Category: Legal Trends

NBA Lawsuits Are Filed.

The initial lawsuit was filed in Minneapolis. Minnesota’s Anthony Tolliver, Detroit’s Ben Gordon, free agent Caron Butler, and Derrick Williams, who was chosen by the Timberwolves with the second overall pick in the 2011 NBA Draft, were named as plaintiffs.

A second suit was filed in California. Plaintiffs include New York’s Carmelo Anthony and Chauncey Billups, Oklahoma City’s Kevin Durant, free agent Leon Powe and Kawhi Leonard, a rookie who was acquired by San Antonio during the 2011 draft.

David Boies, attorney for the players, said:

“If you’re in a poker game, and you run a bluff, and the bluff works, you’re a hero. If someone calls your bluff, you lose. I think the owners overplayed their hand,” Boies said. “They did a terrific job of taking a very hard line and pushing the players to make concession after concession after concession, but greed is not only a terrible thing — it’s a dangerous thing.”

This is worth watching. For many of these ballplayers one year salary is more than most Americans make in a lifetime. Both sides seem entrenched.

Nov 16, 2011 | 0 comments View Post

IRS — What Happened To The Concept of Mercy?

The IRS has now jumped into the fray of medical marijuana businesses — including dispensaries operating legally under the laws of their states. This had to be a decision that was approved by the White House, Treasury, and DOJ before its implementation.

The IRS is asserting that dispensaries cannot deduct ordinary business expenses like salaries, rent, and security costs. What other business is treated this way. Can you imagine the hew and cry if Wall street banks, big business, or the oil companies couldn’t deduct salaries? Congress and the IRS allow Wall Street to deduct salaries that for a few individuals that exceed tens of millions of dollars, and oil companies continue to deduct their sacred oil depletion allowances, but a small business that provides medicine to cancer patients and individuals suffering from debilitating pain are targeted by the IRS. The federal government recognizes that these dispensaries are legal under state law, so they’ve decided to close these legal businesses by using taxes to shut them down. At one point the Obama administration promised to leave these legal businesses and patients alone, but now that the election year is upon us, they have apparently decided to use the awesome power of the IRS to tax millions of Americans until they submit to their will.

The IRS ruling is based on an obscure portion of the tax code — section 280E — passed into law by Congress in 1982, at the height of Reagan administration’s “war on drugs.” The law, originally targeted at drug kingpins and cartels, bans any tax deductions related to “trafficking in controlled substances.” For years the IRS has not enforced this section against medical dispensaries until this administration decided getting aggressive against the critically ill was a politically popular strategy.

Is any other business taxed on gross revenue? No. The dispensaries say it will drive them out of business. I’m sure it will. It’s also counter-productive as it will drive patients back to the black market, which is what one would think the Government wants to avoid. Hasn’t anyone in the White House watched the PBS special on prohibition? Dispensaries pay taxes, and if they go out of business, the feds and state won’t get that money. The money will once again go underground and fund illegal activities. The people who are hurt the worst are, of course, the patients who need the medicine to prevent wasting and to alleviate chronic pain. Once again its the people who have no voice in Washington, DC who will suffer, while the big boys with lobbyists and campaign dollars who write the tax code.

Oct 06, 2011 | 0 comments View Post

Someone Will To Explain I Can’t

From my friend Jeralyn Merritt at Talk left.com

Last night, the Senate confirmed six U.S. Attorneys, five of whom were the preference of Republicans. Traditionally, nominations for U.S. Attorneys are presented to the President by the senators of the district. If the district’s senators are not in the President’s party, representatives from the House who are in the same party are consulted.
President Obama. however, has chosen to ignore tradition and nominate U.S. Attorneys preferred by Republican senators, against the advice of House Democrats.
All four U.S. Attorney nominees in Texas were recommended by Republican Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. In Utah, Obama chose the nominee presented by Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee. Obama disregarded the recommendations of Reps. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Yesterday, the Senate confirmed six U.S. Attorneys, including the five recommended by Republicans. They are:
• Robert Lee Pitman for the Western District of Texas;,
• Sarah Ruth Saldaña for the Northern District of Texas;
• John M. Bales for the Eastern District of Texas;
• Kenneth Magidson for the Southern District of Texas;
• David Barlow for the District of Utah; and
• S. Amanda Marshall for the District of Oregon
Only S. Amanda Marshall was a Democratic pick.

