From Tony Rizzo: Kansas City police are investigating a shooting this afternoon on the city’s near northeast side. One person was reportedly shot multiple times in the 200 block of Tracy Avenue. The man who was shot pulled out his...

[JURIST] The criminal division of the Thai Supreme Court [GlobaLex backgrounder] on Thursday issued a new arrest warrant for ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra [BBC profile; JURIST news archive]. The warrant comes at the request of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) [official website], which charges that Thaksin did not report all of his assets to the commission after the February ruling of the Constitutional Court [official website, in Thai] seizing 46.4 billion baht (USD $1.4 billion) [JURIST report] in assets for abuses of power while in office. The Supreme Court also suspended proceedings against Thaksin [Bangkok Post report] until he is arrested, noting that it considered the failure of either Thaksin or a representative to appear in court as an attempt to escape the warrant. Also on Thursday, Thai police recommended terrorism charges [DPA report] against Thaksin and 24 others for their involvement in the recent political violence [JURIST news archive] in Bangkok. Thaksin is considered the figurehead of the pro-democracy protesters known as the red shirts [BBC backgrounder] who protested against Thailand's current government and called for elections. The protests ended in May after protesters surrendered to police [JURIST report]. In May, a lawyer for Thaksin filed an appeal against a previous arrest warrant [JURIST report] issued on charges of terrorism in relation to the protests. Thaksin's lawyer was accompanied by two additional red shirt leaders [Bangkok Post report], who have sworn they will testify that Thaksin was not involved in any acts of terrorism if the court chooses to hear the appeal. The red shirts' protests in the capital's central commercial district paralyzed the country for two months, and Thaksin has been repeatedly accused of organizing and financing the campaign. The former prime minster was removed from power in 2006 [JURIST report] by a military coup and has been living abroad in Cambodia where the government has refused to extradite him [JURIST report] to Thailand for criminal prosecution.

* Hans Bader of CEI is fine with the bar exam — congrats to everyone who just finished, by the way — but wants to ditch the requirement of graduating from law school. After all, “[e]ven students who seldom studied, and reputedly were on drugs, managed to graduate from my alma mater, Harvard Law School.”…

Continue reading »

---

Follow Above the Law on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

---

Tags: Alex Kozinski, Bar Exam, Bar Exams, Chipotle, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), Fast Food, McKool Smith, Non-Sequiturs

Gawker posed a very inflammatory question yesterday: How Did the Owner of a Barely-Legal Teen Gossip Blog Get Into a Prestigious Law School? The law school in question is USC Gould School of Law, currently ranked #18. Gawker commenters wondered whether this was a misuse of the term “prestigious.” The gossip blog owner in question is Christopher…

Continue reading »

---

Follow Above the Law on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

---

Tags: Above the Law, Christopher Stone, Law Schools, Sticky Drama, USC Law, Yuck

The star of “Rush Hour” (and its lucrative sequels), Chris Tucker, has made headlines for something other than acting these days. According to TMZ, the actor was slapped with liens from IRS for more than $11.5 million in unpaid federal taxes. That total represents liabilities for the years 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Tucker [...]

Luvox, Effexor, And Paxil Seem To Have Highest Increased Cataract Risks, But Study Does Not Prove These Drugs Cause Cataracts (Posted by Tom Lamb at DrugInjuryWatch.com) An article which appeared in the June 2010 edition of the medical journal Ophthalmology shows that the popular selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) antidepressants Luvox (fluvoxamine), Effexor (venlafaxine), and Paxil (paroxetine) raise the risk of cataracts by 39%, 33%, and 23%, respectively, in patients currently taking these drugs. Overall, the adjusted relative risk for cataracts among current users of SSRIs was 15%. A March 12, 2010 WebMD article, "Cataracts From Antidepressants?" -- which was...

