
Hmmm. That's quite interesting. I don't have the time to read the opinion right now, but I was under the impression that loss of consortium was a fairly longstanding (if spectacularly stupid) common-law tort, going back to England, not a recent invention. Just goes to show I'm not terribly familiar with the subject, although I have little doubt that I'd agree with the dissent.
But what can you expect from a staffer for a state legislature? ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at March 24, 2004 07:45 AM (VThvo)
12
Congrats on the win. A friend of mine is a clerk for a PI attorney, and told me of a colleague of the attorney's who'd been offered $1 million, then $6 million (before the trial), then $15 million (as the jury went in) by the City of Chicago on a case.
The jury's verdict. For the plaintiff.
The award? $0.
Oh, and he took it on contingent. He took it another way, too.
Posted by: greg at March 26, 2004 10:19 AM (khzFa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 17, 2004
Loss Of Consortium
i've been silent this week because i'm helping Linda out on a trial. This basically means that i either sit in the audience and run errands for her, or do research and write little motions back at the office. Which is why i'm here tonight and not out drinking on St. Patrick's Day.
The trial is quite interesting. Hard to predict how it's going so far. Both sides are scoring points and the jury is hard to read.
The plaintiffs' case includes a claim for loss of consortium. In case you don't know, this is a claim that can be made when one spouse is injured and the other non-injured spouse says they lost out on sex, affection, love, help around the house and other stuff like that. We represent the defendants.
What i want to know, just out of curiosity, is what you folks think about that type of a lawsuit. In Linda's case, one plaintiff received some minor injuries: sore back, sore neck, etc., which went away with some physical therapy after two or three months. During those two or three months, the husband complained that they weren't able to have sex their usual two times per week, and the wife couldn't help around the house as much. They're both in their late thirties and they've been married 14 years.
Assuming that the defendants were negligent for causing the wife's minor injuries, what would you do about the husband's claim if you were on the jury?
Posted by: annika at
07:36 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. My answer to the question as I do understand it is simple: I'd do what the law says I'm supposed to do. That's what jury instructions are for. If the plaintiff is entitled to damages for loss of consortium, and he proves them, then he gets them. (Quantifying them may be hard, but that's not at all unique to loss of consortium claims.)
Posted by: Matt Rustler at March 17, 2004 08:41 PM (of2d1)
2
Okay, Matt. You have the basic facts. How much do you give the husband?
Posted by: annika! at March 17, 2004 09:13 PM (zAOEU)
3
Even though this is of no legal help, I would refute the husbands claim and tell the loser to suck it up and use his hand like every other Joe who isn't getting any. Sheesh, some guys these days.
Posted by: Sky Monkey at March 17, 2004 09:49 PM (2EoMl)
4
In this case the husband's claim is undeserving. There is no guarantee that the husband and wife would've had sex even if the accident had not occurred. He wants $ for something that "might" have happened. Bullshit. Too many variables could've affected that.
But here is the key thing for me> The husband wasn't deprived of sex with his wife. He wasn't deprived of having an orgasm during sex with his wife. Call it what it is> he was deprived of his "usual" method of sex with his wife.
Most every man I know would be completely happy to egage in different methods of sex with his wife. Am I wrong about this-- most every man is happy with the proceedings if he comes out of it with an orgasm-- isn't this the case for virtually every man?
Is a husband to throw a hissy fit and be rewarded b/c his injured wife cannot bring him to orgasm in the usual manner?
Also, if the wife is having sex twice a week, she will be willing to adjust to her infirmity and have sex with her husband in a fashion that will not cause further injury. If it's a wife's habit to have sex twice a week, and she is not willing to adjust in this fashion, then she is a bit of a shrew, and the husband does not deserve to be rewarded b/c his wife is a bit of a shrew.
Based on my life experiences, if I was in the jury room that's what I would tell my fellow jurors.
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at March 17, 2004 09:58 PM (E9paH)
5
Well hell, I was married from the age of 21 to 39, and I'd gone without sex MANY times for periods as long as that. Hell, almost everybody deployed to Iraq is in that spot as we speak.
Posted by: Casca at March 18, 2004 02:46 AM (BRVtJ)
6
Is this even provable? Hubby and wife could have going at it like bunnies on viagra and if they are both in court saying they couldn't how would you prove otherwise?
