Tonight, spring returned. How did I know? Simple, I went to my first baseball game tonight over at Pac Bell (yes, I know it is know AT&T Park, but I like the old name better).
It was a great game, for eight innings. The Giants ended up winning. I know this is a meaningless pre-season exhibition game, but there was one thing in it that I just have to shout about.
And not in a good way.
Returning to the show as a member of my beloved Giants is Armando Benitez. Now, if you have read my earlier post on this so-called closer, you would know my feelings on him. Unfortunately, Brian Sabean must have ignored my plea last year. Therefore I have to make it again.
MR. SABEAN, PLEASE GET RID OF THIS USELESS, NO-GOOD, BRAIN-DEAD, WEAK ARMED, LOSER.
Yes, I said loser. He has a loser mentality. A closer cannot have that. A closer has to be the equivalent of a predator, caring only for the kill.
What does Benitez care about? Apparently his feelings get hurt when the fans boo. Too bad he does not use that discomfort to do anything to improve himself.
Yes, I know, tonight (in a meaningless pre-season game) he faced four batters to end the game.
Whopity-frakking-doo!
As the local night-time sports talk guy, Damon Bruce is fond of quoting, sports only reveal character. Year after year, game after game, Benitez's character has been revealed. He is not a winner. A winner would not care what the fans did. He would go out and get the job done.
Benitez, unfortunately, has the mindset of a loser. He goes out, pays attention to anger of the fans instead of getting down to business. Other players can do this. Other players do do this.
That is Benitez's history. Put him in when there is nothing at stake and he shines like a gem. Put him in to any sort of a pressure situation and he crumbles faster than Greg Minton. On a good night, he resembles like Jeff Brantley in 1992. (Yes I know, obscure Giants' references. For those not initiated... think Greg Minton as Franz von Pappen and Jeff Brantley as Ross on Friends or the Band of Brothers' version of Captain Sobel).
And to add insult to injury, the local sports radio people are toeing the party line on this one. With the exception of Ralph Barbieri, they are saying that Benitez is the closer and should remain so until something changes that.
What will it take for Mr. Sabean and the broadcasters, including Damon Bruce (oh how you disappoint me Mr. Bruce. Are you now revealing your true character?) to finally turn on this guy? Will it take another nine blown saves (five of which end in Giants' losses? Because blowing 12 of 48 save opportunities (or 1 out of every 4 four opportunities is blown) in the last two years apparently is not enough to convince management that this man should be dismissed.)? Will it take another year of him thumbing his nose at the organization and the fans by not giving his best on the mound? More wasted efforts of the starting rotation because this loser cannot get it together to withstand the pressure of crucial games.
Its simple. Look at his statistics. When he pitches well, it is only for teams that are not going to post-season. If Mr. Sabean is serious about this team competing for the post-season this year, then Benitez has nothing to offer.
Get rid of this guy. He is a cancer to this team. He will never be what we and so many other teams' fans hoped he would be. Ship him off to Tampa Bay or Kansas City. If we were to get even a minor league prospect of dubious value it would be worth more than anything that Benitez could possibly contribute.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
New Propoganda From the So-Called Reformers
As I was doing my sweep through the blogs I read regularly, I saw a link over at TortsProf Blawg to the Jackpot Justice report put out by the Pacific Research Institute.
Now, I am not the smartest person in the world, and I hate math. However, in going through study, there were a few things that struck me. This report is described as a study of the cost of our system. However, as a general observation, and perhaps I missed this in the calculation, they were only concerned with the costs from the side of the perceived losers (i.e. the insurance companies and corporations).
First, one of the basic premises of the report is that the United States' system of private civil justice (also known as tort law, personal injury law, consumer rights, etc.) is inefficient because it costs too much. Now, ignoring that the cost is the one that they arrived at, they are comparing the United States' civil justice system to the justice systems found in Poland, Denmark, France, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan, Belgium, Spain, Germany, and Italy. Of those countries, only the United Kingdom is a common law country. Meaning that the system itself is very different.
Rather than trusting people to act as the triers of fact, a civil law system the power resides with the judges. Beyond that, civil law systems are code based systems. This means that the code is source of law, rather than allowing judges to interpret the law.
But getting back to their point. The authors of the study say that .9 of the GDP is the correct level of cost. Anything over that, and the tort system is ineffective and causes too much of a drag on society. Now, since the systems that they are comparing our system to are fundamentally different (except for England in the U.K.), how can that number be anything more than an arbitrary point of reference?
The second point that jumped out at me was data about how much an injured person recovers as a result of the civil justice system. Under their rationale, only approximately 46% of the money spent goes to paying those claiming injuries. When you consider that this number represents a percentage of all the money spent, then this is not bad. There has to be a system in place for civil justice that people will have faith in. Only a third of the money goes to the attorneys for either side (plaintiff and defense). It's as if they are saying "controversy" but then there is nothing there. If the data were to show that a plurality of the funds or a majority of the funds were going to the lawyers, then that would be a story. There has to be a cost for the system. Could the cost be lower and the recovery for the injured more, possibly yes.
Now, the third point was the contention that tort-reform actually saved lives. Now, it seems like their argument goes like this: tort litigation prevents industries from introducing new life-saving products (either safety devices, improved products, etc.) and that there has been an increase in deaths because of this. Now, this argument seems , at least to me to be counter-intuitive. The claim is based on a law review article entitled, "Tort Reform and Accidental Deaths" by Paul H. Rubin and Joanna M. Shepherd. Now I read through the article and the article looks simply at death rates versus difference types tort reform systems. It does not seem to take into account advances or the effect that litigation has had. The article seems to state that by decreasing the costs and making those costs more foreseeable, corporations and industries will become safer. Furthermore, it seems to be missing an actual link that between tort reform in states and an increase in saved lives that cannot be explained to other things, not limited to including tort cases.
