Entries Tagged as 'Legal'

Brink’s Pill Heist

On the 17th of March in what could well become the basis of the next Hollywood crime caper movie, $75 million worth of pharmaceuticals was stolen from a warehouse in Enfield, MA from Eli Lilly & Co.

The thieves disabled the alarm system, scaled an exterior brick wall, cut a hold in the roof, rappelled inside, loaded pallets of merchandise onto an awaiting vehicle, and left with a semi-truck full of stolen goods.

Prozac, Cymbalta, Zyprexa according to Eli Lilly no narcotics or painkillers were stored in this ware house.

Why worry about drugs from abroad when it seems the drug trade is very much alive right in our own back yard.

Originally posted 2010-03-19 02:00:13.

Bush v. Gore

At a law school Supreme Court conference that I attended last fall, there was a panel on “The Rehnquist Court.” No one mentioned Bush v. Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist’s time as chief justice, and during the Q. and A. no one asked about it. When I asked a prominent law professor about this strange omission, he told me he had been invited to participate in another Rehnquist retrospective, and was told in advance that Bush v. Gore would not be discussed.

The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world’s version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell’s “1984,” government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, “Come on, get over it.”

There is a legal argument for pushing Bush v. Gore aside. The majority opinion announced that the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum — the part of a legal opinion that is nonbinding — and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.

Bush v. Gore’s lasting significance is being fought over right now by the Ohio-based United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, whose judges disagree not only on what it stands for, but on whether it stands for anything at all. This debate, which has been quietly under way in the courts and academia since 2000, is important both because of what it says about the legitimacy of the courts and because of what Bush v. Gore could represent today. The majority reached its antidemocratic result by reading the equal protection clause in a very pro-democratic way. If Bush v. Gore’s equal protection analysis is integrated into constitutional law, it could make future elections considerably more fair.

The heart of Bush v. Gore’s analysis was its holding that the recount was unacceptable because the standards for vote counting varied from county to county. “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms,” the court declared, “the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.” If this equal protection principle is taken seriously, if it was not just a pretext to put a preferred candidate in the White House, it should mean that states cannot provide some voters better voting machines, shorter lines, or more lenient standards for when their provisional ballots get counted — precisely the system that exists across the country right now.

The first major judicial test of Bush v. Gore’s legacy came in California in 2003. The N.A.A.C.P., among others, argued that it violated equal protection to make nearly half the state’s voters use old punch-card machines, which, because of problems like dimpled chads, had a significantly higher error rate than more modern machines. A liberal three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed. But that decision was quickly reconsidered en banc —that is, reheard by a larger group of judges on the same court — and reversed. The new panel dispensed with Bush v. Gore in three unilluminating sentences of analysis, clearly finding the whole subject distasteful.

The dispute in the Sixth Circuit is even sharper. Ohio voters are also challenging a disparity in voting machines, arguing that it violates what the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Daniel Tokaji, an Ohio State University law professor, calls Bush v. Gore’s “broad principle of equal dignity for each voter.” Two of the three judges who heard the case ruled that Ohio’s election system was unconstitutional. But the dissenting judge protested that “we should heed the Supreme Court’s own warning and limit the reach of Bush v. Gore to the peculiar and extraordinary facts of that case.”

The state of Ohio asked for a rehearing en banc, arguing that Bush v. Gore cannot be used as precedent, and the full Sixth Circuit granted the rehearing. It is likely that the panel decision applying Bush v. Gore to elections will, like the first California decision, soon be undone.

There are several problems with trying to airbrush Bush v. Gore from the law. It undermines the courts’ legitimacy when they depart sharply from the rules of precedent, and it gives support to those who have said that Bush v. Gore was not a legal decision but a raw assertion of power.

The courts should also stand by Bush v. Gore’s equal protection analysis for the simple reason that it was right (even if the remedy of stopping the recount was not). Elections that systematically make it less likely that some voters will get to cast a vote that is counted are a denial of equal protection of the law. The conservative justices may have been able to see this unfairness only when they looked at the problem from Mr. Bush’s perspective, but it is just as true when the N.A.A.C.P. and groups like it raise the objection.

