Admittedly, when I first hear the phrase "states' rights" I immediately think of Gone With the Wind. Maybe you'll remember that scene early in the film, where in the smokey front parlor of Twelve Oaks, Charles Hamilton challenges Rhett Butler to a duel after a heated debate amidst the gentlemen over whether or not the South can win a war against the Northern States.
Yes, yes, it does apply: today, we think of the Civil War as a fight over slavery but at the time, freedom of the individual wasn't the sole focus. For many, the War Between the States was fought over states' rights and the South's stance that the federal government should not have the legal power to dictate whether or not an individual state had the right to condone ownership of slaves.
We all know how that turned out. However, states' rights survives today and I'm wondering how intense this round of states' rights assertions are going to get. After all, Texas Governor Rick Perry's already written a best-selling book on it. It's a hot topic.
So, it's with some serious interest that I'm following the federal preemption decisions that are being made now by the United States Supreme Court in four (4) cases: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth; Williamson v. Mazda Motors; U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting; and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.
On their face, these cases don't seem to have much in common with each other - until you get the idea that ribboning through all of them is a fight over power to control something: state or federal. In legal terms, they are federal preemption cases and the High Court will be opining on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution as it applies in some very different scenarios.
Isn't it interesting that writ was granted on these four matters? Is the U.S. Supreme Court about to tell all of us ordinary folk something about how big the Federal Government is, and will be?
1. Wyeth: the Power of Pennsylvania Personal Injury Law
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth comes to the Supreme Court after the petitioners lost their fight at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: the lower federal appellate court ruled that parents could not seek legal damages under state law for the damages allegedly sustained by their daughter from a vaccine manufactured by Wyeth because their claim was barred by federal statute.
2. Williamson: the Power of Utah's Wrongful Death State Law
In Williamson, a wrongful death action was filed under Utah state law by the grieving husband of Thanh Williamson, who died from injuries sustained from the lap seat belt she was wearing when their Mazda minivan crashed back in 2002. Mazda's successful defense thus far is that it followed the federal safety regulations in place at the time (enacted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), therefore Mazda met the minimum safety standards. Federal law therefore preempts the state wrongful death case based upon Mazda being negligent in placing a lap belt in the rear passenger seat. There's no causation. (In 2007, NHTSA upped its requirements, and now shoulder-strapped belts are required for these passengers.)
3. U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Arizona's Ability to Regulate Hiring Illegal Immigrants
In U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a specific state statute passed into law by the Arizona legislature is at issue: the Arizona state law imposes sanctions on companies that hire illegal immigrants and additionally requires the employer to undertake a federal employment verification program that is voluntary under federal law. Is the regulation of any activity dealing with sanctioning illegal immigration going to held as exclusively the federal government's?
4. AT&T Mobility: the Power of California's State Sales Tax Regulation
In AT&T Mobility, the issue is whether or not the Federal Arbitration Act takes precedence over a state law passed in California that prohibits a phone company from giving away free phones to those who contract for the company's phone service and still charging the customer a sales tax for the freebie. The case arguably could result in dooming consumer class action lawsuits.
These Cases Will Be Supreme Court Expansion of States' Rights -- or Affirming Federal Power
Big deal? Yes. These cases are big deals. Lots of folk in lots of places are watching these preemption cases, and wondering what the impact of the High Court's decisions will be. Each of them will be used to apply in all sorts of matters where states' rights are at issue -- arguably, none can be read to their four corners, at least lots of assumptions are already being made that these will be far-reaching precedents.
11/28/2010
11/01/2010
I Voted and I Prayed - Did You?
I voted absentee last week, over at my branch library. You would have thought from the parking lot (I got the last slot) that there would be a long wait, a line of folk winding between the stacks. Nope.
When I went inside, there was no line at all. No one knew, and several people were puzzled, about where those cars came from. Political hijinks? Who knows, it's been a crazy year here in San Antonio, election-wise. Not to mention, nationally.
I do know that I don't remember an election where more was at issue, where voting was more important. Some are disgusted, some are disappointed, some are disillusioned. All responses to be respected given the realities we face today.
If there were easy answers, if there were a Cavalry to be called or a wand to be waved, we'd do it. We'd be there. It's a bad time for all of us.
Me? I studied the law at one of the best law schools in the country. I practiced law in one of the most litigious states in the United States for over 20 years. I write about the law and legal affairs professionally today.
It is from this background of education and experience that I find I remain respectful of the system without being enamoured with it. You're right: my vote isn't much at all, numbers-wise, but it's proactive. It's a tiny light, but it's what I've got, what I've been given.
I know that evil can triumph only if the good do nothing - what Burke wrote is true, in my experience.
And your voice needs to be heard. You need to participate because you are important here. Please go vote today. And then, please join me in praying for our United States of America - our country's in trouble, and I think this is one thing that all of us - Independent, Liberatarian, Republican, Green, Democrat - can agree upon.
.jpg)
When I went inside, there was no line at all. No one knew, and several people were puzzled, about where those cars came from. Political hijinks? Who knows, it's been a crazy year here in San Antonio, election-wise. Not to mention, nationally.
I do know that I don't remember an election where more was at issue, where voting was more important. Some are disgusted, some are disappointed, some are disillusioned. All responses to be respected given the realities we face today.
If there were easy answers, if there were a Cavalry to be called or a wand to be waved, we'd do it. We'd be there. It's a bad time for all of us.
Me? I studied the law at one of the best law schools in the country. I practiced law in one of the most litigious states in the United States for over 20 years. I write about the law and legal affairs professionally today.
It is from this background of education and experience that I find I remain respectful of the system without being enamoured with it. You're right: my vote isn't much at all, numbers-wise, but it's proactive. It's a tiny light, but it's what I've got, what I've been given.
I know that evil can triumph only if the good do nothing - what Burke wrote is true, in my experience.
And your voice needs to be heard. You need to participate because you are important here. Please go vote today. And then, please join me in praying for our United States of America - our country's in trouble, and I think this is one thing that all of us - Independent, Liberatarian, Republican, Green, Democrat - can agree upon.
.jpg)
10/20/2010
Texas Judge Suzanne Wooten Indicted for Bribery - But Is She the Evildoer Here? Do We Have A Witch Hunt?
It's always nice when the gray clears into black and white, and we find ourselves with a clear case of right and wrong. And that looks to be exactly what's happening up in the Dallas metroplex.
Specifically, in a North Dallas suburb and Republican stronghold (last Democratic Presidential candidate to carry the county was LBJ in 1964), where a district judge and the local district attorney are squaring off like a Wild West gunfight at High Noon.
Judge Suzanne Wooten v. DA John Roach
Officially, we're talking Collin County, Texas -- McKinney is the county seat, if you've been there -- and the big story revolves around State District Judge Suzanne Wooten who was suspended with pay this Monday after being indicted by a grand jury last week on 6 counts of bribery along with 1 count of organized criminal activity.
You read that right: a Texas judge has been indicted on 7 felony counts -- of import, the single organized crime count alone carries a life sentence.
Along with Judge Wooten, facing the same charges are two of her backers, David and Stacy Cary, along with her campaign manager, James Stephen Spencer.
Is this a Political Agenda or a Crusading District Attorney? We're Gonna Find Out ....
Judge Suzanne Wooten claimed victory in 2008 over Charles Sandoval, who had presided over the 380th Judicial District Court for the past twelve years. Wooten is a Republican and the first opponent that had challenged Sandoval in an election since 1996.
A Republican won in a recognized Republican stronghold. An officeholder loses the first time he's faced with an opponent. No big news yet, right?
July 2010: Judge Wooten Seeks Special Prosecutor to Investigate Possible Criminal Wrongdoing by DA Roach
According to papers filed of record in July 2010 by Judge Wooten, the morning after Election Day Charles Sandoval was over at the office of John Roach, Collin County District Attorney, voicing his belief that Wooten had cheated to get elected.
Two and a half years later, Wooten is filing papers alleging that Roach was trying to force her resignation, that he was "intimidating and harassing her," and that she was requesting the state Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor to look into the goings-on in Collin County for possible criminal wrongdoing by the District Attorney's Office.
October 2010: DA Roach Gets Grand Jury Indictment Against Judge Wooten - Felony Charges
DA Roach's follow up has culminated in the October 2010 grand jury indictments that claim the Carys handed over $150,000 to Wooten's campaign manager via a series of payments (listed in the indictment) with the intent that Wooten would rule in their favor once she took the bench. (No details on what cases, if any, the Carys had/have pending before the 380th.)
Someone is Doing Bad Things Here, Folks
Well, well, well. Isn't this scenario fascinating? First of all, I'm really interested to know what imminent danger the Carys were facing that needed alleged judicial sway worth $150,000 to them.
After all, the general idea that political contributions of any size carry with them the hope that maybe the judge will be swayed when the time comes isn't big news. Tell it to the plantiffs' bar as they contribute millions to political campaigns. Tell it to any lobbyist.
I want to know what was so special about the Carys' situation. If they're just political benefactors without any specific case or claim that had the potential to come across the judge's bench, then these bribery charges are gonna start stinking with the big ugly smell of "trumped up."
I'm not buying "organized criminal activity" here already -- alhtough I'm no criminal lawyer, that sounds like a charge that's gonna get dropped. Please, this isn't the Mafia here.
