Posts Tagged ‘Washington D.C.’

D.C. park police crowd estimates

The hot blog topic of the moment is over the size of the crowds at yesterday’s “9/12” Washington rallies critical of the Obama administration’s direction. As we noted back in 2004, U.S. National Park police, who are in charge of the Mall and related public spaces, used to estimate crowd sizes, but when their assessment of attendance at the Million Man March differed from that of march organizers, the organizers threatened to sue. So park police stopped putting out crowd estimates, which now seem to be left to the probably less expert D.C. fire department. Don’t we all feel better informed now?

D.C. Metro crash client-chasing

Yes, the online ads are already up. Washington’s City Paper tracks down one California-based law firm marketer: “This is the only marketing I do — it’s the highest cost per click online. What else can you do, a young guy like me? I don’t want to do porn [sites].” According to one report via Twitter, “the Google ads are running on the WMATA Web site.” More: Maryland Daily Record (first suit filed); Eric Turkewitz. And Ron Miller, on the dilemma of the young man quoted above: “Dare I suggest this is a false choice? There has to be a third option after porn and train wreck chasing, right?”

Also: Overlawyered favorite Willie Gary is in the case.

Montgomery Blair Sibley update

Not that it’s any surprise to anyone who’s been following these matters, but on Tuesday, Chief Justice Roberts finally got around to denying Overlawyered reader-favorite Montgomery Blair Sibley‘s application for a stay of the order automatically suspending him from practice in the District of Columbia.  While that stay application was pending, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility recommended in November that the suspension last three years, “with his reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness to practice.”  The D.C. Bar website still shows Sibley as an “active” member of the bar.

DC to fire six child-welfare workers in Banita Jacks case

Banita Jacks, a high-school dropout with four children by at least three different men (not including a fourth man she incorrectly accused in a paternity suit), was found living with the corpses of those four children (whom she is accused of murdering) in Southeast Washington DC. The city has responded by announcing that it will fire several workers who, it is said with 20/20 hindsight, failed to adequately respond to warnings that the children were in danger. [WaPo]

And, several months from now, if there is an incident where parents are having their children unjustly taken from them at the drop of a hat, it is because city officials now know that their jobs are more at risk for possibly under-reacting than they ever would be if they over-react.

Update, January 16: A surprising number of commenters are taking the side of the scapegoaters, where one seizes a single particular warning, and says “You should have known”—a frequent tactic of the trial lawyer seeking deep-pocket blame. Richard Wexler has a good summary:

But when a police officer arrives, he finds four children “well and healthy.” Mom claims she’s home-schooling the children. The officer sees the books mom says she is using.

What do you do?

The police officer saw no evidence of abuse or neglect. Yes, mom wouldn’t let him in without a warrant, but in America, that is her right. The school social worker suspects mental illness — but she’s also the one who said the daughter was being held hostage, something apparently contradicted by the police.

If you happen to be psychic, know that the mother is Banita Jacks and know what will be discovered more than eight months later, presumably you drop everything and find a way to get into that home.

But if you are simply a typical D.C. caseworker — juggling many other cases — then you move on to all those situations that, on the surface, look far worse than a home-schooler with “well and healthy” children. …

Because there’s nothing like yelling “Off with their heads!” to fuel a foster-care panic.

Every CFSA worker is now terrified of having the next Banita Jacks on his or her caseload. So agency personnel will rush to tear large numbers of children from their parents. Those children will suffer the trauma of needless separation from everyone loving and familiar, and they’ll be placed at risk of abuse in foster care itself — several studies suggest that one in three children are abused while in foster care. Worst of all, a deeply troubled child-welfare system will be further overwhelmed, making it even more likely that some child in real danger will be overlooked.

Pant-demonium breaks loose, cont’d

Outrage continues to spread over Roy Pearson, Jr.’s $65 million suit against a Washington, D.C. Korean dry cleaner over a lost pair of suit pants (Apr. 26, May 1). The Washington Post editorially wonders whether Pearson should continue in his position as an administrative law judge given the “serious questions” raised by the case “about his judgment and temperament”. (“Kick in the Pants”, May 3). Associated Press coverage is circulating worldwide: Lubna Takruri, “Judge sues cleaner for $65M over pants”, AP/Kansas City Star, May 3. And Alex Spillius in London’s Daily Telegraph (“Judge sues dry cleaners over lost trousers, May 3) notes that Pearson

reached the figure of $67,292,000 as follows: Washington’s consumer protection law provides for damages of $1,500 per violation per day. Mr Pearson started multiplying: 12 violations over 1,200 days, times three defendants (the Chungs and their son)….

Mr Pearson has set the Chungs and their lawyers a long list of questions, which includes: “Please identify by name, full address and telephone number, all cleaners known to you on May 1, 2005 in the District of Columbia, the United States and the world that advertise ‘SATISFACTION GUARANTEED’,” according to the Washington Post.

Indians Sue, Yet Again, to Ban “Redskins” Name

The only thing worse than a frivolous lawsuit is a frivolous repeat of a frivolous lawsuit:

A group of Native Americans filed a new legal challenge yesterday to trademarks for the name and logo of the Washington Redskins, saying the team’s name is a racial slur that should be changed.

A petition filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by six Native Americans represents a second chance for Indians to challenge the football franchise’s name. The team prevailed in an earlier fight when a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the plaintiffs waited too long under trademark law to object. This time, the complaint was filed with a new set of plaintiffs.

“The term ‘redskin’ was and is a pejorative, derogatory, denigrating, offensive, scandalous, contemptuous, disreputable, disparaging and racist designation for a Native American person,” the complaint says.

Whatever thesaurus the plaintiffs are using, I want one. I’m surprised the complaint didn’t add “just plain icky.”

Read On…