There is a final reason Bush v. Gore should survive. In deciding cases, courts should be attentive not only to the Constitution and other laws, but to whether they are acting in ways that promote an overall sense of justice. The Supreme Court’s highly partisan resolution of the 2000 election was a severe blow to American democracy, and to the court’s own standing. The courts could start to undo the damage by deciding that, rather than disappearing down the memory hole, Bush v. Gore will stand for the principle that elections need to be as fair as we can possibly make them.

Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?
By Adam Cohen
Published: August 15, 2006; The New York Times

Originally posted 2010-09-09 02:00:33.

“Honest Services” Law

Last Thursday the Supreme Court greatly narrowed the scope of a federal fraud law frequently used to prosecute white-collar criminals.

And guess who might benefit from the decision…

Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling among a host of others.

The Supreme Court ruling was the result of an appeal Jeffery Skilling brought before the court.  Skilling actually ask that the “honest services” law be struck down as unconstitutional as well as asking for a new trial since he claimed he didn’t get a fair trial in Houston (I personally don’t recall him requesting a change of venue — so apparently he felt he’d fair better there than most other places people felt he’d defrauded them out of their life savings).

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s written option stated that prosecutors could continue to seek honest services fraud conviction in cases where their is sufficient evidence to show defendants accepted bribes or kickbacks.  Of course Jeffery Skillings isn’t accused of accepting bribes or kickbacks, just filling his pockets with money at the expense of his investors and customers by knowingly manipulating the energy market.

The court did not specifically throw out any of the nineteen counts against Skilling, nor did they agree to a new trial.

I’m sure former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, and ex-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, former newspaper magnate Conrad Black, former Alaska lawmaker Bruce Weyhrauch as well as other will be quick to see what this new ruling might do to help them.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and John Paul Stevens were the dissenters; and I once again have to ask what box of cereal Justice Ginsberg clipped her law degree from.

I know, this is America, land of the free; but where the more cash you have, the more “equitable” the law.

Originally posted 2010-06-25 02:00:00.

Bait and switch rates?

Yesterday (Monday 6-Jul-2010) at 4:15pm I stopped by Gulf Winds Federal Credit Union to open up an IRA Certificate of Deposit; I’d been in the process of transferring money from one institution to another (and it took much longer than it should have — but since two institutions were involved, it’s hard to know which was responsible for the delay).

Anyway, I ended up having to wait 45 minutes to be helped; that gave me plenty of time to look over the posted rate board — and I’d decided that the 2.09% for a 24-month IRA-CD looked reasonable (I’d have preferred 18 months or less, but I wanted a reasonable return rate, and I don’t really expect the economy to start to rebound for several years).

The customer service representative that helped me (the “Financial Services Representative”) ask me which CD I was interested in and I told him — the 24-month 2.09% APR; he immediately said, that the 24-month IRA-CD was 1.97%, not 2.09% — that it had changed on Friday 2-Jul-2010 and they simply hadn’t gotten around to posting it on their rate board.

WTF?

I’ve long been under the impression that financial institutions understand the importance of posting accurate rate information — and I thought most any ethical institution understands the legal (even if they don’t understand the moral) implications of posting fraudulent information.

When I got home I filed complaints with the State of Florida Attorney General’s office (in Tallahassee, FL) and the National Credit Union Administration, Region III office (in Atlanta, GA) requesting that they investigate the business practices of Gulf Winds Federal Credit Union.



Post Note: The VP of Operations contacted me this morning (7-Jul-2010) and Gulf Winds Federal Credit Union will honor the rate as posted yesterday (for me at least).

Originally posted 2010-07-07 02:00:32.

Free Speech

There’s a story coming out of Missouri about a man who exercised his right to express his views (peacefully)…

Personally, my feeling is his choice was less than tasteful, and certainly doesn’t represent my beliefs — but none the less I defend his right to make his views known, and I believe those who coerced him into removing his display represent a great evil that is swelling in this country.

