Hate Google, Love Google - there's no debate that Google is really johnny-on-the-spot today. Google has put together a great page on all things dealing with Japan and the nuclear disaster, the earthquake aftermath, and the effects of the tsunami.
Go here to check it out.
Under the heading "Google Crisis Response," the folk at Google have put together all sorts of links and info blurbs (available in Japanese, English, and other languages) that do many things:
1. tell you how you can help those suffering in Japan;
2. help you locate those who are missing after the Japan earthquake and tsunami;
3. give you the latest news on the Japanese nuclear radiation dangers;
4. show you maps of Japan and the surrounding impact site areas;
5. give you phone numbers of agencies to help in Japan and here in the US;
6. allow you to follow along on tweets coming out of Japan in realtime;
7. give you forums so you can chat with others about the Japan nuclear crisis, or the Japanese tsunami/earthquake;
8. provide you with videos of what's happened and what's happening in Japan;
9. give you a satellite viewpoint of the area impacted in Japan; and
10. give locals info on rolling blackouts throughout Japan, refugee sites, etc.
Good for Google. This is a wonderful and amazing contribution on their part. Helps us all.
3/10/2011
Charlie Sheen Lawsuit - Following the Paper
One thing's for sure: all the media hoopla surrounding Charlie Sheen is bringing with it lots of legal lessons for those who want (or need) to know something about the American legal system and how it works - there's lots to follow for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
First, there's all the postering and rumor.
That started a couple of months back for Sheen: I'd guess around Christmas-time, really. Same thing for lots of lawsuits: each side starts getting the word out, putting the best light on the situation from its own perspective. This is true for family law cases as well as big business disputes. And if you think that lawyers aren't involved in the spin this early in the program, not true. If they've been hired on at that point, the attorneys will have a say in what's going on here.
Second, there are those nasty, long, and formal letters from lawyers. Notice. Demand. Sometimes, they are required by law. Here in Texas, for example, there are several kinds of lawsuits that cannot legally proceed until a notice letter has been sent out, giving an attempt to resolve the dispute before any lawsuit is filed down at the courthouse.
Did we see them in the Charlie Sheen coverage? Why, yes, we did.
Here's the notice letter from Sheen's people.
Here's the response letter from CBS/Warner's lawyers.
Having read both, I have to admit that while both are well-written, I liked the response letter better. More short sentences. Less Big Bad Wolf stuff. And, nice how they listed all those links at the end, without cross-referencing them to specifics within the correspondence. I liked that.
After you've had attorneys throwing punches on paper like this, you know there's two ways to go: negotiate a settlement or go to war. We don't know that there were any real negotation attempts here. It's been my experience that attorneys will call each other up here, as unlikely as it may be that anyone's willing to resolve things.
Lawyers know their opposing counsel: they've had them on cases before, and they will again. You call up, you tip your hat at the minimum, it's just common courtesy before you strap on the guns. "Hey, bud, how's the wife and kids?" "Fine, yours?" "Fine." "Okey dokey, then."
If you aren't talking, then you're walking. As in, down to the courthouse to file your pleadings. Sometimes, there's a race on who's first - because there's an advantage to being plaintiff. You get to talk first. You get to talk last. Big deal.
Back to the Sheen Example of Civil Litigation.
Sheen's lawsuit has been filed. No race here -- well, sorta. CBS technically filed first with the arbitration forum according to their letter; looks like Sheen's gonna fight that arbitration clause.
Here's the pleading if you want to read it, thanks to TMZ.
As for the pleading, well done. Pretty. Lots of causes of action, lots of great adjectives. Well-written. Well played.
Charlie Sheen may be addicted to something or not. He may suffer mental health issues or not. But Charlie Sheen and his lawyers are doing a stellar job so far of positioning him in this controversy, and using trial by media to their advantage. (Potential jurors will remember those negative drug tests, for example, as well as the "I'm ready to go to work" interviews, and the "I'm fighting for the crew, too" statements.)
Sheen's looking like a good team player on this legal team and that's a good client to have. (#winning.)
First, there's all the postering and rumor.
