Labels: dog, non sequitor, rain

Labels: Burma, Bush, flood, katrina, Myanmar, new orleans

Labels: colloquialism, crawfishing, louisiana, times picayune

This case is making the legal rounds. I wonder if Loyola can issue a restraining order against this guy from dropping their name.

Phipps: . . . so that’s about all I have to say, Your Honor. I don’t have anything other
than that. You know, my client lives in Chicago. We communicate occasionally
on the phone, she sent me the documents. And um, she’s a doctor. She
continues to earn a living, and she’s generally unavailable if you call her because
she, she’s sort of a traveling doctor.
Judge: That’s not much of thing you come in here and tell us, I guess.
Phipps: Well, my attitude is, the [district court] judge got it right . . . . And as far as
whether even Ricks should apply, I don’t think it should.
Judge: What do you do about Morgan?
Phipps: I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know Morgan, Your Honor.
Judge: You don’t know Morgan?
Phipps: Nope.
Judge: You haven’t read it?
Phipps: I try not to read that many cases, your Honor. Ricks is the only one I read. Oh,
Ledbetter, I read Ledbetter, and I read that one that they brought up last night.
I don’t know if that’s not Ledbetter, I can’t remember the name of it. Ricks is the
one that I go by; it’s my North star. Either it applies or it doesn’t apply. I don’t
think it applies.
Judge: I must say, Morgan is a case that is directly relevant to this case. And for you
representing the Plaintiff to get up here—it’s a Supreme Court case—and say
you haven’t read it. Where did they teach you that?
Phipps: They didn’t teach me much, Your Honor.
Judge: At Tulane, is it?
Phipps: Loyola.
Judge: Okay. Well, I must say, that may be an all time first.
Phipps: That’s why I wore a suit today, Your Honor.
Judge: Alright. We’ve got your attitude, anyway.

Labels: Attorney misconduct, Hartz v. Admin of Tulane, moron, Phipps

New Orleans' schools are on the rise in a very unorthodox manner.

Labels: charter schools, educating new orleans

Belittle the witnesses and prejudice the jury.

Ohio Supreme Court in Harris v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center
Plaintiff attorney Geoffrey Fieger to various defense experts: "Well, in all fairness, to you, nothing is a breach of the standard of care. That's why you're here, right? ... I guess you are in their Rolodex, right, for people that they need if one of their clients is getting sued and they need somebody to come up and say that the baby's injury happened way before the doctor committed malpractice?"
Fieger to the jury during closing arguments: "I am standing here as the voice of Walter. Walter is a baby in his mother's womb waiting to be born. Doctors, nurses, I'm suffocating. Please help me be born. ... Please, please nurses, I'm a little baby. I want to play baseball. I want to hug my mother. I want to tell her that I love her. Help me. Please help me to be born."

Labels: Attorney Malpractice, Attorney misconduct, Medical Malpractice, Stupid idiot plaintiffs attorney, Throw away $30 Million

So I have understood, if not always agreed with, Justice Scalia. He has always purported to be an originalist in the understanding and interpretation of the constitution. Fine. But today, what he said that was shocking and alarming was not the bit about being conservative yet unbiased, that's actually fine in context. Instead it was that the constitution is not a living document and is not open to any interpretation besides the Framers' intent. I can understand a limited originalist interpretation, but a complete and total 100% originalist interpretation is crippling.

The problem with that opinion as a Supreme Court Justice: Marbury v. Madison, the seminal Supreme Court case which acknowledged the authority of the court to review statutory constitutionality, was not the Framers' intent. In point of fact, it was an interpretation of the constitution which flowed logically from the enumerated powers, yet had no literal origin.

The concept of Marbury is that the court has authority to review statutory constitutionality in the first place. This seems obvious today, yet is itself a product of an interpretation of the constitution that is in violation of Scalia's interpretation. In other words his interpretation negates the Supreme Court's ability to review statutory constitutionality. You could say it's somewhat of an inherent flaw in his reasoning.

The court was able to get away with such a radical decision such as Marbury because the brand new president in power, Jefferson, wanted the result to be as it was decided by the court. The court took the popular approach because it could not have enforced the opposite decision, but in point of fact had no "originalist" authority to do so.

Just something to point out.

Labels: Originalist Interpretation, Scalia

Waiting for the plastic to come off the red carpet.

Labels: 2008, Bush, Calderon, Harper, NALS, new orleans

Chris Rose published a tribute to Ashley Morris. Thank you for remembering him.

Labels: Ashley Morris, Chris Rose, Tribute

The North American Leaders Summit will be meeting in New Orleans next Monday and Tuesday. They are apparently spending most of their time around Gallier Hall, which is conveniently all of 100' away from my building.

Labels: 2008, Bush, Calderon, Harper, NALS, new orleans, Wednesdayatthesquare

It's 2008, do you know if your representative is under indictment or subpoena to testify in a criminal trial?