We Americans pride ourselves on being the land of the free and the home of the brave… but in fact we’re the land of those who must acquiesce to what is politically correct and the home of those who are too ignorant to believe in the principals that truly used to set Americans apart from much of the world.

Racially-driven Halloween display removed at sheriff’s request
By Holly Brantley

NEAR SIKESTON, MO (KFVS) – At the request of sheriff Rick Walter, Scott County homeowner Rick Hoskins removed a Halloween display in front of his home Wednesday that’s the subject of much controversy in the Sikeston area.

The display, which featured a Ku Klux Klan figure alongside an effigy of a black man hanging from a noose, could be seen by drivers on Interstate 55.

Walter said his office had received several complaints about the display, so he contacted the office of prosecuting attorney Paul Boyd to see if it was within the sheriff’s department’s rights to remove it due to the problems it could cause.

Boyd encouraged Walter to discuss the matter with Hoskins and to ask Hoskins to take it down. Hoskins complied, but indicated he would contact his attorney with the intent of putting the decorations back up.

“There’s been a bunch of people that’s stopped by since I put them up,” said Hoskins. “Said they want to shake my hand. They said they’re glad to see a little white pride is still left in this country.”

Hoskins also flies a Confederate flag in his front yard, and says he has for years.

“They’re my Halloween decorations,” Hoskins said. “I think they speak for themselves.”

As for neighbors and others in the county, most found the decorations offensive and inappropriate.

“I thought we were passed that,” said a woman from Sikeston. “I thought we were all friends here.”

“I understand it’s freedom of speech,” said another woman. “But he needs to get over it.”

© 2010 KFVS. All rights reserved.

Originally posted 2010-10-25 02:00:56.

For the good of the many…

BART shutdown power to cellular antennas in and around BART stations in order to prevent individuals from using social media to organize a protest.

BART said basically it weighed the rights and freedoms all American expect against the potential threat to public safety.

How many times have autocrats and dictators used a similar statement to defend their actions in the past.

Freedom has costs associated with it; and unfortunately the right to protest is a fundamental tenant of American society… suppressing that right, even if there is a perceived threat of something possibly going wrong, does harm to all of us.

Since 9/11 this country has been headed down a dangerous road — essential freedoms have been compromised, and now public entities are taking action without any judicial review that severely impact public freedoms.

I say it’s time this stops before we find that “we” didn’t win the Cold War, we simply became the enemy.


Cell Service Shutdown Raises Free Speech Questions by Carrie Johnson NPR.org

Originally posted 2011-08-16 02:00:36.

Can You Hear Me Now?

And who else can hear me or can see my cellular phone records?

Verizon Wireless informed the Obama transition team, the US Secret Service, and law enforcement agencies that a number of Verizon employees had improperly and illegally accessed cellular phone records for a phone belonging to Barrack Obama.

The employees have been suspended without pay while the investigation is conducted.

So it’s great that a high profile individual like the president elect gets swift action from Verizon, but the question in my mind is why aren’t they just as quick to act when I call?

Over all I would say that Verizon’s customer service is better than most companies; but I don’t get this kind of attention when they screw up — and I dont’ recall seeing any clauses in my contract about getting a higher grade of customer service if elected to public office…

Originally posted 2008-11-21 18:00:44.

Federal Express is a SPAMmer

Yesterday evening I received an Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE, aka SPAM) from Federal Express in violation of the California Professions and Business Code Section 17538.45.

Apparently Federal Express has taken to harvesting email addresses used in requesting tracking services and subscribing them to their marketing mailings lists without obtaining the permission of the owner of the email address (California law prohibits OPT-OUT policies, and requires that advertisers use OPT-IN methods).

Not only have I send a demand to Federal Expresses marketing campaign company and Federal Express demanding immediate payment of the fifty dollar fine specified by California Law; but I will no longer do business with Federal Express PERIOD.  That means I do not ship via FedEx, and I do not accept packages via FedEx, which means I don’t deal with vendors that use FedEx.