That started a couple of months back for Sheen: I'd guess around Christmas-time, really. Same thing for lots of lawsuits: each side starts getting the word out, putting the best light on the situation from its own perspective. This is true for family law cases as well as big business disputes. And if you think that lawyers aren't involved in the spin this early in the program, not true. If they've been hired on at that point, the attorneys will have a say in what's going on here.
Second, there are those nasty, long, and formal letters from lawyers. Notice. Demand. Sometimes, they are required by law. Here in Texas, for example, there are several kinds of lawsuits that cannot legally proceed until a notice letter has been sent out, giving an attempt to resolve the dispute before any lawsuit is filed down at the courthouse.
Did we see them in the Charlie Sheen coverage? Why, yes, we did.
Here's the notice letter from Sheen's people.
Here's the response letter from CBS/Warner's lawyers.
Having read both, I have to admit that while both are well-written, I liked the response letter better. More short sentences. Less Big Bad Wolf stuff. And, nice how they listed all those links at the end, without cross-referencing them to specifics within the correspondence. I liked that.
After you've had attorneys throwing punches on paper like this, you know there's two ways to go: negotiate a settlement or go to war. We don't know that there were any real negotation attempts here. It's been my experience that attorneys will call each other up here, as unlikely as it may be that anyone's willing to resolve things.
Lawyers know their opposing counsel: they've had them on cases before, and they will again. You call up, you tip your hat at the minimum, it's just common courtesy before you strap on the guns. "Hey, bud, how's the wife and kids?" "Fine, yours?" "Fine." "Okey dokey, then."
If you aren't talking, then you're walking. As in, down to the courthouse to file your pleadings. Sometimes, there's a race on who's first - because there's an advantage to being plaintiff. You get to talk first. You get to talk last. Big deal.
Back to the Sheen Example of Civil Litigation.
Sheen's lawsuit has been filed. No race here -- well, sorta. CBS technically filed first with the arbitration forum according to their letter; looks like Sheen's gonna fight that arbitration clause.
Here's the pleading if you want to read it, thanks to TMZ.
As for the pleading, well done. Pretty. Lots of causes of action, lots of great adjectives. Well-written. Well played.
Charlie Sheen may be addicted to something or not. He may suffer mental health issues or not. But Charlie Sheen and his lawyers are doing a stellar job so far of positioning him in this controversy, and using trial by media to their advantage. (Potential jurors will remember those negative drug tests, for example, as well as the "I'm ready to go to work" interviews, and the "I'm fighting for the crew, too" statements.)
Sheen's looking like a good team player on this legal team and that's a good client to have. (#winning.)
3/01/2011
Charlie Sheen Needs to do a Hair Follicle Test. Here's Why.
It's nice to see that Charlie Sheen is gearing up for the lawsuit we all see coming by having Radar Online folk witness his blood and urine drug tests. They'll be great witnesses at trial to confirm that these tests weren't rigged and that he did, indeed, test and come out clean.
Well, all they can really report is that it was his blood and urine that didn't test positive for drugs at that moment.
From my years representing kids in the local CPS Court, I know that blood and urine tests aren't that reliable. There's stuff out there that people know to take that mucks with the results, gives false negatives. Some drugs just don't stay in the system that long, as well. There's all sorts of info online telling you how to beat a drug test, it's not some big secret and it doesn't cost a lot, either.
So before we give Charlie Sheen this big "clean and sober" label, it would be nice to see a negative result from a hair follicle test.
What's a hair follicle test? It tests the hair for drugs. Kinda like the rings in a tree trunk, hair keeps a record going back about 90 days on what the body has injested. Cocaine and other drugs will leave their record in the hair. (Which is why many of us thought Brittany Spears shaved her head way back when -- because she was facing a potential hair follicle analysis in the child custody fight.)
Charlie Sheen is telling the media he's "clean and sober."
Radar Online has published the letter that Charlie Sheen's law firm has sent to CBS and Warner Brothers, claiming that Mr. Sheen is "clean and sober."
Well, offer up that hair follicle test and then I think you can use "clean and sober" with some realistic expectation of acceptance among some of us. In fact, it's curious by its absence and suggests that anyone who went through the detail of writing that 5 page letter to CBS et al. might have considered the hair follicle analysis and decided against it.