Defense Bar Publicly Supports Judge Wooten With Standing Ovation
Meanwhile, I'm reading that a big bunch of defense attorneys strode en masse into Judge Wooten's courtroom bright and early Monday morning led by the president of the local Criminal Defense Lawyers' Association. After their standing ovation, the association president stood to speak, telling Judge Wooten that she had their support and publicly voicing the attorneys' collective opinion that this is a "witch hunt."
Interesting. Very interesting. Because these folk work in this courtroom all day long, going against the prosecutors in the District Attorney's Office. They know the skinny. Their action here makes me think that Judge Wooten isn't the bad apple in this barrel.
Commission Suspended Wooten With Pay
Another thing to consider: the State Commission on Judicial Conduct DID suspend Judge Wooten this week. But they did it with pay, which they didn't have to do. I'm betting that they were forced to suspend her since she was indicted. No option on their part to suspend, but they gave her as much of a break as they could.
Specifically, in a North Dallas suburb and Republican stronghold (last Democratic Presidential candidate to carry the county was LBJ in 1964), where a district judge and the local district attorney are squaring off like a Wild West gunfight at High Noon.
Judge Suzanne Wooten v. DA John Roach
Officially, we're talking Collin County, Texas -- McKinney is the county seat, if you've been there -- and the big story revolves around State District Judge Suzanne Wooten who was suspended with pay this Monday after being indicted by a grand jury last week on 6 counts of bribery along with 1 count of organized criminal activity.
You read that right: a Texas judge has been indicted on 7 felony counts -- of import, the single organized crime count alone carries a life sentence.
Along with Judge Wooten, facing the same charges are two of her backers, David and Stacy Cary, along with her campaign manager, James Stephen Spencer.
Is this a Political Agenda or a Crusading District Attorney? We're Gonna Find Out ....
Judge Suzanne Wooten claimed victory in 2008 over Charles Sandoval, who had presided over the 380th Judicial District Court for the past twelve years. Wooten is a Republican and the first opponent that had challenged Sandoval in an election since 1996.
A Republican won in a recognized Republican stronghold. An officeholder loses the first time he's faced with an opponent. No big news yet, right?
July 2010: Judge Wooten Seeks Special Prosecutor to Investigate Possible Criminal Wrongdoing by DA Roach
According to papers filed of record in July 2010 by Judge Wooten, the morning after Election Day Charles Sandoval was over at the office of John Roach, Collin County District Attorney, voicing his belief that Wooten had cheated to get elected.
Two and a half years later, Wooten is filing papers alleging that Roach was trying to force her resignation, that he was "intimidating and harassing her," and that she was requesting the state Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor to look into the goings-on in Collin County for possible criminal wrongdoing by the District Attorney's Office.
October 2010: DA Roach Gets Grand Jury Indictment Against Judge Wooten - Felony Charges
DA Roach's follow up has culminated in the October 2010 grand jury indictments that claim the Carys handed over $150,000 to Wooten's campaign manager via a series of payments (listed in the indictment) with the intent that Wooten would rule in their favor once she took the bench. (No details on what cases, if any, the Carys had/have pending before the 380th.)
Someone is Doing Bad Things Here, Folks
Well, well, well. Isn't this scenario fascinating? First of all, I'm really interested to know what imminent danger the Carys were facing that needed alleged judicial sway worth $150,000 to them.
After all, the general idea that political contributions of any size carry with them the hope that maybe the judge will be swayed when the time comes isn't big news. Tell it to the plantiffs' bar as they contribute millions to political campaigns. Tell it to any lobbyist.
I want to know what was so special about the Carys' situation. If they're just political benefactors without any specific case or claim that had the potential to come across the judge's bench, then these bribery charges are gonna start stinking with the big ugly smell of "trumped up."
I'm not buying "organized criminal activity" here already -- alhtough I'm no criminal lawyer, that sounds like a charge that's gonna get dropped. Please, this isn't the Mafia here.
Defense Bar Publicly Supports Judge Wooten With Standing Ovation
Meanwhile, I'm reading that a big bunch of defense attorneys strode en masse into Judge Wooten's courtroom bright and early Monday morning led by the president of the local Criminal Defense Lawyers' Association. After their standing ovation, the association president stood to speak, telling Judge Wooten that she had their support and publicly voicing the attorneys' collective opinion that this is a "witch hunt."
Interesting. Very interesting. Because these folk work in this courtroom all day long, going against the prosecutors in the District Attorney's Office. They know the skinny. Their action here makes me think that Judge Wooten isn't the bad apple in this barrel.
Commission Suspended Wooten With Pay
Another thing to consider: the State Commission on Judicial Conduct DID suspend Judge Wooten this week. But they did it with pay, which they didn't have to do. I'm betting that they were forced to suspend her since she was indicted. No option on their part to suspend, but they gave her as much of a break as they could.
10/08/2010
Falcon Lake Killing of Colorado Tourist - a Mystery Playing Out on the Texas Mexico Border
I've lived in San Antonio for most of my life - and my family has been in Texas for the past seven generations, with ties to various communities from the Killeen/Belton area (now Fort Hood) over to Hallettsville (nearer to Houston) and down to Corpus Christi.
Lots of family stories about lots of Texas sites, along with the usual folklore. Pecos Bill, the Donkey Lady, the Indian lovers who threw themselves off the cliff near Floresville, the ghosts of the school bus kids who push your car over the tracks near Mission Road.
Suddenly, we're all hearing about Falcon Lake
No one ever talked about Falcon Lake, much less went there to fish for bass. I never, ever heard about Falcon Lake until I started doing research on the drug cartels for a writing project. Falcon Lake is big, and it sets there on the Texas-Mexican border, a big bubble of the Rio Grande - 60 miles long. Part of the lake is in Mexico, and part of the lake is Texan.
Which all goes to provide backstory to my following of this news story: the couple from Colorado, down on Falcon Lake having fun when some Mexican pirates shot the husband in the head - and now his body is missing and Governor Perry is getting lotsa press coverage, demanding that Mexico help find the victim's remains.
Within the past hour, there's been a press conference where the Zavala County Sheriff is reporting that blood evidence supports a belief that members of the Zeta drug cartel were the mysterious pirates that shot at the vacationing couple, presumably to enforce their borders in an ongoing cartel drug war.
Wow.
Falcon Lake? Really? FoxNews is reporting that search teams continue to look for David Michael Hartley, 30, in the Mexican part of Falcon Lake, based upon the information provided by Tiffany Hartley, 29, who has told authorities that her husband was shot in the head by one or more men from two boats that accosted them as the couple were riding the lake on Jet Skis.
The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) has notified the public that David Hartley's encounter is the 5th report of Americans crossing paths with Mexican pirates on the waters of Falcon Lake. From the DPS news release, these prior incidents are (quoting from the DPS release):
Calling these shooters "pirates," however gives them a romantic label that isn't appropriate, though. These aren't colleagues of Captain Jack Sparrow we're talking about here.
I doubt that the couple looked like they were running drugs, poaching business from the drug professionals. And, illegal drugs - along with guns, ammo, and human trafficking - is big business in my part of the world. It's not legal, and it's not advertised on TV, but it's here.
The big elephant in the room. The 800 pound gorilla.
When I follow this story, what I read is that the Zetas are claiming Falcon Lake as their own. This isn't a big surprise here in Texas -- we stopped Christmas shopping in Nuevo Laredo several years back, so this is just another spot we're savvy to avoid.
What I'm wondering is when the rest of the country is going to get up to speed here. And, what's going to be the solution to this growing violence?
It's nice to think that there's a big, bold border between Texas and Mexico - but that's only on maps. Here in San Antonio, we know it's a murky co-mingling of cultures that starts somewhere south of town. And, it's getting closer to our city limits every day.
Lots of family stories about lots of Texas sites, along with the usual folklore. Pecos Bill, the Donkey Lady, the Indian lovers who threw themselves off the cliff near Floresville, the ghosts of the school bus kids who push your car over the tracks near Mission Road.
Suddenly, we're all hearing about Falcon Lake
No one ever talked about Falcon Lake, much less went there to fish for bass. I never, ever heard about Falcon Lake until I started doing research on the drug cartels for a writing project. Falcon Lake is big, and it sets there on the Texas-Mexican border, a big bubble of the Rio Grande - 60 miles long. Part of the lake is in Mexico, and part of the lake is Texan.
Which all goes to provide backstory to my following of this news story: the couple from Colorado, down on Falcon Lake having fun when some Mexican pirates shot the husband in the head - and now his body is missing and Governor Perry is getting lotsa press coverage, demanding that Mexico help find the victim's remains.
Within the past hour, there's been a press conference where the Zavala County Sheriff is reporting that blood evidence supports a belief that members of the Zeta drug cartel were the mysterious pirates that shot at the vacationing couple, presumably to enforce their borders in an ongoing cartel drug war.
Wow.
Falcon Lake? Really? FoxNews is reporting that search teams continue to look for David Michael Hartley, 30, in the Mexican part of Falcon Lake, based upon the information provided by Tiffany Hartley, 29, who has told authorities that her husband was shot in the head by one or more men from two boats that accosted them as the couple were riding the lake on Jet Skis.
The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) has notified the public that David Hartley's encounter is the 5th report of Americans crossing paths with Mexican pirates on the waters of Falcon Lake. From the DPS news release, these prior incidents are (quoting from the DPS release):
- April 30, 2010: Four heavily armed men boarded two boats near the Old Guerrero area demanding money. The bandits were given $200 in cash and tried to follow the U.S. boats as they sped back to U.S. waters. The bandits stopped once they reached the United States boundary.