U.S. Attorneys have immense power and can decide to use the criminal justice system for political purposes. Ask John Edwards for one. Has Obama forgotten what prosecutors did to Clinton in his second term? I’m sure that all these individuals are fine people, but one has to wonder about why the President changed precident. I pray that this action doesn’t end up biting good people.

Sep 28, 2011 | 0 comments View Post

Too Many Secrets

By Webb Hubbell

Remember the Robert Redford movie — “Sneakers,” the scrabble game, and “too many secrets.” Well let’s follow the Department of Justice and its response to an inquiry by two senators about our privacy.

U.S. Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden have written this letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, accusing the Justice department of “making misleading statements about the legal justification of secret domestic surveillance activities that the government is apparently carrying out under the Patriot Act.”

The senators contend that the government has also interpreted a provision of the Act, based on rulings by the secret national security court, as allowing some “other kind” of activity that allows the government to obtain private information about people who have no link to a terrorism or espionage.

The Senators want DOJ to release the legal interpretations they are relying on to enforce the provision. Seems like a reasonable request wouldn’t you think? — They say:

“In our judgment, when the legal interpretations of public statutes that are kept secret from the American public, the government is effectively relying on secret law,” they wrote.

DOJ says, “the law isn’t secret, and therefore it’s okay to have secret interpretations.”

In other words our government says as long as a law is public, it’s okay for a secret court and the government to interpret that law in secret. To take that further, we can have a law that says you may not spy on an American citizen in this country without probable cause that your about to commit a serious crime and a Court order. The Justice department can with the advice and consent of a secret court interpret probable cause to mean — you jaywalked last year as probable cause to tap your phone, hack your personal computer, and tail you on your vacation.

DOJ takes the position that if a secret court makes this secret interpretation of the law, then their free to rely on this interpretation, and even the Senate who has constitutional oversight over the Executive and Judicial branch has no right to even know such an interpretation exists. Big Brother is watching my friends.

The Senators say secret interpretations of public laws render the laws secret. I agree.

Sep 22, 2011 | 0 comments View Post

Where’s The Outrage?

By Webb Hubbell

The FBI annual crime report is out. There were 1.6 million drug arrests last year. 82% were for possession only. Of those charged with marijuana law violations, 750,591 (88 percent) were arrested for marijuana offenses involving possession only. That means three/quarter of a million human lives were destroyed for doing exactly what every President of the United States in the last 30 years has done — smoke a joint.

The only difference is the former and current Presidents didn’t get caught, otherwise their free to be President, vote, have a job, and raise children and everything else guaranteed them by our Constitution. Their counterparts who got caught face not only arrest, jail and imprisonment, but also restrictions on their right to hold public office, vote, have a job, and even raise a family.

In this time of budget crisis where all we hear is cutting funds for education, infrastructure and health care we spend at least half of our nation’s criminal justice budget to accomplish what — destroy 750,000 peoples lives for smoking a joint, many who do it regardless of the law because it eases pain, eliminates wasting in cancer patients, and heals. Who knows what else it could do for our nation’s health if we started testing its medicinal qualities rather spending billions annually to tell the country how bad it is for you. Why don’t we take the budget for the ONDCP and give that money to marijuana research? Meanwhile the tobacco and alcohol lobbys keep their drugs legal and provide billions in taxes to maintain our government.

Where is the outrage, when we see year after year, close to a million lives destroyed because we don’t have the same courage previous politicians did to end prohibition of alcohol? Where is the outrage when we see the hypocracy of our politicians who admit “youthful indiscretions” yet support a system that criminalizes the very activity they engaged in, but skirted the consequences they now support? Where are our criminal justice leaders, who say they need more money to fight crime like murder, rape, and terrorism when they devote most of their time busting people for possession of a bag of grass?

There is a movement out there to stop this outrage. Go to www.norml.org and sign up. But also when you see these numbers don’t just shake your head and say, “it isn’t going to happen.” Show your outrage to those who say we don’t have money to fix your pothole, educate your child, or care for your parents rising healthcare costs. Tell them to stop the third war we lost a long time ago — not Iraq, not Afganistan. Although that be nice, but the military-industrial complex will not let that happen. Instead at least stop the war on our own citizens — The War on Drugs. The War that’s been going on for over thirty years and five Presidents and has destroyed not thousands but millions if not tens of millions of lives. Show your outrage the next victim will be somebody you know — your fellow man, your neighbor, and a member of your extended family.

Sep 20, 2011 | 0 comments View Post

Patent Reform — Who Benefits

By Webb Hubbell.