PRI also talks about asbestos in particular. They use this as the example of a mass tort run amok. According the PRI report, the litigation has destroyed industries that will never be replaced. A pretty bold statement, backed up only by the sad story of Crown Cork & Seal. In the report, the PRI authors state that approximately 51,000 workers have been put out of work as a result of asbestos-related bankruptcies. Now, the report seems to assume that these people never worked again. However, there is no mention of the 10,000 people a year who die as a result of exposure to asbestos. If you take that number from 1980, when the first case I am aware made it past the Supreme Court, that makes 25 years x 10,000 = 250,000. Yet, that cost is not subtracted from the alleged cost to the United States' economy.
When it comes down to it, this report tries to cast itself as an objective, dispassionate view of the costs of our current tort system. However, the data it is using seems to only deal with the costs of the people seeking the tort-reform. For the study to be valid, it should take into account the costs paid by both sides of the equation. It should have an objective standard for the right cost to a society, not an arbitrary one which sounds nice but fails when it attempts to compare two completely different systems of justice.
Now, I am not the smartest person in the world, and I hate math. However, in going through study, there were a few things that struck me. This report is described as a study of the cost of our system. However, as a general observation, and perhaps I missed this in the calculation, they were only concerned with the costs from the side of the perceived losers (i.e. the insurance companies and corporations).
First, one of the basic premises of the report is that the United States' system of private civil justice (also known as tort law, personal injury law, consumer rights, etc.) is inefficient because it costs too much. Now, ignoring that the cost is the one that they arrived at, they are comparing the United States' civil justice system to the justice systems found in Poland, Denmark, France, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan, Belgium, Spain, Germany, and Italy. Of those countries, only the United Kingdom is a common law country. Meaning that the system itself is very different.
Rather than trusting people to act as the triers of fact, a civil law system the power resides with the judges. Beyond that, civil law systems are code based systems. This means that the code is source of law, rather than allowing judges to interpret the law.
But getting back to their point. The authors of the study say that .9 of the GDP is the correct level of cost. Anything over that, and the tort system is ineffective and causes too much of a drag on society. Now, since the systems that they are comparing our system to are fundamentally different (except for England in the U.K.), how can that number be anything more than an arbitrary point of reference?
The second point that jumped out at me was data about how much an injured person recovers as a result of the civil justice system. Under their rationale, only approximately 46% of the money spent goes to paying those claiming injuries. When you consider that this number represents a percentage of all the money spent, then this is not bad. There has to be a system in place for civil justice that people will have faith in. Only a third of the money goes to the attorneys for either side (plaintiff and defense). It's as if they are saying "controversy" but then there is nothing there. If the data were to show that a plurality of the funds or a majority of the funds were going to the lawyers, then that would be a story. There has to be a cost for the system. Could the cost be lower and the recovery for the injured more, possibly yes.
Now, the third point was the contention that tort-reform actually saved lives. Now, it seems like their argument goes like this: tort litigation prevents industries from introducing new life-saving products (either safety devices, improved products, etc.) and that there has been an increase in deaths because of this. Now, this argument seems , at least to me to be counter-intuitive. The claim is based on a law review article entitled, "Tort Reform and Accidental Deaths" by Paul H. Rubin and Joanna M. Shepherd. Now I read through the article and the article looks simply at death rates versus difference types tort reform systems. It does not seem to take into account advances or the effect that litigation has had. The article seems to state that by decreasing the costs and making those costs more foreseeable, corporations and industries will become safer. Furthermore, it seems to be missing an actual link that between tort reform in states and an increase in saved lives that cannot be explained to other things, not limited to including tort cases.
PRI also talks about asbestos in particular. They use this as the example of a mass tort run amok. According the PRI report, the litigation has destroyed industries that will never be replaced. A pretty bold statement, backed up only by the sad story of Crown Cork & Seal. In the report, the PRI authors state that approximately 51,000 workers have been put out of work as a result of asbestos-related bankruptcies. Now, the report seems to assume that these people never worked again. However, there is no mention of the 10,000 people a year who die as a result of exposure to asbestos. If you take that number from 1980, when the first case I am aware made it past the Supreme Court, that makes 25 years x 10,000 = 250,000. Yet, that cost is not subtracted from the alleged cost to the United States' economy.
When it comes down to it, this report tries to cast itself as an objective, dispassionate view of the costs of our current tort system. However, the data it is using seems to only deal with the costs of the people seeking the tort-reform. For the study to be valid, it should take into account the costs paid by both sides of the equation. It should have an objective standard for the right cost to a society, not an arbitrary one which sounds nice but fails when it attempts to compare two completely different systems of justice.
One of the more interesting ways to advertise
I've heard of this attorney before from a My Shingle article sometime last year. But as I was looking through craigslist today, I saw one of her ads up here on the SF portion of the site. Which leads to her blog.
But I'm wondering why she wants to be doing cases up here in the San Francisco area.
Alright, enough of my needless procrastinating and musings for now.
But I'm wondering why she wants to be doing cases up here in the San Francisco area.
Alright, enough of my needless procrastinating and musings for now.
Classic Deposition Testimony
This is from an asbestos case going on right now. The names are removed to protect the guilty.
Defense Attorney: Were you ever married?
Witness: That's neither here nor there. I have no family. It's me. Never had a kid.
Defense Attorney: Between the time you started and stopped working with your brother, were you ever married?
Plaintiff's Attorney: Objection. Asked and answered. He said he has no family.
Witness: I told you, I have no family. I have me. And I had my brother.
Defense Attorney: I'm not sure that's a direct answer to the question. It seems a little evasive to me.
Witness: If you won't accept that, my answer is I'm not answering it.
Plaintiff's Attorney: We already talked to this off the record. We agreed to proceed. He's given you a lot of testimony as to children that he wasn't prepared to give in the first place.
Witness: I already gave that.
Plaintiff''s Attorney: I know.
The Witness: If I have a girlfriend or if I have hookers on the side is none of his business.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Have to hand it to Iran
Even before the U.N. voted today to sanction Iran, the Iranians were getting ready for the outcome of the vote by grabbing bargaining chips. In this case, it was British military personnel.
