October 28 roundup

  • Alleged wife murderer “sues J.P. Morgan for cutting off his home equity line of credit.” Reason cited: “imprisonment”. [Joe Weisenthal, Business Insider via Fountain]
  • Charles Krauthammer on the need to “reform our insane malpractice system. … I used to be a doctor, I know how much is wasted on defensive medicine.” [Der Spiegel interview]
  • Popehat looks back on turning two, in customarily entertaining fashion [unsigned collective post]
  • Sigh: “Chamber of Commerce Sues ‘Yes Men’ for Fake News Conference” [ABA Journal]
  • Coverage mandates explain a lot about why health insurance is so much costlier in some states than others [Coyote] More: Tyler Cowen (autism treatment)
  • Watch out for those default judgments: PepsiCo hit with $1.26 billion award in Wisconsin state court, says word of suit never got to responsible officials within the company [National Law Journal]
  • Ohio appeals court: characterizing incident as “Baby Mama Drama” is not prosecutorial misconduct [The Briefcase]
  • Ideological tests for educators? On efforts to screen out would-be teachers not seen as committed enough to “social justice” [K.C. Johnson, Minding the Campus]


  • How does one even begin to access a line of home equity from prison? I’ll never understand the feeling of entitlement that some people have.

  • I’m going to have to side with Peterson on this one. He has been arrested, not convicted. If the bank can show that he is in danger of losing the collateral (his house) or his means of payment (pension and SS) they have no cause to cancel his line of credit. Now if he were applying for a line of credit, that would be different. All I see here is the bank trying to avoid bad PR and possibly a Prosecutor trying to strengthen his case at the expense of Peterson. If Peterson loses the lawsuit, does anybody want to bet on the outcome of his petition to get the government to pay for his defense?

    The last time I checked, most jails have internet access and Peterson can easily give somebody power of attorney to manage his finances.

  • I meant if the bank can’t show him being in danger of losing his house or pension.

  • While I understand that Peterson has a secure income — although I’d be interested in seeing if his pension survives a conviction — are people automatically entitled to a ine of credit?

  • Aparently he qualified for it and it was established before he was arrested. Why shouldn’t the bank have to hold up their end of the contract?

  • Embedded in that buisiness insider link is another to the astounding case where OJ simpson was given a loan by WaMu. bear in mind, if he was foreclosed on, the goldmans and the browns would legally be entitled to get the money they were owned before WaMu could.


    The amazing part was this line:

    > When I asked how we could possibly foreclose on it, they said there was a letter in the file from O.J. Simpson saying ‘the judgment is no good, because I didn’t do it.’



    Yeah, why should you think that a man who murdered his wives and lied about it might be a less than upstanding citizen when it comes to credit, too?

    i wouldn’t lend the man a bucket of water if he was on fire. and no, “not guilty” is not the same as innocent. i applaud the bank for being more rational about this.

  • AW,
    I’d have your viewpoint 5 seconds after he is CONVICTED of murdering his wife, if he is convicted. Until that happens he is innocent until proven guilty. We seem to have forgotten that these days. Too much trial by media.

  • Jim

    OJ simpson was acquitted of murder in the death of his ex wife and ron goldman. but as a matter of law i can say, “OJ simpson killed his wife and an acquaintance” and have no fear of a defamation suit–even if OJ was not a celebrity. i can even probably say he murdered them since no one has seriously claimed this was an accident. why is that? because despite being found innocent he was also found liable for their murder.

    In our system, we so fear government power, that we will not allow a person to be imprisoned or executed unless we reach a very high standard of proof: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And if you asking for a company to affirmatively give you a loan, the standards get even higher. and that is a good thing. we spend too much time propping up people with terrible credit and the housing and credit bubbles were both the direct result of that tendency.