On our site a month ago we gave you a heads up on the new Patent reform bill. It described in detail how the law fundamentaly changes our patent system. It is now the law of the land and who benefits I hazard a guess. It will be those who paid the lobbyist to influence the passage of the act, and that will not be “the tinker in the garage” who comes up with an energy efficient engine. But time will tell.

President Obama recently signed into law the America Invents Act, a patent reform legislation that does away with the old “first to invent” rule. What does the patent reform mean it means
most notably, the new legislation pushes Americans toward a “first to file” system, meaning that those who file for a patent first will get awarded the rights

The new law aims to simplify the patent registration process, and in turn aid entrepreneurs and encourage innovation. Patent filers are often met with legal obstacles. And, the “first to invent” rule was fuzzy enough to invite litigation. Under the old rules, patents could be awarded to those who were “first to invent” the product. Meaning these first inventors could be awarded patent rights even if they never filed for a patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. And, these first inventors could also take patent filers to court in an effort to gain rights, reports Entrepreneur.

Businesses filing for patents in the past could get blindsided by a lawsuit that alleged someone else was actually the first inventor. With the America Invents Act, these lawsuits would be a thing of the past.

The trouble is, now individuals and businesses will need to be very cognizant of filing patents quickly. The “first to file” system lives up to its moniker. File first, or you may not be getting a patent.

And, the America Invents Act does not completely close the door to patent challenges. The new legislation creates a post-grant review process that gives the inspecting Patent Officer an additional opportunity to inspect the grant, which could push patent costs higher, according to Entrepreneur.

Like most laws it may have good intentions, but who has lawyers on staff to be first to file, who has lawyers to fight challenges, and who has spent millions on lobbyists making sure that every “i” and ‘t” is dotted and crossed to benefit their clients — the drug companies, the major U.S. Corporations, and the wealthy. We have heard no screams or campaigns from them to slow down or halt this legislation, that usually is a sign that the “single man with an idea” is about to find himself on the outside looking in the world of patents. Time will tell.

Here’s a final question — How many U.S. Senators, Congressmen actually read the bill they just approved and understand what it means?

Sep 19, 2011 | 0 comments View Post

What Happened To Freedom Of Expression — Gone the Way of Sagging Pants

by Webb Hubbell

While most of us believe our children’s education continues to erode due to financial neglect and lack of attention and inovation, Florida has attacked the real culprit — sagging pants and exposed stomachs. Now the second state to prohibit the underwear-baring style, Florida’s saggy pants ban went into effect this past week as students headed back for the 2011-12 school year.

To commemorate the new law, State Senator Gary Siplin of Orlando visited a number of local high schools, handing out hundreds of belts to students showing it all. He’s been pushing for a state-wide saggy pants ban for the past six years. I guess belts are more important than providing school lunches in Florida. “Let them eat leather.”

Attitudes towards saggy pants may explain why Siplin was finally able to succeed, as there appears to be a trend of such bans across the southern United States.A number of cities have criminalized the style, with school districts getting in on the action as well.

Though Siplin first sought criminal sanctions, the Florida saggy pants ban imposes punishments typical of school dress code violations. The harshest punishment, saved for repeat offenders, is 3 days of in-school suspension and a 30 day extracurricular suspension, reports Reuters. Wait until a star running back get’s suspended because of his sagging pants. I wonder if the ban applies to basketball shorts?

And lest you think the ban is directed only at men, the new rules apply to female students exposing their stomachs. Even though some will appreciate the new dress code, the American Civil Liberties Union and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People believe the new rules target minority students. I suspect a lot of cheerleading and pep squad outfits are going to need redesigning, as well as Girl’s volleyball uniforms.

Though they have yet to announce any plan to sue, it would be very difficult to challenge the Florida saggy pants ban. States have historically been given significant discretion in the area of school clothing, particularly when a restriction applies to all students.

So what’s next — criminalizing poverty? Making it a crime to paint a female stomach or a man’s backside. I never figured out how the guys who liked saggy pants held them up, but I don’t think I want a kid sent to jail if his pants slip down. If a school wants to implement a dress code that’s fine, but provide the funds to make sure that everyone can comply, and don’t criminilize expression.

Sep 02, 2011 | 0 comments View Post

New Rules For Businesses Accepting Credit Cards

The IRS has implemented new compliance requirements through Internal Revenue Code Section 6050W that will affect all merchants (including government and non-profit entities). Beginning in calendar year 2011, all merchants will be required to report gross payments received through debit or credit card transactions to the IRS on an annual basis. To verify this reporting, banks and merchant service providers will be required to provide both merchants and the IRS with Form 1099-K by January of 2012.