- May 6, 2010: Two armed men approached a boat near Marker 14 on the north side of Salado Island on top of the ruins at Old Guerrero. The men demanded money, which the fishermen gave them.
- May 16, 2010: Five armed men boarded a boat on the United States side of the lake near Marker 7. Investigators have no further information on the incident.
- Aug 31, 2010: Falcon Lake pirates, using a small boat marked “Game Wardin” using duct-taped letters to possibly mimic Texas Parks and Wildlife vessels operating in Texas waters, attempted to stop a Texas fisherman. His knowledge of previous DPS safety warnings about Falcon Lake and the misspelling of the word “Warden” alerted the fisherman that something was wrong and he outran the Mexican vessel to safety.
Calling these shooters "pirates," however gives them a romantic label that isn't appropriate, though. These aren't colleagues of Captain Jack Sparrow we're talking about here.
I doubt that the couple looked like they were running drugs, poaching business from the drug professionals. And, illegal drugs - along with guns, ammo, and human trafficking - is big business in my part of the world. It's not legal, and it's not advertised on TV, but it's here.
The big elephant in the room. The 800 pound gorilla.
When I follow this story, what I read is that the Zetas are claiming Falcon Lake as their own. This isn't a big surprise here in Texas -- we stopped Christmas shopping in Nuevo Laredo several years back, so this is just another spot we're savvy to avoid.
What I'm wondering is when the rest of the country is going to get up to speed here. And, what's going to be the solution to this growing violence?
It's nice to think that there's a big, bold border between Texas and Mexico - but that's only on maps. Here in San Antonio, we know it's a murky co-mingling of cultures that starts somewhere south of town. And, it's getting closer to our city limits every day.
9/21/2010
San Antonio Named Most-Recession Proof City in America (other than Washington D.C.) - But What About the Drug Money?
Derek Thompson of The Atlantic has named San Antonio, Texas, as the most recession proof city in America. If you don't consider the nation's capitol, of course.
Mr. Thompson's provided lots of support for his position. He even came down here and looked around. That's good - we love people to come and visit our fair city.
However, I'm pondering that there's a huge economic cushion here in my town that isn't getting considered in the analysis here: that's all the drug money that flows through our area. Now, I'm not sure how you'd gather numbers for any real comparisons, but I do know it's here and it's huge.
How do I know? Well, the fact that there's a lot of drug money around here isn't news to those of us who live in the Alamo City. However, the extent to which my beloved hometown is a business hub for the transportation of illegal goods became clear to me during the three years that I was active in the Bexar County Children's Court, representing abused and neglected kids in CPS cases. Sometimes, yes, I represented the parents who were being threatened with their parental rights being terminated, too.
From these clients, as well as CPS Investigators, and various members of law enforcement (Border Patrol, Texas Rangers) I came to learn how the drug business is just like any other: it's a profit-oriented enterprise, and it has distribution and transportation concerns as well as manufacturing and marketing.
Interstate 35 and Interstate 10 intersect smack-dab in the middle of San Antonio. Last I heard, a lot of heroin was being moved along these routes by the cartels up and through the rest of the nation. From Mexico, San Antonio is an important link in the distribution chain.
Which brings lots of money into our economy, whether we like it or not. Not to mention the human trafficking (I learned about the coyote business during my CPS representations, too) and gun-running.
Is this illegal stuff a true cornerstone of our local economy? I don't know, because I have no idea how much we're truly talking about here. However, from what I gleaned from all the people that shared their information with me, it's big numbers. Millions, billions.
And that I think may be the real reason that San Antonio isn't hurting economically as much as other parts of the country right now.
Mr. Thompson's provided lots of support for his position. He even came down here and looked around. That's good - we love people to come and visit our fair city.
However, I'm pondering that there's a huge economic cushion here in my town that isn't getting considered in the analysis here: that's all the drug money that flows through our area. Now, I'm not sure how you'd gather numbers for any real comparisons, but I do know it's here and it's huge.
How do I know? Well, the fact that there's a lot of drug money around here isn't news to those of us who live in the Alamo City. However, the extent to which my beloved hometown is a business hub for the transportation of illegal goods became clear to me during the three years that I was active in the Bexar County Children's Court, representing abused and neglected kids in CPS cases. Sometimes, yes, I represented the parents who were being threatened with their parental rights being terminated, too.
From these clients, as well as CPS Investigators, and various members of law enforcement (Border Patrol, Texas Rangers) I came to learn how the drug business is just like any other: it's a profit-oriented enterprise, and it has distribution and transportation concerns as well as manufacturing and marketing.
Interstate 35 and Interstate 10 intersect smack-dab in the middle of San Antonio. Last I heard, a lot of heroin was being moved along these routes by the cartels up and through the rest of the nation. From Mexico, San Antonio is an important link in the distribution chain.
Which brings lots of money into our economy, whether we like it or not. Not to mention the human trafficking (I learned about the coyote business during my CPS representations, too) and gun-running.
Is this illegal stuff a true cornerstone of our local economy? I don't know, because I have no idea how much we're truly talking about here. However, from what I gleaned from all the people that shared their information with me, it's big numbers. Millions, billions.
And that I think may be the real reason that San Antonio isn't hurting economically as much as other parts of the country right now.
9/20/2010
The Recession Ended in 2009? Who are they kidding?
The Big Kahanas are reporting that the Recession is Over. The Associated Press is basing its news on the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), and Time Magazine is sourcing the NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) -- both opining that things magically changed in June 2009, and yes -- over 14 months ago, the recession was over.
Read the OECD Report Overview here. Read the NBER Summary here.
My first thoughts: baloney.
Maybe if you label 2007-2009 a recession, and then a couple of years down the road, you come back and label another batch of months a second (double dip) recession, you can feel better about things. (Which is what I'm expecting these Svengalis will do, to justify the reports they've just issued.)
I think we're in a Depression, not dipping recessions, and that the government is scared of public reaction if they start using that very, very scary word: depression. Lots of us remember family members telling horrific stories about the Great Depression, and heck: who wants to think that the Joad Family is their future?
What about their numbers? Statistics - please. I think things have been fudged, ignored, manipulated here because my reality simply does not jive with these reports.
Bottom line, I'm not buying what I'm being told. But heck, who am I?
My finance degree (BBA) is ancient history, my law degree means I look for an argument, and my writing career means I'm nosy and try to observe every piece of lint that floats by ... so I went looking around.
And I see that there are others that aren't buying it, either:
Stephen Gandel at Time.com predicts a double dip. Another recession is coming (is here?).
Ann Brenoff at WalletPop discusses reality vs. the NBER, with stats on unemployment and poverty levels among other things.
BusinessPundit calls the NBER "hallucinatory" - love this. Hallucinations, makes me chuckle.
ZeroHedge labels the NBER findings "worthless," wondering when the reality that we're in the midst of a Depression will be announced to the public (predicting the mid2020s). Kudos here to actually using the skeery word.
In the midst of all this surfing around, I discovered a Dartmouth economist's site, where he analyzes governmental reporting -- and John Williams has a very, very different take on the state of our economy today.
He's got employment at 22% (which sounds pretty real to me) and GDP in the negative since 2004.
Now that, that's sounding closer to the mark.
Read the OECD Report Overview here. Read the NBER Summary here.
My first thoughts: baloney.
Maybe if you label 2007-2009 a recession, and then a couple of years down the road, you come back and label another batch of months a second (double dip) recession, you can feel better about things. (Which is what I'm expecting these Svengalis will do, to justify the reports they've just issued.)
I think we're in a Depression, not dipping recessions, and that the government is scared of public reaction if they start using that very, very scary word: depression. Lots of us remember family members telling horrific stories about the Great Depression, and heck: who wants to think that the Joad Family is their future?
What about their numbers? Statistics - please. I think things have been fudged, ignored, manipulated here because my reality simply does not jive with these reports.
Bottom line, I'm not buying what I'm being told. But heck, who am I?
My finance degree (BBA) is ancient history, my law degree means I look for an argument, and my writing career means I'm nosy and try to observe every piece of lint that floats by ... so I went looking around.
And I see that there are others that aren't buying it, either:
Stephen Gandel at Time.com predicts a double dip. Another recession is coming (is here?).
Ann Brenoff at WalletPop discusses reality vs. the NBER, with stats on unemployment and poverty levels among other things.
BusinessPundit calls the NBER "hallucinatory" - love this. Hallucinations, makes me chuckle.
ZeroHedge labels the NBER findings "worthless," wondering when the reality that we're in the midst of a Depression will be announced to the public (predicting the mid2020s). Kudos here to actually using the skeery word.
In the midst of all this surfing around, I discovered a Dartmouth economist's site, where he analyzes governmental reporting -- and John Williams has a very, very different take on the state of our economy today.
He's got employment at 22% (which sounds pretty real to me) and GDP in the negative since 2004.
Now that, that's sounding closer to the mark.
9/19/2010
Randy Quaid Squatting in a Home He Used to Own? He's Lucky this Bust is in California and not Texas: or is he?
Randy Quaid and his wife Evi have been arrested again by the California police. According to news reports, Mr. and Mrs. Quaid not only gained access to this Santa Barbara County home -- apparently up for sale, there's a realtor who is talking to the tabloids (gotta love that, right?) -- Randy and Evi hung their portrait above the fireplace.
