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.

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?

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.

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):

"[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.

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.