-
SoCal Law Blog: Podcasts
A fellow member of the California Bear Flag League, the Southern California Law Blog has begun Podcasts on his blog.
SoCal Law Blog’s First Podcast is here featuring:
- Background on the successful lawsuit removing Proposition 77 from the November 2005 election.
- An update on the post-conviction developments for Alejandro Avila and Gregory Haidl.
- A report on Bell v. Blue Cross of California, a California Court of Appeal decision allowing an E.R. physician to lead a class action lawsuit against Blue Cross of California to challenge the manner in which Blue Cross reimburses E.R. physicians who have no contract with Blue Cross.
- A report on a new gadget, the Slingbox. The Slingbox is the next evolution in tv watching following VCRs and DVRs. It will be met with the same litigation tactics that big Hollywood attempted to use against VCRs and, more successfuly, Grokster.
Flap recommends you head over there and listen.
You will be glad you did.
-
Tom McClintock on Eminent Domain
Tom McClintock has a piece at his blog to announce the introduction of SCA 15 and ACA 22 to restore the original property rights protections of the American Bill of Rights that were ripped out of the Constitution by the Kelo decision of the U.S. Supreme Court two weeks ago.
The Pacific Legal Foundation has been helping Tom as well as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Tom has Flap’s endorsement for Lt. Governor and for Governor if the Governator gets too squishy!
Technorati Tags: Tom McClintock, Pacific Legal Foundation, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
-
Tom McClintock: Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al.
California State Senator, Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, reacted to yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling yesterday on Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al., “the Supreme Court “broke the social compact by striking down one of Americans’ most fundamental rights.”
“Their decision nullifies the Constitution’s Public Use Clause and opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain,” he said. “The responsibility now falls on the various states to reassert and restore the property rights of their citizens.”
McClintock announced he plans to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights.
“This amendment will require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property,” he said. “In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor, if the government ceases to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action.”
The blogosphere is aghast at this outrageous and asinine decision.
McClintock is right on the issue, his constitutional amendment will have wide support but what we need is a federal constitutional amendment and new justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Update #1
The blogosphere is abuzz a day after the decision.
Michelle Malkin has a good piece: HOME MATTERS: THE DAY AFTER
<
The (right side of the) blogosphere’s response to yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling on Kelo v. New London has been stunning. And heartening. Eminent domain isn’t usually the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks “blogswarm.” But the fierce reaction to the decision shows that core economic liberty issues can still unite disparate factions of the right (South Park cons, neocons, Schiavo-cons, whatever-cons) who have been fretting about a conservative crack-up.
My wonk-ish hope is that more attention will be paid to bogus community redevelopment/urban blight eradication/tax increment-financing schemes masquerading as “public use” projects. In the New London case, the private corporate beneficiary was Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant. In Seattle, it was Nordstrom (reg reqd). Across the country, it’s money-losing multiplexes and luxury stadium deals. In all cases, the losers are taxpayers, homeowners, and small businesses.
N.Z. Bear has created a Kelo topic page to track blog posts related to the ruling.
The Wall Street Journal weighs in on the Supreme Court’s reverse Robin Hoods.
The Kelo Topic Page by NZ Bear is espeically noteworthy (in fact to be mentioned twice).
-
Oral Surgeon Moron: Pot Bellied Pig
And to think this dentist moron, Robert Woo, thought this was appropriate?
According to court documents, Woo, who practices oral surgery in Auburn, liked to joke with a longtime assistant about her pet pig Walter. The assistant adored Walter, and potbellied pigs in general, even going so far as to rescue unwanted pigs and adopt them out to new owners.
Woo, however, was not so enamored and sometimes joked with her about barbecuing Walter. Once, he had his photo taken with some pigs strung up in a shop window and made a point of showing her. Another time, after a hunting trip, he brought in a photo of himself alongside a dead boar.
Woo later said he’d never kill Walter and that the photos were just playful teasing. His lawyer said Woo ran his office more like a family than a dental practice, and that he and the staff, most of whom were longtime employees, were close.
