RSS FeedAmerican “Legal Fictions” for 2007
Slate magazine is offering the Bush Administration’s Top 10 “Dumbest Legal Arguements of the Year.” In 2006, they presented the Top 10 “Most Outrageous Civil Liberties Violations.”
Here is this year’s list in brief (see the article for details):
10. The NSA’s eavesdropping was limited in scope.
9. Scooter Libby’s sentence was commuted because it was excessive.
8. The vice president’s office is not a part of the executive branch.
7. The Guantanamo Bay detainees enjoy more legal rights than any prisoners of war in history.
6. Water-boarding may not be torture.
5. Everyone who has ever spoken to the president about anything is barred from congressional testimony by executive privilege.
4. Nine U.S. attorneys were fired by nobody, but for good reason.
3. Alberto Gonzales.
2. State secrets.
1. The United States does not torture.
Happy New Year! (no guarantee)
No guarantees…
Maclean’s piece needs response
LawIsCool is reproducing the piece below for a legal interest sake alone. This site is not officially affiliated with the case in any way.
Maclean’s piece needs response
Faisal JosephDecember 17, 2007
On Dec. 4, I announced at a news conference that human rights complaints, including those of four law students, had been launched against Maclean’s magazine with respect to the article The Future Belongs to Islam, written by Mark Steyn and published in October 2006.
In light of the widespread attention this issue is receiving, most recently in an article by Rory Leishman in The London Free Press, corrections for the record are in order.
To put the debate in context, we must look at the actual content of Steyn’s article. His views on rising Muslim populations are captured best by this extract: “Time for the obligatory ‘of courses’: of course, not all Muslims are terrorists – though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm, to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists – though enough of them share their basic objectives . . .”
Steyn’s comments – pages’ worth – raise a dilemma. What should one do when a leading news magazine publishes an article replete with misleading and false information?
The Muslim Canadian Congress, an organization founded by a Maclean’s columnist and to which Maclean’s has consistently turned for support, offered one solution: “Mark Steyn’s article was definitely alarmist, but the answer to his challenge is to write a counter piece and demand that Maclean’s publish it.”
The MCC’s proposal seemed reasonable – so reasonable, in fact, that four Osgoode law students, who are complainants in this human rights case, were able to come up with it on their own months before the complaint was filed. However, when the law students’ delegation met with senior editorial staff at Maclean’s to propose a countering article authored by a mutually agreed-upon source, they were informed that Maclean’s “would rather go bankrupt” than allow such a response. So much for inviting the Muslim community to respond to inflammatory and factually incorrect material.
Steyn also proposed a solution, of sorts, in a defensive e-mail, stating that “If (they) don’t like my argument. Fine. Argue against it, but don’t try to criminalize debate.”
Well, Steyn will be pleased to know that the four capable law students from one of the premier educational institutions of this country wanted to debate him on his stage. In fact, he should be quite unhappy that Maclean’s editors would rather go bankrupt than permit the debate he so emphatically desires in a free and democratic society.
Tom Flanagan states on the Maclean’s website: “All who write and speak in the public domain should rally to Mark Steyn’s defence. If so-called human rights commissions can be used against him, they can be used against anyone who dares to express an idea worth debating.”
Flanagan in turn will be pleased to know there is no need to “rally to the defence” of Steyn. My clients have never sought an apology from him; they have not named him as a respondent in their human rights complaints; neither did they file criminal hate speech complaints against him, or Maclean’s. What they did seek, however, was an opportunity for the Muslim community to participate in the “free marketplace” of ideas – a marketplace that my clients have found to be thoroughly regulated and far from “free.”
This issue is all about insisting on the “debate” Flanagan wishes to preserve and Steyn claims to relish. By definition, a debate is a two-sided conversation. Freedom of expression, in its truest and noblest form, thus results in a dialogue among all interested parties – not just among those who play by their own exclusionary rules.
Unfortunately, rather than enabling a level of debate that serves the interests of all Canadians, Maclean’s editors suggested they prefer bankruptcy. And that is what prompted the above-mentioned law students to take their complaint to the human rights commission.