In case you had not heard, the Iranian Islamic Republican Guard Corps maritime unit captured 15 members of a Royal Navy and Royal Marine detachment on duty in the Shatt al Arab. Iran claims that the men in captivity have "admitted" to violating Iranian waters. The Iranians have announced that they intend to try the captured British personnel for espionage.
The Iranians claim that the British violated their waters. However, in a similar incident last year, it was clear that the British were clearly within the Iraqi territory. Does it make any sense that they would be invading Iranian territory, in the day, in rigid inflatable boats, and unsupported? Or is it more likely that the Iranians are lashing out at the world's condemnation of their nuclear program and the recent capture of five Iranian Republican Guardsmen in Iraq earlier this year by U.S. forces?
A hundred years ago, the response would have been a swift reprisal raid freeing the prisoners. In today's world, with our lack of certain terms, moral equivalence, and tolerance, the response will definitely be less swift, less certain, and probably result in appeasement.
Hopefully, the Bush administration and Blair government will not repeat the fiasco of North Korean appeasement. Or they could just treat it like they have the rest of Iran's involvement in the Iraqi civil-war.
All Iran had to worry about was a UN sanction for its nuclear program. Those have proven so effective against Iraq, Sudan (for Darfur), Angola, the Former Yugoslavia, Somalia and all the other places the UN has sanctioned.
Now... ?
In case you had not heard, the Iranian Islamic Republican Guard Corps maritime unit captured 15 members of a Royal Navy and Royal Marine detachment on duty in the Shatt al Arab. Iran claims that the men in captivity have "admitted" to violating Iranian waters. The Iranians have announced that they intend to try the captured British personnel for espionage.
The Iranians claim that the British violated their waters. However, in a similar incident last year, it was clear that the British were clearly within the Iraqi territory. Does it make any sense that they would be invading Iranian territory, in the day, in rigid inflatable boats, and unsupported? Or is it more likely that the Iranians are lashing out at the world's condemnation of their nuclear program and the recent capture of five Iranian Republican Guardsmen in Iraq earlier this year by U.S. forces?
A hundred years ago, the response would have been a swift reprisal raid freeing the prisoners. In today's world, with our lack of certain terms, moral equivalence, and tolerance, the response will definitely be less swift, less certain, and probably result in appeasement.
Hopefully, the Bush administration and Blair government will not repeat the fiasco of North Korean appeasement. Or they could just treat it like they have the rest of Iran's involvement in the Iraqi civil-war.
All Iran had to worry about was a UN sanction for its nuclear program. Those have proven so effective against Iraq, Sudan (for Darfur), Angola, the Former Yugoslavia, Somalia and all the other places the UN has sanctioned.
Now... ?
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The other half of my dream match-up.
In case you've been reading this for a while you might have seen who I picked as my candidates for the 2008 election. But after seeing this
I thought it was only fitting to have a conservative pick as well. I would love to see this debate. (Hat tip Op-for.com)
I thought it was only fitting to have a conservative pick as well. I would love to see this debate. (Hat tip Op-for.com)
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Lemons Into Lemonade
So this to me takes the cake. Tony Serra was released from prison today after serving ten months for income tax evasion.
And to celebrate his release, he announced at a news conference today that he is suing the government for back pay he claims he was owed as a result of his work watering the prison 's gardens. Following up on an open letter he has had published, Serra's suit alleges that the $19/month he received violates federal labor laws, the constitutional ban on slavery, and the United Nation's covenant on prison rights.
At least he put his time in prison to good use. He's back in society, promising to pay his taxes and be gainfully employed. Go to prison, stumble into a lawsuit. Talk about lemons into lemonade.
And to celebrate his release, he announced at a news conference today that he is suing the government for back pay he claims he was owed as a result of his work watering the prison 's gardens. Following up on an open letter he has had published, Serra's suit alleges that the $19/month he received violates federal labor laws, the constitutional ban on slavery, and the United Nation's covenant on prison rights.
At least he put his time in prison to good use. He's back in society, promising to pay his taxes and be gainfully employed. Go to prison, stumble into a lawsuit. Talk about lemons into lemonade.
A Pearl Of Wisdom From My Wife
In talking about my clients, she stated "It must really suck to represent someone as crazy as your clients".
Sometimes. Only sometimes.
Sometimes. Only sometimes.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Thinking about this differently
As I was reading TortsProf Blog today, I had a thought.
Tort reformers groups typically, at least from my own un-scientific survey, are supported primarily by conservatives. Conservative ideology tends to also favor less government intrusion. So if that is the case, and conservatism wants greater personal responsibility, shouldn't they favor tort suits instead of legislating further government intrusion into the market, via entities like OSHA. So shouldn't conservative groups, such as say the Republican party, support trial lawyers and tort litigation as a privatized way of policing industries?
Alright, so it is late and I'm just spitballing.
Tort reformers groups typically, at least from my own un-scientific survey, are supported primarily by conservatives. Conservative ideology tends to also favor less government intrusion. So if that is the case, and conservatism wants greater personal responsibility, shouldn't they favor tort suits instead of legislating further government intrusion into the market, via entities like OSHA. So shouldn't conservative groups, such as say the Republican party, support trial lawyers and tort litigation as a privatized way of policing industries?
Alright, so it is late and I'm just spitballing.
Friday, March 16, 2007
A Shondah for the Goyim
I had been hearing stories about a problem with the Holocaust Survivor litigation against the Swiss Banks. Until today, I really did not know what the problem was.
It was not the banks. The Swiss, recognizing a losing proposition, waved the white flag on this issue more than seven years ago and coughed up 1.25 billion dollars. Probably not as much as they should have, but it was as good as the survivors would probably get.
