The Hoglawyer

« May 2007 | Main | August 2007 »

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 20:43:03

Why Arkansas Can Never Be Like Massachusetts

Ok, this is just a silly story about how Mitt Romney put his dog in a crate on top of his car on a family vacation.     The part that got my attention was that - in Massachusetts --- its illegal for dogs to ride in the back of trucks !!!   I think if a representative here in Arkansas even suggested that -- he would be hunted down and fed to a pack of Labrador Retrievers.


Romney's Cruel Canine Vacation
Wednesday, Jun. 27, 2007 By ANA MARIE COX

The reporter intended the anecdote that opened part four of the Boston Globe's profile of Mitt Romney to illustrate, as the story said, "emotion-free crisis management": Father deals with minor — but gross — incident during a 1983 family vacation, and saves the day. But the details of the event are more than unseemly — they may, in fact, be illegal.


The incident: dog excrement found on the roof and windows of the Romney station wagon. How it got there: Romney strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus, an Irish Setter, in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario, which the family apparently completed, despite Seamus's rather visceral protest.

Massachusetts's animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal "in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon." An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying "it's definitely something I'd want to check out." The officer, Nadia Branca, declined to give a definitive opinion on whether Romney broke the law but did note that it's against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, and "if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal." And while it appears that the statute of limitations has probably passed, Stacey Wolf, attorney and legislative director for the ASPCA, said "even if it turns out to not be against the law at the time, in the district, we'd hope that people would use common sense...Any manner of transporting a dog that places the animal in serious danger is something that we'd think is inappropriate...I can�t speak to the accuracy of the case, but it raises concerns about the judgment used in this particular situation."

Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was less circumspect. PETA does not have a position on Romney's candidacy per se, but Newkirk called the incident "a lesson in cruelty that was ... wrong for [his children] to witness...Thinking of the wind, the weather, the speed, the vulnerability, the isolation on the roof, it is commonsense that any dog who's under extreme stress might show that stress by losing control of his bowels: that alone should have been sufficient indication that the dog was, basically, being tortured." Romney, of course, has expressed support for the use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques when it comes to terrorists; his campaign did not return repeated calls and emails about the treatment of his dog.

As organizer of the Salt Lake City Olympic Games, Romney came under fire from some animal welfare groups for including a rodeo exhibition as part of the Games' festivities. At the time, he told protesters, "We are working hard to make this as safe a rodeo for cowboys and animals as is humanly possible."

Posted by Hoglawyer at 08:43 PM | Permalink | Comments [3]

Skateboard Outlaws

Does anyone think if a regular person did this to a kid the police would say they were "looking into it" to determine if there was wrongdoing?    I don't think so --- I would be on Little Rock's Most  Wanted instead:

Video of Hot Springs Skateboarders

Channel 7 Story

Sounds like a teenaged movie   "all the wanted to do is skate == but that law wouldn't let them"    - see Skateboard Renegades !!!

Posted by Hoglawyer at 07:44 PM | Permalink | Comments [0]

Dr. Katherine Mitchell Speaks At Political Animals Club

    Writing this blog makes me very sympathetic to reporters. I can't imagine how many times a year, even a month,mhf they go hear a boring speech and think - what a waste of my time. That is how I felt today after going to listen to Little Rock School Board President Katherine Mitchell  speak at the Political Animals Club at the downtown library.
    The room was full for sure, so no doubt there is still interest in the controversies surrounding the Little Rock School Board. Of course what everyone wanted to hear was what she had to say about allegations that she wrongfully, even criminally, accepted payments from the Little Rock School District in 2004 and 2005. She gave a long, boring, yet plausible explanation how the money came from a grant but the checks were written by the LRSD. She blamed the person administering the grant and Dr. Brooks for any errors and claimed that he should have know the payments were illegal if that was the case. Mitchell insinuated that any problems with her payments should have been addressed two years ago instead of now. I swear she called the county prosecutor "Prostitutor Jegley"  but I might have not heard her correctly. Her basic defense was that  LRSD only disbursed the grant money. I guess if they take in federal money and disburse it - then the recipient is merely getting federal money - I don't think so. She wouldn't take any questions on this topic on advice of her attorney apparently.
   