My clients believe the Canadian Muslim community has the constitutional right to respond when Steyn (or any other public author of the same ilk) claims Muslims share the same basic goals as terrorists. Apparently, Maclean’s and Leishman do not share that belief. We will let the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal settle this one in June.
Faisal Joseph is a litigation lawyer in London, and is a former provincial and federal Crown attorney
Unfortunately, due to abuse of the option in the past on this subject, comments will be closed.
ABA Blawg Directory
The American Bar Association (ABA) Journal has a directory of blawgs in the U.S.
Although the listings are obviously with an American focus, they do have some valuable resources.
Debate denied over Maclean’s Muslim article
LawIsCool is reproducing the piece below for a legal interest sake alone. This site is not officially affiliated with the case in any way.
Debate denied over Maclean’s Muslim article
Naseem Mithoowani, Khurrum Awan, Muneeza Sheikh, Daniel Simard For The Calgary Herald Saturday, December 29, 2007
On Dec. 4, the four of us announced that we had launched human rights complaints against Maclean’s Magazine with respect to its October 2006 article, The Future Belongs to Islam, written by Mark Steyn. In light of the attention our complaints are receiving — most recently, through articles by Nigel Hannaford and Rebecca Walberg published on these pages — some clarifications are in order.
Development of Privacy Law in Canada
Privacy Common Law in Canada
A tort action exists in the U.S. for the invasion of privacy exists in only four situations:
- Unreasonable intrusion
- Appropriation of personality (an intentional economic tort)
- Unreasonable publicity of private info
- Unreasonable placing another in a false light
In addition to the U.S., Germany has recognized a tort for the invasion of privacy. The United Kingdom and Australia however, have not.
There is no such thing as a widespread, generally-recognized action called “Invasion of Privacy” in Canada, but it is covered by a number of different civil actions and legislation, and increasingly recognizes actions for appropriation of personality and inappropriate or unwanted media attention.
Contemplating a Separate Tort for Privacy
In the landmark case in Canada, Motherwell et al. v. Motherwell (1976), a mentally ill defendant harassed her family members through telephone and mail.
This harassment escalated to up to 60 calls a day, until they sued for invasion of privacy and nuisance seeking nominal damages and,
… an interim and a permanent injunction against the Defendant or anyone acting on her behalf enjoining her or anyone else acting on her behalf from contacting, telephoning, writing, visiting or in any other way communicating with the Plaintiffs or their children.
The court reviewed a form of nuisance,
unduly interfering with his neighbour in the comfortable and convenient enjoyment of his land.
But they then commented on its inadequacy in addressing privacy issues due to the emergence of newer communications technology. Specifically, they cited a difference where the receiver has no control over the incoming communications,
The rule of stare decisis operates, as it seems to me, to regulate the application of precedents to cases which can be said to fall within a category. When the circumstances of a case do not appear to bring it fairly within an established category, they may lie sufficiently within the concept of a principle that consideration of a new category is warranted…
I think that the interests of our developing jurisprudence would be better served by approaching invasion of privacy by abuse of the telephone system as a new category…
The court also pointed out that the frequency or volume of the communication can itself constitute harassment,
I have pointed out above that in my opinion there may be harassment even although the subject‑matter of the telephone calls would otherwise be agreeable in nature.
Motherwell did not clearly develop the creation of a new tort, despite these contemplations.
Although a claim for invasion of privacy was then dismissed in Capan v. Capan (1980), Hunter v. Southam Inc. (1984) acknowledged in the Supreme Court of Canada a “right to be let alone by other people” independant of “the notion of trespass.”
By 1995, MacKay v. Beulow awarded damages specifically for invasion of privacy in Ontario. Yet Somwar v. McDonald’s in 2006 stated,
In light of the trial decisions listed in this brief survey of Ontario jurisprudence, and the absence of any clear statement on the point by an Ontario appellate court, I conclude that it is not settled law in Ontario that there is no tort of invasion of privacy.
Still, the court cited advancements in technology that allowed the collection and dissmemination of personal information and said,
…the foregoing analysis leads me to conclude that the time has come to recognize invasion of privacy as a tort in its own right. It therefore follows that it is neither plain nor obvious that the plaintiff’s action cannot succeed on the basis that he has not pleaded a reasonable cause of action.