No, the problem was within survivors camp. Specifically, its with their attorney, Burt Neuborne. Professor Neuborne has been involved in civil rights and public interest cases for years. Among the more notable cases he was the attorney for were the pilots who refused to bomb targets in Cambodia during the Vietnam war, the Socialist Labor Party's case to get on the ballot for presidential elections, legal-aid lawyers suing the government, and New Jersey v. TLO.
Now, I am not going to comment on the way the funds were distributed. There is a lot of controversy over exactly what was said and who it was said by during the settlement conference between the people contesting the plan to send the majority of the money to destitute survivors living in Eastern Europe, instead of making it avaialbel equally to destitute survivors living in the United States. No matter what decision was made, the person making the decision was going to catch fire for it.
The shondah here stems from Professor Neuborne's actions. Specifically, his request to be paid more then 4 milion dollars. Now, you may be asking, if you are a plaintiff's attorney, why should he not get paid? Simply put, he told people that he was doing the work "pro bono".
It is undisputed that when Professor Neuborne started the litigation on behalf of the survivors as a pro bono counsel. This means, he was doing the work for free, for the good of those he was representing. Yet somewhere along the way, perhaps as early as 2002, more than four years into the case, Professor Neuborne started to indicate that he expected to get paid. There was no order changing his status in the case from pro bono to paid counsel. No explicit choice was given to the people who he was supposed to represent in the class action against the banks.
Fully aware that the 1.25 billion settlement, along with a further 100 million in subsequent settlements with other entities in the litigation, would not be enough to satisfy the needs of all the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, this man still thought it was right and necessary to submit a bill for himself. Apparently his tenured position at the law school, and his previous work as head of the ACLU's legal director, and acting as a talking head for CourtTV did not take care of his cost of living. Instead, he decided that what would really serve the survivors of the Holocaust best was to charge them $700/hour.
This $700/hour fee was discounted by 25%, at least until his clients objected. For having the temerity to object to this undisclosed fee, he raised the initial fee request by $671,000. And he wonders why people are angry.
In striking back at his critics, he states that,
(from PrawfsBlawg citing the response of Neuborne to the NYT) (For the rest of the New York Times Piece he is referring to, that is here. For Professor Neuborne's initial response, that is found here, scroll down till you get to it.)
So the hero of the under-dog, shaper of legal minds, and supposed representative of the Holocaust survivors, uses as his defense that the New York Times is adopted an anti-semetic argument?
In another piece in the Los Angeles Times, Professor Neuborne wrote that, "Korman has publicly acknowledged that he "retained me" and that I am entitled to a fee." He then goes on to say that no notice was given, alleging that the class of people he was representing were not entitled to pro bono counsel. He then goes on to state that,
This is simple. Professors Neuborne took on the case as a pro bono matter. The case, which he should have recognized from the start, was always going to take a long time. However, when you take a pro bono case, it is expected that you do the work for free. The lawyer doing the pro bono work is supposed to be doing what we Jews call a "Mizvah".
Now, I do not have 40 years of experience. However, I do take more than my fair share of cases as a pro bono attorney. In some of them, I obtain, on behalf of the clients, monetary payouts. Using Professor Neuborne's logic, I should be getting a percentage of that based on the hours I spend on it and then multiply it by his excellence factor.
It looks like Professor Neuborne has forgotten what the purpose of the case was: to get restitution for those who were the victims of an atrocity. Unless the Swiss Banks were to be ordered to pay his fees in addition to the restitution to the survivors, he should not have expected, asked, nor requested fees except to reimburse his costs. Simply because he made sure that the money was not sapped by taxes is not a good enough reason to allow this change in his status to occur.
His request has been essentially approved by the courts. A federal magistrate in New York, where the case is on-going, has written an advisory opinion for the court stating that he should receive just over $3 million. This is about $1 million less than his initial request. The judge overseeing the case has the final say, but it appears that he will most likely rubber-stamp the advice of the magistrate.
This to me is mind boggling. It is unjust, unfair, and rewards a man for something he was not entitled. Nowhere can I find mention of a retainer agreement. Nowhere does it appear that at the time there was a change in his status that was made known to the members of the class.
This man, who has done good in so many other cases, has taken the low road in this case and become a gonief, instead of taking the high and being a mensch.
It was not the banks. The Swiss, recognizing a losing proposition, waved the white flag on this issue more than seven years ago and coughed up 1.25 billion dollars. Probably not as much as they should have, but it was as good as the survivors would probably get.
No, the problem was within survivors camp. Specifically, its with their attorney, Burt Neuborne. Professor Neuborne has been involved in civil rights and public interest cases for years. Among the more notable cases he was the attorney for were the pilots who refused to bomb targets in Cambodia during the Vietnam war, the Socialist Labor Party's case to get on the ballot for presidential elections, legal-aid lawyers suing the government, and New Jersey v. TLO.
Now, I am not going to comment on the way the funds were distributed. There is a lot of controversy over exactly what was said and who it was said by during the settlement conference between the people contesting the plan to send the majority of the money to destitute survivors living in Eastern Europe, instead of making it avaialbel equally to destitute survivors living in the United States. No matter what decision was made, the person making the decision was going to catch fire for it.
The shondah here stems from Professor Neuborne's actions. Specifically, his request to be paid more then 4 milion dollars. Now, you may be asking, if you are a plaintiff's attorney, why should he not get paid? Simply put, he told people that he was doing the work "pro bono".
It is undisputed that when Professor Neuborne started the litigation on behalf of the survivors as a pro bono counsel. This means, he was doing the work for free, for the good of those he was representing. Yet somewhere along the way, perhaps as early as 2002, more than four years into the case, Professor Neuborne started to indicate that he expected to get paid. There was no order changing his status in the case from pro bono to paid counsel. No explicit choice was given to the people who he was supposed to represent in the class action against the banks.
Fully aware that the 1.25 billion settlement, along with a further 100 million in subsequent settlements with other entities in the litigation, would not be enough to satisfy the needs of all the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, this man still thought it was right and necessary to submit a bill for himself. Apparently his tenured position at the law school, and his previous work as head of the ACLU's legal director, and acting as a talking head for CourtTV did not take care of his cost of living. Instead, he decided that what would really serve the survivors of the Holocaust best was to charge them $700/hour.
