Archive for June, 2005

In the New York Times

I’ve got an op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times (in the zoned Long Island weekly edition) on the Shinnecock Indians’ recent lawsuit asserting land claims over much of Southampton, N.Y. Readers of this space will not be surprised to learn that I take a dim view of the claim. (Walter Olson, “This Land Is My Land”, Jun. 26). For more, see my City Journal treatment of the issue, and, on this blog, most recently Jun. 13 and Jun. 19 (& welcome Michelle Malkin readers).

More: it’s reported there’s dissension among tribe members about the action (William L. Hamilton, “Casino Interest in Land Bid Divides Tribe in Hamptons”, New York Times, Jun. 26). And according to the Washington Post, while the lawsuit looms as a serious hassle for some in Southampton, the wealthiest of the wealthy are paying little heed: “The high-net-worth crowd doesn’t really worry about this sort of thing. That’s for the locals,” says Hampton Sheet publisher Joan Jedell. Insecurity of property as a hazard? That’s only for the little people. (Michael Powell, “Old Money and Old Grievances Clash in Haven of the Very Rich”, Jun. 25).

(Bumped 6/27, a.m.)

Milberg Weiss client indicted

Following a three-year federal probe (see Jan. 28-29, 2002), a grand jury in Los Angeles has indicted retired Palm Springs entertainment lawyer Seymour Lazar, 78, on charges that he collected millions in kickbacks from attorneys in exchange for acting as a plaintiff in dozens of class-action lawsuits. Milberg Weiss, the law firm that represented Lazar, was not named in the indictment; it said it was “outraged” at the “baseless” implications that its lawyers had acted improperly. Mr. Lazar’s lawyer, Thomas H. Bienert, described his client as a “crusader for consumer advocacy”. (John M. Broder, “Ex-Lawyer Is Indicted on Kickbacks in Lawsuits”, New York Times, Jun. 25; Reuters/L.A. Times; Washington Post; Law.com/The Recorder; W$J).

Notable quote

The whole point of the rule of law is the certainty it gives the citizen. There is no greater injustice than for a citizen to be unable to determine what legal consequences would flow from an action contemplated.

— Matthew Parris, writing on the vaguely worded speech-prohibitions in the British Government’s proposed Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. (“This is no sort of way to make a law -– and no sort of law to make”, The Times (U.K.), Jun. 25). For more on the legislation, see Jul. 16, 2004 and Jun. 11, 2005.

“Paw laws”

A British view of the campaign in American courts (see May 10, etc.) to allow recovery of sentimental value, emotional anguish and so forth when domestic animals are killed or injured (Philip Sherwell, “Now pets really are part of the family thanks to US ‘paw laws'”, Daily Telegraph, Jun. 26).

New York Times and thimerosal

Creationists apparently have no monopoly on unscientific nonsense. There’s an excellent article in the New York Times on the thimerosal controversy (Jun. 20 and links therein), though it fails to follow the money from the plaintiffs’ bar behind the pseudoscience. (Gardiner Harris and Anahad O’Connor, “On Autism’s Cause, It’s Parents vs. Research”, NY Times, Jun. 25). Meanwhile, the Huffington Post spouts irresponsible conspiracy theories for why ABC refused to endorse Robert Kennedy Jr.’s attack on the vaccine industry. The excellent Skeptico blog follows up its earlier post on the subject. And you just knew Michael Fumento would weigh in, and he shows the real costs of the plaintiffs’ bar scaremongering:

The conspiracy-mongers have scared parents into not protecting their children. “Sadly, as exemptions proliferate, disease ‘hot spots’ are cropping up across the United States,” observed an article in the Winter 2004 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. “Outbreaks of measles, whooping cough, mumps, rubella and diphtheria are reoccurring, costing hundreds of lives and hospitalizing thousands more.”

Remember that next time you hear the plaintiffs’ bar taking credit for safety innovations that have saved lives.

Update: Suing a “recovered memory” critic

The L.A. Times has a lengthy account of the continuing litigation against famed psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, who after publishing an article in Skeptical Inquirer casting doubt on the “recovered memory” claims of a claimed abuse victim described as Jane Doe, was sued for defamation and invasion of privacy by the real-life woman behind the pseudonym. We originally posted on the case Aug. 26, 2004. (Maura Dolan, “Memory, Pain and the Truth”, Los Angeles Times, Jun. 21)(via Nordberg). More: LawLimits (Jun. 23) has more, including the latest procedural status of the case (Calif. Supreme Court agrees to review Loftus’s attempt to get the case thrown out under the state’s “anti-SLAPP” law, which a lower court declined to do).