 |
 |
« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 »
Friday, May 18, 2007 - 14:40:07
Favorite lawsuit of the week: Negligent tattooing
I'm not sure this is a true story, but supposedly, when Johnny Depp was dating Winonna Ryder, he had her name tattood -- it said "Winonna Forder." After they broke up, he had it altered where it now just says "Wino Forever." Even if its not true its funny.At least he had a compentent tattoo artist ---- unlike this guy in my favorite lawsuit of the week.
What In The Worlb?
Cardinals fan sues St. Louis parlor over botched Series tattoo
MAY 1--The day after the St. Louis Cardinals clinched the 2006 World Series, fan Jason Harris went to a local tattoo parlor to permanently memorialize the team's tenth championship. Harris, a 20-year-old college student who had never previously gotten a tattoo, headed for The House of Ink in St. Louis, where he wanted the words "St. Louis Cardinals, World Series Champions, 2006" inked on his back. However, according to a negligence lawsuit Harris just filed, the resulting fist-sized tattoo was marred by errors for which he now wants in excess of $25,000 in damages. Harris's Circuit Court complaint, a copy of which you'll find below, notes that an unnamed tattoo artist "incorrectly spelled words and put the wrong year on Plaintiff's person causing severe damage." In an interview, Harris told TSG that instead of "2006," the year 2000 was inked between his shoulder blades (the New York Yankees won the World Series that year). And the word "World" was misspelled as "Worlb." Additionally, the word "Champions" was reduced to "Champs" (though that seems minor compared to the other two mistakes). Harris said he learned of the errors in the $190 tattoo the following day when he showed it to his mother. When he went back to the parlor to complain, a worker proposed to correct the mistakes, an offer Harris said he declined. He is now considering having the Cardinals tattoo removed entirely, since obscuring it would require him being inked with an even larger tattoo. Thomas Baxter, the House of Ink owner, was unaware of the lawsuit when contacted by a TSG and would not comment beyond saying that he "needs to research the situation and find out what's going on."
Copy of the lawsuit
Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 16:31:52
The True Little Rock Story: Part One
Part one of a series of odd things I see and hear in Little Rock.I got home a little early after court the other day. I came in, noticed I had no mail, which was odd, and took my dog out to the front yard. I could hear a neighbor two houses down slam her door. I've never met her, don't know her name. She yells from her porch "Have you seen the mailman?" As a polite neighbor would - I yell back "No, no mail for me either." She then yells, not necessarily to me "Well the mailman is supposed to be here at one. I'm waiting for a DNA test to see who my father is. Jesus Christ !"
Not sure how to respond to that, I didn't.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 21:15:39
LRSD Drama is getting old
Re-reading Brooks' contract, I don't see how the school board, specifically the majority opposed to Brooks and the school board's lawyers, got this case so wrong.
As Judge Eisele so eloquently explained - The contract clause describing the suspension procedures is not ambiguous: "the superintendent will be afforded the due process afforded above." Above were the procedures to terminate. These clearly included that a hearing officer would be used, witnesses would be called and subject to cross-examination, and the hearing officer's conclusions would be voted on by the board.
What did the board do? They tried to suspend him without a hearing, without a hearing officer, and without 5 days notice. I saw where in Welch's letter to Askew he questioned the need for a hearing officer in pre-termination proceedings -- but a contract is a contract.
Welch is one of the state's best lawyers who I have great respect for, but he made the wrong call in this case. In his letter Welch wrote "I've determined that my clients should go ahead with the hearing on suspension without a hearing officer" Askew wrote back that to do so was the opposite of what the school board's own attorney advised and a "clear and blatant" violation of the contract. Askew threw in that he hoped upon reflection Welch's position would change.
Of course, on the issue of the need for 5 days notice, the need for a hearing officer, and the need for full due process protections, Brooks has won. It may be a phyrric victory of course - but at least he will get a meaningful hearing before a neutral, mutually agreed upon hearing officer - Why was the school board so opposed to this when it was in the contract, when its what their own primary attorney suggested - and it was simply the right thing to do? All I can think of is ego and hubris.
There will be a suspension hearing followed by a termination hearing now unless a majority of the board offers a buyout. Eisele warned the school board that they should pay careful attention to the hearing officer's findings. I predict that even if a hearing officer finds only a minor or technical violation - the school board will treat that as gold and a "clear justificaiton" for firing Brooks.