This $700/hour fee was discounted by 25%, at least until his clients objected. For having the temerity to object to this undisclosed fee, he raised the initial fee request by $671,000. And he wonders why people are angry.
In striking back at his critics, he states that,
Those of you working in large firms know that senior litigation partners routinely bill more than $700 per hour. Partners at Cravath, Debevoise and Heller Ehrman had submitted sworn declarations stating $700 an hour was a bargain for work of my quality. I am not a novice. I have practiced for more than 40 years, served as National Legal Director of the ACLU from 1981-86, and as Legal Director of the Brennan Center since 1995. I have argued and tried hundreds of cases, many in the Supreme Court. The National Law Journal selected me as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. I was elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2002. Maybe the Times knows the true value of my services better than the market, but I doubt it. During the middle ages the Catholic Church insisted that Jewish merchants charge a “just price” instead of market value. The Times has gone into the same business.
(from PrawfsBlawg citing the response of Neuborne to the NYT) (For the rest of the New York Times Piece he is referring to, that is here. For Professor Neuborne's initial response, that is found here, scroll down till you get to it.)
So the hero of the under-dog, shaper of legal minds, and supposed representative of the Holocaust survivors, uses as his defense that the New York Times is adopted an anti-semetic argument?
In another piece in the Los Angeles Times, Professor Neuborne wrote that, "Korman has publicly acknowledged that he "retained me" and that I am entitled to a fee." He then goes on to say that no notice was given, alleging that the class of people he was representing were not entitled to pro bono counsel. He then goes on to state that,
But for my work, there would have been no money to distribute to anyone. Given my years of dedication to the survivor community, and my success in assembling and distributing more than $6.5 billion to Holocaust victims over the last decade, I do not apologize for seeking a reasonable market fee for my years of successful service in the Swiss banks case.I find it interesting how now, years after taking on the case, he states that the phrase "I have retained" Professor Neuborne should have indicated to the members of the class that he was now expecting to be paid. Incidentally, that phrase does not mean a lawyer is entitled to money. As a pro bono attorney, all of my pro bono clients "retain" my services even though they will never, by definition, pay me.
This is simple. Professors Neuborne took on the case as a pro bono matter. The case, which he should have recognized from the start, was always going to take a long time. However, when you take a pro bono case, it is expected that you do the work for free. The lawyer doing the pro bono work is supposed to be doing what we Jews call a "Mizvah".
Now, I do not have 40 years of experience. However, I do take more than my fair share of cases as a pro bono attorney. In some of them, I obtain, on behalf of the clients, monetary payouts. Using Professor Neuborne's logic, I should be getting a percentage of that based on the hours I spend on it and then multiply it by his excellence factor.
It looks like Professor Neuborne has forgotten what the purpose of the case was: to get restitution for those who were the victims of an atrocity. Unless the Swiss Banks were to be ordered to pay his fees in addition to the restitution to the survivors, he should not have expected, asked, nor requested fees except to reimburse his costs. Simply because he made sure that the money was not sapped by taxes is not a good enough reason to allow this change in his status to occur.
His request has been essentially approved by the courts. A federal magistrate in New York, where the case is on-going, has written an advisory opinion for the court stating that he should receive just over $3 million. This is about $1 million less than his initial request. The judge overseeing the case has the final say, but it appears that he will most likely rubber-stamp the advice of the magistrate.
This to me is mind boggling. It is unjust, unfair, and rewards a man for something he was not entitled. Nowhere can I find mention of a retainer agreement. Nowhere does it appear that at the time there was a change in his status that was made known to the members of the class.
This man, who has done good in so many other cases, has taken the low road in this case and become a gonief, instead of taking the high and being a mensch.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
So Frakking Frustrated
So one of the things I am working on is the estate of a relative who died last year. He was a nice man. He donated to alot of good causes. He was a teacher who specialized in helping foreign students adjust to life in the United States.
He lived a good life.
However, he wrote an exceptionally bad will.
Too bad the same cannot be said for the pack of people who, in my opinion, are nothing more than sniveling and whiny vultures who care more about the value of his estate and their share than in making sure that the things which were important to him were taken care of. I'm sure that, if it had been left up to them, they would have put his dogs to sleep rather than pay the kennel costs.
They did not earn the money. They felt that their annual trip out to California to eat a dinner or two with him means that they are entitled to it all. Legally they are, but ethically, I would think that the clear wishes should trump their avarice. I heard how bad they acted when the matriarch of their clan died a few years ago. They actions thus far in this case do them little credit.
If I act like when relatives in my family die, I hope my surviving relatives have the good sense to shoot me.
He lived a good life.
However, he wrote an exceptionally bad will.
Too bad the same cannot be said for the pack of people who, in my opinion, are nothing more than sniveling and whiny vultures who care more about the value of his estate and their share than in making sure that the things which were important to him were taken care of. I'm sure that, if it had been left up to them, they would have put his dogs to sleep rather than pay the kennel costs.
They did not earn the money. They felt that their annual trip out to California to eat a dinner or two with him means that they are entitled to it all. Legally they are, but ethically, I would think that the clear wishes should trump their avarice. I heard how bad they acted when the matriarch of their clan died a few years ago. They actions thus far in this case do them little credit.
If I act like when relatives in my family die, I hope my surviving relatives have the good sense to shoot me.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Score One for the Tenants
Even though San Francisco is a city where more people rent than own, its still hard for a tenant to prevail in a unlawful detainer action. There are various theories about why that it is, but for some reason, it seems like landlord attorney tend to prevail, even when the facts should indicate a tenant victory.
