While the commentariat is gripped by discussion of whether Gov. Sarah Palin should have cut personal travel expenses only by 68 percent compared with her predecessor as Alaska’s chief executive, or by some higher amount, maybe it’s worth pausing a moment to note that the dean of New York’s Congressional delegation — and the most powerful figure in Congress in charge of tax legislation! — has just been caught not paying his taxes.
More: Turns out tax compliance is hard. Who knew?
“For the graffiti artists, copyright cases are a common problem. ‘It is very disappointing that copyrights of our work are often not respected’, [says German graffiti artist CanTwo,] who received damages from a music label using one of his pieces illegally some years ago. ‘Strangely enough, but people think that because our work is public and it is sometimes illegally painted, they could use it any way they want.'” (Markus Balser, WSJ Law Blog, Sept. 9).
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, formerly of Bill Lerach fame, and other law firms sued to pin the blame on banks, auditors, and other outside deep-pocket third parties, as well as on directors; defendants collectively paid $7.2 billion. Giving the plaintiff’s lawyers $688 million of that is very “fair and reasonable” and involves no “windfall”, per U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon. (Bloomberg, Sept. 8).
More: OK, so maybe Brian Baxter of AmLaw Daily is just pursuing a reasonable news angle when he quotes the Coughlin Stoia lawyers doing a little victory lap and waving to the crowd. But if he’s going to quote Prof. John Coffee at such length as his big authority in support of the fee’s fairness, shouldn’t he go beyond identifying Coffee as “a professor at Columbia Law School and frequent class action critic” to spell out a little more explicitly that, you know, Coffee was hired by the plaintiff’s lawyers in this case to defend their fee request? Doesn’t that make it less surprising that Patrick Coughlin “welcomes the positive feedback” from these supposedly “unlikely legal circles” to support his case? (more background, yet more).
Update Thurs. a.m.: by yesterday evening American Lawyer had substantially “updated [the post] with new information” to reflect the Coffee relationship, and Prof. Obbie is kind enough to give me some credit for that happening.
Direct from prohibited to protected-class status, making no local stops: “The idea that the government should just stay out of the matter and leave both private employers and medical marijuana users alone is apparently beyond the comprehension of most California legislators, who think that everything permitted must be made mandatory,” notes Hans Bader. Apparently a narrow exception will be allowed “for ‘safety-sensitive’ positions that employers can prove would ‘clearly’ be highly risky.” (CEI OpenMarket.org, Sept. 8).
Old Master-of-the-Universe habits die hard? According to Law.com’s The Recorder, felonious class-actioneer Bill Lerach “was placed in administrative segregation — locked down for 23 hours a day — after he allegedly offered a corrections officer the use of his San Diego Chargers season tickets, say three people familiar with the situation. Should a formal administrative proceeding go against him, Lerach would likely be forbidden from returning to the [minimum-security Lompoc] camp, and would instead be placed in a higher-security facility. …Offering a staff member anything of value is considered a ‘high category’ offense for an inmate, according to [Bureau of Prisons] guidelines.” (Dan Levine, “Going Gets Rough for Lerach”, The Recorder, Sept. 9).
More: Karen Donovan at Portfolio recalls a Lerach comment about sports sections as currency in prison, perhaps more meaningful in retrospect.
The Bay State’s notoriously draconian laws have tripped up author Peter Manso, a 67-year-old Cape Cod resident. Manso claims the prosecution is retaliation for his writing on highly publicized crimes, but whether or not that premise is borne out, the story is an unnerving one: ten years ago the state changed an earlier provision making firearm identification cards valid for life to one requiring four-year renewals, and since then old holders who failed to get with the program have been getting tripped up, facing the prospect of long prison terms even over their protest that they never had the change called to their attention. (Jonathan Saltzman, “Writer on Cape slaying indicted on gun charges”, Boston Globe, Aug. 23; J.D. Tuccille/Examiner) (via Never Yet Melted).
If you’re on Facebook, we’ve already pestered you to sign up as a “Fan” of Overlawyered. If you’re also on the BlogNetworks application, we’d like to pester you to take an additional step: visit the Overlawyered page there, become a reader, and confirm that I am indeed the owner/proprietor. Once a relatively small number of readers do these things, the system will pick us up and we’ll have a new avenue of distribution.
This much seems to be agreed: Itzamargrid Ramos took her friend Clarissa Marino to scenic but hazardous Kaaterskill Falls in the Catskills as a surprise for her 20th birthday. The two were hiking when Marino slipped on a rock — her footwear at the time was “flat, rubber-soled slip-on shoes with no tread” — and fell into a stream from which it took ninety minutes to rescue her. She sued the state of New York for failure to warn, but just lost her case in the state Court of Claims, which hears cases against the state government.
The two friends are now described as estranged, which may put in perspective a noteworthy discrepancy between their respective testimony. Marino “said she was never blindfolded at any point during the day”, while Ramos “told the court Marino was blindfolded for the entire two-hour car ride and even as they traversed most of the trail until just before the top of the falls. … In the end, the court said it found Ramos’ version more credible and that the ‘profound danger posed by the Kaaterskill Falls was open and obvious to anyone employing the reasonable use of her senses.'” (Paul Nelson, “Court rules against fall victim”, Albany Times-Union, Sept. 7).
“The use of the anti-hacking law to charge [Lori] Drew [in a notorious case of identity-hoax cruelty whose target committed suicide] was criticized by experts who said it set a dangerous precedent that could potentially make a felon out of anyone who violated the terms of service of any website — a prospect that is particularly troubling, they said, because terms-of-service agreements sometimes contain onerous provisions, are often arbitrarily and unilaterally changed by companies, and are rarely read by users.” (Kim Zetter, Wired News, Sept. 5). Earlier: May 16.