An Australian QC has appeared in court to argue that vilifying a religion should be considered per se unlawful under the state of Victoria’s paradoxically named Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. “[Brind] Woinarski was appearing for the Islamic Council of Victoria in the appeal by Christian group Catch the Fire Ministries and pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot against a finding under Victoria’s religious hatred law that they vilified Muslims in 2002. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.” (Barney Zwartz, “Religion in the dock in Muslim vilification appeal”, Melbourne Age, Aug. 22; “Questions over ruling on Muslims”, Aug. 23). See Dec. 19 and Dec. 3, 2004, etc.
Archive for August, 2006
“Man mauled by pet tiger fails in bid to sue rescuers”
“A man who sued the city for entering his apartment without a search warrant after he was mauled by his 450-pound pet Siberian tiger demonstrated a lot of nerve in taking the city to court, a judge said as he threw the lawsuit out.” After Antoine Yates was seriously bitten by the 10-foot-long pet tiger he was keeping in his East Harlem apartment in Manhattan, police removed it along with an alligator named Al and Yates served 3 1/2 months on a reckless endangerment plea. U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein dismissed his lawsuit, saying it demonstrated “chutzpah”. (Larry Neumeister, “Judge Bites Off Tiger Owner’s Lawsuit”, AP/New York Sun, Aug. 8; Volokh, Aug. 9). The headline in the title above is from the UK’s Guardian.
Driving while loaded
A Nebraska state trooper stopped Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez for speeding on Interstate 80 in 2003 in his rental car, then proceeded to seize $124,000 from a cooler in the back seat. According to the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (opinion, PDF), Nebraska was within its rights to seize the $124,000 as presumed drug money (it then became the subject of a federal forfeiture action) even though 1) Gonzolez had no substantial or drug-related criminal record; 2) witnesses backed up his claim that the money had been pooled by several immigrants for purposes of buying a refrigerated truck for his produce business. Gonzolez had initially denied carrying money, and a drug-sniffing dog had detected drug residues in the rental car, though the same would probably prove true of many other rental cars. (“Court rules 2003 money seizure correct despite no drugs found”, AP/Sioux City Journal, Aug. 19; TheNewspaper.com, Aug. 19; libertarian blogs galore including KipEsquire, Radley Balko, Unrepentant Individual). Mike Cernovich (Aug. 21) analyzes what he finds the dubious maneuvers of the Eighth Circuit panel majority in dodging the requirement of deference to the trial court judge’s findings.
“Woodpecker mapping gets chain saws buzzing”
More unintended consequences of the Endangered Species Act, this time to the detriment of the red-cockaded woodpecker in North Carolina: “Coastal residents clear-cut to avert protected birds’ nesting” (Wade Rawlins, News & Observer, Aug. 8)(via Jonathan Adler).
“Dancer’s Suit Puts Corrupt Lawyers on Their Toes”
Wendy McElroy on the Michael Flatley countersuit (see Sept. 14, 2004; Jul. 30, 2006) (Independent Institute, Aug. 1). More: Mike McKee, “Calif. High Court Slaps Misuse of Anti-SLAPP Laws”, The Recorder, Jul. 31.
“Camper sues government over stumble”
“While finding a place to relieve himself, plaintiff walked off the unguarded and unprotected cliff falling approximately 20 to 30 feet to the creek bed below,” reads the complaint. And so Jerry Mersereau is suing the United States of America, which maintains the Mt. Hood National Forest in Oregon where the mishap occurred. (Noelle Crombie, The Oregonian, Aug. 4).
Lott v. Levitt, Part VII
Since our initial coverage, William Ford and Tim Lambert have been following this case so closely that I’ve been focusing on other issues where I have more of a comparative advantage rather than doing posts that would end up being similar to theirs. It’s unlikely that I’m going to have anything new to say about the case that you haven’t seen in earlier posts, so, barring major developments, from hereon out I defer to their coverage; John Lott’s blog also has occasional coverage of the case, as does Levitt’s. One last roundup of links:
- Michael Shermer writes in Scientific American, channeling Ronald Reagan, “Mr. Lott, tear down this legal wall and let us return to doing science without lawyers.”
- Ford has given the case its own category on his blog, and has posts linking to Lott’s reply brief and a Chicago magazine profile of the case. In the latter article, GMU Law dean Daniel Polsby has a very perceptive comment on Lott that corresponds to my personal experience: “[Lott is] a man of almost unparalleled personal intensity… He is one of the most energetic, gifted econometricians of his generation, if not in history. But he seems incapable of distinguishing between large disagreements and small disagreements.”
Welcome Shane Warner listeners
Fantasy sports lawsuit, cont’d
The Denver Post and National Law Journal have more on that lawsuit by Lakewood, Colorado lawyer Charles Humphrey and New Jersey’s Gardy & Notis (Aug. 2) claiming that CBS, ESPN and other media outlets are abetting unlawful gambling by sponsoring fantasy sports games, and seeking diversion of millions in resulting revenues into the plaintiff’s own fisc. Mississippi College School of Law sports law prof Michael McCann says Humphrey’s suit lacks “moral weight”. (Joel Grostephan, “Lawyer cites 1710 law in suit”, Denver Post, Aug. 15 (via Suz at Large); Tresa Baldas, “Fantasy Sports League or Real-Life Gambling?”, National Law Journal, Aug. 21)
“Lawsuit: Shopping Center Aided Attacking Squirrel”
Skokie, Illinois: “A woman who says she was attacked by a squirrel after walking out of the Tiffany and Co. jewelry store at the Old Orchard Shopping Center in 2004 filed suit against the shopping center Monday, saying its employees ‘encouraged’ the squirrel’s presence by feeding it.” In her suit, Marcy Meckler says the Westfield Corp., which manages the shopping center, “was negligent in, among other things, failing ‘to warn the plaintiff of the squirrel’s presence'”. (Sun-Times/CBS2Chicago.com, Aug. 14).