Im no school or employment law expert - but I think that that no matter what the school board votes, Brooks could appeal their decision to circuit court. I might be mistaken but I think the circuit judge would give little or no consideration to the school board's findings and consider only those findings by the hearing officer. ( at least this is how it works in admin cases) The circuit judge could also fully consider whether Brooks was given full due process rights as per his contract.
This will all take a long time, be extremely costly, and as the school board has quickly learned - things might not go their way. I agree with Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times, - buy him out now - don't wait. If someone is considering moving to the LR area and they want to check out the schools -- do we want their searches to be filled with articles about racial conflict? When teachers are considering which school district to work - would they want to work somewhere where a court has found an employee was denied due process? Of course not. This is a PR nightmare for our city. The story has already been covered by the NYT and CNN - and this seedy drama can only get worse if there is a full hearing. Forget saving a few $100,000 by "winning" a termination hearing -- the only winners will be private school enrollment and other cities that steal jobs that we scare away. It needs to end now - buy him out.New York Times Article on LRSB Issues
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Fifty years after the epic desegregation struggle at Central High School, the school district here is still riven by racial conflict, casting a pall on this year’s ambitious commemorative efforts.
In the latest clash, white parents pack school board meetings to support the embattled superintendent, Roy Brooks, who is black. The blacks among the school board members look on grimly, determined to use their new majority to oust him. Whites insist that test scores and enrollment have improved under the brusque, hard-charging Mr. Brooks; blacks on the board are furious that he has cut the number of office and other non-teaching jobs and closed some schools.
The fight is all the more disturbing to some here because it erupted just as a federal judge declared Little Rock’s schools finally desegregated, 50 years after a jeering white mob massed outside Central High to turn back integration.
In 1957, the fight was over whether nine black students could attend an entirely white high school. Now it is over whether the city’s black leaders can exert firm control over the direction and perquisites of an urban school district in the way that white leaders did for decades. When Mr. Brooks, who declined a request for an interview, cut 100 jobs, he saved money but earned the fierce ill will of many other blacks, who see the district as an important source of employment and middle-class stability.
Many whites, on the other hand, see the district, where issues of race have long been a constant backdrop, as a bloated bureaucracy, ripe for Mr. Brooks’s pruning. Where some blacks say Mr. Brooks disregards them and cozies up to the white business establishment, many whites say he is merely trying to stop white flight.
The bitter racial split has left some residents questioning the dimensions of advancement in the intervening years. There are no mobs in the street this time, but the undercurrents are nasty.
“We’re quite concerned about what kind of progress we have or haven’t made,” said Andre Guerrero, a white member of the Central High School 50th Anniversary Commission.
“This is a power struggle about whose voice is going to prevail,” Mr. Guerrero said as the school board prepared to meet last week.
Mr. Brooks’s tenure and the fight over him has thrown the district into turmoil.
“I’ve never seen anything like this — the divisiveness, the hate,” said the leader of the teacher’s union, Katherine Wright Knight. Another outspoken critic, Katherine Mitchell, the board president, said, “I’m saying, we have really regressed.”
The judge’s ruling in February, disputed by activists and black board members but welcomed by Mr. Brooks, freed the city’s schools from federal oversight. It marked the end of a government engagement that began in September 1957 when Army soldiers escorted the nine black students up the stone steps of Central High.
But it did not end longstanding resentments, and after a black majority was elected to the board for the first time last fall, the gloves are off.
Other urban public school districts in the South have suffered through similar racial battles over leadership, aggravated by symptoms that prevail here, too: white flight, inner-city poverty and what is referred to as the “achievement gap,” the wide divergence in test results between white and black students. The gap fuels resentment and makes an anathema of any perceived administrative leaning toward white students.
The fight here has been especially bruising because of its symbolic overtones and practical implications. Though whites have deserted the schools in many other Southern cities, they have not done so to the same degree in Little Rock, where they make up about a quarter of the 23,000 students. Birmingham, Ala.; Jackson, Miss.; New Orleans and Memphis, by contrast, had white percentages in the single digits or barely above, according to 2000 Department of Education data.
Most important, the 1957 racial ugliness at Central High is tightly bound up with the local identity. It was Little Rock’s shaming turn on the world stage, televised live, and the city has sought to overcome it for 50 years. Signs on the Interstate point visitors to the school and its visitors center; a festival, forums, ceremonies, theatrical events and more are planned in advance of an anniversary now clouded by the strife. Any hint that the troubles may echo that of 50 years ago, however distantly, is painful to some civic leaders.
