Gee, sorry we had you arrested for our mistake!

800px-09_Chevrolet_Traverse

How different might his life have been had he just stuck with the black SUV?

Raise your hand if you’ve ever gotten too much change back from a cashier. [Waits for reader(s) to raise hand(s).] I’m sure that’s happened to most people at least once. Many of us may have been undercharged by a cashier, too. I’m not going to ask you if you pointed out the error or not, because that is between you, your conscience, and your dear and fluffy Lord. What you may not realize, though, is that getting undercharged could land you in the slammer, if the company you’re buying goods from is douchey enough. Presenting the tale of Danny Sawyer of Chesapeake, Virginia.

As reported by the Virginian-Pilot, Sawyer purchased an SUV from Priority Chevrolet in Chesapeake in May 2012. After test driving a blue Traverse, he opted instead for a black one. He signed a promissory note listing a sales price of $34,000, traded in his old car, and left in the SUV. Sawyer came back the next day and asked to trade the black SUV for the blue one. Unbeknownst to him, apparently, was the fact that the blue model cost about $5,500 more. It was allegedly unbeknownst to him because the sales manager allegedly did not tell him. As the Pilot reports, “the final contract Sawyer signed did not reflect the higher price, which [Vice President Stacy] Cummings said should have been in the area of $39,000. He blamed a clerical error.”

Sawyer left on vacation for a week, and returned to find a sizable amount of voicemails from the dealership telling him that they undercharged him, and that he had to come back to sign a new contract. Sawyer claims that he refused, and the dealership claims Sawyer agreed to come in but never showed up. I can see Sawyer’s point of view, which would be that the deal was done, the dealership had accepted his money, and the car was his. The dealership did not see it that way.

Police showed up at Sawyer’s house in June and arrested him for car theft. After four hours in jail, a magistrate released him on bond. Apparently, the manager and the vice president of the dealership intended to involve the police to help locate the car, but a manager told police the car had been stolen. All charges against Sawyer were dropped by late August. That’s where the story gets fun.

Sawyer is suing the dealership for “malicious prosecution, slander, defamation, and abuse of process, among other things.” He is seeking damages of $2.2 million.

I can see several morals to this story.

  1. Get it in writing.
  2. If the police arrest someone on your behalf, it’s pretty much on you.
  3. Seriously, get it in writing.

If I remember to do so later, I’ll keep an eye on this rather fascinating tale.

Photo credit: “09 Chevrolet Traverse” by IFCAR (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

I’m already boycotting CNN

Nancy_Grace

Avert your eyes…

With the first Presidential Debate coming up in a couple of days, it must be time for a boycott! Ultraviolet, which does some excellent work, I must say, is calling on people to boycott CNN’s coverage of the debatesuntil they fire Eric Erickson:

The first presidential debate is just two days away—and it’s a huge opportunity for all of us to send a strong message to CNN: Condoning sexism is bad for business.

CNN has remained silent since Erickson’s outrageous comments referring to the first night of the Democratic National Convention as the “The Vagina Monologues” Almost unbelievable, considering this was nowhere near his first offense. From defending Rush Limbaugh when he called a Georgetown graduate student a “slut,” to accusing women in the Obama administration of pushing American intervention in Libya “like women drivers” with “no plan,” “no map,” and “no shopping list.” (seriously.)

It’s not like firing Erickson would actually do anything to improve the tone of public discourse. Another hydra head would pop up to take his place, and the entire right wing would have an additional whining point to bring up at every opportunity. Still, the message is important, and I wholeheartedly agree that Erickson’s rhetoric tends towards the toxic.

This has nothing to do with free speech rights, by the way, so please, nobody waste the nation’s time by bringing that up. The government isn’t trying to shut Erickson down, private citizens exercising their economic power of the purse are the ones doing this.

I’m sure someone or many someones will weep that liberals are hating on Erickson just because he has an opinion that differs from theirs. I actually love when people make this argument, because to me it signals that the speaker has no intention of actually defending the substance of those opinions. They just want to wail and gnash their teeth that the liberals are being mean to them. If your only retort is that you have a right to your opinion, it could simply signal that you have reached an impasse with an opponent. If that is your opening retort, though, it suggests that you do not actually have an argument, or just can’t be bothered to defend or explain it. Just saying.

At any rate, I will not be participating in the boycott because I do not need to. I refuse to watch CNN as long as they give air time to Nancy Grace. She has done more damage to our concepts of criminal justice and basic jurisprudence (it’s a legal term, look it up) than anyone else in recent history, in my humble opinion.

Photo credit: ‘Nancy Grace’ by Vidiot [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

Austin, Our Lonely Blue Island

800px-Austin_from_Congress_Bridge-at_night

The one place in Texas I can stomach living anymore (except maybe parts of Houston)

The City of Austin became the first Texas city to formally support same-sex marriage. The City Council unanimously approved a resolution on Thursday, September 27, 2012. Item #77 on the morning’s agendawas:

Approve a resolution declaring the City Councils intent to support marriage equality in the State of Texas.

I took the liberty of uploading a copy of the draft resolution here (PDF file). The city’s original (also a PDF) is here.

KUT reported on the vote, and the City Council’s statements in support:

Before the vote, local civil rights groups declared their support for the resolution, which was sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Sheryl Cole and co-sponsored by Mayor Lee Leffingwell and Council member Laura Morrison.

At a press conference, Mayor Pro Tem Cole spoke about the evolution of rights in Texas, quoting Dr. Martin Luther King: “… Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. Whatever afflicts once directly also afflicts one indirectly.”