Most of the case law concerning privacy seems to focus on establishing what a ‘‘reasonable expectation of privacy’’ is. The courts appear to be increasingly recognizing its application, but this still varies across jurisdictions.
Melanie C. Samuels and Sara Gregory explain in Privacy issues in the workplace: Employer monitoring of employee technology use,
…no Canadian appellate level court has endorsed a common law tort of invasion of privacy, the existence of such a tort has not been denied.
Rapidly Developing Areas
Because the application of privacy law is so rapidly developing, it is useful to list some sources that monitor and report developments.
There is considerable discussion of the privacy applications in text books for s. 7 of the Charter, “protection of life and liberty,” and s. 8 for “unreasonable search,” including business documents, border searches, and emergency powers.
But publications as recent as 2004 still have not addressed Internet search engines, and issue that will definitely come up in the future.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada provides these legislative resources:
- The Privacy Act
- The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)
- PIPEDA Review Discussion Document, Protecting Privacy in an Intrusive World (July 18, 2006)
- Substantially Similar Provincial Legislation
And more legislative resources can be found here.
The Canadian Privacy Law Blog provides an excellent resource for ongoing developments, as does Michael Geist, who circulates a monthly publication, the Canadian Privacy Law Review.
International Concerns
Patricia J. Wilson and Michael Fekete dedicate a chapter to privacy law in Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP’s Doing Business in Canada, which includes concerns over the USA PATRIOT Act.
In response to these concerns, British Columbia ammended its Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA). Both the federal and provincial privacy commissioners want to enhance protections against sharing of personal information with the U.S.
And this challenge, of protecting Canadian personal data from foreign nations, might prove the most difficult privacy issue of them all.
“Private” E-mails at Work?
A new American case from earlier this year sheds some insight into e-mail privacy and attorney-client priviledge.
Background
In Scott v Beth Israel Med. Ctr. Inc., the plaintiff was a physician and former employee of the defendant who sued his former employer in severance pay for breach of conduct under wrongful termination of employment.
As part of the proceedings, Dr. Scott motioned for a protective order for his private e-mails to his attorney, Stuart Kagen of Paul, Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, be returned to him by the defendant.
The catch was that these e-mails were sent from his work e-mail address over the defendant’s server.
Statutory Protections v. Company Policy
Even though the e-mails contained private privileged information regarding the case, the defendant refused to return them, citing the company policy,
This Policy clarifies and codifies the rules for the use and protection of the Medical Center’s computer and communications systems. This policy applies to everyone who works at or for the Medical Center including employees, consultants, independent contractors and all other persons who use or have access to these systems.
1. All Medical Center computer systems, telephone systems, voice mail systems, facsimile equipment, electronic mail systems, Internet access systems, related technology systems, and the wired or wireless networks that connect them are the property of the Medical Center and should be used for business purposes only.
2. All information and documents created, received, saved or sent on the Medical Center’s computer or communications systems are of the Medical Center. Employees have no personal privacy right in any material created, received, saved or sent using Medical Center communication or computer systems. The Medical Center reserves the right to access and disclose such material at any time without prior notice.
Dr. Scott cited statutory protects in New York state,
no communication under this article shall lose its privileged character for the sole reason that it is communicated by electronic means or because persons necessary for the delivery or facilitation of such electronic communication may have access to the content of the communication.
The court used a 4-part test from re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd. to deny Dr. Scott’s protective order:
- Does the corporation maintain a policy banning personal or other objectionable use
- Does the company monitor the use of the employee’s computer or e-mail
- Do third parties have a right of access to the computer or emails
- Did the corporation notify the employee, or was the employee aware, of the use and monitoring policies?
Response from lawyers
Evan Brown, an intellectual property and technology lawyer at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP in Chicago, explains the implications,
The decision has implications for both individuals and the attorneys who represent them. Employees should be aware that when they are sending messages through their employer’s system, they may not be communicating in confidence. And attorneys sending email messages to their clients’ work email accounts, on matters not relating to the representation of the employer, must be careful not to unwittingly violate the attorney client privilege.
What’s more, although the decision is based on email communications, it could affect the results of any case involving instant messaging or text messaging through the company’s server.