“Here we are, coming up to the 50th, and we thought we were coasting,” said Nancy Rousseau, the principal of Central High, her voice trailing off.
Now integrated in its student body, if largely white in its advanced classes, the school is still an imposing brick-and-stone, Art Deco and collegiate gothic ziggurat towering over the old neighborhood surrounding it. It also remains a magnet for some of the best teachers and students in the state.
So polarized are the two sides that after Mr. Brooks summoned a statistician to demonstrate improvements in the schools at a recent board meeting, his opponents summoned another statistician to demonstrate precisely the opposite. Black and white board members took turns rolling their eyes and looking skeptical.
Jay P. Greene, head of the department of education reform at the University of Arkansas, said in an interview that Little Rock’s scores had been improving, like scores around the state, though pushing them up in a troubled urban district “itself is an achievement.”
The chamber of commerce backs Mr. Brooks, and the conservative editorial page of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette crusades for him. Neither endorsement helps his image with black critics, who see his actions as inherently favoring whites.
He is “a person who doesn’t identify with black people at all,” said John Walker, a Little Rock civil rights lawyer who represents black students in the court case, which he has appealed. “The only thing he stands for is putting black people down.”
Though many whites hail the cuts in administration — a legislative study found it “terribly bloated,” a lawmaker said — Ms. Mitchell, the board president, said of them angrily: “African-American employees have lost $918,000,” and she enumerated positions lost or downgraded. Many whites laud the closing of the three schools with low attendance.
Dr. Greene, of the University of Arkansas, said he feared that the dispute was really about patronage, not educational quality. “I think it would be hard to make strong criticisms of the superintendent on educational grounds,” he said.
Yet Mr. Brooks has evidently neglected the political role vital to a superintendent’s success, some say.
“Roy Brooks has done a credible job reaching out to the grass tops, and a lousy job reaching out to the grass roots,” said James L. Rutherford, dean of the Clinton School of Public Service in Little Rock, part of the University of Arkansas.
Mr. Brooks came from Orlando, Fla., three years ago, an administrator and former principal with a reputation for toughness and improving intractable schools, and he was opposed from the beginning by Ms. Mitchell and the teachers’ union, whose leader immediately predicted he would fail. His fortunes went downhill when blacks achieved their historic majority on the board.
Mr. Brooks sat impassively through the recent board meeting, never making eye contact with his critics. They voted to send him a letter outlining why they wanted to be rid of him; on April 30 he sued the board president in federal court, saying she was intimidating potential witnesses who might testify for him at a likely administrative hearing over whether he should be dismissed.
Black parents remained largely silent at the board meeting. But several other black parents interviewed as they picked up their children at Dunbar Middle School were not following the board majority’s line.
“He’s a real hands-on superintendent,” said Ray Webster, whose two small boys were jumping up and down in the back seat. Mr. Webster had met Mr. Brooks through the parent-teacher association.
“He actually cares about the kids. He actually shows concern for the kids,” he said, but that is a view vehemently rejected by his critics.
Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 20:42:53
LRSD School District Document Dump
More fun-filled school board drama facts !!Really just a few copies of the letters flying around:
Letter from Dr. Katherine Mitchell tellin 'em how things will be
Dr. Roy Brooks' lawsuit against Dr. Mitchell and Co.
Letter from Dr. Brooks attempting to resolve differences
Ark Times Video - Jan Board Meeting
Formal Complaint against Brooks
Letter about attorney fees paid to John Walker that has nothing to do with the current superintendent debate, but I just think is interesting
Judge Eisele's 2nd Ruling Denying Temporary Restraining Order
Channel 7 Video: NAACP Hires Lawyers To Protect Majority Rule
LR Chamber Says School Board Issues Hurting City
Show Me The Money!, Part One
LRSD Rewards Teachers, Unions Resist ?
LRSD Parents Web Site ( Where Most of this comes from )
Friday, May 04, 2007 - 19:01:58
Now back to the important news.: Paris Hilton convicted
One of my best friends got a DWI recently. To make is worse, it was her second in less than 5 years. For an otherwise law abiding person- a 2nd DWI is a crime with a pretty harsh penalty. People do all sorts of things in this state, spousal abuse, theft, drug use, and usally get probation. But get a 2nd DWI - mandatory 10 days jail, at least on the books. Of course that might just mean 5 weekends, but jail is jail.