Derrick Shepherd - Louisiana State Senate District 3.

William Jefferson - US House Representative, 2nd Congressional District.

David Vitter - US Senator, Louisiana.

addendum: Vitter is apparently off the hook to testify.

Labels: criminal trial, illegal, indictment, louisiana

Labels: flamingos, flocked, prank

Ashley Morris died yesterday, he was a great man. I will sorely miss his presence, as will many people.

Ray Ward has done a more fitting eulogy, as well as Oyster and Adrastos. Like Oyster, I'm not feeling the words which would be proper to describe such a man as Ashley.

Labels: Ashley Morris

Yet another study has been released extolling the health benefits of a daily intake of caffeine! This study has shown that caffeine intake strengthens the blood brain barrier and prevents the harmful effects of cholesterol from reaching the brain in lab rats. This prevention would lead to lowered cases of dementia and Alzheimers, as those two diseases are at higher risk of development with a "leaky" blood brain barrier.

Go drink some coffee!

Labels: alzheimers, an ode to coffee, caffeine, cup o' joe, dementia, health benefits, study released

Labels: Back to roots, coffee, new orleans, PJ's

The U.S. Supreme Court arguments yesterday in District of Columbia v. Heller seemed to be advocating the closest thing to an inalienable right for a private citizen to bear arms. The decision will likely not be out for weeks if not months, but based on what the Justices were saying, it looks like a 5-4 split in favor of Heller and against the handgun ban of Washington D.C. The larger impact of the decision on gun restrictions around the United States is an unknown, but it will likely prove to be a fertile starting point for gun control critics to challenge those laws.

Considering Washington D.C. shooting deaths have been in the top 5 for the last 20 years, every year, I would have to say the only thing the ban being challenged in Heller has been doing is keeping guns away from law-abiding citizens. Funny thing about criminals, they aren't really bothered all that much by laws. More importantly, the statistics on shooting deaths in D.C. have trended step for step with national rates, with D.C. in a constant lead. The cities it has trended with have had no handgun bans, showing zero effectiveness of the ban itself, and the only thing it guarantees is that a non-criminal victim will themself not possess a gun.

I think there are many sides to the issue of the second amendment, pro and con, but the ban on handguns fairly unequivocally did not accomplish anything.

Labels: Brady Campaign, SCOTUS, second amendment

Olive oil which says it is made in Italy may not in fact be made in Italy. We went on a guided tour of an Olive Estate a little less than a year ago and our guide told us about this back then. Apparently even when it's not illegal, such as above, it's still legal to process olive oil in Italy which was grown elsewhere and then label it "Made in Italy". As an absolutely delicious alternative to fooling with a fickle foreign market, try these people, we also went there and bought some olive oil that was out of this world good.

By-the-way, that's the estate where we went on our tour in Tuscany, above.

Labels: made in italy, olive oil, scam, St. Helena Olive Oil

Another slice of life showing just how bad caffeine junkies are hooked to the abnormally highly caffeineated Starbucks brew. Also note it's from 2004 and "oil just topped $50 a barrel!!!!"

Labels: caffeine, junkies, Starbucks

(For a larger version, click here)

Labels: baseball, Cold, scoring, SLU, Tulane Baseball

Nick's Bar is still on the way back.

I received word from the owner that he's in the actual process of rebuilding. However there appear to be hold-ups with a slow start by the architectural firm hired and the City of New Orleans, bastion of efficient bureaucracy, has become strict with the area in and around the proposed VA and Charity hospitals (scroll down to the map), which Nick's happens to be close to.

He informed me of a website he has up to detail the re-building: http://www.nicksbar.net/

The website will be updated as the bar is rebuilt, so check back every so often.

Labels: educating new orleans, nick's bar, recovery

If there is one thing settled in Louisiana, it's oyster cases. Yet today we read about this (credit, 2theadvocate.com):


By DAVID J. MITCHELL

Advocate Florida parishes bureau Published: Feb 16, 2008 - Page: 5B
LIVINGSTON — Relatives of a man who died two weeks after eating oysters at his 60th birthday dinner have sued the restaurant where he ate them and the state Department of Health and Hospitals, court records show.

James Sartwell’s family members claim Don’s Seafood Hut, of Denham Springs, was negligent in his death because the restaurant didn’t do enough to warn customers about the risks raw oysters pose to persons with underlying health conditions, records show.

The suit alleges DHH was negligent because it didn’t do enough to enforce regulations that require oyster warnings.

The Sartwells are seeking damages, attorney’s fees and other costs and have asked for a civil jury trial, records show. The suit was filed Feb. 1 in 21st Judicial District Court in Livingston Parish. The district encompasses Livingston, Tangipahoa and St. Helena parishes.
Sartwell, who had been diagnosed not long before his birthday with liver disease, died Oct. 15 from complications arising from oysters contaminated with Vibrio vulnificus, the suit claims.
The bacterium is found naturally in the Gulf of Mexico’s warm waters and is absorbed by filter-feeders, such as oysters.