Well, today a jury came out with a verdict in favor of the tenant in a issue that, in tenant's right circles, is worrisome. The issue is OMI, which stands for Owner Move-In. What it was really meant for was to allow owners to evict people from their tenancies when the landlord, or their immediate family, wanted to live on the property. To protect the tenants, the board of supervisors, in drafting the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, made it so that an OMI could only happen, anmong other requirements, if the owner did have another vacant property to live in.
In some cases, this has lead to problems of proving intent. And in some cases, litigation to determine whether intent was even at issue in the case. Which is what was at issue in this case.
According to Beyond the Chron, the landlord in question had other properties, including a residential unit which he used as an office, a vacation home outside the city, and was renting an apartment in a different part of the city. Now this was argued to the jury, by Dean Preston and Raquel Fox of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, that this created a presumption of bad faith. Coupled with a previous attempt at evicting the tenants, for capital improvements, and it showed that the landlord was really interested in getting out a long-term tenant who was paying below market rates.
I do not know what the attorneys for the landlord, Dave Wasserman and Daniel Stern of Wasserman-Stern, said to rebut this. Whatever it was, it did not work very well.
The jury came back 11 - 1 in favor of the tenant.
Congratulations to Preston and Fox. They did an outstanding job.
Well, today a jury came out with a verdict in favor of the tenant in a issue that, in tenant's right circles, is worrisome. The issue is OMI, which stands for Owner Move-In. What it was really meant for was to allow owners to evict people from their tenancies when the landlord, or their immediate family, wanted to live on the property. To protect the tenants, the board of supervisors, in drafting the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, made it so that an OMI could only happen, anmong other requirements, if the owner did have another vacant property to live in.
In some cases, this has lead to problems of proving intent. And in some cases, litigation to determine whether intent was even at issue in the case. Which is what was at issue in this case.
According to Beyond the Chron, the landlord in question had other properties, including a residential unit which he used as an office, a vacation home outside the city, and was renting an apartment in a different part of the city. Now this was argued to the jury, by Dean Preston and Raquel Fox of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, that this created a presumption of bad faith. Coupled with a previous attempt at evicting the tenants, for capital improvements, and it showed that the landlord was really interested in getting out a long-term tenant who was paying below market rates.
I do not know what the attorneys for the landlord, Dave Wasserman and Daniel Stern of Wasserman-Stern, said to rebut this. Whatever it was, it did not work very well.
The jury came back 11 - 1 in favor of the tenant.
Congratulations to Preston and Fox. They did an outstanding job.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Showing His True Colors ... Again
The worst-ex-president-still-living (aka Jimmy Carter) is at it again.
Not content to merely misrepresent the facts of what happened when he was in office, or to use language calculated to inflame the situation, or to present a fair account of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the worst-ex-presidnet-still-living has taken to using "fake but true" documents to support his position.
Apparently, in defending his abhorent position that Israel is actually the equivalent of South Africa during the apartheid-era, Mr. Carter is now claiming to have support for his views from someone who lived under apartheid. He states that Nelson Mandela sent a letter to the New York Times' columnist, Thomas Friedman, stating that he shares Mr. Carter's view.
There is only one problem: Mandela never wrote the letter. It was written by Arjan El-Fessed, a man who operates a site called "The Electronic Intifada".
Thanks to Mr. Carter's use of this hoax, it has now been given legitimacy and found its way into a number of reports on Israel as evidence of Israel's perfidity. Including one submitted to the UN.
Let's see, Israel tells the truth and no one listens. Someone cooks up a fake book (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) or a fake document (the El-Fessed letter) and the world swallows it whole without even thinking.
And Mr. Carter calls himself a friend of Israel. I think its more telling who he fights for, rather than who he claims to be a friend of: North Korean and its leader Kim Jong-Il, Cuba and its dictator, Fidel Castro, former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, former Pakistani General Zia ul-Haq, and others. His meddling in North Korea prevented the United States from dealing properly, as it should have, with their attempt to develop nuclear weapons in 1994. Most tellingly, he abandoned American territory and sentenced American personnel to 444 days of captivity and depredation because of his lack of will to stand up for the people of the United States.
He chooses to represent the cause of terrorists, dictators, and gross human rights abusers. At every turn, he undercuts the authority and prestige of not just the United States but of Western ideals in general. Now he chooses to use lies to support his untenable, illogical, and immoral stance. Can we who are not red-staters finally stop beatifying this man and call him what he is?
Not content to merely misrepresent the facts of what happened when he was in office, or to use language calculated to inflame the situation, or to present a fair account of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the worst-ex-presidnet-still-living has taken to using "fake but true" documents to support his position.
Apparently, in defending his abhorent position that Israel is actually the equivalent of South Africa during the apartheid-era, Mr. Carter is now claiming to have support for his views from someone who lived under apartheid. He states that Nelson Mandela sent a letter to the New York Times' columnist, Thomas Friedman, stating that he shares Mr. Carter's view.
There is only one problem: Mandela never wrote the letter. It was written by Arjan El-Fessed, a man who operates a site called "The Electronic Intifada".
Thanks to Mr. Carter's use of this hoax, it has now been given legitimacy and found its way into a number of reports on Israel as evidence of Israel's perfidity. Including one submitted to the UN.
Let's see, Israel tells the truth and no one listens. Someone cooks up a fake book (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) or a fake document (the El-Fessed letter) and the world swallows it whole without even thinking.
And Mr. Carter calls himself a friend of Israel. I think its more telling who he fights for, rather than who he claims to be a friend of: North Korean and its leader Kim Jong-Il, Cuba and its dictator, Fidel Castro, former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, former Pakistani General Zia ul-Haq, and others. His meddling in North Korea prevented the United States from dealing properly, as it should have, with their attempt to develop nuclear weapons in 1994. Most tellingly, he abandoned American territory and sentenced American personnel to 444 days of captivity and depredation because of his lack of will to stand up for the people of the United States.
He chooses to represent the cause of terrorists, dictators, and gross human rights abusers. At every turn, he undercuts the authority and prestige of not just the United States but of Western ideals in general. Now he chooses to use lies to support his untenable, illogical, and immoral stance. Can we who are not red-staters finally stop beatifying this man and call him what he is?