Nicole Black, an attorney in Rochester, New York with Fiandach & Fiandach, disagreed with the verdict.
She cites a reference Curto v. Medical World Communications Inc., a case that was actually discussed in Asia Global, that states:
(I)n light of the few instances of actual monitoring … together with the fact that many … employees had personal e-mail accounts at work, employees were lulled in a ‘false sense of security’ regarding their personal use of company-owned computers,
She claims that the 4-part test is not met in this case, and concludes,
The court’s holding in this case ignores the legislative intent… and the legitimate expectation of confidentiality the plaintiff had regarding e-mail communication with his attorneys. Any other conclusion fundamentally weakens the attorney client privilege by eroding the trust that serves as the very foundation of an open, honest and successful attorney-client relationship.
Kelly D. Talcott, also an intelectual property and technology lawyer, and partner at K&L Gates in New York, writes a response in the New York Law Journal,
For many of us, George Orwell’s “1984″ was required reading at some point during our formative years…
In the 23 years since the actual year 1984 came and went — happily with few of the horrors envisioned by Mr. Orwell when he finished the novel back in 1948 coming to pass — we have allowed our privacy to seep away. Instead of ceding control of our private information to a single all-powerful regime, however, we dole it out in bits and pieces to a diffuse network of eager information-gatherers, many if not most of them in the private sector.
There are cases supporting both sides of privacy law, and the situation is far from clear in the U.S. But the situation in Canada is probably even less clear.
Student Challenges Zoological Society
Iason of the Mighty Argos blog claims that Pandas are not a “fixed medium of expression.”
He objects to this sign by the Zoological Society of San Diego, and states that a Panda is not intellectual property.
Iason also disputes the validity of the presumed statement of contract on the back of his ticket by citing Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. and Kravitz v. Parking Service Co.
But wait, he doesn’t stop there.
Iason proceeds to directly challenge the Zoological Society of San Diego by selling T-Shirts with a panda photo on it that he openly declares he obtained from the zoo.
Law students the world over it seems are a litigous bunch. And why not, as long as it is not frivolous? It’s what we do best, doesn’t cost us a dime, and it’s how lawyers express social advocacy.
(Don’t like that? Well, you can always hire your own lawyers, or better yet, apply to law school too. Lawyers are always the last line of defence when erosion to the rule of law occurs.)
Roy Cohn (Al Pacino) says in Angels in America,
Lawyers are the high-priests of America.
If the Society did challenge him, the exposure a trial would give him (even if the coverage was critical) would skyrocket his Intellectual Property law career.
Good luck with your case Iason, and it’s good to remember that regardless of the outcome,
The lawyers always win
Free Case Access in U.S.
All Courts of Appeals decisions since 1950 and US Supreme Court decisions from 1754 will soon be available online to the public.
This move should create greater transparency in law and promote access by the general public. A similar move in Canada would be greatly welcomed. (It would also help us link to all the cases we cite that are currently not online).
Blog entry from Justia and the new release follows:
Holiday Cartoons
Have a happy holiday everyone.
LOTR and Legal History
Gwen Seabourne of the University of Bristol School of Law has an interesting article on legal history as it is used in the Lord of the Rings at Common Lawyer.
The Oath
Binding oaths are used in LOTR, which are enforceable well after death following Norse and Anglo-Saxon traditions:
- Gollum swearing by “precious” not to harm the Hobbits
- Pippin swears loyalty to Denethor II, and Merry swears to Theoden
- King of the Mountain of Erech and his men could not rest because they broke their oath to fight Sauron
Ritual oaths were called a compurgation, because the person would purge themselves of charges, a tradition that remained in English debt law until the 1600′s.
Professional oath takers would place a straw in their shoe, giving way to the term “straw man,” which still has implications to debt law today.
Medieval Remedies
The paying of reparations for homicide, wrongful death, or other serious crimes was a principle in Nordic and Anglo-Saxon law known as weregild (from Old English: wer, man; geld, payment).
The 13th-14th c. Icelandic saga of Grettir the Strong relates a story of a warrior turned outlaw. Grettir proposes weregeld for killing of one of the characters in chapter 27,
Fain am I that those who have made me an outlaw should have full pay for this, ere all be over.