When confronted, they claimed to own the property -- but that was soon refuted by the owner and some annoying property records. Randy and Evi Quaid sit in a Santa Barbara County jail as I type this.
What Is Going On With Randy and Evi Quaid?
I do not understand how these two are roaming around - still - when it seems pretty obvious that there's some serious psychological trouble here (the TMZ commenters are less tactful than I am: they just label Evi a "nutjob"). Randy apparently carved his initials into the mailbox. The couple had set up house here, too: at the time of arrest, there were dirty dishes in the kitchen sink and clothes were already hung in the closet. Did they really think they could hang there indefinitely?
Here's my question: didn't they have any other place to go? Have they already alienated all their friends and family (this happens, you know). According to IMDB, Randy has been barred from the Actor's Equity Association, but the site also shows some very nice salaries -- including $1,000,000 for Goya's Ghosts (2006).
Are they broke? Homeless?
The Santa Barbara cops busted Randy and Evi Quaid on felony burglary charges and each also face a misdemeanor charge of entering a building without consent. Evi has a third charge: resisting arrest (no surprise there). It's a misdemeanor, too.
As you will remember, Randy and Evi have been arrested in the not-too-distant past: just this past April, in fact. They purportedly skipped on paying a hotel bill ....
Each is being held on a $50,000 bail. That's not much.
Randy and Evi Quaid are Lucky They Were Busted in California, not Texas -- or are they?
With California's history of treating celebrities differently (think Paris Hilton, think Lindsay Lohan) the Quaids are probably thought by many to be lucky that they're dealing with California authorities.
Because here in Texas, I'm betting that we'd already be hearing something about psychological evaluations and drug tests and hair follicle analysis. Adult Protective Services, Guardianships, these things come to mind. A bigger bail to make sure some kind of investigation could be put in place before they were free on the streets again.
Cuz Randy Quaid and his wife Evi aren't acting in their own best interests, and maybe they're even getting close to crossing the line of becoming a danger to themselves or others (legal terms italicized).
Doesn't look like celebrity status is doing much to help them here, and I worry that if someone doesn't step in soon, we're gonna be talking tragedy.
So, while this story will be the butt of some late night jokes, I'm sitting here thinking Too Bad. Randy Quaid needs some help - and some respect. He's been nominated for an Oscar and he's built an impressive body of work.
When confronted, they claimed to own the property -- but that was soon refuted by the owner and some annoying property records. Randy and Evi Quaid sit in a Santa Barbara County jail as I type this.
What Is Going On With Randy and Evi Quaid?
I do not understand how these two are roaming around - still - when it seems pretty obvious that there's some serious psychological trouble here (the TMZ commenters are less tactful than I am: they just label Evi a "nutjob"). Randy apparently carved his initials into the mailbox. The couple had set up house here, too: at the time of arrest, there were dirty dishes in the kitchen sink and clothes were already hung in the closet. Did they really think they could hang there indefinitely?
Here's my question: didn't they have any other place to go? Have they already alienated all their friends and family (this happens, you know). According to IMDB, Randy has been barred from the Actor's Equity Association, but the site also shows some very nice salaries -- including $1,000,000 for Goya's Ghosts (2006).
Are they broke? Homeless?
The Santa Barbara cops busted Randy and Evi Quaid on felony burglary charges and each also face a misdemeanor charge of entering a building without consent. Evi has a third charge: resisting arrest (no surprise there). It's a misdemeanor, too.
As you will remember, Randy and Evi have been arrested in the not-too-distant past: just this past April, in fact. They purportedly skipped on paying a hotel bill ....
Each is being held on a $50,000 bail. That's not much.
Randy and Evi Quaid are Lucky They Were Busted in California, not Texas -- or are they?
With California's history of treating celebrities differently (think Paris Hilton, think Lindsay Lohan) the Quaids are probably thought by many to be lucky that they're dealing with California authorities.
Because here in Texas, I'm betting that we'd already be hearing something about psychological evaluations and drug tests and hair follicle analysis. Adult Protective Services, Guardianships, these things come to mind. A bigger bail to make sure some kind of investigation could be put in place before they were free on the streets again.
Cuz Randy Quaid and his wife Evi aren't acting in their own best interests, and maybe they're even getting close to crossing the line of becoming a danger to themselves or others (legal terms italicized).
Doesn't look like celebrity status is doing much to help them here, and I worry that if someone doesn't step in soon, we're gonna be talking tragedy.
So, while this story will be the butt of some late night jokes, I'm sitting here thinking Too Bad. Randy Quaid needs some help - and some respect. He's been nominated for an Oscar and he's built an impressive body of work.
7/04/2010
Have You Ever Read the Declaration of Independence?
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
6/30/2010
Google News Changes - Personalized News Source or Big Brother Monitoring?
There's a video from Google on its Google Blog today, introducing today's revamped Google News -- and while it sounds nice (doesn't Google always sound nice?), I gotta wonder.
How much is Google monitoring what we're reading for its own devices?
Should we be selecting the stories we read, or was it better, when the editors sorted stories according to importance - what we the public might need to know?
The fact that the video uses "Tom Cruise" as an example of how to cull your news to fit your interests, does this tell us something scary about things today?
How much is Google monitoring what we're reading for its own devices?
Should we be selecting the stories we read, or was it better, when the editors sorted stories according to importance - what we the public might need to know?
The fact that the video uses "Tom Cruise" as an example of how to cull your news to fit your interests, does this tell us something scary about things today?
6/29/2010
My New Free e-Book: Twitter Nuts n Bolts 4 Lawyers: a How-to Guide for Law Firms
Twitter Nuts n Bolts 4 Lawyers: A How-To Guide for Law Firms is my first free e-book. I'm offering this 10-step primer especially for lawyers. In ten steps, it explains how attorneys and law firms can get started on Twitter -- and be tweeting away, efficiently and effectively, in 15 minutes or less. That's right: 15 minutes.
Twitter Nuts & Bolts 4 Lawyers: a How-To Guide for Law Firms is free on the web; you can download or print your copy here.
Leading law firms tweet; check out Jackson Walker, Fulbright, and Vinson & Elkins to name a few. Corporations (read that clients) are using tweets to their advantage, as well. Follow @ScottMonty of Ford Motor Company as an example of how this is done, and done well.
Despite the Twitter explosion, a great many law firms have yet to start Tweeting on Twitter. My new e-Book helps them change that, fast and easy. And yes, for free.
Twitter Nuts n Bolts 4 Lawyers: a How-To Guide for Law Firms, in 12 pages, takes the reader through 10 Steps - from Joining Twitter (Step One) to Planning a Tweeting Strategy (Step Four) to Scheduling Tweets (Step Ten).
It's a basic manual -- a starting guide -- that empowers attorneys with the core information (complete with visuals) they need to become active on Twitter.
Please read and use Twitter Nuts n Bolts 4 Lawyers: A How-To Guide for Law Firms with my compliments.
Twitter Nuts & Bolts 4 Lawyers: a How-To Guide for Law Firms is free on the web; you can download or print your copy here.
Leading law firms tweet; check out Jackson Walker, Fulbright, and Vinson & Elkins to name a few. Corporations (read that clients) are using tweets to their advantage, as well. Follow @ScottMonty of Ford Motor Company as an example of how this is done, and done well.
Despite the Twitter explosion, a great many law firms have yet to start Tweeting on Twitter. My new e-Book helps them change that, fast and easy. And yes, for free.
Twitter Nuts n Bolts 4 Lawyers: a How-To Guide for Law Firms, in 12 pages, takes the reader through 10 Steps - from Joining Twitter (Step One) to Planning a Tweeting Strategy (Step Four) to Scheduling Tweets (Step Ten).
It's a basic manual -- a starting guide -- that empowers attorneys with the core information (complete with visuals) they need to become active on Twitter.
Please read and use Twitter Nuts n Bolts 4 Lawyers: A How-To Guide for Law Firms with my compliments.
6/28/2010
Oregon Supreme Court Reverses $100 Million Punitive Award Against Philip Morris Based on US Supreme Court Decision Re Punitive Limits
The $100 million punitive damage award against Philip Morris got reversed by the Oregon Supreme Court last week, with the state's high court returning the case back to the trial court for yet another consideration of how much the tobacco company should pay the family of Michelle Schwartz in punitives for her lung cancer death. (The opinion is available online in pdf format.)
The trial court judge already reduced the jury's initial $120,000,000 punitive award to $100 million; now, who knows where it will end up.
Why this second reduction by the Oregon Supreme Court?
Apparently, the tobacco company's defense argument - that jury instructions failed to stop the jurors from awarding punitives against Philip Morris for cancer deaths other than Michelle Schwartz's - prevailed upon appeal.
This, even though the jury's verdict was totally valid under the law that existed at the time that the verdict was reached and the judgment was signed by the trial judge.
What happened?
It wasn't a case of reevaluation of the court's charge: the defense's proposed jury instructions didn't get approved by the trial court judge, either. This decision is a direct result and reaction to the United States Supreme Court's decision that due process requires limitation on punitive damages.
Problem is, the US Supreme Court didn't give any clear help to lower courts in how they are to determine the due process parameters on punitive damage awards. As Oregon Justice Martha Walters explains in last week's opinion, the United States Supreme Court "... has thrust upon state courts the role of determining whether a jury award of punitive damages exceeds the outer limits that substantive due process allows."