Sep 02, 2011 | 0 comments View Post

Left Hand Sues Right Hand

By Webb Hubbell

The NY Times and most all other papers report that the federal agency that oversees the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is set to file suits against more than a dozen big banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgage securities they assembled and sold at the height of the housing bubble, and seeking billions of dollars in compensation. Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing in DC.? I’m not going to comment on the merit or lack of merit of the suits, that’s not the point. Nor am I going to harp on lawyers and politicians who feel the need to give the press a heads up on what they’re doing so they can control the story. No my question is why when this country is on its economic ass is an agency of our government introducing further uncertainty into the market by floating a story like this and then filing a suit putting the financial health of our biggest banks at risk. What happened to private negotiations? What’s the best/worst that’s going to happen out of all this is one financial agency will get a large billion dollar settlement and then another federal agency will have to prop up the financial institutions again. No one wins but the lawyers, accountants, and consultants. At some point this game of financial musical chairs has to stop, because the music will, all we will hear is the moaning of the unemployed whose ability to work has been destroyed. Can’t we stop pointing fingers?

I am reminded of my childhood and my grandmother saying, “ If you point a finger at someone then three fingers are pointing at you.” In the times of King David the pointing of a finger was a sign of contempt. In modern politics, “finger pointing” has become an art form. Someone else is always at fault and the cause of our problems or disaster. I listened recently to a pro athlete who attributed his success to finally realizing that he needed to just do his job and quit pointing fingers at his teammates. He had realized that he was part of a unit that needed and depended on each other. Pointing fingers not only showed a lack of respect for the recipient, but for the team as a whole and the accuser, as well. I think of Congress always blaming the other party or another member for the failure to address critical issues. Yet, their finger pointing brings dishonor to the institution more so than to their opponents. Now the supervising Federal Agency has decided that instead of fixing its own house it will point their fingers at someone else.

I am also disappointed that an Administration that began with such promise, cannot take the bull by the horns and say we are going to work at fixing our problems, not by blaming anyone, there is plenty of that to go along. The blame game ends as far as our administration goes, and we are going to work every day and night putting our country to work. It’s that simple, but that doesn’t feed the litigation machine that is eating the common man literally out of house and home.

PS: Congratulations Mayor Bloomberg. You are right to accept your aides resignation in the manner you did, and not kick a man when he’s down. Good for you.

Sep 02, 2011 | 0 comments View Post

Best Coverage of Strauss Kahn Case

The best source for what really happened in the Dominique Strauss-Khan case is found at www.talkleft.com by Jeralyn Merritt

Aug 23, 2011 | 0 comments View Post

America Invents Act — Who does it Protect?

EDITORIAL NOTE – This post is written Philip Furgang, a noted New York patent law practitioner. Philip is the author of the forthcoming book, “Patent Prosecution” (Oxford University Press.) The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the creator of this site.It is here to promote thought, discussion, and research rather than just trust our representatives to protect our interests.

The future of America lies in its ability to be creative — to “out think” the rest of the world. Come up with a great idea and you can become rich. You can build a business that will create many jobs. And there is a system in place to protect inventors, the patent system. Think of those who have done it: Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, the Wright Brothers, and many, many more. That system, the system which made it all possible for the US to lead the world, a system in place since 1789, the system is about to be changed to discourage creativity, and to hobble the independent inventor. Large corporations have mounted a large lobbying campaign, spending huge sums of money, to get the so-called “America Invents Act” through Congress. They must be stopped. [More . . ]

Zach Carter observed in the Huffington Post:

Today, the patent bill looks like a scorecard tallying points for powerful corporations: a win for pharmaceutical companies whose monopolies are driving up Medicare costs; a win for Wall Street’s battle against check-processing patents . . . .
Left out of the tally is the public, even as the economic landscape for American families grows darker. Historian Richard Hofstadter famously observed that Congress during the Gilded Age busied itself with dividing the nation’s spoils among the rich and powerful. But as the current patent struggle suggests, the spoilsmen are back and Washington is once again an arbiter of who lands the lucre.

Here is just part of what the so-called “American Invents Act” will do if it becomes law and what you can do to stop it.

What the Proposed Bill Does:

Imagine this: you have a dispute with a large corporation and decide to sue. Then you find out that the winner of the law suit will be decided by, of all things, a race. Whoever wins the race to the courthouse steps wins the law suit. Sound ridiculous and farfetched. Think again.
Under the present system, the one who invents first gets the patent. What this means is that an inventor can’t be stopped because a huge corporation can beat the inventor to the door of the Patent Office. Under the so-called “reform” it will be whoever wins the race to the steps of the Patent Office will get the patent!