The Kingdom of Rohan, analogous to the medieval Saxon kingdom of Mercia, used the law of weregeld, as did its Riders and the dwarves.
Isidlur, the second king of Gondor and Amor, claimed the One Ring after cutting it from Sauron’s hand as a form of weregeld for his brother and father’s death.
Oaths were also used by Anglo-Saxons to swear mutual protection over households for blood feuds prior to the Normal conquest in 1066.
Seaborne also raises similarities with the Hundred Years’ War (1337 to 1453) between England and France in the protection extended to heralds and ambassadors.
Blood feuds were commonly used in early Medieval times for disputes over contested property.
Property Law
The premise of most of the trilogy centers around various property claims over the Ring, which include:
- Gollum, because it was gifted to him as a present
- Aragorn’s right to inheritance from Isildur
- Sauron, as the original owner, and through accessio by mixing it with other metals under the doctrine of accession
Sauron had originally forged the ring during the Second Age, presumably from gold and some other unknown metals.
Under ancient Roman property law of accession, when two things are united to become a dramatically new thing, old property in the thing is extinguished.
Silsbury v. McCoon (1850) stated,
[I]t is said that the owner may reclaim the goods so long as they may be known, or in other words, ascertained by inspection.
Saruon’s claims as a dispossessed prior possessor would be countered by Gollum and Aragorn by a defence of abandonment or limitation.
Roman law allowed abandonment allowed extinguished property through abandonment, but in contemporary law it would be evaluated slightly differently.
Stewart v. Gustafson (1998) outlined 4 things to assess abandonment:
- Passage of time
- Nature of transaction
- Property holder’s conduct
- Nature of the thing
Although 2,500 years had passed, Sauron could not claim to have given up looking for the Ring, and had repeatedly expressed intent to exclude even when it was not under his physical control. Additionally, he was originally dispossessed through a violent act.
However, any legal recourse by Sauron could be barred under limitations legislation that would state that too long a time had passed before re-acquiring possesion.
Another application of property law is in land ownership. Most of Middle-earth operates under a feudal title, with barons acting as tenants-in-chief for a regent.
An exception would be Tom Bombadil, omitted from the films, who interestingly enough does not own any property in land but is also the sole character immune to the corrupting effects of the ring.
Civil Rights Law
The archaic society depicted by LORS is not renowned for their advocacy. In fact, specific racialized legislation appears to exist in a number of domains.
The LOTR creation story of Middle-earth, with the Two Trees of the Valinor, and the awakening of the Elves beside Lake Cuiviénen, has some classic pagan parallels.
The Nordic “World Ash Tree” Yggdrasil connected the Anglo-Saxon seven earthly worlds, which included lands of Elves (Alfheim) and Dwarves (Niðavellir). These worlds were in the “middle” between Asgard and Hel. Tolikien then Anglicized this to Elvenhome, and drew on the meaning of Niðavellir (dark fields) to place the Dwarves in the mountains.
The Elves appear to be the most racist and exclusionary of all the people in Middle-earth. For example, they have explicit anti-Dwarf laws and formally referred to them as Naugrim, or Stunted People, and more commonly as Dornhoth, for Thrawn (perverse; contrary) Folk.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMYTtY6TwUs[/youtube]
This racism appears to harken back to an ancient conflict between the Elves and Dwarfs in the First Age, and the Elves apparantly never get over their prejudicial misconceptions.
But even prior to this conflict there is evidence of persecution by Elves. The first contact they had with Dwarves was with the “Petty Dwarves,” outcasts who were the Aboriginal inhabitants of Beleriand even before the First Age.
When the Elf colonial setters arrived in Beleriand they referred to the Dwarves as “two-legged animals,” and engaged in a campaign of systematic genocide to near-extinction of this group. Dwarves thereafter maintained a healthy suspicion and distrust for Elves.
Elves also cite racial supremacy as justification of their behaviour. Dwarves are not Children of Eru Ilúvatar, or created by the Supreme God of LOTR, who created Elves first before all other races.
The elves even appear rather obsessed with pure bloodlines and heredity.