Here's what the U.S. Supreme Court opined in State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 US 408, 422, 423 (2003):
Gotta wonder if another state supreme court, say Texas, would see things the same way as Oregon in the application of this warning from the Supremes. And, will this result simply mean that Plaintiff's lawyers are going to be much more thoughtful about where they file suit against huge, monolithic corporations like Philip Morris?
Nothing like certainty in litigation.
The trial court judge already reduced the jury's initial $120,000,000 punitive award to $100 million; now, who knows where it will end up.
Why this second reduction by the Oregon Supreme Court?
Apparently, the tobacco company's defense argument - that jury instructions failed to stop the jurors from awarding punitives against Philip Morris for cancer deaths other than Michelle Schwartz's - prevailed upon appeal.
This, even though the jury's verdict was totally valid under the law that existed at the time that the verdict was reached and the judgment was signed by the trial judge.
What happened?
It wasn't a case of reevaluation of the court's charge: the defense's proposed jury instructions didn't get approved by the trial court judge, either. This decision is a direct result and reaction to the United States Supreme Court's decision that due process requires limitation on punitive damages.
Problem is, the US Supreme Court didn't give any clear help to lower courts in how they are to determine the due process parameters on punitive damage awards. As Oregon Justice Martha Walters explains in last week's opinion, the United States Supreme Court "... has thrust upon state courts the role of determining whether a jury award of punitive damages exceeds the outer limits that substantive due process allows."
Here's what the U.S. Supreme Court opined in State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 US 408, 422, 423 (2003):
"[a] defendant should be punished for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff, not for being an unsavory individual or business. Due process does not permit courts, in the calculation of punitive damages, to adjudicate the merits of other parties' hypothetical claims against a defendant under the guise of the reprehensibility analysis[.]"Would the same result happen if this case had been filed in another state?
Gotta wonder if another state supreme court, say Texas, would see things the same way as Oregon in the application of this warning from the Supremes. And, will this result simply mean that Plaintiff's lawyers are going to be much more thoughtful about where they file suit against huge, monolithic corporations like Philip Morris?
Nothing like certainty in litigation.
6/23/2010
Obama's Not Gonna Fire McChrystal
Sure, you gotta wonder about the General letting a Rolling Stone reporter roam around freely for a month.
Is he arrogant, stupid, crazy like a fox (I'm voting fox)? And, it's all about that Rolling Stone article. Not the war, not the General's job performance. It's all about what has been reported in that magazine interview that hasn't even hit the stands yet.
You can read the full text of Rolling Stone interview of General McChrystal in its entirety now. Rolling Stone has wisely already released it as an online publication.
But here's my prediction: McChrystal's not gonna be fired.
Let's see if I'm right.
Is he arrogant, stupid, crazy like a fox (I'm voting fox)? And, it's all about that Rolling Stone article. Not the war, not the General's job performance. It's all about what has been reported in that magazine interview that hasn't even hit the stands yet.
You can read the full text of Rolling Stone interview of General McChrystal in its entirety now. Rolling Stone has wisely already released it as an online publication.
But here's my prediction: McChrystal's not gonna be fired.
Let's see if I'm right.
6/21/2010
Federal Control of the Web for Purposes of Homeland Security: Threat of Terrorism or Threat of Revolution?
In today's news, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is pushing for federal control of the internet -- just as the FCC is fighting for control of internet service providers. The Federal Communications Commission just opened comments on whether broadband should be reclassified as a telecommunications system -- and therefore, under the same regulatory control as telephones, etc.
All, apparently in the name of a growing threat of "homegrown terrorism."
In a recent speech to the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Secretary Napolitano pointed to foreign terrorists who use the World Wide Web to communicate with their cohorts here in the United States. She is quoted as saying, "[t]he First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet."
Napolitano pointed to our known foreign enemies -- we are in two wars, of course -- and in this context, monitoring our enemies' ability to conspire with spies (sounds melodramatic, but nevertheless, it's accurate) seems to make sense.
Lots of Homegrown Political Groups Organizing on Meetup.com
However, something interesting occurred the same morning that I was reading about this push to federalize the Internet -- over at Meetup.com.
You know Meetup.com. It's the cool site where people of shared interests coordinate group meetings over the web. Hikers, Dog Lovers, Poker Players, Business Networking Groups -- they're all there at Meetup.com. I was looking for writer groups to join, maybe a book club.
This morning, I was surprised to see the number of groups that have sprouted in the two months or so since I last visited San Antonio's Meetup.com that are politically charged. Some may be Tea Party groups. Some may be other things -- there was one here in San Antonio established to prepare for an inevitable Martial Law.
Going by the name US Martial Law and Financial - Instant Alert System, there are 327 members as of today's date. Think of that. The local Scrabble club has 34.
The Martial Law group is Libertarian, they're apparently supporters of Ron Paul, and is part of the "Constitutionalist" groups numbering 299 worldwide. Now, these groups appear to be Tea Party connected, too, so go figure.
Who Does the Federal Government Want to Monitor?
I'm a native of San Antonio. During the three years I represented kids in the San Antonio CPS courts, I learned a lot about border activities. First of all, I learned that the federal government simply isn't doing that much to protect our border with Mexico.
Here in San Antonio, I've talked with coyotes (professional human smugglers) and Texas Rangers and Border Patrol officers. Here, quite frankly, the consensus is that we feel pretty much on our own - and it's understood that it's not just Mexican Nationals that are entering our state. Nope. All sorts of nationalities are crossing into Texas these days. If they've got the cash, then there's a coyote willing to smuggle them (at great risk, of course).
So, what's the real concern here on internet regulation and control? Is it really the foreign threat? Or is it an internal one?
This agency - or executive branch - desire to grasp the reins of the internet needs to be carefully considered by all of us. Our civil liberties are paramount. Men and women have died, and are dying, for mine and yours.
I'm pondering all this today, and thought I'd share it with you. I'm suspicious that it's my fellow citizens that are the true targets of this intentional violation of civil liberties, not foreigners.
We're a country that revolted in the 1700s and again in the 1800s. Some would say the 1960s came close to a third revolution. How real is a threat of revolution today? It's something to ponder.
All, apparently in the name of a growing threat of "homegrown terrorism."
In a recent speech to the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Secretary Napolitano pointed to foreign terrorists who use the World Wide Web to communicate with their cohorts here in the United States. She is quoted as saying, "[t]he First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet."
Napolitano pointed to our known foreign enemies -- we are in two wars, of course -- and in this context, monitoring our enemies' ability to conspire with spies (sounds melodramatic, but nevertheless, it's accurate) seems to make sense.
Lots of Homegrown Political Groups Organizing on Meetup.com
However, something interesting occurred the same morning that I was reading about this push to federalize the Internet -- over at Meetup.com.
You know Meetup.com. It's the cool site where people of shared interests coordinate group meetings over the web. Hikers, Dog Lovers, Poker Players, Business Networking Groups -- they're all there at Meetup.com. I was looking for writer groups to join, maybe a book club.
This morning, I was surprised to see the number of groups that have sprouted in the two months or so since I last visited San Antonio's Meetup.com that are politically charged. Some may be Tea Party groups. Some may be other things -- there was one here in San Antonio established to prepare for an inevitable Martial Law.
Going by the name US Martial Law and Financial - Instant Alert System, there are 327 members as of today's date. Think of that. The local Scrabble club has 34.
The Martial Law group is Libertarian, they're apparently supporters of Ron Paul, and is part of the "Constitutionalist" groups numbering 299 worldwide. Now, these groups appear to be Tea Party connected, too, so go figure.
Who Does the Federal Government Want to Monitor?
I'm a native of San Antonio. During the three years I represented kids in the San Antonio CPS courts, I learned a lot about border activities. First of all, I learned that the federal government simply isn't doing that much to protect our border with Mexico.
Here in San Antonio, I've talked with coyotes (professional human smugglers) and Texas Rangers and Border Patrol officers. Here, quite frankly, the consensus is that we feel pretty much on our own - and it's understood that it's not just Mexican Nationals that are entering our state. Nope. All sorts of nationalities are crossing into Texas these days. If they've got the cash, then there's a coyote willing to smuggle them (at great risk, of course).
So, what's the real concern here on internet regulation and control? Is it really the foreign threat? Or is it an internal one?
This agency - or executive branch - desire to grasp the reins of the internet needs to be carefully considered by all of us. Our civil liberties are paramount. Men and women have died, and are dying, for mine and yours.
I'm pondering all this today, and thought I'd share it with you. I'm suspicious that it's my fellow citizens that are the true targets of this intentional violation of civil liberties, not foreigners.
We're a country that revolted in the 1700s and again in the 1800s. Some would say the 1960s came close to a third revolution. How real is a threat of revolution today? It's something to ponder.
6/18/2010
Peggy Noonan Compares Obama to Carter, Calls Him "Snakebit"
In today's Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan gives a new perspective on President Obama, "A Snakebit President" -- it's worth the read.
6/10/2010
Abby Sunderland, 16, Lost at Sea While Sailing Around the World Solo - What's the Legal Implication Here?
Teen sailor Abby Sunderland, 16, isn't communicating with anyone -- but her sailboat shouldn't be completely underwater according to her brother, since an alarm for that event hasn't sounded. Sixteen years old, Abby is determined to circumnavigate the globe alone in Wild Eyes, her sailboat. (For details on her story, check out the details at SailWorld.com, which includes photos of the sailboat with Abby at the helm.)