[JURIST] French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French] on Wednesday ordered measures [press release] against illegal Roma [JURIST news archive] communities in France and announced new legislation aimed at making their deportation easier. The announcement comes a week after riots by members of the Roma community sparked by the shooting of a young man, resulting in the deployment of 300 troops [DW report]. The government aims to dismantle half of illegal Roma camps in the country within three months and to immediately deport of all those found to have broken the law. In explaining the need for the measures, the government explained:The President ... found [the] situation of lawlessness that characterized the Roma people [totally unacceptable]. 200 illegal settlements have been ... identified [as] sources of illicit trafficking, deeply unworthy living conditions, exploitation of children for begging, prostitution or crime. He asked the Government to proceed, within three months, the evacuation of these facilities whenever the existing law allows. [Additionally], legislative reform will be undertaken to make [the dismantling of illegal settlements] more efficient.The move has been criticized by human rights groups, such as the League of Human Rights [advocacy website, in French], which has accused Sarkozy of using the Roma as a "scapegoat" [press release, in French] and stigmatizing the Roma community. Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux refuted this, arguing that the goal of the measures were not to target any particular group [BBC report], but to promote public safety. 15,000 Roma are currently estimated to live in France. In July, the Council of Europe's European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) [official website] reported that racist violence and rhetoric has risen [JURIST report] in Europe during 2009, following the recent economic crisis. The report cites increasing hostility toward the Roma minority as well as the continuing discrimination against Muslims as seen in the proposed burqa bans [JURIST news archive] as two examples of groups facing more discriminatory actions. In February, Italian authorities began dismantling illegal immigrant camps [JURIST report] around Rome heavily populated by members of the Roma minority following the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl by East European immigrants, which led to public outcry and vigilante reprisals. Opposition parties have voiced disapproval of the move, and the Vatican has warned against scapegoating.

[JURIST] The Obama administration is in danger of entrenching some of the most draconian aspects of the Bush administration's controversial national security policy, warns a new report, [text, PDF; press release] from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] [press release] released Thursday. The report, titled "Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration," concludes that the first 18 months of the Obama White House betray a civil rights record that is "mixed, at best." Though the group concedes that "the Obama administration inherited a legal and moral morass" and has had some early successes reinstating certain civil rights protections undone by the Bush administration, it says that the Obama administration risks legitimizing controversial Bush-era policies through its refusal to take action to actively address the civil rights abuses those policies have perpetrated:[H]is second full day in office ... President Obama signed a series of executive orders that squarely repudiated some of the most egregious abuses of the Bush administration ... These auspicious first steps toward fulfilling candidate Obama's promise of change ... placed the power and prestige of the presidency behind restoration of the rule of law ... But ... on a range of issues including accountability for torture, [indefinite] detention of terrorism suspects, and use of lethal force against civilians, there is a very real danger that the Obama administration will enshrine permanently within the law policies and practices that were widely considered extreme and unlawful during the Bush administration.The report emphasizes the administration's failure to break with Bush-era policies relating to accountability and transparency, targeted killing of terrorist suspects, warrantless surveillance, the use of military commissions and other civil rights abuses for which the Bush administration was widely criticized. It urged the administration to restore "the nation's historic commitment to the rule of law." Last month, the ACLU called [press release; JURIST report] on the Obama administration to stop shielding Bush administration officials from civil suit and criminal prosecution stemming from treatment of detainees in US custody, touching on issues prominently addressed in today's report. Throughout June, the organization publicized previously classified documents detailing the detainee abuses of the Bush administration in honor of Torture Awareness Month [official website]. In April, an ACLU Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text] suit resulted in the release [JURIST report] of internal Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] documents [part 1, PDF; part 2, PDF; part 3, PDF] revealing that a former agency head may have agreed to the destruction of videotapes [JURIST news archive] showing harsh interrogations of terror suspects. Last May, the ACLU harshly criticized [press release; JURIST report] the Obama administration's plans to revive [JURIST report] the military commissions system to try Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archives] detainees, another of the major issues in today's report.

If you thought this whole Shirley Sherrod thing was just going to blow over, well, you’re not thinking like a lawyer interested in generating fees. Burned by Andrew Breitbart’s editing skills, Sherrod says she intends to sue. The New York Daily News reports: “I will definitely do it,” Sherrod said at the National Association of…

Continue reading »

---

Follow Above the Law on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

---

Tags: Andrew Breitbart, Minority Issues, Politics, Racism, Shirley Sherrod, Whoops

Arrive Magazine, the on-board publication of Amtrack and Acela Express, has teamed up with Avvo to generate a Top Lawyers List featured in their upcoming Best of the Northeast issue.  The Top Lawyers list will highlight exceptional attorneys  along the Northwest Corridor.  To be considered for inclusion in the list, attorneys should ensure their Avvo [...]