As you can read below, Paris Hilton ( my favorite celebutaunt ) got a DWI not too long ago. She, like eveyrone else, was ordered to do a driving class and had her license suspended. She just kept driving and never took her class. Apparently, in california, a DWI is much harsher than in Arkansas - and she was already on 36 months probation. Her sentence for driving with a suspended license and not doing her class --45 days !!!! ouch. I represented someone just the other day in LR trafic court for not one but two driving while suspended, driving with no insurance, and a ticket for a wreck -- all she got was $800 fine ( she had already served one night in jail ) I can understand getting a DWI - and in my younger days probably deserved one a on more than one occasion. But once you get it --- to keep driving and ignore the drivers ed class is -- well -- ditzy. I noticed that they are not going to allow her to stay in an "alternative jail" like the one I descrbed last week as well. Straight up 45 days. I don't konw how California works. Here in Arkansas --- you could instantly appeal and try to get a better sentence at circuit court or even ask for a jury trial. I bet there are a few hundred Hollywood types that are going to start taking cabs home a lot more often after this sentence has been imposed.
Hilton Sentenced to 45 Days in Jail May 4 07:25 PM US/Eastern By SANDY COHEN AP Entertainment Writer View larger image LOS ANGELES (AP) - A judge sentenced Paris Hilton to 45 days in jail Friday for violating her probation, putting the brakes on the hotel heiress' famous high life. Hilton, who parlayed her name and relentless partying into worldwide notoriety, must go to jail on June 5 and she will not be allowed any work release, no furloughs, no use of an alternative jail and no electronic monitoring in lieu of jail, Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer ruled after a hearing. The heiress arrived at court 10 minutes late in the back of a black Cadillac Escalade and swept into the Metropolitan Courthouse with several men in suits, ignoring screams of photographers lining the route into a rear entrance. Her parents, Rick and Kathy Hilton, also came with her. Wearing a gray jacket and white shirt over black slacks and with a black headband on, she said nothing and appeared serious. The celebrity case brought an unusual scene to the austere courthouse south of downtown in a commercial area. As if at a red carpet event, dozens of photographers and reporters lined up at the rear entrance. Yellow police tape substituted for velvet ropes. TV trucks were parked nearby to beam the news worldwide and a helicopter hovered overhead. Extra sheriff's deputies stood guard. Hilton, 26, pleaded no contest in January to reckless driving stemming from a Sept. 7 arrest in Hollywood. Police said she appeared intoxicated and failed a field sobriety test. She had a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent, the level at which an adult driver is in violation of the law. She was sentenced to 36 months probation, alcohol education and $1,500 in fines. Two other traffic stops and failure to enroll in a mandated alcohol education program, are what landed the socialite back in court. On Jan. 15, Hilton was pulled over by California Highway Patrol. Officers informed her that she was driving on a suspended license and she signed a document acknowledging that she was not to drive, according to papers filed in Superior Court. Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies stopped Hilton on Feb. 27 and charged her with violating her probation. Police said she was pulled over at about 11 p.m. after authorities saw the car speeding with its headlights off. Hilton's spokesman, Elliot Mintz, said at the time Hilton wasn't aware her license was suspended. A copy of the document Hilton signed on Jan. 15 was found in the car's glove compartment, court papers say.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 15:54:46
HOW TO (NOT) TO FIRE YOUR SUPERINTENDENT 101:
HOW TO (NOT) To FIRE YOUR SUPERINTENDENT 101:Today's lesson is how to (not) to fire your school superintendent. This all sounds so familiar - and you can't find a more Arkansas name than "Jimmy Joe."
Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Ronnie LOGAN et al., Appellants,
v.
Bill ROSA, Appellee.
In action by former superintendent of schools against school district for wrongful discharge, trial court's finding that school board lacked sufficient cause to discharge superintendent was not clearly erroneous.
**469 *562 G. Ross Smith, P.A., Little Rock, for appellants.
Harkey, Walmsley, Belew & Blankenship, Batesville, for appellee.
HOLT, Justice.