Abby turned on emergency beacons before 6AM this morning
However, no one has heard from Abby since early this morning, when Abby was somewhere in the Indian Ocean, closest land being Reunion Island in Madagascar. She turned on a couple of beacons around dawn.
Rescue operations are underway. Boats are headed toward the spot that everyone thinks Abby will be, but they'll need around 40 hours to get there, and seaplanes are also (hopefully) in route.
Family Updating Her Blog With Rescue News
It's a sailboat that the family reports on Abby's Blog today was built with 5 air-tight bulkheads (which will keep the boat afloat even if there has been major damage). Wild Eyes, moreover, was built to right itself if it were tipped over.
And it may well have tipped over, since Abby already reported that the sails have dunked into the ocean waters twice during rough weather that included 25 - 30 foot high waves.
The family is updating folk with posts on Abby's Blog - where Abby was posting regularly until this event. They are asking for prayers and support.
And I will pray for Abby and her family -- but as a lawyer, especially one that represented children for several years, I gotta wonder.
Are the parents legally responsible here in the event that Abby has been lost at sea?
One does have to ask: what the heck is a 16 year old teenage girl doing out there, doing this? No matter her skill level, under the law she is a child.
Legally, these parents are responsible for whatever happens to their minor child (at least they would be in Texas). If something happens to Abby, is there criminal liability?
Danger is Danger
Having represented children in the local's Children's Court in abuse and neglect cases - as their attorney ad litem, where Child Protective Services had become involved in the child's situation - my perception of this event may be different than some others.
Most of the kids that came thru Children's Court were from socioeconomic lifestyles that are at the opposite end of the continuum from the way of life that Abby Sutherland's sailing family enjoys.
However, danger is danger. Putting your child in a life-threatening, dangerous spot is not acceptable: if you do it intentionally, it's abuse; if you do it unintentionally, it's neglect.
The opinion of the Backseat Lawyer is this: no 16 year old teenager should be alone on a sailboat in the middle of the Indian Ocean no matter how cool they think it is, or no matter how lucrative that adventure might be.
For updates: Abby's Blog
Abby turned on emergency beacons before 6AM this morning
However, no one has heard from Abby since early this morning, when Abby was somewhere in the Indian Ocean, closest land being Reunion Island in Madagascar. She turned on a couple of beacons around dawn.
Rescue operations are underway. Boats are headed toward the spot that everyone thinks Abby will be, but they'll need around 40 hours to get there, and seaplanes are also (hopefully) in route.
Family Updating Her Blog With Rescue News
It's a sailboat that the family reports on Abby's Blog today was built with 5 air-tight bulkheads (which will keep the boat afloat even if there has been major damage). Wild Eyes, moreover, was built to right itself if it were tipped over.
And it may well have tipped over, since Abby already reported that the sails have dunked into the ocean waters twice during rough weather that included 25 - 30 foot high waves.
The family is updating folk with posts on Abby's Blog - where Abby was posting regularly until this event. They are asking for prayers and support.
And I will pray for Abby and her family -- but as a lawyer, especially one that represented children for several years, I gotta wonder.
Are the parents legally responsible here in the event that Abby has been lost at sea?
One does have to ask: what the heck is a 16 year old teenage girl doing out there, doing this? No matter her skill level, under the law she is a child.
Legally, these parents are responsible for whatever happens to their minor child (at least they would be in Texas). If something happens to Abby, is there criminal liability?
Danger is Danger
Having represented children in the local's Children's Court in abuse and neglect cases - as their attorney ad litem, where Child Protective Services had become involved in the child's situation - my perception of this event may be different than some others.
Most of the kids that came thru Children's Court were from socioeconomic lifestyles that are at the opposite end of the continuum from the way of life that Abby Sutherland's sailing family enjoys.
However, danger is danger. Putting your child in a life-threatening, dangerous spot is not acceptable: if you do it intentionally, it's abuse; if you do it unintentionally, it's neglect.
The opinion of the Backseat Lawyer is this: no 16 year old teenager should be alone on a sailboat in the middle of the Indian Ocean no matter how cool they think it is, or no matter how lucrative that adventure might be.
For updates: Abby's Blog
6/04/2010
Third Party Litigation Funding: Outside Investors Fund Litigation for a Piece of the Pie
Companies opening their checkbooks to pay for lawsuits? Yepper, looks like Third Party Litigation Funding has crossed over the pond. Attorneys in the United States appear to be following the trend set by litigators in Great Britain and Australia with Third-Party Litigation Funding. Seems there are a couple of companies already offering to finance American business lawsuits in exchange for a cut in the settlement proceeds or judicial award. (They also share the risk of loss if their side loses the case.)
It's reasonable to think that there will be other financiers entering the fray. After all, Great Britian has been testing the waters on this lawsuit funding investment option for several years now (albeit not without controversy).
Two Front Runners: Juridica Investments Ltd and Burford Capital
Juridica Investments Limited explains that its goal is to "make the legal system better for business claims." And its risk analysis is simple: Juridica has funding for business claims only -- it's not interested in personal injury matters, toxic torts, or the like. Ewww.
Burford Capital is a British company that is also ready to invest in business litigation, both in the United States and across the globe. Burford is traded on the London stock exchange as BUR, in case you'd like to check the company out. These aren't fly by night organizations by a long shot.
What are they looking for? In one interview with Juridica CEO Richard Fields, it was suggested that the British third party financier (TPF) was interesting in disputes ranging between $15 and $25 million involving business causes of action.
Can torts be far behind? Just think of the Toyota class action litigation, ponder the inevitable Oil Spill claims .... I'm thinking that the question of when Third Party Litigation Funding enters into the American Tort arena is sooner rather than later.
It's reasonable to think that there will be other financiers entering the fray. After all, Great Britian has been testing the waters on this lawsuit funding investment option for several years now (albeit not without controversy).
Two Front Runners: Juridica Investments Ltd and Burford Capital
Juridica Investments Limited explains that its goal is to "make the legal system better for business claims." And its risk analysis is simple: Juridica has funding for business claims only -- it's not interested in personal injury matters, toxic torts, or the like. Ewww.
Burford Capital is a British company that is also ready to invest in business litigation, both in the United States and across the globe. Burford is traded on the London stock exchange as BUR, in case you'd like to check the company out. These aren't fly by night organizations by a long shot.
What are they looking for? In one interview with Juridica CEO Richard Fields, it was suggested that the British third party financier (TPF) was interesting in disputes ranging between $15 and $25 million involving business causes of action.
Can torts be far behind? Just think of the Toyota class action litigation, ponder the inevitable Oil Spill claims .... I'm thinking that the question of when Third Party Litigation Funding enters into the American Tort arena is sooner rather than later.
5/25/2010
Texas Death Row's Hank Skinner and the US Supreme Court - What About Post Conviction DNA Testing Under 42 USC 1983?
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Texas Death Row Inmate Hank Skinner. It's a case to watch, because it means that the High Court will hear Skinner's argument he has a right to pursue a civil claim, not a criminal one, regarding his continuing assertion that he is innocent of the crime for which he has been sentenced to death.
Savvy Appellate Counsel file Civil Rights Claim
What Hank Skinner's savvy defense attorneys have done is file a civil rights claim which argues that his constitutional rights have been violated because the State of Texas didn't allow him to test evidence that was not tested at trial. He's not arguing this as part of his criminal case (writ of habeas corpus); he's arguing it as a civil matter.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals already denied him, standing on past precedent and opining that any violations of his constitutional rights to (1) due process and (2) protection against cruel and unusual punishment based upon "the defendant district attorney’s refusal to allow him access to biological evidence" for purposes of forensic DNA testing need to be addressed in a petition for habeas corpus, not a petition for writ of certioriari.
What Hank Skinner wants is to test evidence for the absence of his DNA long after the jury trial is over
Skinner wants to test things that were left outside the courtroom during the jury trial that found him guilty and sentenced him to die. Professing his innocence of the crime, Hank Skinner wants the chance to take things in possession of the State of Texas, send them to a laboratory, and have the lab results show his DNA isn't on the stuff and therefore, he wasn't the killer. (If you want to read the background facts of the case, read them in Skinner's own words in a Q and A he answers at the Texas Death Penalty Blog.)
What About the Evidence?
It's obvious from his arguments that not all the evidence found at the scene of the crime was tested for Hank Skinner's DNA. And, of course it's true that DNA testing has exonerated many who have been wrongfully accused in this country (often, thanks to the efforts of The Innocence Project).
Interestingly, the same day that the Supreme Court granted writ on the Skinner case, a Wisconsin County Judge freed William Avery, 38, after DNA evidence showed that Mr. Avery did not kill a Milwaukee prostitute 12 years ago. He had served 5 years of a 40 year sentence.
It's also true that failure to properly test the state's evidence has led to the execution of innocent men. Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham in 2004; today, there are few that doubt that Mr. Willingham was innocent of the arson deaths of his children, and that faulty testing of the evidence (and failure of the system) was to blame.
What Happened at the Trial?
However, what I'm wondering is what happened during the criminal trial? Was this a defense attorney strategy back then -- to not dig too deep in the State's evidence bag, for fear that it would only reveal more evidence that could be used against the defendant?
Why didn't the defense counsel at the trial do this testing? Was it error? Or was it a conscious decision made in what was considered the best interests of their client at the time?
And, here's why I'm asking - gamesmanship and the jury trial.