Mitchell gave a a brief overview of what she saw as Dr. Roy Brooks shortcomings. She said, and we have heard this all before, that within weeks of being hired he began plans to lay off employees. Her main complaint seemed to be that the most of the employees that were being let go were black. She said that black employees "lost" $918,000 in salary and while white employees only lost $28,000. She claimed that these employees were necessary to assist in student achievement and that test scores have suffered because these employees were no longer in the classrooms. She seemed upset that Brooks had hired a consulting form that including one of his  former employers who suggested this change.
    I could repeat the whole talk she gave but it was so lackluster and full of fluff, I won't do that to you. Some or her more interesting points were that she wanted to define who she is instead of the Arkansas-Democrat Gazette.
    Mitchell then launched into a long list of issues that she thinks the school district needs to improve.
    She repeated the statement that "this is a democracy and in a democracy the majority rules." I find that an interesting attitude because of course, even a majority can't take away the minority's rights without due process - something she doesn't seem to favor.
    She said the school board needs to be more responsive and they haven't always listened to parent's and teachers needs like they should. She actually said "the children are our future."  Not very much disagreement in the crowd on that one.
    Some more interesting comments were that the board had always had disagreements and that some of them were not even on speaking terms.
    There was some discussion about how to get black students into AP classes. According to Mitchell, one middle school principal had plans to get rid of regular level classes and have all AP. Of course, that a sure way to define yourself into victory. Call me crazy but it seams to me that would just really mean turning AP classes into regular classes - but I'm not the one with the doctorate in education obviously.
    Mitchell said that she personally did not believe that the school district had achieved unified status as was found by the federal courts. I assume that means she thinks we need to be back in the federal court system - which is a scary thought after all this time to get out of federal oversight.
    Lots of talk - few answers. I really didn't hear her mention one specific program that was working or not working - just that we need more of the former and less of the latter. As I said, lots of fluff.

Posted by Hoglawyer at 02:04 PM | Permalink | Comments [1]

Friday, June 22, 2007 - 22:39:06

why Lawyer Jokes Will Never Go Away

This is the first part of a six part series on boingboing.com   so I won't re-post it all.   Needless to say --- lawyers can be outrageoius, irrational, and downright nasty sometimes.     But - they can also be witty while doing so.   This exchange is the first of many that just had me rolling.

http://tjic.com/?p=6135

A lawyer is arguing about and alleged illegal DVD rental program.

Lawyer: You’re breaking the law by renting out videos with out my client’s permission!!
TJIC: What law, specifically, do you allege that I’m breaking?
Lawyer: It’s not my job to educate you, get your own attorney for that!
TJIC: So, I’m breaking a law, but you won’t tell me which one?
Lawyer: We’ve been looking forward to having a class action lawsuit on this issue!!
TJIC: OK, great, because you’ve got one.
Lawyer: What?
TJIC: You want a class action lawsuit. Go ahead, you’ve got one now.
Lawyer: I’ll see you in court!!
TJIC: Yes, that’s what I said.

I next sent an email to the lawyer, CC-ed to my lawyer:

Mr. Robert H. Tourtelot,

Thank you for returning my phone call just now regarding the matter of me renting out XXX’s DVDs.

For the record, I was somewhat surprised that you told me that renting out a DVD was “illegal”, but that you refused to specify what law you allege we are breaking. I’ve had dozens of interactions with lawyers, and I’ve never once had the experience of someone telling me that we were breaking a mystery law, which they were unwilling to cite.

With regards to your statement that you’ve been “looking forward for a class action lawsuit on a case like this”, I, too, would enjoy such a lawsuit. The publicity that we would derive from defeating your firm in court over a baseless allegation of copyright infringement, brought about by a law firm and a lawyer that does not understand the First Sale doctrine, and which are entirely ignorant of the Supreme Court case law on the topic, would be of incalculable value to us, and would be a very cost efficient way to further publicize our service.

As I have repeatedly assured Mr. XXX, we are 100% in compliance with the law, and I continue to hope that Mr. XXX will become convinced of the proven track record of rental markets increasing profits to content creators such as himself.