[JURIST] The High Court of Sri Lanka [official website] on Thursday conducted the first hearing in the case against former army chief Sarath Fonseka [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], who is accused of provoking violence and bringing disrepute to the government. The charges are in relation to statements made to the Sunday Leader [media website] newspaper, which suggested that the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa [BBC profile] ordered the killing of surrendering rebel leaders during the Sri Lankan civil war [CFR backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. At the hearing, the court issued 20 summons [DPA report] for witnesses to appear at the trial, which is scheduled for September 27 and is being held without a jury. Fonseka has maintained that he was misquoted [AFP report] by the newspaper. If convicted, Fonseka could face between five and 20 years in prison. Fonseka also faces another pending criminal proceeding and two court-martials charging him with participating in politics while in uniform and with improperly awarding army procurement contracts. Despite this, Fonseka successfully won a seat in parliament in elections held in April. He maintains that the allegations are politically motivated. In April, Fonseka appeared before the Sri Lankan Parliament [official website] to call for his freedom [JURIST report] and respect for the rule of law. Fonseka argued for his release from what he characterized as an illegal detention and a byproduct of injustice, while also insisting on democratic improvements [BBC report] and institution of the rule of law. He was temporarily released from military custody in order to attend the session, to which he traveled under guard. Earlier that month, Fonseka's trials were postponed [JURIST report] to allow the Court of Appeals of Sri Lanka [official website] to examine the legality of the court-martials. Fonseka was arrested by the military in February [JURIST report] after losing presidential elections held the previous month. In March, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court criticized the treatment of the general [JURIST report]. Sarath Nanda Silva, who retired from the Supreme Court [official website] last year, accused the government of using the military justice system to prevent Fonseka from participating in April elections, and of violating Fonseka's civil rights in violation of the Constitution [text].

Bad news for the Happysphere. And better news for serious lawyers and their clients. The down-markets do have a silver lining for professional services firms: those shops burdened by employees who take their jobs for granted or as some kind...

Is the legal system too complicated? If so, what's to be done about it?

Mintz Levin - Corporate Practice

Cole Silver

When it comes to drug crime charges, possession is not the same as trafficking. Likewise, an arrest does not have to mean a conviction.

Criminal lawyers in Saint Louis generally make these distinctions with new clients early in the discussion because the laws and penalties for drug-related charges can be significant. But proceedings and penalties vary based on the charges.

In order to have your charges reduced or dismissed, you can take several different routes with the help of your criminal lawyer in Saint Louis. The factors and conditions in each case vary, of course. But qualified and knowledgeable drug crime lawyers in Saint Louis should be able to identify what legal course is possible and worth pursuing.

For example, if arrested for possession—be it for marijuana, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, meth, oxycontin or any other controlled substances—an experienced Saint Louis criminal lawyer will help identify distinctions such as:

• Federal vs. state laws that apply: Federal charges are usually made in connection to large volume, multi-state trafficking. You might be a user or courier of a small quantity, but your arrest might be part of a law enforcement strategy to apprehend a larger, more extensive and more powerful network of traffickers.
  
• Legal vs. illegal search and seizure: How contraband evidence was uncovered is key to a defense and plea negotiation strategy. Sufficient, probable cause for the search must be proven. If the prosecution fails to meet that standard, evidence of drug possession can be challenged by knowledgeable Saint Louis criminal lawyers.
  

Because drug arrests are often secondary to other police work (for example, driving under the influence, vehicular homicide, other traffic offenses or domestic violence incidents), the case presented by the prosecutor can allow for reduced or dismissed charges relative to drug possession. For this reason, it is essential that you select qualified Saint Louis drug crime lawyers for your defense as early as possible.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to pursue the best possible result in your drug crime case. For a free consultation with a Saint Louis criminal defense attorney about your traffic or drunk driving charges, contact The Welby Law Firm, LLC.

Continue reading "Drug Crime Lawyers in Saint Louis"

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

-Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States, 1928

WaPo:

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation. The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval.

Matt Yglesias writes:

Of course, checking out someone’s browser history could be very useful in a terrorism investigation. But if I had some kind of cause—probable cause, let’s say—to suspect someone of involvement in terrorism, I could just get a warrant.

James Madison wrote:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

In that spirit, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I am not a literalist regarding Constitutional interpretation, but the language of the Fourth Amendment seems easy enough to understand. The Obama proposal seems to clearly run afoul of the Fourth Amendment.

Speaking for me only

Weird case from St. Louis County, where two friends made a suicide pact and went to a conservation area to carry it out in 2008. Jacob Runge allegedly test-fired the gun and then handed it to his friend, Alex Harkins,...