1. In future cases, what if criminal defense attorneys make strategic decisions NOT to go into all the things that came from the criminal investigation. Is the Skinner case going to mean that years down the road, a whole new series of appeals will begin, based upon a constitutional need to go back and check that stuff then? Assuming so, then how can we protect against gamesmanship while allowing for legitimate claims?
2. What does this do to the respect of the jury that is inherent in our system? Already, we have seen mediation and other forms of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) cast aside the constitutionally recognized sanctity of a trial by a jury of our peers in civil actions. What impact will Skinner have upon the criminal jury system over the years, if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with Mr. Skinner's arguments?
Savvy Appellate Counsel file Civil Rights Claim
What Hank Skinner's savvy defense attorneys have done is file a civil rights claim which argues that his constitutional rights have been violated because the State of Texas didn't allow him to test evidence that was not tested at trial. He's not arguing this as part of his criminal case (writ of habeas corpus); he's arguing it as a civil matter.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals already denied him, standing on past precedent and opining that any violations of his constitutional rights to (1) due process and (2) protection against cruel and unusual punishment based upon "the defendant district attorney’s refusal to allow him access to biological evidence" for purposes of forensic DNA testing need to be addressed in a petition for habeas corpus, not a petition for writ of certioriari.
What Hank Skinner wants is to test evidence for the absence of his DNA long after the jury trial is over
Skinner wants to test things that were left outside the courtroom during the jury trial that found him guilty and sentenced him to die. Professing his innocence of the crime, Hank Skinner wants the chance to take things in possession of the State of Texas, send them to a laboratory, and have the lab results show his DNA isn't on the stuff and therefore, he wasn't the killer. (If you want to read the background facts of the case, read them in Skinner's own words in a Q and A he answers at the Texas Death Penalty Blog.)
What About the Evidence?
It's obvious from his arguments that not all the evidence found at the scene of the crime was tested for Hank Skinner's DNA. And, of course it's true that DNA testing has exonerated many who have been wrongfully accused in this country (often, thanks to the efforts of The Innocence Project).
Interestingly, the same day that the Supreme Court granted writ on the Skinner case, a Wisconsin County Judge freed William Avery, 38, after DNA evidence showed that Mr. Avery did not kill a Milwaukee prostitute 12 years ago. He had served 5 years of a 40 year sentence.
It's also true that failure to properly test the state's evidence has led to the execution of innocent men. Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham in 2004; today, there are few that doubt that Mr. Willingham was innocent of the arson deaths of his children, and that faulty testing of the evidence (and failure of the system) was to blame.
What Happened at the Trial?
However, what I'm wondering is what happened during the criminal trial? Was this a defense attorney strategy back then -- to not dig too deep in the State's evidence bag, for fear that it would only reveal more evidence that could be used against the defendant?
Why didn't the defense counsel at the trial do this testing? Was it error? Or was it a conscious decision made in what was considered the best interests of their client at the time?
And, here's why I'm asking - gamesmanship and the jury trial.
1. In future cases, what if criminal defense attorneys make strategic decisions NOT to go into all the things that came from the criminal investigation. Is the Skinner case going to mean that years down the road, a whole new series of appeals will begin, based upon a constitutional need to go back and check that stuff then? Assuming so, then how can we protect against gamesmanship while allowing for legitimate claims?
2. What does this do to the respect of the jury that is inherent in our system? Already, we have seen mediation and other forms of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) cast aside the constitutionally recognized sanctity of a trial by a jury of our peers in civil actions. What impact will Skinner have upon the criminal jury system over the years, if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with Mr. Skinner's arguments?
5/20/2010
Everybody Draw Mohammad Day is Today - Here's Why You Should Support It
 |
| Seattle Cartoonist Molly Norris has declared May 20th as National Everybody Draw Muhammad Day! |
In response, cartoonist Molly Norris declared May 20, 2010, as "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," asking that people upload their own depictions of Mohammed onto her Facebook page (see the poster, there at the right).
And now, liberal and conservative alike (think about that for a moment, because this might be a very big deal) are joining together in support of the raison d'etre behind Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!
The liberal Huffington Post gives us an excellent discussion of why we should all do this in Sam Harris' piece, "Losing Our Spines to Save Our Lives."
Big Hollywood (known as "the conservative voice of Hollywood") not only supports Harris' position ("Our capitulations in the face of these threats have had what is often called “a chilling effect” on our exercise of free speech.") but also points us to Mark Goldblatt's article in the libertarian Reason magazine, "The Poet versus the Prophet,"
At what is hoped to be exemplary fair use, I join with Brad Thor of Big Hollywood to share the excellent work of Sam Harris, who writes:
The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.
There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for “racism” and “Islamophobia.”
Our capitulations in the face of these threats have had what is often called “a chilling effect” on our exercise of free speech.
Of course, Molly Norris's efforts did not squeak by unnoticed. She's been the subject of death threats. There's been a movement to boycott Facebook by those unhappy with her efforts. Parts of Pakistan are blocking the Facebook site.
Nevertheless, according to FoxNews' headcount yesterday, over 41,000 Facebook users associated with the event page and a second, similar page was "liked" by over 4400. Interestingly, 58,000 users had joined a Facebook page in opposition to Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.
Mind you, Comedy Central is the same channel that is purportedly preparing to bring us an entire half-hour cartoon that according to the Hollywood Reporter will depict Jesus Christ as wanting to "escape the shadow of his "powerful but apathetic father" and live a regular life in New York City."
As a devout Christian, am I happy about this? No. Will I watch this show? Nope. "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do," applies pretty well here. Here's the difference: no way am I going to be threatening cartoonists with harm here. I'll pray for them, and I'll pray that the show fails. I'll let Comedy Central know they've lost a viewer if it ever airs. It offends me and it's blasphemous. It's wrong for them to do.
I'm not pleased that Jesus is being disrespected and dishonored as well as God Himself, but I trust that God knows what to do about this. God will handle it. God doesn't want me killing cartoonists in His Name.
Regarding free speech, as an American, I'm reminded of Voltaire's famous words, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I also agree with the liberals,conservatives, and liberatarians whose writings have been referenced here, and join with them: it's time Americans stop accommodating against offense at the cost of Free Speech.
5/19/2010
I Think It's Great that Michael Douglas Refused to Sign the Cannes Petition for Roman Polanski.
People seem to forget that Roman Polanski pled guilty to raping a 13-year-old girl, and not many have read the girl's testimony in that criminal case, which is graphic and disturbing and of course, online at The Smoking Gun.
By running off to France and avoiding jail time, Mr. Polanski is now deemed by many to be worthy of reprieve. It's his age. He's an artist. He's done so much to contribute over all these years of self-imposed exile. In France.
As someone who represented abused and neglected children for three years in the local Children's Court, all this stuck in my craw. Sexual abuse of young girls is not to be tolerated, and by the way - did anyone read what happened here? Really?
So, when I learned that Michael Douglas - a member of Hollywood Royalty - declined to sign a petition on behalf of Roman Polanski, with the publicized remark that it would be "unfair" for him to do so for "someone who did break the law," I was impressed.
After all, Mr. Douglas was in Cannes to promote his film, the sequel to Wall Street, entitled "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps," and avoiding controversy might have helped his efforts there.
It took courage of conviction for someone - even someone of Michael Douglas' stature in the entertainment industry - to do this. So many in Hollywood appear to be on Team Roman.
Already a fan of Michael Douglas - I'm now going to make sure and see "Money Never Sleeps" and every subsequent film in which Michael Douglas appears. Good for him.
Status of the Polanski Case
Roman Polanski sits in house arrest in Geneva, Switzerland right now. He's fighting to stay out of a California jail. I'm confident his efforts will not be successful.
Recently, a British actress named Charlotte Lewis has come forward with allegations that Mr. Polanski sexually assaulted her at the age of 16. She's represented by Gloria Allred, and she's gonna need it.
By running off to France and avoiding jail time, Mr. Polanski is now deemed by many to be worthy of reprieve. It's his age. He's an artist. He's done so much to contribute over all these years of self-imposed exile. In France.
As someone who represented abused and neglected children for three years in the local Children's Court, all this stuck in my craw. Sexual abuse of young girls is not to be tolerated, and by the way - did anyone read what happened here? Really?
So, when I learned that Michael Douglas - a member of Hollywood Royalty - declined to sign a petition on behalf of Roman Polanski, with the publicized remark that it would be "unfair" for him to do so for "someone who did break the law," I was impressed.
After all, Mr. Douglas was in Cannes to promote his film, the sequel to Wall Street, entitled "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps," and avoiding controversy might have helped his efforts there.
It took courage of conviction for someone - even someone of Michael Douglas' stature in the entertainment industry - to do this. So many in Hollywood appear to be on Team Roman.
Already a fan of Michael Douglas - I'm now going to make sure and see "Money Never Sleeps" and every subsequent film in which Michael Douglas appears. Good for him.
Status of the Polanski Case
Roman Polanski sits in house arrest in Geneva, Switzerland right now. He's fighting to stay out of a California jail. I'm confident his efforts will not be successful.
Recently, a British actress named Charlotte Lewis has come forward with allegations that Mr. Polanski sexually assaulted her at the age of 16. She's represented by Gloria Allred, and she's gonna need it.
5/17/2010
Around Half a Million U.S. Charities Losing Tax Exempt Status
Today has gotta be a very, very bad Monday for lotsa folks that work for non-profits around the country.
That's because last Friday, May 15, 2010, around a half-million charities in this country lost their non-profit status. Well, maybe it's a bad Monday if they're aware of what has just happened to them.