The repercussions are much broader than the obviously dishonest idea of giving a patent to someone who wins a race to the door of the Patent Office. To develop inventions takes time, effort, and money. By awarding patents to first inventors, the current system encourages development. Going to a first to file system, as called for in the proposed law, will discourage developments. More than that, it would increase the likelihood that patent applications would be defective because they would be filed too early in the development stage. But this is precisely the barrier to independent inventors that large corporations, who oppose startup competition, crave. Given such a situation, it would be no surprise that investors will be disinclined to support startups.

The current Patent Act encourages inventors by providing a grace period for filing a patent application. During this period small companies can go to the marketplace, seek financing, find manufacturing and marketing partners, or decide whether or not to file a patent application.
Under the proposed act, the grace period would be eliminated. Go out and promote your invention and you lose the right to file. This means that small businesses will have to file first and then find out if they should commercialize an invention afterwards. The proposed act would cause small businesses to incur additional and unnecessary expense, and thereby discourage innovation, development and job creation.

Under the present system, if a new method of doing business (say, a great way of delivering music on the Internet) is created, it can be patented.

The new act, if it passes, eliminates business method patents. There is not a single other industry that has a special patent provision to protect it, not one.

The present law gives competitors the right to have the Patent Office review an issued patent. The proposed law would give competitors more weapons to have patents reviewed and re-reviewed, in order to delay inventions and innovations and upwardly spiral an inventor’s costs. So to the cost of patenting an invention add the cost of defending it again and again and again. This ups the price and the risk for small companies and puts them into expensive (very expensive) litigation, litigation they might not want, may not be able to afford and may not be ready for. The mere existence of these procedures will be another way of closing out the small inventor and small businesses.

Under current law, a company must file a patent within one year of putting the invention into commercial use, whether or not the public is aware. The new act would changes the rules. A company will be able to use an invention in secret for years and then file a patent application years later. This undermines one of the major objectives of patent law – to bring the benefits of innovation to the public as quickly as possible. After all, the Constitution provides Congress the power to enact laws that “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

Today, it’s one patent for one invention. The new act permits the filing of multiple applications for the same invention. Issue multiple patents for the same invention and thereby create a legal thicket which will be used to block startups and competition.

This one’s a beaut. Today an inventor must disclose the best method of making the invention. Under the proposed act, a large company can keep the best method secret so long as they can show some other way of practicing the invention. The whole idea of the patent system is to require the inventor to provide for the public benefit the best way of making the invention so that when the patent ends, everyone can make the invention. Now, large businesses can hold the best methods and processes secret, thus the defeating the purpose of our patent system.

Aug 15, 2011 | 0 comments View Post

Sperm Donor Child Support: Is He Legally Liable?

By Cynthia Hsu on August 12, 2011 12:15 PM| No TrackBacks

Is a sperm donor the parent of your child? Well, biologically-speaking, he is. But, is he a “parent” in the sense that he is financially obligated to help you out? Several court cases say yes, forcing sperm donors to pay child support.

Concerned sperm donors should note that these cases are probably considered outside the norm.

The child support-paying sperm donors usually have a closer than normal relationship with the children and the family.

One case out of Pennsylvania concerned a man who donated sperm to a friend. Carl Frampton was close to the woman he donated his sperm to, and, he didn’t just donate sperm. He provided limited financial support and developed an interest in the children, reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The court eventually ordered child support.

Similarly, in New Mexico, a man was ordered to pay $250 a month in child support. Kevin Zoernig donated his sperm to a lesbian couple. The insemination was conducted informally, and Zoernig acted as the donor.

Zoernig, however, also did not just act as the donor. The children stay with him every other weekend during the school year and half of the time during summers, according to Fox News.

These cases seem to show that courts can order sperm donors to pay child support. On the other hand, it also appears like courts are only doing so when the donor has a higher-level relationship with the family or the children.

Many states have adopted codes, like the Uniform Parentage Act, which seems to specifically say that donors are not parents. Yet, it seems that courts often focus on the relationship between the sperm donor dad and the children when figuring out if there’s any legal responsibility.

For sperm donor parents, these new cases may seem troubling at first blush. As a sperm donor, child support is probably something that is not on one’s radar. But it seems that if you cross the line from being an anonymous, uncaring donor into the realm of a known, caring parent, you may incur child support liability.

