RSS Feed3L Suspected in Philly Shooting
David Lat of Above the Law says,
Many 3Ls these days are angry and frustrated. If the allegations are true, one has resorted to gun violence (and not just against his casebooks)…
If the allegations are true, this would not be the first time an Asian-American law student in Philadelphia has gone on a shooting spree. Back in 2007, Joseph Cho riddled his neighbors’ apartment door with nearly 15 shots. Such incidents raise broader questions about the mental health of law students (and whether schools are doing enough to help them).
Would-Be Robber Foiled – by Heart Attack
John de Leon of the Seattle Times reports,
According to police, the victim, a 26-year-old man, was trying to enter his apartment building in the 1600 block of Melrose Avenue at 2:30 a.m. when he was approached by another man, 52. The older man grabbed the victim’s groin and took his wallet.
The victim fought back and two witnesses intervened, separating the two men. The older man then sat down and passed out, possibly suffering a heart attack.
[emphasis added]
Guatemalan Lawyer Arranged his Own Assassination
Bruce Canton explains how prominent Guatemalan lawyer Rodrigo Rosenberg arranged his own assassination and tried to pin it on the President. He even made this video for you to see.
Now that’s some dedication to your cause, but it’s not likely to help your future client intake.
Ratzon’s Rules
The bizarre story Goel Ratzon, an Israeli man who allegedly fathered up to 89 children through 39 women is gathering up a media storm after his arrest this week.
Ratzon apparently lived with the women in substandard conditions, imposing strict controls and rules on them. His followers seem to have believed he was a messiah or saviour.
Read some of Razton’s Rules below, and the fines he imposed for their violations.
1 No women shall marry nor shall any woman attack another, either verbally or physically.
Fine: 2,000 shekels into the family kitty
2 No woman shall question another about her whereabouts.
Fine: 100 shekels
3 No conversation is permitted in rooms other than the living room. It is forbidden to talk nonsense.
Fine: 200 shekels
4 No woman shall sit idle when there are dishes to be washed, cleaning to be done, children to look after etc.
Fine: 2,000 shekels
5 Any two women caught fighting will be punished equally.
Fine: 2,000 shekels
6 It is absolutely forbidden to question Ratzon on his whereabouts or intention.
Fine: 400 shekels
7 It is permissible to ask to accompany him; but refusal is to be accepted without appeal.
Fine: 300 shekels
8 No woman shall interrupt Ratzon or intervene in matters not concerning her.
Fine: 500 shekels
9 All orders are to be obeyed immediately.
Fine: 300 shekels
10 No woman shall work while a man of over 12 years of age is in the house.
Fine 3,000 shekels
Stop crying “terrorism” every time we’re attacked
William Saletan over at Slate thinks there’s a distinction between terrorist attacks and casualties of war.
So why is this distinction even important?
…if we can’t tell the difference anymore—if we need lessons in the meaning of terrorism from the father of a suicide bomber—then it’s time to remind ourselves what we’re fighting for.
He points to the definition in American law,
According to the U.S. Code (Title 22, Chapter 38, Section 2656f), “the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” That’s the definition we apply to other countries when we designate them as state sponsors of terrorism.
So how do you apply this to the facts, or to incidents of violence? Saleton explains,
The Sept. 11 attacks, which used planes full of civilians to hit the World Trade Center, fit this definition. So did the attempt to blow up Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day. So did the Taliban’s 2008 bombing of a hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan.
The Afghan base bombing doesn’t fit the pattern. The CIA personnel who died in the attack were combatants. In interviews with multiple newspapers and wire services—for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here—U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed that the personnel at the Afghan base were closely engaged in selecting drone targets in Pakistan and orchestrating special-operations attacks on the Taliban-allied Haqqani network. In the Afghan theater, the CIA is becoming a paramilitary agency. It runs our drone war in Pakistan, and the Afghan base struck on Dec. 30 is “a targeting center for Predator strikes and other operations inside Pakistan.”
Ignatieff on Discrimination, Social Media
Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Opposition, spoke to students at the University of Toronto – Mississauga today.
He addressed recent comments about airport security and the use of profiling, as well as discrimination generally in Canada:
He also made some interesting comments on the use of social media in politics:
Doctor Saves Life, But Gets a Speeding Ticket…
Jeffery Halstrom was fighting for his life, while Cardiologist Dr. Michael Kutryk, had been stopped and was receiving a ticket for speeding.
This has opened up a can of worms. Luckily, in the end, Halstrom survived, and Dr. Kutryk plans on fighting the $300 ticket he received for going 35 km/h over the posted 40 km/h speed limit.
This obviously begs the question to be asked? Should doctors have special privileges when travelling to a hospital for an emergency surgery? Should they have special license plates? A portable flashing light? If you think so, what about the liability if the doctor crashes, causes an accident, or what defines an “emergency surgery?”
All things to think about as this case goes before the courts.
New Bob Marley Brand “House of Marley,” Heirs Take Steps To Protect Father’s Legacy
First posted on Commercial Law International on Jan 7, 2010.
“Old pirates, yes they rob I.”
The opening words to Redemption Song are as hard hitting now as they were when first bellowed by the iconic musical legend – Bob Marley - years ago. These words however may be taking on a new meaning in this era digitization and globalization where information is king. This era is all about IP – Intellectual Property – and the right to access, control and exploit for ones own benefit the concepts encapsulated within creativity.
As a matter of course the Brand – how you package and sell your IP, in fact branding itself becomes a form of IP – in this era becomes of great import. In fact one could argue that brand is not the everything but is the only thing. Consumers no longer simply buy a product or service – no, no – rather they are buying a brand.
