The city’s lawyer unsuccessfully argued that Sheldon Stewart had changed his story about what exactly he’d slipped on in his injurious descent down a subway staircase in the Bronx. The NYC transit authority plans to appeal the jury’s verdict. (AFP/Yahoo, Dec. 24; Denise Buffa, “Poop and $coop”, New York Post, Dec. 24).
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Frank on NY Times on Edwards and Romney
Re “Two Candidates, Two Fortunes, Two Distinct Views of Wealth” (front page, Dec. 23):
There is a critical distinction between Mitt Romney’s and John Edwards’s wealth. Mr. Romney, as a businessman, made investments that created wealth. Mr. Edwards, as a trial lawyer, made his money through lawsuits that merely took from one pocket and gave to another, and probably destroyed wealth in the process. (Mr. Edwards’s multimillion-dollar medical malpractice verdicts almost certainly hurt the quality of health care in North Carolina.)
Little wonder that Mr. Romney understands that to improve the economy, one needs to expand the pie, while Mr. Edwards’s policy proposals focus entirely on the redistribution of the existing pie without thought for the future adverse consequences to the size of the pie.
Theodore H. Frank
Washington, Dec. 23, 2007
The writer is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
More on the question of pie-sharing and pie-growing at SSRN. More on John Edwards’s trial-lawyer record: the Valerie Lakey trial; Edwards on the failure to warn; Edwards on stacking juries; and Edwards’s cerebral palsy cases (also: April 11 and links therein).
Assignment Desk: Alliance for a New America, Rachel Mellon, Alexander Forger, and John Edwards
The Alliance for a New America is an “independent” campaign organization running television ads in Iowa on behalf of John Edwards—whose ability to spend money himself in Iowa is restricted because he is taking taxpayer money as campaign funds (all while bashing other candidates for taking money from “lobbyists”, even as he takes millions from trial lawyers and his finance chair is the former head of lobbying group ATLA).
Via Kaus, though Paul Krugman calls the Alliance for a New America a “labor 527”, it turns out that a third of its money comes from Rachel Mellon, of the Mellon family fortune. (Though one wonders why Krugman is willing to defend the 527 as a labor 527. It’s not like SEIU, which also heavily funds the Alliance for a New America, doesn’t lobby the government for special-interest legislation. If, as Edwards says, lobbyists are bad, they don’t suddenly become good because you agree with them. And if lobbyists you do agree with are good, then why isn’t the issue the underlying policy proposal rather than the fact of the lobbying, as Edwards tries to demagogue?)
Here’s the thing: Mellon is 96 years old. There are certainly competent 96-year-olds out there, and it’s possible that Mellon really likes John Edwards. But what we do know is that a New York trust attorney who holds the power of attorney for Mellon and the Mellon-related LLC that is fronting the money is a big fund-raiser for Edwards. Does Mellon know that she’s funnelling hundreds of thousands of dollars to John Edwards through her attorney through multiple 527s? Or is there something else going on? One expects Obama to complain:
According to the available records, which go back to 1980, she has never donated to a political candidate until a contribution was made in her name to John Edwards this year. Mellon’s involvement in the decision to donate to the Edwards campaign is unknown. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Alexander Forger, who has power for attorney for Mrs. Mellon, is a major supporter of John Edwards’ candidacy. Crain’s Business Journal reported in February that Forger and “a group of prominent New York lawyers” hosted a fund-raiser for Edwards at Essex House — the Central Park South address where his office is located. Forger has also personally donated $4,600 to Edwards’ campaign, according to FEC records. This is not the first time Forger has used Oak Springs Farms to support Edwards; in 2006, he made a $250,000 contribution to Edwards’ One America 527 group.
And even Daily Kos is asking questions.
(If there is something fishy, it wouldn’t be the first time lawyers have engaged in campaign finance shenanigans for John Edwards. See the case of Tab Turner. There’s the pending Fieger indictment, though Edwards and Fieger profess innocence. And Edwards still hasn’t returned all of the Milberg Weiss money, despite several guilty pleas and a pending indictment.)
Speaking of Edwards and demagoguery: he’s dropped references to the Mellons from his stump talks.
Best Buy: sorry for sending that nastygram
First the giant retail chain sent a nastygram to an improvisational troupe that staged an unannounced performance at one of its stores and then sold parody T-shirts that imitated the retailer’s graphics. Then it sent a nastygram to a blog that had reported on the incident. Then, as p.r. disaster loomed, it apologized for sending the nastygram — the second one, at least, the one to the blogger. (Laughing Squid, Dec. 12)(via Turkewitz).
Bush nixes defense bill, cites Iraq-suit provisions
In a setback for the conduct of foreign policy by way of entrepreneurial private lawsuits, President Bush, exercising his pocket veto, has
rejected the defense spending bill passed by Congress earlier this month.