[JURIST] Spanish National Court Judge Santiago Pedraz issued an arrest warrant [text, in Spanish; PDF] Thursday for three US troops suspected of gunning down Spanish journalist Juse Couso [advocacy website, JURIST news archive] in Iraq. Couso, a television cameraman, was killed in 2003 when a US tank fired into the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. The 3rd Division infantrymen named in the warrant, Sgt. Shawn Gibson, Capt. Philip Wolford and Lt. Col. Philip de Camp, maintain that they fired into the hotel at what they thought was an enemy combatant because they were being fired upon. A US military investigation has cleared them of wrongdoing, and US officials have said they will not extradite the soldiers. Pedraz said that he issued the warrant because the matter "may constitute a crime against the international community," and US officials have not cooperated in Spanish investigations into the incident. Earlier this month, the Spanish Supreme Court [official website, in Spanish] ordered a lower court to reopen the investigation [JURIST report] into Couso's death. Pedraz reinstated the homicide charges [JURIST report] in May 2009 after they were dropped in 2007 due to lack of evidence. Pedraz initially ordered [text, in Spanish; JURIST report] the soldiers' arrest in 2005 after initiating investigations [JURIST report] into the incident in June of that year. The order was reversed by a panel of judges for the National Court in 2006. The reversal was then overturned by Spain's Supreme Court, resulting in arrest warrants being reissued [JURIST report] in January 2007. The soldiers were indicted [JURIST report] in April that year.

A longtime lawyer for Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is taking a job vetting judicial nominees at the U.S. Department of Justice. Michael Zubrensky has been on Durbin's staff for seven and a half years, serving most recently as the senator's...

Donna Coleman Gregg has been named director of the Institute for Communications Law Studies at Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law. Gregg, a former senior policy adviser at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and...

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) violated congressional ethics rules and federal law in the handling of his personal finances and his fundraising for a university institute, a subcommittee of Rangel's colleagues charged today. Two members of the House ethics subcommittee, for...

Mirrors on the ceiling, The pink champagne on ice And she said ‘We are all just prisoners here, of our own device’ And in the master’s chambers, They gathered for the feast They stab it with their steely knives, But they just can’t kill the beast For many takers of the bar exam, the ordeal is over. Yay! Congratulations.…

Continue reading »

---

Follow Above the Law on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

---

Tags: Bad Ideas, Bar Exam, California, Whoops

The Nattering Nutrition Nannies scored a victory last week in the Eastern District of New York -- a victory against beverage giant The Coca-Cola Company and, more important, a victory against common sense and personal responsibility.  Last Wednesday, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and its co-counsel persuaded a federal court to deny Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss a putative nationwide consumer fraud class action challenging the beverage "vitaminwater" made by Coca-Cola's subsidiary, Glaceau.  See Ackerman v. The Coca-Cola Company, No. CV-09-0395 (JG) (RML), Slip op. (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2010).

In Ackerman, Plaintiffs allege that the name, "vitaminwater," along with a description of the vitamins in the water and slogans about health are deceptive because they mislead people to believe that the beverages do not have sugar or calories in them.  As the court described plaintiffs' theory:

The plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the collective effect of the challenged statements was to mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that vitaminwater is either composed solely of vitamins and water, or that it is a beneficial source of nutrients rather than a "food of little or no nutritional value [which has been fortified] for the sole purpose of" claiming or implying that it is "healthy."  58 Fed. Reg. 2478, 2522.

Slip op. at 32.

Of course, there's one major problem with that theory:  the nutrition facts label on every bottle of vitaminwater discloses that there are a certain number of grams of sugar in the product, and that an 8 ounce serving of the drink contains a certain number of calories.  So the fact that there is an ingredient other than vitamins and water -- namely, sugar -- is plain to anyone who can read.  Nevertheless, the court allowed this claim to survive the pleading stage, so now there will be lots of expensive discovery and motion practice on a theory that is patently ridiculous.

(An additional sign to the consumer that there is something besides vitamins and water in the product is the fact that it is sweet -- some might even complain that it is cloyingly sweet.  This has led Glaceau to release "vitaminwater 10," which has ten calories per serving, and now  "vitaminwater zero," which has -- you guessed it -- zero calories per serving.  The court ducked the sweetness argument by stating that "there is no evidence before me concerning vitaminwater's taste."  Slip op. at 35.)

The court's response to the fact that sugar is listed as an ingredient right on the label was to declare that "the presence of a nutritional panel, though relevant, does not as a matter of law extinguish the possibility that reasonable consumers could be misled by vitaminwater's labeling and marketing."  Slip op. at 34.  The court relied heavily on Williams v. Gerber Products Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008), in which the Ninth Circuit had held that the packaging of a product called "Fruit Juice Snacks" could be misleading where it pictured various fruits on the label, but did not actually contain the juice of any of the pictured fruits, and only revealed this fact on the product label.

But Ackerman is no Williams.  There were no allegations that the packaging or marketing for vitaminwater contained any false statements or pictures.  Unlike the "Fruit Juice Snacks" at issue in Williams, which did not contain the juice of the pictured fruits, vitaminwater actually contains the vitamins the marketing discusses.  And the fact that it also contains sugar is stated right on the Nutrition Facts label in close proximity to the disclosures of the percentages of the vitamins and minerals that would surely interest vitaminwater's consumers.  This complaint is as deficient on its face as the Crunchberries complaint that I discussed earlier this month.  Reasonable people should not, as a matter of law, be allowed to claim surprise at the presence of an ingredient that is clearly disclosed on the Nutrition Facts label.