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at March 18, 2004 04:20 AM (CSxVi)
7
I hate this claim -- it's one of the reasons that I do not want to be a plaintiff's attorney. It's one of those "throw everything out there and see what sticks" claims.
As a juror, I would be turned off by it, and if at all permissible under the jury instructions, I would avoid awarding even a cent to this claim.
My opinion: suck it up. I could see if the wife was seriously injured and completely incapacitated -- then maybe an award for this claim would be appropriate. But in this case, where she was quickly rehabilitated, I don't think it's worth much.
Posted by: ginger at March 18, 2004 04:46 AM (eYQ9U)
8
Haven't most (or at least many) states abolished the cause of action for loss of consortium? Or am I thinking of dower and curtesy? Or maintenance and champerty, which I know is getting far away from the subject, but then I guess I'm just picking medieval-sounding archaic torts off the top of my head.
I'm definitely with Ginger on this: if I could not find anything but that the evidence met the plaintiff's burden of proof, then the typical one dollar in nominal damages.
Posted by: Dave J at March 18, 2004 06:15 AM (VThvo)
9
gcotharn in Texas: "most every man is happy with the proceedings if he comes out of it with an orgasm" - The sexism of this statement is only exceeded by its wrongness. If I had to guess then I would say that you have been sleeping with the wrong men.
Posted by: StumpJumper at March 18, 2004 06:52 AM (C34kV)
10
It seems that a loss of consortium case would only be justified if it could be proven that the injured spouse were obviously milking the minor injuries to avoid "regular duties" as a spouse for an extended period.
Posted by: Lionel Hutz, behind the Orange Julius stand in the Springfield Mall at March 18, 2004 07:03 AM (QyDeG)
11
Tough one. If, as Annika says, the defendant was negligent then you might be inclined to find for the plaintiff because, hey, the defendant screwed up and why should the plaintiff pay for his mistake(As for how much? I dunno. What does the law allow?)? However, isn't that what "pain and suffering" rewards are about? If he's just piling it on, I'd have a hard time justifying an award for this.
All this of course assumes a fair minded jury. Good luck with that.
Russ
Posted by: RussNY at March 18, 2004 07:42 AM (pSoT7)
12
People are wasting their lives and those of their fellow man in order to sue for 'consortium'? this is f'ing ridiculous.
Posted by: Scof at March 18, 2004 08:41 AM (XCqS+)
13
Stephen,
Sworn, in-court testimony is evidence. Many people really struggle with that concept, but it's how our judicial system works. (Shit, that's what a trial is all about!) If I get on the stand and say it, and the jury buys it,
that's "proof." Say you're in the bathroom of the local alehouse, and Joe Schmoe comes in, gives you a dirty look, and punches you in the nose for no reason at all. You defend yourself, and in the process Joe gets a mouthful of broken teeth. There are no other witnesses. The cops come. Joe mumbles, "that guy assaulted me in the bathroom; I defended myself." You're arrested and charged with assault. You tell your story on the stand, and claim self-defense. Joe tells his story on the stand. The jury believes Joe, and convicts you. "But," you say, "it was self-defense." As your lawyer, I say, "
that doesn't matter now; the jury didn't believe you." This sort of thing happens
all the time.
Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2004 10:23 AM (CF/QI)
14
The point of law suits is to compensate people for their loss, to put them in as good of a postion as if the wrongdoing did not happen. If loss of consortium is not compensated, then the full social harm is not paid for by the defendant. Without having to pay for the full harm, the defendant would be "under-deterred" from such negligence in the future.
Even though I'm a defense lawyer, I think these damages are appropriate. I'd award $50/day for the period the wife was laid up (and the husband wasn't getting laid).
This is by no means an abuse of the legal system, in my opinion. A family is a unit, and if the wife is hurt, so is the husband, and the defendant should pay for the harm to both if found guilty.