According to the story in last month's New York Times, "One-Fourth of Nonprofits Are to Lose Tax Breaks," by Stephanie Strom, many of these charities may not be aware of their lost tax exemption. Most of these do-gooders operated at $25K in revenue or less, and may or may not have been filing tax forms (because they may not have been required to do so in past years).
USA Today points to organizations like kid's baseball teams and soup kitchens being hit by this.
Fortunately, there's some help here: The National Center for Charitable Statistics has posted an online list, state by state, of nonprofits that may be hit by this deadline. And, they've also got the info on what these organizations need to do in order to prevent their donations from being taxed.
Taxing a soup kitchen? Really????
That's because last Friday, May 15, 2010, around a half-million charities in this country lost their non-profit status. Well, maybe it's a bad Monday if they're aware of what has just happened to them.
According to the story in last month's New York Times, "One-Fourth of Nonprofits Are to Lose Tax Breaks," by Stephanie Strom, many of these charities may not be aware of their lost tax exemption. Most of these do-gooders operated at $25K in revenue or less, and may or may not have been filing tax forms (because they may not have been required to do so in past years).
USA Today points to organizations like kid's baseball teams and soup kitchens being hit by this.
Fortunately, there's some help here: The National Center for Charitable Statistics has posted an online list, state by state, of nonprofits that may be hit by this deadline. And, they've also got the info on what these organizations need to do in order to prevent their donations from being taxed.
Taxing a soup kitchen? Really????
5/13/2010
Toyota Class Action Lawsuit (MDL) - Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel Decided This Week by Judge Selna
Today, May 13, 2010, a hearing began to decide which attorneys are going to be running the show for the plaintiffs in the big, big class action lawsuit that is gearing up against Toyota Motor Corporation. The court's ruling is expected on or before this Monday, May 17th.
In early April, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) already decided that U.S. District James Selna of the Central District of California would be presiding over the consolidated Toyota lawsuits, which some expect will exceed $7 billion (with a b) in damages.
Late last month, Dan Becnel Jr. of the Becnel Law Firm in Reserve, Louisiana, became the first lawyer to formally apply for the job of Top Lawyer. Actually, Becnel has asked the court to approve him as co-lead, or at least a member of the lead counsel committee.
Here in Texas, we would say that Becnel is definitely not a man with a hat and no cattle: he's got the resume to back up that request.
However, so do the other 99 or so trial lawyers who are tossing their hats in the ring. Pros like Mark Lanier of Vioxx fame. Apparently, over 100 attorneys have filed formal applications with the federal court for this job -- with one application exceeding 100 pages in length.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall of that California courtroom today ....
In early April, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) already decided that U.S. District James Selna of the Central District of California would be presiding over the consolidated Toyota lawsuits, which some expect will exceed $7 billion (with a b) in damages.
Late last month, Dan Becnel Jr. of the Becnel Law Firm in Reserve, Louisiana, became the first lawyer to formally apply for the job of Top Lawyer. Actually, Becnel has asked the court to approve him as co-lead, or at least a member of the lead counsel committee.
Here in Texas, we would say that Becnel is definitely not a man with a hat and no cattle: he's got the resume to back up that request.
However, so do the other 99 or so trial lawyers who are tossing their hats in the ring. Pros like Mark Lanier of Vioxx fame. Apparently, over 100 attorneys have filed formal applications with the federal court for this job -- with one application exceeding 100 pages in length.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall of that California courtroom today ....
2/08/2010
What is the Cloud - as in Cloud Computing?
Here's a great overview of what the "Internet Cloud" entails, and what it means to you and your business:
Wall Street Journal's "Cloud Computing: What Exactly is it, Anyway?"
If you want more details, but not geek-talk, then try these articles, too:
Wikipedia's article on cloud computing;
The Cloud Tutorial; and
(somewhat geeky) InfoWorld's "What Cloud Computing Really Means."
Wall Street Journal's "Cloud Computing: What Exactly is it, Anyway?"
If you want more details, but not geek-talk, then try these articles, too:
Wikipedia's article on cloud computing;
The Cloud Tutorial; and
(somewhat geeky) InfoWorld's "What Cloud Computing Really Means."
2/05/2010
The Massive Confusion of US Estate Taxes - Attorney Seminar to "Enlighten and Depress"
This morning's inbox included the following seminar invitation from the State Bar of Texas:
Now, mind you - this is an invitation to legal practioners in the field of estate planning to come and listen to experts in this area discuss "a situation of having no reasonable or rational way to advise our clients."
What's going on here? Congress didn't act, even to patch things up by passing a bill that said "everything stays as is until we do something else," so some tax laws died - their effective dates passed on December 31st - and now, we're apparently in a huge, fat mess.
A Look at the Current State of the Estate Tax: Massive Confusion
Approved for State Bar College Credit and Texas Board of Legal Specialization Credit in Estate Planning & Probate and Tax Law.
Live Via Webcast
Thursday, February 11th
10:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
1 hour MCLE credit
With the failure of Congress to do something with respect to the one-year suspension of the federal estate tax and generation skipping transfer tax and the one-year return of carryover basis, followed by a return to 2000 law, we are in a situation of having no reasonable or rational way to advise our clients. Two experienced lawyers (who remember the original carryover basis and generation skipping transfer tax in the Tax Reform Act of 1976, both of which were repealed) discuss the alternatives in how they and others are dealing with this uncertainty and highlighting some issues that are not immediately apparent and other problems if Congress does nothing before 1/1/2011. A fun filled hour guaranteed to enlighten and depress you simultaneously.
Now, mind you - this is an invitation to legal practioners in the field of estate planning to come and listen to experts in this area discuss "a situation of having no reasonable or rational way to advise our clients."
What's going on here? Congress didn't act, even to patch things up by passing a bill that said "everything stays as is until we do something else," so some tax laws died - their effective dates passed on December 31st - and now, we're apparently in a huge, fat mess.
2/03/2010
Toyota in the Hot Seat: First it's the Gas Pedal, now it's the Brakes?
It was only Monday when all this big news was popping up regarding Congressional Committees getting involved, investigating Toyota about its "sudden acceleration" problem.
Just this past Sunday, the New York Times wrote a great article, giving an overview of this gas pedal acceleration problem in both Toyota models as well as Lexus vehicles -- something that's been a known issue since 2002. Known issue, as in stuck accelerators have been causing wrecks and killing people for several years now.
So, as an attorney, I was already expecting to read about new Toyota lawsuits - heck, I was ready to see the television commercials. All about the gas pedal slamming down, think how creative those ad agencies could be ....
And then, today, whattha????
Because today, first I read that the Secretary of Transportation reported before Congress to give his testimony today, and he's said that folk should just stop driving their Toyotas until they can get their dealers to fix them.
(Plaintiffs' lawyers smile like Cheshire Cats when they hear something like this -- and it's even better when there's video of the head of the Department of Transportation telling this to Congress. Oh, the glee....)
But wait. Wait.
Now, I learn there's also some big problem with the BRAKES made by Toyota. Apparently, the brakes in the 2010 Prius hybrid are malfunctioning, too. Ye Gads.
Brakes, gas pedals ... there's gotta be a lot of jokes in all this. And so, so many lawsuits ....
Just this past Sunday, the New York Times wrote a great article, giving an overview of this gas pedal acceleration problem in both Toyota models as well as Lexus vehicles -- something that's been a known issue since 2002. Known issue, as in stuck accelerators have been causing wrecks and killing people for several years now.
So, as an attorney, I was already expecting to read about new Toyota lawsuits - heck, I was ready to see the television commercials. All about the gas pedal slamming down, think how creative those ad agencies could be ....
And then, today, whattha????
Because today, first I read that the Secretary of Transportation reported before Congress to give his testimony today, and he's said that folk should just stop driving their Toyotas until they can get their dealers to fix them.
(Plaintiffs' lawyers smile like Cheshire Cats when they hear something like this -- and it's even better when there's video of the head of the Department of Transportation telling this to Congress. Oh, the glee....)
But wait. Wait.
Now, I learn there's also some big problem with the BRAKES made by Toyota. Apparently, the brakes in the 2010 Prius hybrid are malfunctioning, too. Ye Gads.
Brakes, gas pedals ... there's gotta be a lot of jokes in all this. And so, so many lawsuits ....
1/08/2010
1/01/2010
Cuba Gooding, Jr. to play Tiger Woods in a Movie? Cuba, say it isn't so....
It's being reported that Cuba Gooding, Jr. is being cast as Tiger Woods in a new movie that will focus on the continuing Tiger Woods scandal. This news is showing up on Gooding's IMDB profile as almost a done deal.
Wo Nellie.
My first thought -- which is a bigger fall from grace, Tiger Woods for obvious reasons or Cuba Gooding, Jr. (an actor whose talents I admire) even being MENTIONED to star in this opportunistic crud?
You remember Cuba Gooding, Jr. -- he's the guy who won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor in Jerry McGuire, playing the character with the catch phrase "show me the money" ....
Show me the money, indeed.
Wo Nellie.
My first thought -- which is a bigger fall from grace, Tiger Woods for obvious reasons or Cuba Gooding, Jr. (an actor whose talents I admire) even being MENTIONED to star in this opportunistic crud?
You remember Cuba Gooding, Jr. -- he's the guy who won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor in Jerry McGuire, playing the character with the catch phrase "show me the money" ....
Show me the money, indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)