Although the court in Ackerman gave lip service to the pleading requirements of Twombly and Iqbal, it ultimately held that conclusory allegations met the pleading standard.  Indeed, it credited the following as adequately pleading reliance:

Each plaintiff relied on Defendants' . . . misrepresentations that VitaminWater is a beneficial dietary supplement beverage including, but not limited to, "vitamins + water = all you need" and the name of the product itself -- "VitaminWater" -- in deciding to purchase vitaminwater.  Had Plaintiffs known the truth that the statements they relied on were false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair, they would have neither purchased VitaminWater nor paid the premium price Defendants charged for it.

Slip op. at 40. 

The court refused to dismiss causes of action under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as under New York's General Business Law sections 349 and 350.  It also refused to dismiss plaintiffs' common law misrepresentation claims for NY and CA plaintiffs and the unjust enrichment claims for all plaintiffs. 

Notably, the court was forced to conclude that plaintiffs' claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act failed to state a claim because they failed to plead enough specifics as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). 

The court also held that plaintiffs failed to plead a claim for breach of express warranty because they failed to set forth any statement made about the product that the product failed to meet.  In addition, the court dismissed the implied warranty claims because -- even crediting the complaint as true -- "plaintiffs cannot establish that vitaminwater failed to constitute a merchantable product."  This, of course, begs the question:  if, as a matter of law, everything the defendant said was true (such that it did not constitute a breached warranty), and the sugar content was listed on the product itself and did not make the product unmerchantable, how could the packaging and marketing be "fraudulent"? 

The first half of the court's opinion is comprised of a recitation of the regulatory history regarding adding nutrients to foods and beverages.  Ultimately, the court rejected the defendants' arguments that the lawsuit was expressly and/or impliedly preempted by statutes and regulations preventing states from imposing labeling requirements that are different from those imposed by the FDA.  See, e.g., Slip op. at 27.  The court concluded that although plaintiffs' claims were premised on violations of the federal statutes and regulations, they were not preempted because they sought to impose "identical" requirements under state law as those imposed by the federal scheme.  The court also rejected the defendants' primary jurisdiction argument, stating that the question of what could mislead a reasonable consumer is one courts typically handle, and reasoning that the "FDA is aware of plaintiffs' concerns but lacks the resources to take enforcement action in every instance in which its policies are violated."  Slip op. at 30.

But plaintiffs legal assault on the fortified beverage industry ignores one important fact:  the public wants nutritionally-enhanced foods and beverages.  Indeed, fortified beverages are one of the fastest-growing market segments.  Consumers are capable of reading nutrition labels and ingredients and making dietary choices for themselves, and they do not need the FDA or self-appointed nutrition nannies like CSPI to limit the products from which they can legitimately choose.  Although the FDA has articulated policies about adding nutrients to foods and beverages, it has not acted to eliminate the category of nutritionally-enhanced products from the market.  One benefit of limited regulatory resources is prioritization, and instances of actual fraud should take (and generally have taken) enforcement priority. 

The Ackerman court's opinion on express and implied warranties makes it clear that there is no real fraud or misrepresentation in the marketing or packaging of vitaminwater.  The label clearly discloses the product's sugar content.  As such, CSPI should move on to lawsuits that fight actual fraud, rather than trying to co-opt the courts into doing what the FDA to date has refused to do.

To read CSPI Litigation Project Director Steve Gardner's take on the decision, click here.

Erik Magraken, ICBC Injury Claims Lawyer

Ari Markenson

♫ Dance Dance wherever you may be I am the lord of the dance said he And I lead you all wherever you may be And I lead you all in the dance said he…♫

Lyrics by: Sydney Carter, music by: Elder Joseph Brackett, “Lord of the Dance“.

Effective July 1, 2010 Multi-Disciplinary Partnerships  (“MDP’s”) are allowed by the Law Society of British Columbia.   Law Society Rules 2-23.1 and following govern the establishments of MDP’s in the Province of BC.

This is a big change for law firms in BC.  For one 2-23.1 (1) states:

“member

… [more]

(Short Sales—Three Basic Rules):  Prior tips have outlined certain general rules regarding short sales.  Unfortunately these rules have not changed; in fact, they seem more permanent and bear outlining again.

Rule No. 1—The most basic rule regarding short sales is “There are no rules”.