You know that these potential defendants are wondering how to get a hair follicle test done asap (or they should be). The sooner the better.
By the way, I love how this letter concludes with the phrase, "Govern yourselves accordingly." Read that and chuckled. Such posturing. And, after such a nicely written notice letter. Just hilarious.
I want the tee shirt. I have already started using it with the dogs. "Here's your chew bones. Govern yourselves accordingly." Hilarious, hilarious.
Govern yourselves accordingly, now.
Well, all they can really report is that it was his blood and urine that didn't test positive for drugs at that moment.
From my years representing kids in the local CPS Court, I know that blood and urine tests aren't that reliable. There's stuff out there that people know to take that mucks with the results, gives false negatives. Some drugs just don't stay in the system that long, as well. There's all sorts of info online telling you how to beat a drug test, it's not some big secret and it doesn't cost a lot, either.
So before we give Charlie Sheen this big "clean and sober" label, it would be nice to see a negative result from a hair follicle test.
What's a hair follicle test? It tests the hair for drugs. Kinda like the rings in a tree trunk, hair keeps a record going back about 90 days on what the body has injested. Cocaine and other drugs will leave their record in the hair. (Which is why many of us thought Brittany Spears shaved her head way back when -- because she was facing a potential hair follicle analysis in the child custody fight.)
Charlie Sheen is telling the media he's "clean and sober."
Radar Online has published the letter that Charlie Sheen's law firm has sent to CBS and Warner Brothers, claiming that Mr. Sheen is "clean and sober."
Well, offer up that hair follicle test and then I think you can use "clean and sober" with some realistic expectation of acceptance among some of us. In fact, it's curious by its absence and suggests that anyone who went through the detail of writing that 5 page letter to CBS et al. might have considered the hair follicle analysis and decided against it.
You know that these potential defendants are wondering how to get a hair follicle test done asap (or they should be). The sooner the better.
By the way, I love how this letter concludes with the phrase, "Govern yourselves accordingly." Read that and chuckled. Such posturing. And, after such a nicely written notice letter. Just hilarious.
I want the tee shirt. I have already started using it with the dogs. "Here's your chew bones. Govern yourselves accordingly." Hilarious, hilarious.
Govern yourselves accordingly, now.
2/15/2011
BUYING HOUSES REALLY CHEAP: GREAT DEALS WITH BAD TITLE? BUYER BEWARE
 |
| Above: The Brooklyn Bridge (always for sale at a good price). Source: PublicDomainPictures.Net |
Well, it's tempting to start surfing around for the bargains. However, before you get serious here there's a little, teensy legal issue to consider: solid legal title to the property.
The whole thing about this ForeclosureFraud scandal is because it's not always true that the person selling the real property has legal title to it, no matter how sincerely they think that they do. Likewise, there are mortgage-holders that are paying monthly payments (or negotiating because they can't make those payments) with institutions who have no legal right to be involved; they don't have a legitimate assignment of the loan.
It appears that most of these bargains are bank-owned, and they are selling the properties with lots of verbiage tagged to the deal (things like "as is," the buyer has to investigate homestead status, etc.).
Consider the case law coming out of Massachusetts now, with lots of other states possibly following their lead: there, people that were foreclosed upon years ago are being held to still hold legal title to the property ... even if it's changed hands once or twice and the current "owners" innocently think that they own the home. They don't. They own a lawsuit against several entities, though.
So, be careful out there.
If it's a beautiful beachfront condo, fully loaded, and it's 35K -- then run. At the very least, run to a lawyer and get this checked out. Bad title is a very bad thing.
2/12/2011
Nancy Grace Enters Search for Missing Baby as Mystery of New Braunfels' Joshua Davis Unfolds
Joshua Davis is 18 months old and very cute. He has big button brown eyes and a wide, expecting smile. He is also missing, and has been for over a week now. His mother is very pregnant, and this prevents her from taking a lie detector test. Meanwhile, Joshua's daddy has taken several lie detector tests, and passed.