Posted by: roach at March 18, 2004 10:25 AM (DHoAQ)
15
Annie,
They haven't presented
any evidence on amount of damages? No "this is what it'd cost to hire a maid to do the equivalent things?" Nothing like that? (I suppose presenting evidence of what hookers charge might not fly with the judge -- though you
are in California, aren't you?!) OK, fine. Let's split the diff: 10 weeks. Say sex twice a week. (If I don't find their testimony on that credible, maybe I reduce it to something less, but right now I'll assume it's true.) Missed roughly 20 "encounters." Call those $100 each. Light cleaning from a maid service every week, say $50 per. $2500 damages. I might've gone for more if the jackass had put on some evidence -- or less if you put on some evidence giving me reason to think $2500 was too much.
And yes, I think remedies for loss of consortium have been abolished in many states. (I don't recall who asked that, but someone did.)
Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2004 10:27 AM (CF/QI)
16
I think the husband deserves at least $300 for each "missed encounter" not including interest. Screw the "maid service" (so to speak).
Posted by: d-rod at March 18, 2004 11:00 AM (CSRmO)
17
Matt,
I understand the nature of the system. I was merely answering the question of how I would think of it if I were on the jury. Having noting to base a decision on but the testimony of the people who are hoping to collect would make me a very skeptical juror.
If there were independent corroboration of the twice a week prior to the injury as well as the lack of intercourse following I would, as a juror, likely agree with damages.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at March 18, 2004 11:04 AM (CSxVi)
18
Sore neck and sore back? Fuck them!
You've got a mouth bitch, learn to use it!
Next case.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at March 18, 2004 11:28 AM (7Uozi)
19
Loss of consortium is, after all, a derivative claim. The husband will recover nothing, even if the wife was injured, if there is no negligence. It's also a bitch to disprove. Generally, if you have to get to the point of proving that loss of consortium didn't happen, you've already lost.
But my experience in Mississippi tells me that people aren't very sensitive to loss of consortium claims without serious injury.
Posted by: Scipiio at March 18, 2004 12:20 PM (14dkq)
20
By Scipiio--"Generally, if you have to get to the point of proving that loss of consortium didn't happen, you've already lost.
But my experience in Mississippi tells me that people aren't very sensitive to loss of consortium claims without serious injury."
These are good points. I think the REASON juries aren't very sensitive to loss of consortium claims is because-- absent serious injury-- loss of consortium need not to have happened. Juries instinctively know that the worst that happened was loss of the USUAL METHODS of consortium. For a short period of time, attempting to recover damages for such a loss is bad form.
By Matt--"So we have to decide who it's fairer to be unfair to: the innocent victim, or the negligent asshole? The law generally takes the approach that if you've gotta be unfair to someone, better the negligent asshole than his victim. Makes sense to me. Why shouldn't you be the one who has to "suck it up" if, in fact, you're a negligent asshole?"
I thought this post was an excellent tutorial. I was going to say there really wouldn't be much "sucking up" required in this instance, but. . .
By StumpJumper--"gcotharn in Texas: 'most every man is happy with the proceedings if he comes out of it with an orgasm' - The sexism of this statement is only exceeded by its wrongness. If I had to guess then I would say that you have been sleeping with the wrong men."
OK, I do want a more encompassing experience than mere orgasm implies. However, THIS husband and wife could certainly enjoy that type of encompassing experience in spite of her injuries. What they REALLY want compensation for is lack of "usual methods" of bringing the husband to orgasm. Anything other than usual method of achieving orgasm- such as emotional closeness, etc., was certainly not denied to this couple. Unless you want to argue that emotional closeness, etc., can only be achieved in the course of enacting specific sexual practices.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 18, 2004 01:06 PM (hT9/F)
21
Once again, you all prove beyond a doubt, that i have the best visitors in the blogosphere. i can't tell you how much this interesting comments thread helps.
Closing arguments tomorrow. i'll let you know how we do.
Posted by: annika! at March 18, 2004 07:03 PM (zAOEU)
22
I'm a day late on this, but what about the vows they took on the day they got married?
For better or worse, in sickness and health...
If I were on that jury, I wouldn't award the husband a penny. Dealing with those "losses" is a part of life. Get over it.
Posted by: jen at March 20, 2004 03:15 AM (0SLdf)
23
Jen,
Why isn't dealing with a crippling auto accident "part of life?" I mean, shit happens, right?
If you wrongfully hurt people, you should make them whole to make amends for your wrongdoing. In many cases that's not exactly possible, so we approximate it through money damages. And what's wrong with that?