The short sale lender can do whatever they please, and this is especially true for second lien holders.

Rule No. 2—Short sales are like snow flakes.  From afar each snow flake in a snow storm seems alike.  But when you look at each snow flake individually, it is completely different from any other snow flake.  Each short sale is uniquely different from each other.  Each short sale has different twists and angles which must be reviewed and dealt with in order to obtain a successful short sale.

Rule No. 3—Short sales are never “short”.  They should be called “Long Sales”.  There is no such thing as a “short Short Sale”.  With the backlog of delinquencies and the complexities of who is the investor or guarantor, the short sale approval takes an inordinate amount of time.  Just request that everyone be patient and allow the process to happen (usually in the lenders own time frame).

Please contact me if you have any questions, or visit my real estate blog at www.TGBlawre.blogspot.com for previous tips.

William D. Tucker, III, Tucker Griffin Barnes P.C., Charlottesville, Virginia 434-973-7474, Tucker@TGBlaw.com  www.TGBlaw.com  www.TGBlaw.blogspot.com

And now the legal disclaimer:  This advice is based on Virginia law and is not meant to apply to any other state.  If you have questions that apply to another state, please contact an attorney who is licensed to practice in that state.

If you didn’t think that lawyers could compete with low-end, quasi-legal providers like Legal Zoom , think again. There’s a new upstart service, aptly named Upstart Legal that’s come up with one formula to take on automated, non-lawyer providers. The brainchild of attorney John Gerber, UpStartLegal.com offers a web-based, legal package that gives entrepreneurs the [...] Related posts:

1. A Great Pro Se Idea
2. Can Small Fry Catch Big Clients? That’s My Shingle’s Raison d’Etre
3. To Win the Hearts and Minds of Consumers, Lawyers Need to Sell, Not Sue

New York Times:

On Thursday, James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, warned that the Fed’s current policies were putting the American economy at risk of becoming “enmeshed in a Japanese-style deflationary outcome within the next several years.”

[. . .] Mr. Bullard had been viewed as a centrist and associated with the camp that sees inflation, the Fed’s traditional enemy, as a greater threat than deflation. But with inflation now very low, about half of the Fed’s unofficial target of 2 percent, and with the European debt crisis having roiled the markets, even self-described inflation hawks like Mr. Bullard have gotten worried that growth has slowed so much that the economy is at risk of a dangerous cycle of falling prices and wages.

It may be late, but if the Fed is prepared to understand the dire straits of the economy, that is welcome news. Now, if only the Congress and the President could join the battle to save the economy.

Speaking for me only

In Philadelphia, an 18-year-old has been sentenced to six to 12 years in prison after he reportedly raped a classmate while she was dying from alcohol poisoning. The two of them, plus a third teenager, had played hooky and spent...

You could argue that it's cruel to arrest somebody who was already in a pretty low state, but I'm guessing he was thrilled to go sleep somewhere less smelly.

Dena Potter has this story for AP on the Sept. 23 execution date for one of the few women on death row, Teresa Lewis of Virginia. She had her husband and his son killed for the insurance money. So why...

In this month's issue of the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession's Perspectives magazine, Stephanie Goldberg has an interesting piece on the difference Elena Kagan will have on the Court by virtue of her gender.  Acknowledging that seeing gender as a determinative factor in judicial decision-making is "prickly," Goldberg finds examples of how O'Connor and Ginsberg's gender influenced their jurisprudence.

Yet even [Ginsburg] conceded that her life experience as a woman may have helped educate her fellow justices to hold in Safford v. Redding (2009) that a strip search by school authorities of a 13-year old girl, suspected of having ibuprofen, violated her constitutional rights... "I think many of [the male justices] first thought of their own reaction. It came out in various questions. You change your clothes in the gym, what's the big deal?"

Goldberg then reviews the work of Jennifer Peresie, who surveyed over five hundred sex discrimination suits in the federal appeals courts, and found that panels with two women ruled in favor of plaintiffs in 43% of cases, compared to 35% with only one female judge on the panel, and 17% when there were only men.  What's so powerful about this data, is not just that women may view facts through a different lens, but that their view is persuasive to their male colleagues.

I recommend the full article, and for that matter, the full magazine, which comes free with a membership in the ABA.

read more

Lindgren is not winning. In the great teapot that is the blogosphere, this tempest is particularly amusing: here, here, here, here. (Thanks to several different...