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Vagina, Vagina, Vagina
There, I said it three times. Did anyone die? Did anyone suffer an injury because I used the term which is found in the dictionary (which states it is "the lower part of the female reproductive tract; a moist canal in female mammals extending from the labia minora to the uterus").
Despite the fact that there are a variety of other words that people use for it, most of which I probably could not put up in good conscience, three girls were suspended recently for saying the word during a dramatic reading of the Vagina Monologues.
Apparently, the principal of their school felt that the word "vagina" was inappropriate for the setting. The setting, by the way, was an night of readings at the high school in the suburbs of New York, open to the public. So the principal, apparently acting as the guardian of public morals decreed that Megan Reback, Elan Stahl and Hannah Levinson, who were reading the excerpt, could not use the word "vagina" even though they were reading for the "Vagina Monologues".
However, they did when they they read the line, "My short skirt is a liberation flag in the women's army. I declare these streets, any streets, my vagina's country." Is that so bad to say?
Did anyone ever tell him what happens when you issue an order you know will not be obeyed? Did he really believe that three honors students, juniors who seems to be able to distinguish between a valid instruction and a petty tyranny, would really follow this instruction? They seem to have fully understood what they were doing when they did it. "The word vagina has been arbitrarily declared taboo, which it's not," student Megan Reback said. "It's a part of the body. We are women. We have vaginas."
Or, if he was so concerned about the subject material in the first place, why did he approve it? And since when did the word "vagina", become a word that is inappropriate, especially in the context that it is used in that play.
I understant that the Supreme Court has draw a clear distinction when it comes to student's freedom of speech, but is this really what was intended?
These girls are owed an apology and the principal is owed a time out of his own.
Despite the fact that there are a variety of other words that people use for it, most of which I probably could not put up in good conscience, three girls were suspended recently for saying the word during a dramatic reading of the Vagina Monologues.
Apparently, the principal of their school felt that the word "vagina" was inappropriate for the setting. The setting, by the way, was an night of readings at the high school in the suburbs of New York, open to the public. So the principal, apparently acting as the guardian of public morals decreed that Megan Reback, Elan Stahl and Hannah Levinson, who were reading the excerpt, could not use the word "vagina" even though they were reading for the "Vagina Monologues".
However, they did when they they read the line, "My short skirt is a liberation flag in the women's army. I declare these streets, any streets, my vagina's country." Is that so bad to say?
Did anyone ever tell him what happens when you issue an order you know will not be obeyed? Did he really believe that three honors students, juniors who seems to be able to distinguish between a valid instruction and a petty tyranny, would really follow this instruction? They seem to have fully understood what they were doing when they did it. "The word vagina has been arbitrarily declared taboo, which it's not," student Megan Reback said. "It's a part of the body. We are women. We have vaginas."
Or, if he was so concerned about the subject material in the first place, why did he approve it? And since when did the word "vagina", become a word that is inappropriate, especially in the context that it is used in that play.
I understant that the Supreme Court has draw a clear distinction when it comes to student's freedom of speech, but is this really what was intended?
These girls are owed an apology and the principal is owed a time out of his own.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
It takes a special kind of person to get the true humor of this...
And I am just that kind of geek. So if you are, enjoy the mirth. (Hat tip to Brickmuppet)
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Which Princess Bride Character are You?
this quiz was made by mysti
| What House character are you? Gregory House (Dr. House) You are the head of your department.You are rude, cynical,and sarcastic. But it's all part of the charm! You don't trust or care about anybody you just do whats right no matter how wrong it seems. You often ignore your colluiges and impress them by creating a correct daignosis.  |
| Click Here to Take This Quiz Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests. |
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Last Monday's Trial
So last Monday, I took the case I was talking about when I was writing my appellate brief. The basics of the case were this: the landlord sought to evict the defendant based on his use of the premises for illegal purposes.
Was the defendant running a house of ill-repute? Using it to deal drugs? Using it to launder money?
Nope. Apparently, the landlord had sent over a repairman to deal with an issue on the premises. Even though no notice had been given to the tenant, the landlord allowed the repairman in to do the work. And saw a bong on a table in the apartment. No pot was seen being smoked. No plants were being cultivated. No drug deals were going down. There was a bong sitting on a table.
After miraculously mentioning this to the landlord, the landlord promptly served a three day notice to quit.
Now it needs to be mentioned that the defendant had previously fallen behind in the rent a few months earlier and was still paying it off. When the landlord served the notice, my client, without telling anyone, withheld the payment under the theory that the landlord had breached the agreement. So the landlord's attorney promptly went to court on the agreement from the previous case and got a judgment against the defendant for possession (meaning the sherriff would put the defendant on the schedule be evicted).
Now, while this was going on, the landlord filed another suit against the defendant to evict him. Both sides went through the motions of filing complaints and answers. Showing up for the settlement conferences and then for trial.
So I arrive on the scene. Litigation bag full of jury instructions, motions in limine, and even an idea of what to do with the case. The opposing counsel in this case is a woman I have dealt with on a few other occasions. To say that she is difficult to deal with under the best of circumstances is like saying the Pope is Catholic. The presiding judge, being short of courtrooms, sent us out into the hallway to try and work something out.
The conversations went something like this:
Me: So is there any deal to be offered?
Opposing Counsel: Well... we've already got the Sheriff on schedule to evict him next Wednesday. Does your client really want another eviction on his record for pot?
Me: This is San Francisco, given the choice between a judgment for smoking pot and a judgment for not paying rent, which do you think a landlord is going to care about?
OC: Well... the pot of course
Me: [silent, looking at the opposing counsel with the look one gives a child thinks that they are going to get to stay up late just because they are cute]
OC: Maybe your right.
Me: [giving that nod that says "You're an idiot I just don't want to say it"] Besides, isn't it a little early to have the sheriff scheduled?