Given that closeness, Woo said he decided to take the boar joke another step in the summer of 1999, when the assistant needed a dental procedure, according to court records. In addition to the temporary replacement teeth, which were ordered two weeks in advance, he also ordered an additional set of teeth made in the shape of tiny boar’s tusks, the kind that curl up at the end.
In court documents, he said he planned to present the assistant with the tusks as a gag gift. But when she decided at the last minute to have full anesthesia, he came up with another plan.
While she was unconscious, he inserted the fake teeth. Other assistants came into the room to help Woo take photos. The photos show the patient and the teeth, with her eyes and mouth propped open by various sets of hands and dental instruments.
Her lawyer later called it a “grotesque and/or ugly piglike state.”
After the patient saw the photos, she broke down crying, left the office and never came back. Unbeknownst to Woo, she had been sexually assaulted as a teen. The boar’s-teeth incident was a different sort of violation, but it brought forth memories of the sexual assault and spurred a case of post-traumatic stress disorder, according to a psychologist’s report in the court file.
And then the MORON sues the insurance company for his poor judgment.
On Monday, the state Court of Appeals ruled that an insurance company had no obligation to defend dentist Robert Woo, whose idea of a practical joke was to photograph the set of teeth in the mouth of the anesthetized patient. The ruling overturns a jury verdict of $750,000 — in favor of the dentist — but leaves intact a $250,000 settlement with the patient.
Flap thinks the good dentist should have cut his losses the first time…. and stop trying to be funny!
YOU AREN’T!
What a moron!
-
EFF: Legal Guide for Bloggers
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has prepared a Legal Guide for Bloggers:
Whether you’re a newly minted blogger or a relative old-timer, you’ve been seeing more and more stories pop up every day about bloggers getting in trouble for what they post.
Like all journalists and publishers, bloggers sometimes publish information that other people don’t want published. You might, for example, publish something that someone considers defamatory, republish an AP news story that’s under copyright, or write a lengthy piece detailing the alleged crimes of a candidate for public office.
The difference between you and the reporter at your local newspaper is that in many cases, you may not have the benefit of training or resources to help you determine whether what you’re doing is legal. And on top of that, sometimes knowing the law doesn’t help – in many cases it was written for traditional journalists, and the courts haven’t yet decided how it applies to bloggers.
But here’s the important part: None of this should stop you from blogging. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy, and Internet bullies shouldn’t use the law to stifle legitimate free expression. That’s why EFF created this guide, compiling a number of FAQs designed to help you understand your rights and, if necessary, defend your freedom.
To be clear, this guide isn’t a substitute for, nor does it constitute, legal advice. Only an attorney who knows the details of your particular situation can provide the kind of advice you need if you’re being threatened with a lawsuit. The goal here is to give you a basic roadmap to the legal issues you may confront as a blogger, to let you know you have rights, and to encourage you to blog freely with the knowledge that your legitimate speech is protected.
This is a must read for all bloggers.
Thanks to Jeff at Southern California Law Blog for bring this to Flap’s attention.
Check out some of their links:
The Overview of Legal Liability Issues FAQ briefly addresses some common legal issues that affect you as a publisher, especially situations where you may face legal claims or threats based on the information you published on your blog.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Intellectual Property addresses issues that arise when you publish material created by others on your blog.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Online Defamation Law provides an overview of defamation (libel) law, including a discussion of the constitutional and statutory privileges that may protect you.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Section 230 Protections discusses a powerful federal law that gives you, as a web host, protection against legal claims arising from hosting information written by third parties.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Privacy addresses the legal issues surrounding the privacy rights of people you blog about.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on the Reporter’s Privilege is useful to bloggers who report news gathered from confidential sources.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Media Access can help bloggers who need to get access to public records and government meetings, as well as secure press passes to help with newsgathering.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Election Law addresses the legal issues you may face blogging about political campaigns.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Labor Law addresses legal issues with workplace blogging, including union organizing, protections for political blogging away from the workplace, and whistle blowing.