[JURIST] A group of suspected Somali pirates [JURIST news archive] pleaded not guilty Wednesday before the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [official website]. The defendants, six Somali men alleged to have been involved in the April attack on the USS Ashland in the Gulf of Aden, pleaded not guilty to charges of piracy and assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon. Attorneys for the men argue that they could not have committed piracy because they did not seize or plunder the ship [CP report]. The charge of piracy carries a mandatory life sentence if convicted. The trial is scheduled to begin in October [AP report]. Another group of suspected Somali pirates also pleaded not guilty on Wednesday in the district court. This group was indicted on similar charges in relation to the attack on the USS Nicholas, also in April. Their trial date was set for November. The 11 men were charged earlier this month [AP report] by a federal grand jury, adding on to charges filed in April [JURIST report], alleging that the suspects conspired to commit and did commit various offenses, including piracy and attack with the intent to plunder a vessel, noting that "the primary purpose of the conspiracy was to make money by means of piracy on the high seas." Several suspected Somali pirates have faced charges in federal court this year. A Somali man charged with piracy pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in May to charges of hijacking, kidnapping and hostage taking related to an April 2009 attack on the US container ship Maersk Alabama [GlobalSecurity backgrounder]. Another group of nine pleaded not guilty to piracy charges [JURIST report] in May. Somali officials have criticized [BBC report] the US for exercising jurisdiction over Muse and other pirate suspects, insisting that piracy prosecutions should be conducted by an international tribunal. They have also asked that Somali pirate suspects be returned to Somalia, which lacks a functioning central government to address the piracy problem. Piracy remains an issue of international concern, as few countries have been willing to prosecute suspected pirates. The few that have attempted to do so include Kenya, Seychelles, the Netherlands, Mauritius, Yemen, Somalia and Spain [JURIST reports].

"Appeals court: More freedom for judge candidates." The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued today. The "MinnLawyer Blog" has a post titled "8th Circuit strikes down judicial...

---

By Jeffrey D. Clements. Mr. Clements is former Chief of the Public Protection and Advocacy Bureau in the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, and now focuses on litigation and appeals with Clements Law Office, LLC. Mr. Clements is also author of the ACS Issue Brief, "Beyond Citizens United v. FEC: Re-Examining Corporate Rights."

---

A few days ago, Senate Republicans united to defeat the Disclose Act, critical legislation intended to respond to the Supreme Court's invalidation in Citizens United v. FEC of the ban on the use of corporate general treasury funds to make independent political expenditures. The House passed the Act in June. But despite the wishes of large majorities of the American people and of 58 of 100 Senators, the legislation could not get past a Republican filibuster.

Following the modern and somewhat insulting acronym trend, the formal name of the legislation is the "Democracy Is Strengthened By Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act". The Senate version of the Disclose Act would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to restrict political contributions, independent expenditures and electioneering communications by government contractors, recipients of TARP bail-out money, holders of federal off-shore drilling leases, and foreign national corporations. The Act would apply to "corporations and other organizations" and requires reporting and disclosure of the identity of donors to an independent expenditure campaign, disclosure of political spending to shareholders and members, and certification and "stand-by-your-ad" statements by responsible officers of the corporation ("I am XXX and I approve this message.")

In January, President Obama rightly called the Citizens United decision a "strike at democracy itself." Most Americans agree. According to a recent comprehensive poll about Citizens United, 82% of respondents worried that Congress "will not go far enough to keep corporations from having too much influence," and 77% believe that Congress should promote a Constitutional amendment to address the problem.

Yet, in a measure of how damaged our democracy has become due to special corporate interest money, a minority of Senators representing a fraction of the American people killed even the modest response of requiring reporting and disclosure of corporate political spending, and restricting such spending by certain foreign corporations and government contractors.

In doing so, the surreal and undemocratic world of Washington circa 2010 was on full display:

First, preference for action by a wide majority of the American people and even a wide majority of the US Senate doesn't matter. The bizarre filibuster rule, appearing nowhere in the Constitution, again allowed legislation to "fail" despite the support of 58 Senators representing 3/4 of the States and of the American people. Once again, regardless of the wishes of the other 306 million Americans, those fighting for necessary reform were reduced to begging unsuccessfully for the support of Senators Collins and Snowe, representing the 1.3 million good people of Maine.

read more

(David Kopel) Ronald Reagan once said that the conservative D.C. weekly Human Events was his favorite newspaper. And with good reason. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, there were few significant alternatives to the then-hegemonic MSM. Along with National Review, which was Reagan’s favorite magazine, Human Events was an essential source for stories that the MSM refused to cover, and [...]

Article Source:

http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Michael_Ehline

Continue reading "Los Angeles Roads Are Extremely Accident Prone"

Filed recently in Pleasanton, California: Merwin v. Raley's, et al., No. VG10-527672 (Alameda County Super. Ct. filed July 27, 2010) Premises liability action where the plaintiff fell when her foot got stuck on a piece of tape on the floor...