OC: Well, we decided to seek judgment on the old case for violating his lease.
Me: So then why are we here?
OC: What do you mean?
Me: You already have possession of the property. The only thing an unlawful detainer concerns is possession. You haven't asked for any money damages. You haven't asked for any per diem past the three day notice. The only thing you have asked for is attorney fees.
OC: Well... we... I...
Me: Personally, this looks like you are running your clients bill. Now, I'm not saying that yet, but if there is nothing else that you are seeking, I cannot possibly see another reason why you would have told your client to file the case.
OC: I....well....
Me: So why are we here?
OC: Maybe I should dismiss this case....
Me: You do what you gotta do, but if its anything other than dismissal, I will oppose it.
OC: You can't win. He broke the law...
Me: Maybe not, but I can tie this up for so long, your client is not going to be happy with the bill. And you won't ever collect off this guy, and you know that.
OC: Maybe I should dismiss it.
Me: [Looking at her with my look that says "make a decision, I haven't slept in three days."]
OC: I'm going to dismiss the case.
So she dismissed the case a few minutes later. In retrospect, I should have let her force this case to a trial. Based on the fact that they had a judgment already for the property, I simply could not lose the case since a part of prima facie burden of the plaintiff is that possession has to be in dispute. The judgment would have been evidence that it wasn't, especially in light of the sheriff having scheduled the property for eviction already. On the other hand, it was a lot of fun beating up on her hallway.
Oh well. That makes 36 cases taken to the brink of a jury trial. I have yet to get one to a jury. Maybe 37'll be different.
Was the defendant running a house of ill-repute? Using it to deal drugs? Using it to launder money?
Nope. Apparently, the landlord had sent over a repairman to deal with an issue on the premises. Even though no notice had been given to the tenant, the landlord allowed the repairman in to do the work. And saw a bong on a table in the apartment. No pot was seen being smoked. No plants were being cultivated. No drug deals were going down. There was a bong sitting on a table.
After miraculously mentioning this to the landlord, the landlord promptly served a three day notice to quit.
Now it needs to be mentioned that the defendant had previously fallen behind in the rent a few months earlier and was still paying it off. When the landlord served the notice, my client, without telling anyone, withheld the payment under the theory that the landlord had breached the agreement. So the landlord's attorney promptly went to court on the agreement from the previous case and got a judgment against the defendant for possession (meaning the sherriff would put the defendant on the schedule be evicted).
Now, while this was going on, the landlord filed another suit against the defendant to evict him. Both sides went through the motions of filing complaints and answers. Showing up for the settlement conferences and then for trial.
So I arrive on the scene. Litigation bag full of jury instructions, motions in limine, and even an idea of what to do with the case. The opposing counsel in this case is a woman I have dealt with on a few other occasions. To say that she is difficult to deal with under the best of circumstances is like saying the Pope is Catholic. The presiding judge, being short of courtrooms, sent us out into the hallway to try and work something out.
The conversations went something like this:
Me: So is there any deal to be offered?
Opposing Counsel: Well... we've already got the Sheriff on schedule to evict him next Wednesday. Does your client really want another eviction on his record for pot?
Me: This is San Francisco, given the choice between a judgment for smoking pot and a judgment for not paying rent, which do you think a landlord is going to care about?
OC: Well... the pot of course
Me: [silent, looking at the opposing counsel with the look one gives a child thinks that they are going to get to stay up late just because they are cute]
OC: Maybe your right.
Me: [giving that nod that says "You're an idiot I just don't want to say it"] Besides, isn't it a little early to have the sheriff scheduled?
OC: Well, we decided to seek judgment on the old case for violating his lease.
Me: So then why are we here?
OC: What do you mean?
Me: You already have possession of the property. The only thing an unlawful detainer concerns is possession. You haven't asked for any money damages. You haven't asked for any per diem past the three day notice. The only thing you have asked for is attorney fees.
OC: Well... we... I...
Me: Personally, this looks like you are running your clients bill. Now, I'm not saying that yet, but if there is nothing else that you are seeking, I cannot possibly see another reason why you would have told your client to file the case.
OC: I....well....
Me: So why are we here?
OC: Maybe I should dismiss this case....
Me: You do what you gotta do, but if its anything other than dismissal, I will oppose it.
OC: You can't win. He broke the law...
Me: Maybe not, but I can tie this up for so long, your client is not going to be happy with the bill. And you won't ever collect off this guy, and you know that.
OC: Maybe I should dismiss it.
Me: [Looking at her with my look that says "make a decision, I haven't slept in three days."]
OC: I'm going to dismiss the case.
So she dismissed the case a few minutes later. In retrospect, I should have let her force this case to a trial. Based on the fact that they had a judgment already for the property, I simply could not lose the case since a part of prima facie burden of the plaintiff is that possession has to be in dispute. The judgment would have been evidence that it wasn't, especially in light of the sheriff having scheduled the property for eviction already. On the other hand, it was a lot of fun beating up on her hallway.
Oh well. That makes 36 cases taken to the brink of a jury trial. I have yet to get one to a jury. Maybe 37'll be different.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
What is going on here?
Another teacher has been arrested for having sex with her students. Another one. When did teachers suddenly become hot enough for a student to want to have sex with them?
Alright, that last bit was in bad taste, but seriously I am amazed that this has been happening so much. And its not men on women that are making the news. Its the women, the ones supposedly able to control their urges. But are they just the exception.
Anyways, the current sex ed teacher is Allenna Williams Ward. She's no Pamela Rogers, and that is probably not going to help her.
Alright, that last bit was in bad taste, but seriously I am amazed that this has been happening so much. And its not men on women that are making the news. Its the women, the ones supposedly able to control their urges. But are they just the exception.
Anyways, the current sex ed teacher is Allenna Williams Ward. She's no Pamela Rogers, and that is probably not going to help her.
This what they say I am ..
Personally, I'm surprised I'm that experienced. I know nothing about such things as guitar playing and automotive repair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