Posted by: Matt Rustler at March 20, 2004 03:30 PM (of2d1)
24
Actually, kidding aside, I'd say I'm with Jen and Ginger on this one. Might be a reason why my ex-wife and I still enjoy each others company.
Posted by: d-rod at March 21, 2004 10:34 AM (JHUVw)
25
Matt, I don't have a problem with penalizing a defendant if they were clearly responsible for wrongdoing. My personal opinion, without knowing the particulars of this case, is that the reasons this guy is suing (because his wife couldn't do housework and have sex for a short time) are a little ridiculous - dare I say, frivolous? Accidents happen all the time. They're part of life. My point in my original comment is that no one is guaranteed that their spouse will be able to perform their duties at all times because life happens. That's what "for better or worse, in sickness and health" means.
Our society is way too litigious - trying to blame others for all kinds of unfortunate things that happen. That's life. Get over it and do the best you can.
Posted by: jen at March 21, 2004 02:55 PM (0SLdf)
26
You all have may have issed one important piece of this. What about the loss of one's ability to provide the day to day support that most families in today's dynamic environment rely on? Say the injured was a handyman and as a result of the injuries could no longer; or for a period of time could not; do the mechanic duties on the family car, keep up with lawn maintenance, etc. As a direct result of the injuries, the family realizes a financial burden that would otherwise not happen. In another example, say the injured was a wife who had primary responsibility; because the husband had a demanding job; for transporting children to sporting activities, music lessons etc. Suddenly the family must make arrangements for baby sitting, or negotiate transportation that could have an economic impact. Should the injured Party and their family bear the financial burden of another’s fault? While I understand the concepts behind some of the rather crude comments relative to sexual pleasures and how to relieve them, loss of consortium is much more than just intimacy between a husband and wife and the ability to "get your rocks off". Before making a rash decision “to fry the bastard” I believe many more factors must be considered.
Posted by: intrigued by the comments at April 19, 2004 06:24 PM (s6c4t)
27
You all have missed one important piece of this. What about the loss of one's ability to provide the day to day support that most families in today's dynamic environment rely on? Say the injured was a handyman and as a result of the injuries could no longer; or for a period of time could not, do the mechanic duties on the family car, keep up with lawn maintenance, etc. As a direct result of the injuries, the family realizes a financial burden that would otherwise not happen. In another example, say the injured was a wife who had primary responsibility; because the husband had a demanding job; for transporting children to sporting activities, music lessons etc. Suddenly the family must make arrangements for baby sitting, or negotiate transportation that could have an economic impact. Should the injured Party and their family bear the financial burden of another’s fault? While I understand the concepts behind some of the rather crude comments relative to sexual pleasures and how to relieve them, loss of consortium is much more than just intimacy between a husband and wifeb and "getting your rocks off". Before making a rash decision “to fry the bastard” I believe many more factors must be considered.
Posted by: intrigued by the comments at April 19, 2004 06:26 PM (s6c4t)
28
You all have missed one important piece of this. What about the loss of one's ability to provide the day to day support that most families in today's dynamic environment rely on? Say the injured was a handyman and as a result of the injuries could no longer; or for a period of time could not, do the mechanic duties on the family car, keep up with lawn maintenance, etc. As a direct result of the injuries, the family realizes a financial burden that would otherwise not happen. In another example, say the injured was a wife who had primary responsibility; because the husband had a demanding job; for transporting children to sporting activities, music lessons etc. Suddenly the family must make arrangements for baby sitting, or negotiate transportation that could have an economic impact. Should the injured Party and their family bear the financial burden of another’s fault? While I understand the concepts behind some of the rather crude comments relative to sexual pleasures and how to relieve them, loss of consortium is much more than just intimacy between a husband and wife and the ability to get one's "rocks off". Before making a rash decision “to fry the bastard” I believe many more factors must be considered.
Posted by: me at April 19, 2004 06:35 PM (s6c4t)
29
Loss of Consortium, I do know applies to marital couples. What about when a person is injured and they are living with a person (female, male, do they consider that loss of consortium towards the mate in which they are living or just applies only to marital relationships.
Posted by: Verna Davus at August 29, 2005 08:11 AM (PZUUN)
30
In California, you have to be married.