Sartwell ate at Don’s Seafood Hut Oct. 1 and was admitted on Oct. 4 to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center, where he died, the suit claims.

Sartwell was diagnosed with septicemia, or a blood infection from the bacterium. His arms and legs became swollen and blistered. He had severe stomach pain and eventually multisystem organ failure, the suit alleges.

People with liver disease or illnesses that suppress the immune system are vulnerable to Vibrio vulnificus septicemia, which leads to death about 50 percent of the time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says.

Between 1998 and 2007, seven of the 11 reported Louisiana cases associated with Vibrio vulnificus-contaminated commercial oysters ended in death, said Lauren Mendes, DHH spokeswoman. Of the 11 cases, all but one involved persons with underlying health conditions, she said.

Mendes would not comment directly on the suit Friday, per department policy.
Scott Wilson, the Sartwells’ attorney, asserted Don’s Seafood Hut had a warning in fine print on the menu and on a sign at the oyster bar, but that they didn’t note the risk of serious illness or death.

The suit states that James Sartwell sat down in the dining area of Don’s Seafood Hut, away from the oyster bar, and didn’t look at the menu but ordered oysters. Sartwell ate oysters safely all his life, the suit alleges.

“Believe me, had he known (about the risk), he wouldn’t have done it,” Wilson said.
The suit also claims Don’s Seafood Hut was negligent for not pasteurizing oysters.
Mendes said DHH does not require pasteurization or any other kind of post-harvest treatment. She said the state Legislature rejected a bill to do that several years ago.
Don’s Seafood Hut of Denham Springs co-owner Eric Mulina declined comment Friday.

Labels: legal, louisiana, oyster lawsuit

Labels: lola, puppy, valentines day

Starbucks ditches T-Mobile pay-wireless internet scheme for AT&T free & paid internet use. This is the first smart thing Starbucks has done in years. The stupid T-Mobile pay service has been the straw on the f'n camel's back for years with me for Starbucks - that one agonizingly annoying thing that keeps me out of their stores.

I thought of it in these terms: allow your customers who are paying 400% profit on a coffee drink (I'm being conservative here) the 0.050 dollars per capita ratio for the internet service you pay less than $100/month for? Maybe? No? Oh, you're evil bastards and you should rot in hell. Which is the inspiration for the post title, by the way.

The AT&T service will work by allowing paying customers a card which gives them 2 hours of internet service; so you buy coffee, you get 2 hours of internet. Bravo. After that, you pay $3.99 for 2 more hours, or you can pay $19.99 for an entire month at any location. It's a FANTASTIC idea. I've been so pissed for so long that they charge PAYING CUSTOMERS to use the internet. Sloppy business practice. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, T-Mobile.

Labels: AT+T, coffee shop, free use, Starbucks, Wireless Internet

Online filing has been de rigeur for a few years in most federal courts, but Australia has taken it quite a few steps farther.

In what can most accurately be described as chat-client law, Australia judges will hear some proceedings by emailed arguments from the lawyers and will then give a "real time" decision on those emailed arguments online.

I think it's a step too far, I can't think of any clients who would want their fortunes and livelihoods hanging on the effectiveness of an email and a chat client judge. There's something to be said about arguing in person to really convey your point.

Labels: chat client judge, online law

New Orleans flood canal litigation thrown out.

For the record, I predicted this would happen in 2005. November 4, 2005 to be precise.

I don't know how Bruno & Bruno expected to thwart the 1928 Flood Control Act, 702(c), but they obviously had no new theory. You'll recall I questioned their tactics when the fliers went up in the city. It seems shady at best that they advertised without a theory of recovery when an attorney who had only passed the bar less than a month before saw the obvious problems with filing such a suit.

Still viable thanks to Graci and its progeny are the lawsuits against Corps for MRGO and other navigation projects, which are not included in 702(c).

Labels: Flood control act, graci v. us, New Orleans flood canal litigation

Traveling to London for business is both a lot of a fun and a lot of work while you are there, but it is primarily a lot MORE work when you get home.

Labels: busy with work, no really - a lot of work

I'm in London and other parts foreign for just a little while, mainly business, but I'll try to get close to some kind of semblence of activity on the blog when I get back.

L(og)ondon, it's better than bad, it's good.

Labels: away on business, business, london, trip

Labels: 2008, new orleans recovery, superdome

Happy New Year everyone! Enjoy the hell out of yourselves! If you want to hear about safety and sobriety, go read an editorial.

Labels: 2008, Happy New Year

Labels: LSU, Motion to Continue, National Championship Game, OSU, Slowhio, The Judge Signed It