Aug 15, 2011 | 0 comments View Post

FindLaw’s Top Five Supreme Court cases for 2010-2011

By Webb Hubbell

Supreme Court scholar’s all have their lists of this Supreme Court term’s most significant cases. Here is FindLaw’s top five, their comments, and some personal comments. What are your thoughts?

1.Snyder v. Phelps. When protestors appear waiving anti-gay signs that say, “God hates you” and “You’re going to hell” at a military funeral, free speech becomes decidedly harder to defend. In March, the Supreme Court held that the Westboro Baptist Church’s peaceful protest outside a military funeral was shielded from tort liability under the First Amendment. The Court noted that the group protests military funerals because their church is anti-homosexual, believes that America is pro-homosexual, and faults military servicemen for protecting the U.S. and its pro-homosexual agenda. Chief Justice Roberts observed, “Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro.” When does free speech ever cross the line to shouting “fire’ in a crowded theatre?

2.Wal-Mart v. Dukes. Can 1.5 million WalMart employees be wrong? Perhaps not, but the Supreme Court can still refuse to allow their sex-discrimination class action lawsuit to proceed.(As a class action). Female employees brought the suit alleging that local managers disproportionately favor male employees in pay and promotions decisions. The sticking point for SCOTUS was the fact that the female employees across the 3,400 retail stores nationwide lacked the requisite commonality in claims to bring a class action lawsuit. We will see many attacks on class actions after this decision with different standards for commanality.

3.Kentucky v. King. Police do not need a warrant to enter a house if they hear sounds “consistent with the destruction of evidence.” The limitation? “The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not gain entry to premises by means of an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment.” The 4th Amendment continues to be under siege by law enforcement bent on breaking down doors.

4.Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. The Supreme Court struck down a California law that restricted the sale of violent video games to minors, noting that parents, not government should restrict which games children buy. Justice Scalia wrote that there was no culture in the United States of restricting children’s access to depictions of violence. On the contrary, Scalia said society has enabled children’s access to violence for years. “Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed. …. Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven.” Government stepping into a parent’s role recieves a setback or a needed slap on the wrist depending on your point of view.

5.PLIVA Inc. v. Mensing. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that generic drug manufacturers cannot be sued on a failure to warn theory. This is an odd decision because the Court ruled two years ago that brand-name drug manufacturers could be sued under the same theory. It’s like deciding that the student who copies his friend’s test answers cannot be held accountable for incorrect responses. FindLaw obviously has trouble with this decision. Who reads the warnings that are in fine print?

Again, what are your most important?

Aug 09, 2011 | 0 comments View Post

One man digging through the rubble of the World Trade Center found what he considered a symbol of hope – a cross. The twisted steel beams, now familiar as the 9/11 cross, is now considered by many as a symbol of hope and faith after the tragedy struck the towers.

But, a group, the American Atheists, have filed a lawsuit to stop the cross, now familiar as the “World Trade Cross,” from being displayed in an exhibit in the National September 11th Memorial and Museum, according to ABC News.

American Atheist say that the cross would promote Christianity over other religions, which would infringe upon the rights of non-Christians, reports ABC News.

American Atheists are not the first group to try to stop government from promoting or being involved in religious activities. Recently, Texas Governor Rick Perry was sued by the Freedom from Religion Foundation for participating in a prayer rally, and President Obama was sued over the National Day of Prayer.Recent lawsuits have focused on the placing of crosses on the side of the road where people have died in accidents.

The lawsuits are generally over the issue of whether or not the government is establishing or promoting one religion over another, which would be a violation of the establishment clause in the U.S. Constitution.

By including the cross in the September 11th Museum, would there be a promotion of Christianity over other religions? According to the 9/11 Memorial Foundation, other religious items will be placed in the museum, along with the cross. A Jewish Star of David cut from the WTC steel and a Jewish shawl will also be included, according to ABC News.

American Atheists say that if the World Trade Center Cross is joined by religious memorials that would be equal in size and in prominence in the museum for all other beliefs, they would drop the lawsuit. What they mean by ‘all other beliefs” is yet to be determined.

Comment here on your reaction.

Aug 05, 2011 | 2 comments View Post

Follow-Up on Clemons’ Mistrial

The transcript of the portion of the trial that lead to the mistrial is out. Again Jeralyn Merritt nails what happened and why to the wall. Go to www.talkleft.com.

Jul 16, 2011 | 0 comments View Post
Next Page »