The president has concerns over a provision that would let victims of Saddam Hussein’s regime with legal claims in U.S. courts seek compensation from the Iraqi government….
If enacted, the White House said, the act would have permitted “plaintiff’s lawyers immediately to freeze Iraqi funds and would expose Iraq to massive liability in lawsuits concerning the misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime.
The provision in question would have reactivated litigation, disapproved by a federal appeals court, by which 17 former American POWs from the Gulf War had demanded $959 million from the post-Saddam Iraq regime over their treatment. “They were opposed by the Bush administration, which argued Iraq has reformed and needs the money to rebuild.” (” Defense spending bill to die without becoming law”, CNN, Dec. 28).
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who inserted the provision, says its language is not specifically tailored to Iraq but would instead sweep more widely in empowering lawyers to go after foreign sovereign governments’ commercial assets in suits charging past support for terrorism. The proposal has had support from a few Republicans as well as Democrats. (Politico “Crypt”, Dec. 28).
Report: Apple to auto-limit iPod volume
Was the litigation a factor? The UK’s Daily Mail is reporting that Apple is developing a way for future iPods and iPhones to turn down volumes automatically after a certain period of use to protect users from endangering their hearing. One columnist predicts that the feature if implemented “will be hacked in a matter of minutes” by users who don’t want the protection. (Christopher Breen, “Auto-volume may be a turn-off for some”, MacWorld, Dec. 26).
Egypt wants to copyright pyramids, Sphinx
Under the proposed law, backed by Supreme Council of Antiquities chief Zahi Hawass, persons around the world would be forbidden to 
make copies, even for private use, of the country’s famous monuments, scarabs and other Pharaonic survivals. “His comments came only a few days after an Egyptian opposition newspaper, Al-Wafd, published a report complaining that many more tourists each year travelled to the pyramid-shaped Luxor hotel in Las Vegas than to Luxor itself. The newspaper proposed that the US hotel should pay some of its profits to Luxor city.” However, Hawass said that copies of pyramids and other objects that were less than “exact” might escape a royalty obligation, which might get the back of the U.S. one dollar bill off the hook. (Rory McCarthy, “Egypt to copyright the pyramids and antiquities”, Guardian, Dec. 27; “Egypt to copyright pyramids”, AFP/Google, Dec. 26; AP/IHT). More: Coleman.
No toy donations, thanks: “It’s the liability.”
Earlier this month a spectacular tanker accident burned down several houses in the Boston suburb of Everett, Mass. Ten-year-old Peter-Anthony Hereu of Wellesley felt sorry for the nine kids who’d been burned out of their homes and collected Christmas toys for them. But Everett Mayor John F. Hanlon vetoed the idea, citing recent toy recalls: “If you trip on ice, trip on a stair, trip on a present, we’re going to get sued. I don’t know what to do with the toys. We’re holding on to them until next year.” The story took a happier turn, though, when the Salvation Army volunteered to distribute the presents and shoulder liability if necessary. (Laurel J. Sweet, “‘Insane’ red tape reins in lil’ Santa’s gift sleigh for Everett victims”, Boston Herald, Dec. 24; “’Army’ comes to big-hearted toy boy’s rescue”, Dec. 25)(& welcome WizBang readers; while you’re here, why not help put us back in first place as Best General Legal Blog?).
“The Real Mortgage Fraud”
This spectacle has brought forth recriminations from politicians who picture the lenders as James Bond villains, cackling at the chance to toss hard-working families out on the street. In fact, this course is almost as bad a deal for lenders as it is for borrowers. They typically lose up to half the value of the mortgage on foreclosures.
From listening to the critics, you’d never guess that. Barack Obama denounces “predatory lenders” for “driving low-income families into financial ruin.” Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, blames everything on an epidemic of “abusive lending.”
But lenders who made bad decisions are already paying the price. Many mortgage companies have gone bankrupt. And if these loans are so unconscionable, the question is not why the foreclosure rate is so high but why it’s so low. …
The remedies urged by Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and the like include placing a moratorium on foreclosures, freezing teaser rates for five years or more, and forcing lenders to reduce loan amounts to reflect deflated home values. These options are conspicuous for a couple major defects.
The first is that they punish lenders for the failings of borrowers. Why should someone who has kept the terms of a contract be penalized for the benefit of the party that didn’t? A lot of people took a calculated gamble on interest rates and home prices. Had they bet right, they’d be reaping the rewards. Since they bet wrong, they are entitled to bear the consequences.
I wrote about the issue in the Wall Street Journal in April.
SCOTUS will hear voter ID case
Merry Christmas! The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the “most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore” in 2000.
The simple question is whether we, as voters, can be constitutionally compelled to presented government-issued ID in order to vote.