According to WOAI-TV reporting (see Nancy Grace media link below), so has everyone else who was in the home that day - except for one individual who remains unidentified.
Today is the 8th day that he's been gone.
The baby disappeared during some of the coldest weather we've seen in Texas for decades. Talk of snow. Days where we didn't go above freezing. It's too hard to ponder whether or not it's merciful that those first few hours of searching around the home late last Friday and into that next chilly Saturday morning -- in culverts, underneath the houses and cars and in the wooded areas -- didn't turn up a body. (For awhile, they were calling it a recovery effort - thinking that the toddler had strolled away from his home and in the sub-freezing temperatures could not have survived the night.)
The baby's daddy told reporters that he was glad; he believes his boy is still alive and that he's been snatched. The mother cries; she tells everyone that he was wandering in and out of the room where Toy Story was on the TV and no, the door wasn't open. But it wasn't locked.
And, his mom says that Joshua couldn't open the door. Nine people in the home; mommy and daddy watching television in different rooms; and there's reportedly no trace of the baby outside of the home itself.
They've brought in the bloodhounds. They've got the FBI and the Texas Rangers on the scene. The Heidi Search Center and other community volunteers have helped combed an ever-expanding search area: latest we were told a two-mile radius, and been gone over like a fine-toothed comb.
No Joshua.
Today, there will be a massive flier outreach, with parents and friends and family and volunteers trying to reach as many people as possible in communities along IH 35, from San Antonio to Austin, with papers giving information and a big photo of the little guy.
And, Nancy Grace has joined the team. Her first report on the Mystery of Joshua Davis - gone without a trace - aired this week.
Nancy Grace? Yes, and I welcome her interest - though others may not.
Of course, Nancy Grace coverage will be unwelcomed by some, who will see her involvement as self-serving and an open invitation for media exploitation of a newstory that is growing bigger by the day. Personally, when a baby has literally disappeared from his home then any help should be welcome.
Nancy Grace can bring a huge national spotlight to this little, beloved community north of San Antonio - and it seems to me, that right now this is a very good thing for Joshua Davis. I welcome her interest.
According to WOAI-TV reporting (see Nancy Grace media link below), so has everyone else who was in the home that day - except for one individual who remains unidentified.
Today is the 8th day that he's been gone.
The baby disappeared during some of the coldest weather we've seen in Texas for decades. Talk of snow. Days where we didn't go above freezing. It's too hard to ponder whether or not it's merciful that those first few hours of searching around the home late last Friday and into that next chilly Saturday morning -- in culverts, underneath the houses and cars and in the wooded areas -- didn't turn up a body. (For awhile, they were calling it a recovery effort - thinking that the toddler had strolled away from his home and in the sub-freezing temperatures could not have survived the night.)
The baby's daddy told reporters that he was glad; he believes his boy is still alive and that he's been snatched. The mother cries; she tells everyone that he was wandering in and out of the room where Toy Story was on the TV and no, the door wasn't open. But it wasn't locked.
And, his mom says that Joshua couldn't open the door. Nine people in the home; mommy and daddy watching television in different rooms; and there's reportedly no trace of the baby outside of the home itself.
They've brought in the bloodhounds. They've got the FBI and the Texas Rangers on the scene. The Heidi Search Center and other community volunteers have helped combed an ever-expanding search area: latest we were told a two-mile radius, and been gone over like a fine-toothed comb.
No Joshua.
Today, there will be a massive flier outreach, with parents and friends and family and volunteers trying to reach as many people as possible in communities along IH 35, from San Antonio to Austin, with papers giving information and a big photo of the little guy.
And, Nancy Grace has joined the team. Her first report on the Mystery of Joshua Davis - gone without a trace - aired this week.
Nancy Grace? Yes, and I welcome her interest - though others may not.
Of course, Nancy Grace coverage will be unwelcomed by some, who will see her involvement as self-serving and an open invitation for media exploitation of a newstory that is growing bigger by the day. Personally, when a baby has literally disappeared from his home then any help should be welcome.
Nancy Grace can bring a huge national spotlight to this little, beloved community north of San Antonio - and it seems to me, that right now this is a very good thing for Joshua Davis. I welcome her interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)