But Seaborne comments how their blind support for a primogeniture model of succession differs from Nordic cultures, which always allowed for new people and new claimants to the throne, and evaluated the merit of individuals beyond their ancestry alone.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h5eZNJDaTo[/youtube]
The Elves therefore appear more racialized than even archetypes found in Nordic or Germanic cultures.
As a typical feudalistic society, Seaborne comments on the limited role of women in LOTR.
The Others
Tolkien includes other exceptions to the classical Nordic and Anglo-Saxon models of law, possibly to highlight their differences for philosophical purposes.
The Hobbits, the only people humble enough to withstand the power of the Ring as carriers, are near-libertarians. They have little central authority beyond a Thain, or military leader, or legal system other than that of the Old King.
However, some parallels can still be drawn here as well. The Thane (sic) in Scandanavian and Anglo-Saxon society was a attendant, servant, retainer or official.
Shakespeare has Macbeth as the Thane of Glamis, reporting to King Duncan of Scotland. When Malcolm and Macduff later invade Scotland against King Macbeth, it is the thanes that defect to their side (Act V, Scene III):
5 All mortal consequences have pronounced me thus:
6 “Fear not, Macbeth; no man that’s born of woman
7 Shall e’er have power upon thee.” Then fly, false thanes,
8 And mingle with the English epicures!
Thanes were considered inferior to a member of the royal family, an aethel, but superior to an independent peasant landowner, or ceorl. The Normans confiscated most ceorl land when they invaded Britain.
Thanes were differentiated from ceorls by their weregeld, which was six times that of a ceorl. Ceorl is also the name of one of the Riders of Rohan.
Seaborne suggests that the Hobbits’ perspectives of the Old Law may harken back to Hywel Dda, a pre-Norman Celtic ruler in Wales that codified law c. 945. His rule was one of the few that achieved peace with the Anglo-Saxons.
Words of Wisdom
The character Gandalf plays a mentoring and leadership figure throughout LOTR. His role is to play (legal?) counsel to the people of Middle-earth, without dominating over them.
Seaborne suggests that Gandalf’s role is also foreshadowing of contemporary liberalism in legal theory regarding capital punishment.
He responds to Frodo‘s regret that Gollum did not die by saying,
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.
However, Gandalf has a tough side to him too. He criticizes the Elves for not successfully detaining Gollum and allowing him to escape.
But as Seaborne says,
Gollum, and, even more so, the Orcs [or Elves], are not amenable to rehabilitation.
And isn’t rehabilitation the ultimate purpose of the law?
Cry me a River in Law School
Here is a parody of the 2002 hit by Justin Timberlake, Cry me a River.
Lyrics follow.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1c3XyQMaxE[/youtube]
Cry Me A River, Law school style
I’m coming undone
At the firm reception
Cause I didn’t realize how much I was drinking, no…
I had a chance to make other plans
But 8 gin and tonics later I’m crashing down, no…
You don’t have to say, what I did, cause I already know, I found out from friends…
I guess I have no chance at V&E, it’ll never be, I guess I’ll be an ambulance chaser..
I told an attorney that she could blow me, but she said no…
I made fun of Baylor, turns our she went there, hey I didn’t know…
Said I’m Latino, hey how would she know that it was a lie?
I groped at her name tag, looked like a douche bag, and here’s why…
Too much free liquor, too much free liquor, too much free liquor, too much free liquor, yeah, yeah yeah…
I know that they say at these things that you need self control
But law students can’t stick to a two-drink max and you know it (don’t act like you don’t know it)
I lost any chance at employment about 4 drinks ago (4 drinks ago)
So gimme another shot, cause I might as well get loaded
Too much free liquor, too much free liquor (yeah), too much free liquor, too much free liquor, yeah, yeah yeah…
Oh (Oh!) the damage is done you should probably be leavin’
Oh (Oh!) the damage is done you should probably be leavin’
I told an attorney that she could blow me, but she said no…
So I threw my Bombay on her vajayjay, hey I didn’t know…
Said I’m Latino, hey how would she know that it was a lie?
I groped at her name tag, looked like a douche bag, and here’s why…
Too much free liquor (too much too much), too much free liquor (too much too much), Oh, too much free liquor (too much too much), too much free liquor (too much too much), Oh, too much free liquor…