Posted by: annika at August 29, 2005 08:27 AM (ubdvk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 09, 2004
Idiot Alert
Fail me once, shame on you.
Fail me twice, shame on me.
Fail me forty-seven times, shame on the California Bar examiners . . .
Would you hire this lawyer?
And what does this idiot intend to do now?
He wants to challenge laws denying ex-felons the right to vote. He hopes to file a class-action suit in the next six months.
My dad was right. There's too many damn lawyers in this state.
Posted by: annika at
01:18 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well, considering the volume of Cali's constitution, one would reasonably assume the laws are not any more direct or condesnsed. So I can't really say I find it hard to believe that, especially over a few decades, that the laws would grow enough to keep someone from passing the bar.
However while I cn understand not having complete trust in the guy (even though he did finally pass)the case he plans to launch has more merit than you think.
The theory I'm going with is that once you've served your time there shouldn't be any restriction of Rights. After all, if they trust you enough to let you back into society, then what excuse do they have for treating you as a second or third class citizen?
Posted by: Publicola at February 09, 2004 06:28 AM (Aao25)
2
Call me old fashioned, but i don't want ex-cons voting.
Posted by: annika! at February 09, 2004 10:13 AM (zAOEU)
3
Yeah, I can see it now:
DEMOCRATS PANDERING FOR THE EX-CON VOTE!!!
Dean: "When I was governor, our inmates only served 43% of their sentences."
Kerry: "George W. Bush is out of touch with today's middle class prisoners. I served in Vietnam, so I understand EVERYTHING!"
etc.
etc...
Posted by: John at February 09, 2004 10:53 AM (7UPKM)
4
okay Old Fashioned (shoulda seen that one coming)...
Here's the deal - if a person commits a crime & srves his/her sentence, then why wouldn't you want them to vote?
Hell, if you're that bothered by criminals voting then we should disband the legislature (just cause they ain't been busted yet doesn't mean they're not guilty)
The other side is that we shouldn't be releasing people into society whom we distrust with the exercise of their Rights.
& what the tough on crime folks often forget is that any felony conviction will cause a denial of certain Rights. Ya don't have to set foot inside a jail, do probabtion, etc... If you get time served or a fine but it's a conviction, then adios Rights. & that applies to non-violent crimes, which I believe comprise the majority of convictions.
In my world I see it all the time. The statist bastards at the BATF have a real high conviction rate & the vast majority of convictions are for non-violent "crimes". A paperwork error can literally cost you several grand, 5 to 10 years out your life & a denial of Rights.
Now of course I'm all for disbanding those tax agents with delusions of granduere along with the elimination of most of the "laws" they enforce, but I still see no justification for denying someone their Rights after they have paid their debt to society.
& think about the federal & state congressional votes on certain laws (i.e. banning plastic guns even though they don't exist, not impeaching Clinton despite the blatent dishonesty he showed, etc...)& you're actually worried about someone who just took a multi-year time out voting? what's the worst that could happen- they'll vote dishonest politicians into office? lol
But I will agree that there are too many damn lawyers - which is the inevitable by-product of too many damn laws.
Posted by: Publicola at February 09, 2004 05:29 PM (Aao25)
5
Publicola, i just took a walk into our library to count the volumes of the California Code. Forget it. That would take me five or ten minutes. They cover two walls. So i decided just to count the books containing the ever growing California Constitution. Four volumes, along with three more volumes of annotations. Wow.
Posted by: annika! at February 09, 2004 06:22 PM (zAOEU)
6
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. —Thomas Jefferson
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood . . .
James Madison
Kinda spooky isn't it?
BTW, lately have I urged you to abandon Cali like the sinking socialist cesspool it is ?
Posted by: Publicola at February 09, 2004 10:14 PM (Aao25)
7
Not to worry, ex-cons don't and won't vote in any significant numbers ever.
Funny thing about this guy. I once worked in the commercial real estate business, one of our tenants was a "lawyer" who used to smoke pot in his office all the time. I mean you could smell it in the hall. I raised his rent to the market rate, and the fucker skipped on three months worth of rent.
Posted by: Casca at February 10, 2004 12:28 AM (BRVtJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
146kb generated in CPU 0.0294, elapsed 0.0905 seconds.
74 queries taking 0.0703 seconds, 306 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