Now this brings me to the House of Marley. The heirs of Bob Marley – the holders of the exclusive rights to the reggae superstar’s image – are drawing clear battle lines in the IP war on whom can access, control and exploit Marley’s iconic status. They have enlisted the aid of Canadian private equity firm Hilco Consumer Capital to package, manage, market, sell, monitor and protect the IP that is Bob Marley through the products sold under the new House of Marley brand.
Rather than attack the hawkers of existing wears, which would result in a multiplicity of protracted legal battles spread-out across the globe, Hilco and the House of Marley have instead embarked on a branding campaign. It is quite simple, the House of Marley will be authentic and all other comers will only be imitators – a potentially very lucrative strategy, if it can be pulled off.
According to reports, the Marley brand – name, sound and image – are estimated to generate $USD 600 million in a year and this is on the bootleg side alone. On the legal side, the brand generates a profitable but substantially smaller $USD 4 million a year.
With numbers like those no wonder the Marley heirs sought out and gained a partner like Hilco with a proven reputation in IP generally and branding specifically?
While I applauded this new venture, I can’t help but how long will it be before we see a court case or two? Maybe a few Anton Piller orders – best described but somewhat inaccurately as a civil search warrant, that feature so prominently in IP cases – or maybe the odd Mareva injunction – a court order freezing assets -?
The reason why I am thinking this is that it is impossible to escape the fact that branding – intellectual propertization – eventually means not only the allocation of exclusive rights but also the enforcement of those rights.
The Unrepresented
A serious problem with the Ontario justice system that is overshadowed by the legal aid boycott is the enormous segment of the population that does not qualify for legal aid but can’t afford a lawyer. These are the unrepresented.
To understand the scope of the problem, one must appreciate that only those who earn approximately $8,000 a year or less qualify for legal aid. This is a shocking figure. Imagine a single mother with two children earning $16,000 who is embroiled in a bitter custody battle with a physically abusive dead-beat ex. In Ontario, she must pay her own legal bills while supporting herself and her family.
A recent article in the Globe and Mail highlights the efforts by Bay Street heavy-weight Heenan Blaikie to help the unrepresented in high risk communities in Toronto. Qualified candidates receive legal advice free of charge, the cutoff income for a family of four is $75,000 and associates can count their pro bono work as billable hours. This is generous and very commendable. Unfortunately this firm doesn’t have any family or criminal law lawyers, and this is where the need is most accute. None the less, Heenan Blaikie deserves high praise.
I doubt very much that a concerted effort to encourage pro bono work would be sufficient to alleviate the problem. Something larger needs to be done. Various members of the legal community are pushing for reforms, however a broader public awareness of the problem would definitely help to generate the political will necessary to bring about change.
Police Bust Fail
Law Suits and Public Relations
According to an article by Canadian Press, Loblaws has seen the light and will no longer sue the man ‘deemed to be at fault’ for a collision involving a Loblaws truck that caused the death of the man’s wife and 6 teenage boys. The legal action had been a lingering PR disaster that motivated outraged communities to push for a boycott.
Having spent all of 4 minutes considering the matter, I am struck by the lack of circumspect. This accident was a highly publicized tragedy that made front-page national news. Prime Minister Harper sent a letter of condolence to the school that the teenagers attended, according to CBC news, and no where in the coverage was the driver blamed.
This man was a basketball coach. He was driving a van that carried the basketball team plus his wife and daughter. It was winter and the road conditions were not good when the van fish-tailed on a highway and unspeakable tragedy ensued. This man might have been driving too fast, and his negligence might have caused damage to a Loblaws truck, however, from where I sit, public backlash seems a likely outcome of litigation. He made a horrible mistake and paid very dearly for it: He lost his wife, he could have lost his daughter. Many families in the community lost a son. Meanwhile, amidst all of this loss of life, Loblaws wants to recover for a damaged truck and lost inventory. This looks cold-hearted to say the least.
There is lesson to be learned here. As we graduate from law school and become involved in that financial bloodsport called litigation, we should remember that law suits do not occur in a vacuum. Even though the law says you can, and even if you’re impervious to emotional reactions to sympathetic defendants, you should consider the potential for public outcry. The client likely values his or her public profile more than money, and this applies whether the matter is civil, family or criminal.
From where I sit this seems so obvious … but maybe things look different after swimming in shark-infested water for a few years. Perhaps the real lesson is to remember what things look like from the outside when your on the inside.
Better than Body Scanners
Despite all the hype about body scanners, there are some very significant limitations to their use.
One issue is limitation of use on children, which can violate child pornography laws. Statements by Canadian officials that there haven’t been any incidents involving children yet is not very reassuring, especially in this industry where mitigation and prevention are the appropriate benchmarks.
A more significant concern is that body scanners is that they are not very effective for ingested or internally placed hazards (i.e. other cavities).
Wired has a technological solution that would address these concerns, without the same privacy issues, through diffraction-enhanced X-ray imaging (DEXI).
Although some may protest the additional radiation exposure, it’s a valid trade-off in my opinion. Depending on the duration and frequency of flights, many travelers would have more radiation exposure from flying than these machines. My radiation exposure working in diagnostic imaging was frequently lower than commercial airline employees.
Awards
Partners
sLaw- The Court
- British Columbia (Ministry of Education) v. Moore: Comparing Approaches to Comparator Groups in the Context of Anti-Discrimination Legislation
- So You Got Punched By a Cop: Disciplinary Action or Civil Suit? Issue Estoppel in Penner v. Niagara (Police Services Board), 2010 ONCA 616
- The ‘Return to Unanimity’ in Insite and Division of Powers Jurisprudence: Chief Justice McLachlin’s ‘Oversight’
- UofT
- UofC
- UofA
- LexMonitor
- blawg