Originally posted 2009-02-19 01:00:25.

All the news fit to print…

Hmm… maybe that should be all the bs that can be gotten away with!

When you read news articles or when people relay to you “facts” be sure and do your homework; read accounts of the same events on multiple un-related sources.  In fact it’s often good to get a perspective from an international source.

Take a look at any of the facts, figures, and claims — try and verify those against an authoritative source.

If the information reported is important to you; check to see if any of the “facts” it’s based on, or claims it makes are updated over time.

Most journalists report the news impartially from their perspective; but it is from their perspective.  Many journalists and news organization like to sensationalize the news or majorly spin it to suit their agenda.

Question everything.

Originally posted 2009-02-12 01:00:46.

Fry’s Class Action Settlement – Credit Card Return Policy

Seems there’s a Class Action Legal Action against Fry’s Electronics revolving around their credit card return policy.  You can read all the details via the link below, and I’ve copied the text into this blog as well.

Thumbnail… if you did a credit card return to Fry’s between 5 March 2006 and 31 January 2008 you can file for a 20% off (up to a $20 maximum) coupon; you simply need to download the PDF (link below), fill it out, and have it postmarked by 25 July 2008.

Class Action Settlement

Claim Form

———-

California Only

Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
TO: All persons who, from March 5, 2006 through January 31, 2008, entered into a credit card return transaction with Fry’s Electronics, Inc., in the state of California (“Class Members”).

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THIS CLASS OF PERSONS, YOU SHOULD READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT WILL AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE
This notice informs you about the above-referenced action and a proposed Settlement on behalf of a certain class of persons. This notice advises you of the benefits that may be available to you under the proposed Settlement and your rights and options as a Class Member, and notifies you that hearings will be held to approve the Settlement.

There is currently pending in the California Superior Court for the County of Sacramento an action entitled Krimsky vs. Fry’s Electronics Inc., Case No. 07AS00928 (the “Action”). On April 16, 2008, Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang of the Sacramento County Superior Court, tentatively approved a proposed settlement in this Action.

WHAT THE ACTION IS ABOUT
Plaintiff Roger Krimsky filed a class action lawsuit against Fry’s Electronics, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as “Fry’s” or “Defendant”) on behalf of himself and all Class Members. Plaintiff’s law firm (“Class Counsel”), which represents Plaintiff and the Class Members, is Westrup Klick, LLP.

The lawsuit alleges that Fry’s violated California law by utilizing a return invoice for credit card transactions which conta ined preprinted spaces designated for filling in the address, telephone and/or fax numbers of the cardholder. Fry’s denies that it has violated California law, and denies that any class member is entitled to any relief. However, to avoid the expense, inconvenience and interference with its business operations created by the Action, it has concluded that it is in its best interests to settle the Action on the terms summarized in this Notice.

The settlement was reached through lengthy arms-length negotiations between the parties and with the assistance of a neutral mediator, the Honorable Richard Silver (ret).

The Court has determined that the Action should proceed as a Class Action, for purposes of settlement only, with Plaintiff as the representative of the Class, and granted preliminary approval of the settlement, subject to a final fairness hearing discussed below.

THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO THE SETTLEMENT GENERALLY DESCRIBED BELOW:

Fry’s has agreed to cease utilizing a return invoice form for credit card transactions which contain preprinted spaces designated for customers’ addresses, telephone and/or fax numbers, except in those instances where required for a special purpose. Such change is subject to modification in relation to modification of the law permitting such.

Class Members who submit a timely Claim Form as described below shall be eligible to receive a 20% off coupon (maximum value of $20 off).

The Parties agreed that, subject to the Court’s final approval, the named Plaintiff, Roger Krimsky, shall be entitled to an incentive award of up to $2,500 in recognition of the risk to Plaintiff as the Class representative in commencing the lawsuit in the Action, both financial and otherwise; the amount of time and effort spent by Plaintiff as the Class representative; and for serving the public interest. The Parties also agreed that subject to the Court’s final approval, Class Counsel shall be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs of up to $150,000. The Payment of attorneys’ fees will not affect the benefits provided to the Settlement Class.

RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS
If the settlement is granted final approval, Fry’s and each of its past or present officers, directors, shareholders, employee’s, agents, principals, heirs, representatives, accountants, auditors, consultants, attorneys, insurers and reinsurers, and its and their respective successors and predecessors in interest, subsidiaries, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, and each of their company- sponsored employee benefit plans and all of their respective officers, directors, employees, administrators, fiduciaries, trustees and agents will be released from all claims, liabilities, demands, debts, accounts, obligations, actions, and causes of action, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, at law or in equity, of any kind or nature whatsoever (collectively “Claims”) for Defendant’s alleged violation of Civil Code Section 1747.08(a)(3).

FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
A final hearing will be held before Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang of the Sacramento County Superior Court, on July 18, 2008 at 9:00 a.m., to determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be finally approved. The hearing will take place at the Sacramento County Superior Court, in Dept. 54, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. You are not required to attend the hearing in order to participate in the settlement.

WHAT YOU CAN DO
1. To Receive A 20% off Coupon. As a Class Member you are eligible to receive a 20% off coupon (maximum value of up to $20 off). In order to receive your 20% off coupon, you must timely complete and return a valid Claim Form. A Claim Form can be obtained by asking for a Claim Form at a Fry’s return register or by downloading a Claim Form at www.frys.com. In order for the Claim Form to be considered, it must be postmarked by July 25, 2008, and mailed to Krimsky v. Fry’s Electronics Claims Administrator, c/o Desmond, Marcello & Amster, P.O. Box 451999, Los Angeles, California 90045.

2. To Exclude Yourself From The Settlement. As a Class Member, you have the right to exclude yourself from the Action and the settlement. If you are a Class Member and wish to be excluded, you must submit a letter or postcard post-marked no later than June 25, 2008 with the case name, your name, address, and telephone number, stating “I wish to be excluded from the Fry’s Class Action.” To be considered valid, a request for exclusion must set forth all of this information and must be timely received. It must be signed by you personally, in order to be valid. Your request must be sent to: Fry’s Class Action: Krimsky v. Fry’s Electronics Claims Administrator, c/o Desmond, Marcello & Amster, P.O. Box 451999, Los Angeles, California 90045.

If you timely and validly request exclusion from the Class, you will be excluded from the Class; you will not receive any benefits from the settlement; you will not be bound by the judgment entered in the Action and you will not be precluded from otherwise prosecuting any individual claim, if timely, against Fry’s based on the transactions complained of in the Action. If you do not wish to exclude yourself, and have no objection to the settlement, you are eligible to receive the benefits of the settlement if the settlement is approved.

3. To Object To The Settlement. If for some reason you desire to object to the terms of the settlement, you ma y do so under the procedures set forth below. If your objection is rejected you will be bound by the final judgment just as if you had not objected.

If you decide to appear and object, you must file and serve your written request to appear and object with the Court, and upon Counsel for all of the parties by June 25, 2008. You must serve all such notices and papers upon Class counsel and Defendant’s counsel at the following addresses:

Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
Westrup Klick LLP
444 West Ocean Blvd.,
Suite 1614
Long Beach, CA 90802
(Plaintiff Class Counsel)

William H. Curtis, Esq.
Fry’s Electronics, Inc.
Legal Department
600 East Brokaw
San Jose, CA 95112
(Defendant Class Counsel) 

The mailing address for the Final Approval Hearing is:

Sacramento County Superior Court
Dept.54
720 9th Street
Sacramento, California 95814

Class Members who do not timely make their objections in this manner will be deemed to have waived all objections and shall not be entitled to be heard at the settlement approval hearing.
If you have further questions regarding this lawsuit you may contact Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel, Phillip R. Poliner Esq., of Westrup Klick LLP, at 1-888-268-6884. DO NOT ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT OR THE LITIGATION TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, TO THE JUDGE, OR TO COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT.

Originally posted 2008-05-14 12:10:54.