No, it's not exactly seasonally appropriate, but when you come across one of those "Really? That's a law?" laws, sometimes you can't help but talk about it. Via Legal Juice, a link to Section 10-4 of the Municipal Code of Center Line, Mich.: Sec. 10-4. Artificially coloring birds. It shall be unlawful for any person to artificially color, spray or paint any bird or fowl or to sell, offer for sale, or otherwise dispose of any such colored bird or fowl. (Code 1962, § 7-504) Duly noted. Good thing this guy lives in Connecticut. Seriously, though, if it's about animal cruelty, why does the prohibition extend only to coloring for the purpose of sale or other disposition? The first reader who can track down the legislative history that answers this question will get a free "Legal Blog Watch" t-shirt.* *Read: A plain white t-shirt on which I have illegibly scrawled "Legal Blog Watch" with a blue Sharpie.

You might have heard that Congress is investigating reports of mismarked graves, bodies buried in the same graves and other problems at Arlington National Cemetery. Now? It looks like there's a criminal investigation, too, into contracts for the computer system...

You might remember Randy Malone from a new story that ran a few weeks ago. He was found naked and burned along a New Mexico highway. He originally told police that his friends had set him afire after he lost...

Here is a winning strategy, calling folks who are disappointed with the Democrats stupid:

The Stupidity of Liberal Apathy

Jonathan Cohn

This seems totally nuts, purely on the merits. Obama and the Democrats passed a major stimulus that cut taxes for the middle class and invested heavily in public works. They saved the auto industry, created a new regulatory framework for the financial industry, and enacted comprehensive health care reform. Compromises watered down each of these initiatives, to say nothing of the ideas (climate change!) that aren’t going to pass. And still this was the most productive liberal presidency in a generation or maybe two. But liberal ambivalence isn't just foolish substantively. It's also foolish strategically.

(Emphasis supplied.) You know what is foolish strategy? Calling people you are trying to persuade foolish. Leave aside for a moment Cohn's thesis that if you do not agree with him about the Dems, you are stupid. Think about the "strategery" of attacking people you are trying to persuade as stupid.

First rule for Dems, do not hire Jon Cohn as a political consultant. That whole "the beatings will continue until morale improves" thing does not work in democracies. See also Kevin Drum.

Speaking for me only

[JURIST] Russian President Dmitry Medvedev [official website; JURIST news archive] on Thursday signed into law [press release, in Russian] a bill that will grant controversial new powers to the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), the Russian Federation's successor to the former USSR's KGB [GlobalSecurity backgrounders]. The bill, which the Russian parliament approved [JURIST report] earlier this month, will give the FSB authority to question citizens about actions that may create the conditions for a crime and issue warnings [DW report] not to engage in unapproved acts. Noncompliance may be punishable by fine or up to 15 days in prison. The KGB had similar authority to engage in preemptive questioning, a power that was often used to intimidate dissidents [NYT report] in the USSR. Rights groups and members of the Russian legal community have condemned the law [press release, in Russian], saying that it legalizes arbitrary detentions and extends the FSB's power beyond its authority. Russia faces ongoing criticism from the international community regarding its human rights record. In October, the the UN Human Rights Committee [official website] issued a report [text; JURIST report] criticizing Russia's record on human rights and calling on the country to take extensive legal reform in order to guarantee its citizens rights such as fair trials and freedoms of speech and press. Last June, the Council of Europe (COE) [official website] urged substantial reforms [JURIST report] to correct systemic problems in the Russian legal system, including the prevalence of political prosecutions and a lack of judicial independence. Medvedev has acknowledged the need for judicial reform [JURIST report], saying that transparent courts would restore faith in the justice system and prevent people from seeking redress in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website].

"Appeals court removes federal judge from drug case; Order comes after disagreement between U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and U.S. District Judge James Holderman": This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune. And The Chicago Sun-Times reports today that "Federal district...

Well, this is pretty much my worst nightmare. Legal Profession Blog reports on Olufemi Nicol: The Illinois Administrator has filed a complaint alleging that an attorney failed in bad faith to repay his student loans for a graduate business degree obtained after he graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 1994. From 2006-2006,…

Continue reading »

---

Follow Above the Law on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

---

The lad won 7,500 euros for being wrongly accused of stealing a bag of snacks in a store. The settlement also covered his claim of having been falsely imprisoned and assaulted when a shop worker grabbed his arm. [Irish Times] Tags: Ireland, libel slander and defamation Related posts The Bloomsday litigants (0) October 2001 archives, part 2 (0) October [...]