However, if Mr. XXX persists in believing that we are acting illegally, and you encourage his belief in some unexplained “mystery law” that somehow refutes 17 USC 109 and several Supreme Court cases, then we will see you in court. As I mentioned on the phone, we would also likely counter-sue both Mr. XXX and - potentially - your firm.

You can direct any legal documents about the lawsuit to the our firm’s lawyer (who is CC-ed on this message), at YYY

Thank you,

Travis J. I. Corcoran

The lawyer, after taking enough time to actually crack a law book and realize that he has no case at all, replied:

Mr. Corcoran: We understand more than you think about copyright law. What I was referring to and what you failed to mention in your e-mail concerned the copying of DVD’s. Enough said?

I wrote back to the opposing attorney:

Ah, it would have been nice if you had answered my question on the phone instead of telling me that you didn’t have the time to “educate me about copyright” - we could have saved some time.

As I have already assured Mr. XXX, we have never copied a DVD, we have no illegal copies of DVDs in our inventory, and have a program to allow authors and vendors to audit our inventory.

If you allege that we either are illegally duplicating DVDs, or are breaking some other law, then I advise you to take us to court, ASAP, because I’d love the publicity.

If you do not allege that we are breaking any law, than I assume that our interaction is at an end, and I wish you a good day.

I then wrote to the opposing party and - because what is best in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women - I CC-ed his lawyer:

I had the “pleasure” of having your lawyer tell me on the phone that it was illegal for me to rent out DVDs, and then - believe it or not - refuse to tell me what law forbid this.

In email, I challenged him, and later - perhaps after doing some research - he backpedaled, stating that he had only been talking about copying DVDs. ( I note that this is manifestly untrue; he explicitly said on the phone that “renting is illegal” ).

Your lawyer’s website says that he specializes in “real estate law” and “personal injury” law, among 12 different areas of expertise.

Nowhere does he list copyright law.

A bit of well-intentioned advice:

1) in my experience, no lawyer who does real-estate law is top notch.

2) any lawyer who claims 12 areas of expertise has ZERO areas of expertise.

3) if you have copyright concerns, you want to deal with a lawyer who does copyright, copyright, copyright, and nothing but copyright.

A good copyright lawyer would have told you during the free phone consultation that renting out DVDs is deeply settled law, and is fully legal.

I hope that Mr. Robert H. Tourtelot doesn’t charge you too much,

If you’re going to be in the business of producing copyrighted work, you really want to find a halfway decent lawyer.

Now, here’s the great part: the opposing attorney flew off the handle and ranted about me to his client, while keeping me CC-ed.

In two messages.

First:

XXX,

For a moment, I thought I was losing my mind. The guy said in his e-mail: “nowhere does he list copyright law”. Well, cutting him a little slack, I guess maybe he is dyslectic! As you can see from reading our web- site, we do list “Intellectual Property Litigation”. Duh!

Second:

Dear XXX: One of the more obvious downsides of the internet is the fact that any fool can write anything to anyone, so long as he or she has the-mail address. On the brighter side is the availability of programs like Spambully, which are designed to keep electronic garbage from people like this out of sight, so to speak. Mr. Corcoron, an individual who quite obviously has far too much time on his hands and, no doubt, not enough business, seems to delight in writing fiction.

As for his assessment of my legal skills and abilities, God forbid word of this gets out amongst the public! I have been quite successful keeping up the charade for all these years, only to be exposed now by someone in D.C. who probably makes less in a year than I gave to charity last year. Why did this have to happen to me? I had it all going so well. They all thought I was “top notch” and now this pip- squeek from across the Potomic has let the cat out of the bag. Well, XXX, all I can say is that its been one hell of ride so far. Best regards, RHT

PS I will bet you $1,000 that ol’ Mr. Corcoran, is not over 5′-6″. Want to bet?

I replied:
PS XXX: For a moment, I thought I was losing my mind. The guy said in his e-mail: “nowhere does he list copyright law”. Well, cutting him a little slack, I guess maybe he is dyslectic! As you can see from reading our web- site, we do list “Intellectual Property Litigation”. Duh!