The appellee is the former superintendent of schools for the Mountain View School District. He brought suit in chancery court for breach of contract after he was discharged by the school board members, the appellants. The case was transferred to the circuit court. This appeal results from the decision of the trial court, sitting without a jury, that the appellants wrongfully discharged the appellee from his position as superintendent of the schools and, consequently, appellee is entitled to compensation pursuant to his two year contract. The sole issue presented by appellants is whether the finding by the trial court that the school board lacked sufficient cause to discharge the appellee is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, ARCP, Rule 52(a). We affirm.
On January 12, 1981 the board voted 4-2 to renew the superintendent's contract. Members Baxter and Logan dissented. The new two year contract was signed on February 5, 1981. It was to run from July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1983. In the March 1981 school elections two of the members who had voted to renew the superintendent's contract were replaced with new members. In early April the daughter of the superintendent was involved in an incident at school relating to alcoholic beverages. The superintendent suspended his daughter for the remainder of the semester. This incident was discussed in executive session by the board on April 13. On April 16 an attorney wrote Logan on behalf of the superintendent saying that he had information that Logan had reported to a local paper that appellee's daughter was found in possession of an alcoholic beverage at the Mountain View School and threatening litigation if Logan or his attorney failed within ten days to respond in order to work out the matter. On April 28, the superintendent took an affidavit from a school custodian stating as follows:
I, Jimmy Joe Wallis, an employee of the Mountain View School District was in Roger Hopper's Auto Parts Store and was approached by Roger Hopper who had *563 recently been elected to the Mountain View School Board. Roger Hopper said to me ‘Jimmy Joe, you're for Bill Rosa, aren't you?’ I repeated to Roger Hopper that Bill Rosa had never done anything against me and that I sure was not against him. Roger Hopper replied, ‘Well, he thinks David Baxter has been giving him ‘Hell’ on that Board, he hasn't seen anything yet as to what's going to happen when I'm on the Board.'
The above statement is a true statement made to me by Roger Hopper in Hopper's Auto Parts Store. I was also a Mountain View School employee when the above statement was made.
**470 The superintendent sent the affidavit to his attorney. The superintendent also took the affidavit to the recently elected Hopper in May and discussed it with him. Hopper denied making the statement and suggested the matter be presented to the school board. On June 10 the superintendent's lawyer wrote Hopper concerning the affidavit and requested a response from Hopper or his attorney within ten days. At the regularly scheduled board meeting on July 13, Hopper requested a special meeting to discuss the affidavit and the letter he had received from the superintendent's attorney. This meeting was held on July 27, 1981. The custodian disavowed the affidavit. At that meeting the board voted 5-1 to terminate the superintendent's contract.
The appellants summarize the grounds which they assert justified the firing as follows:
(1) Appellee communicated with two board members through his attorney in a threatening manner with regard to personal litigation.
(2) Appellee intimidated a school custodian to coerce him into executing a false affidavit that could only be used to threaten and intimidate a board member.
(3) Appellee refused again and again to provide information requested by certain board members.
(4) Appellee refused to work with board member Logan at all.
(5) Appellee suspended his daughter in violation of the *564 policies of the district, this being the prerogative of the board.
In support of their position, appellants adduced testimony and other evidence from the custodian Wallis and board members Turner, Hopper, Partee, Logan and Baxter. It is undisputed that the appellee superintendent did communicate through his attorney with two of the school board members, Logan and Hopper, with reference to resolving their personal differences; namely, the controversy about the Wallis affidavit and the superintendent's suspension of his daughter from school. The superintendent, who had served as such for 15 years, testified, however, that the custodian's affidavit accurately reflected what he had been told by him and that he, the superintendent, did not coerce or intimidate him. The superintendent denied that he had ever failed or refused to furnish any requested information to the school board members and further denied that he had refused to work with any school board member. Admittedly, he suspended his 12 year old daughter due to the incident involving a bottle of beer on the school premises. Board member Logan agrees that even though a suspension in an alcohol related incident is a matter for the school board, the action taken by the superintendent was “sufficient”.
No citation of authority is necessary to support the proposition that the factfinder, here the trial court, is in a better position than are we to observe and evaluate the demeanor, the prejudice or bias, and the interest and credibility of a witness. ARCP, Rule 52(a), which is applicable here, provides: “Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous (clearly against the preponderance of the evidence), and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses.” Here, we certainly cannot say that the finding of the court was clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.
 |
  |
| © 2004 - 07 Arkansas Times. All Rights Reserved. |  |