-
Apple v. Does: Confidential Sources in the Blogosphere
Flap previously posted (at my mirror and back-up Blog http://flapsblog.blogspot.com information regarding this case and the assault on the blogosphere:
Judge: Apple can pursue fan site sources and
Bloggers Speak up about the Apple Case
Now, Justene over at CalBlog reports:
Bloggers Likely to Win on Appeal
The Court of Appeals in California appears ready to overturn an order forcing bloggers to turn over confidential sources. Apple had alleged that the bloggers had published trade secrets. Apple argued and the trial court agreed that the allegation was enough to vitiate the bloggers’ rights under the First Amendment, the California Reporter’s Shield Law and other statutes. The trial court ordered the information produced and the matter was stayed pending the appeal.
While many rightly pointed out that the decision turned on the trade secret question, not the fact that it was bloggers in the crossfire, bloggers were concerned. The nature of the parties may have swayed the trial court to look more closely at the trade secret argument. Trade secrets are not new and there has never been a previous exception made to the protection of confidential sources for trade secrets. In addition, there was no guarantee that the appellate court would treat bloggers as the equivalent of journalists. Two groups of bloggers, the Bear Flag League and the specially-formed Online Journalists and Organizations, filed amicus briefs.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal issued an order indicating that it intended to overrule the lower court:
Respondent superior court is ordered to show cause before this court at a time and place to be specified by court order why a peremptory writ should not issue as requested in the petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition. Real party in interest may file a return in opposition to the writ on or before 7-5-05. Real party in interest may choose to treat its preliminary opposition as the written return. If real party in interest does not do so and instead files a written return.petitioner may reply to the return within 20 days after it is filed in this court. Any PARTY desiring oral argument shall so inform this court in writing on or before 7-5-05 by completing and returning to this court the attached “Request for Oral Argument”
While oral argument may change the Court of Appeal’s final decision, it is unlikely. The reasoning will be disclosed in the written opinion.
This is very good news.
Flap looks forward to the conclusion of this appeal and a published opinion.
Stay tuned!
-
Watch Sideshow Driving: Go to Jail?
Mayor Jerry Brown, former Calfironia Governor and current candidate for California Attorney General wants to criminalize being a spectactor. Read the story in the Los Angeles Times (free registration required) here:
Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown proposed tougher laws Friday to curb nightly displays of reckless driving called “sideshow” that have resulted in eight deaths and hundreds of arrests over the last year.
At a news conference, Brown said he had introduced a “spectator ordinance” that would criminalize sideshow attendance.
“If no one was watching, there wouldn’t be a sideshow,” he said. “We have to get the dangerous drivers — and the dangerous spectators who cheer on their violence and mayhem.”
The City Council is expected to consider the ordinance June 7. If it is adopted, convicted sideshow spectators could face a fine of $500 for a first offense. A third offense could result in a $1,000 fine or six months in jail.
Sideshow is a uniquely Oakland phenomenon — a chance for drivers, almost exclusively young men, to perform elaborate stunts in their cars, often with hip-hop music blaring from their stereos.
The events start out as late-night caravans of up to 100 cars that speed through major thoroughfares, picking up participants along the way.
From midnight to dawn, spectators gather at intersections to watch the exhibitions of driving maneuvers, such as spinning in circles while passengers — and sometimes drivers — hang out of open car doors.
“It’s a bizarre ritual that became a part of the night culture, and it’s hard to root out,” Brown said.
I wonder what the Moonbat Mayor Brown wants to outlaw next – in his era of limits?
At his request, the Alameda County district attorney’s office has begun imposing a special driving curfew on people convicted of sideshow-related crimes. Under its terms, those people are barred from driving city streets Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights.
The strategies are a response to mounting demands for more protection from residents of neighborhoods that sideshow activity has hit hard.
Flap smells a First Amendment abridgement here: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“Nothing is going to stop sideshow in Oakland; it’s a whole culture,” Zazaboi said. “Are these new laws going to stop it? No. Are they going to put a lot of people in jail? Yes.”
Most communities do not tolerate this type of stunt driving on city streets from 2-6 AM in the morning.
Earth to Moonbat Mayor Jerry, just have the police enforce the traffic laws, other California statutes and your local ordinances……DUH!
Watch a video showing the Sideshow Here.
-
Trademarks and the Internet