Actually, someone skilled in the area would know that IP covers a broad area: copyright, patents, trademark, trade secrets, etc. Any lawyer who specializes in one of these areas specializes in ONE of these areas. A good IP lawyer will cover copyright OR he will cover trademark.

I note that, because I seek out trained professionals who are good at what they do, that I retain two separate lawyers: one copyright lawyer, and one patent lawyer.

You can certainly find a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none who does all of these (and personal injury law, and divorce cases, and the other 10 specialties that your attorney professes), but you’ll have to go to the yellow pages of the local phone-book.
PS I will bet you $1,000 that ol’ Mr. Corcoran, is not over 5′-6″. Want to bet?

I entirely agree with your lawyer that “any fool with an email address” can pop up on the Internet.

For example, you’ve hired one who is totally ignorant of the 17 USC 109, the First Sale doctrine, Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 , 1979 Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218, etc.

…and then he tried to cover his poor law skills by trying (and failing) to make cracks about someone’s height.

By the way, RHT, I’m 5′11″.

If you’re so inclined, please mail the $1,000 check to me at XXX.

Oh, and another thing, RHT, “dyslectic” isn’t a word. (XXX, another hint: most real attorneys spell check their emails before sending them to their own clients, and/or the opposing side).

Seriously, if you’re in the market for a real copyright attorney, talk to me, I’ll put you in touch with some professionals, instead of the small town divorce-and-condo-agreement folks you can find in the yellow pages.

Travis J I Corcoran

Robert H. Tourtelot, this blog post is dedicated to you, and every other B-grade lawyer trying to compete in an A-grade world with nothing but bluster, arrogance, and an arsenal of short-jokes.

Posted by Hoglawyer at 10:39 PM | Permalink | Comments [0]

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 14:01:40

Republicans take cover ! Incoming subpoenas.......

When the Democrats swept the House and Senate last November - it was obvious it was going to be by narrow margins and would not necessarily mean a huge rush of successful legislation would be sitting on the president's desk anytime soon. The Republicans can still stall, filibuster, and thwart a variety of bills from seeing the light of day and of course, the president is likely to veto anything innovative or likely to help those of modest means. That being said - what I am loving is that Democrats now control the committees and therefore they have subpoena power. Where before, anything that smacked of Republican political scandal would be covered up and there would be no oversight - our system of checks and balances is back in play. If the Republicans still had House and Senate control - what do you think the chance of a full investigation of the Attorney General's political practices would have even been considered. About zero. Once the subpoenas started flying - and weasels like Alberto Gonzales were forced to give sworn testimony -- the Republican quickly figured out "we can't lie all the time anymore and not get caught."  What a shock. All of a sudden - the Attorney General's #2, #3, and #4, depending on how you look at it,  assistance have resigned. Monica Goodling has to get immunity - and basically admitted she broke the law and hired and fired on the basis of political persuasion. None of this would have come to light if Republicans had been in power. They would have covered it up, hidden it as they know their actions - while maybe not illegal - are essentially corrupt. Part of the irony of all of this is that Republicans will preach to you how a quota system is wrong and we should only hire on the basis of merit -- but apparently that doesn't apply to important Justice Department positions that are supposedly politically neutral. Hypocrites.
    And then you have Tim "the Snake" Griffin. He says "public service isn't worth it." I think he should have said what he really thinks. "I don't believe in democracy." His idea of public service apparently is coordinating massive vote fraud, digging up sleazy facts, and doing his best to avoid any type of oversight. As a puppet for Karl Rove - he sought to toward true democracy in favor of a "permanent Republican majority." Of course, they have failed miserably. He is obviously a quitter - he cut and run rather than answer questions under oath during a confirmation hearing. Soon enough - he will probably be financially rewarded for his loyalty and find his way into being a lobbyist for some other sleaze ball clients.
    I predict even more and more Republican connected corruption will be unveiled as a result of the subpoena power now firmly in the Democrats control. Of course, this will be a great fund raising tool for Republicans - as secrecy is their friend. 

Posted by Hoglawyer at 02:01 PM | Permalink | Comments [2]