Council member Morrison acknowledged the progress made within the Austin community, when it comes to civil rights, but said there was still a ways to go.  Morrison pointed to practicality when making her point.

“Marriage equality provides important legal and economic protections including access to health care, parenting rights, property rights and other protections,” said Morrison.

I happen to believe that there is far more to this issue than one of practicality. This about people’s right to live their lives on their own terms. This is about people I care about, who cannot obtain basic recognition of their relationship with their life partner. The fact is that a majority of voters in my state, when they look at my friends, think that they can deny them that right. This mindset baffles me. More to the point, it infuriates and disgusts me.

In 2005, voters approved an amendment to the Texas Constitution that states: “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” It then prevents any political subdivision (i.e. a city) from “creat[ing] or recogniz[ing] any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” The amendment, known as Prop. 2 on the November 2005 ballot, passed with 76% voter approval. Travis County, where Austin is located, was the only county in the entire state where a majority of voters disapproved. Continue reading

Share

A Shiny Legal Analysis of Firefly

tumblr_mb1eb5q5sb1qehzkcI recently offered a wee tribute to Firefly, the show that revolutionized television for at least five or six people ten years ago. It later found new life on DVD, developed a bigger following, and made me sound like an elitist hipster when I talked about how I watched it when it was still destined for cancellation.

One feature of the show that I never really considered until today was what it had to say about contract law. Thankfully, the Legal Geeks had the idea before I did (dangit) and offered their thoughts on the matter:

Firefly was wickedly creative, well-written and had fantastic humor. Spaceships and wardrobe that ranged from Western to Steampunk to Chinese aside, Firefly presented excellent Contract formation issues.

Contract formation consists of 1) Offer; 2) Acceptance; 3) Consideration; and 4) Performance.

In the world of Firefly, it was often 1) Offer 2) Acceptance 3) Gunfight (also known as breach).

The show was actually like a brilliant 1L contracts class:

  • Offer (Mal: “We’ve got some Alliance-imprinted goods for sale”);
  • Acceptance (Patience: “I think we can do business”);
  • Rescission (Scary tattoo-face guy: “You are thinking of taking Mr. Niska’s money.” Mal: “No, we changed our minds.”);
  • Restitution (Mal: “This is all the money Niska gave us in advance”);
  • Breach (Badger: “You’re later than I would have liked;” or Patience: “I never part with money I don’t have to.”); and
  • Expectation damages (Mal: “Here’s how this works: I do a job, and then I get paid.”)

And that was just the first two episodes.

If you want to get super geeky, and maybe a little bit blue, we could talk about in-kind service exchanges as consideration in the episode “Heart of Gold.”

Anyway, I don’t want to steal the Legal Geeks’ thunder. I’ll even link to their post a second time so you’ll be sure to visit them.

Until next time, keep flyin’.

Photo credit: Via alwayswithapplesandcherries.tumblr.com.

Share

This Week in WTF, September 28, 2012

1379848_78696087– U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) is investigating a report that someone used one of their helicopters to facilitate a rather elaborate process of asking a girl to a dance:

While on a routine mission over northern Virginia last Wednesday, a CBP helicopter was allegedly used by a Department of Homeland Security employee to fly over his son’s high school and drop a stuffed animal with the invitation, NBCWashington.com reported.

Students, who were just being released from classes for the day, watched excitedly as the helicopter hovered close to the football field and dropped a stuffed bulldog with a red bandanna parachute to the ground. Then students said they saw the junior boy, carrying pink roses, walking toward the senior girl and leading her to the football field to collect the stuffed animal, which delivered the message, “Fall Fest?,” The Washington Post reported.

Guys, if you can, contact your father right now and demand to know why he was never willing to risk the wrath of the federal government to help you get the girl.

Seriously, though, while that may be a government agent fail, that is a parenting win.

– Bank of America may have unlawfully withdrawn funds from the bank accounts of up to 15,000 child entertainers, according to a lawsuit filed by a group of child actors. The funds are supposed to be in blocked trust accounts, and unauthorized withdrawals would violate the Coogan Law, which was passed in 1939 to protect child entertainers’ earnings from unscrupulous parents. Seriously, Bank of America, think of the children.

– That’s all I got. Slow week, I guess.

Photo credit: “Speed Trap” by skate49 on stock.xchng.

Share

Hello, I’m the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I Don’t Believe We’ve Met.

578107_78992564As we all know by now, presidential candidate Mitt Romney thinks that just under half of the country does not take full responsibility for their own lives, blah blah blah. No need to rehash all of that here. The meme has, rather interestingly, coincided with another Republican cause célèbre, voter ID laws. (Note to right-wingers: I will understand if you are uncomfortable using the French phrase “cause célèbre.” If you prefer, you may use the alternate phrase, “freedom fame.”)

Specifically, a Pennsylvania Republican is not concerned about possible disenfranchisement from the law he is sponsoring, apparently because people without photo ID just aren’t taking enough responsibility for their lives:

As Pennsylvania’s strict voter ID law returns to the lower court for reconsideration, its original sponsor, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-PA), told KDKA Radio Wednesday morning that his law will only disenfranchise “lazy” people, like the ones Mitt Romney was talking about in the leaked video of a private fundraiser.

When pressed on the issue, Rep. Metcalfe had this to say:

“I don’t believe any legitimate voter that actually wants to exercise that right and takes on the according responsiblity that goes with that right to secure their photo ID will be disenfranchised. As Mitt Romney said, 47% of the people that are living off the public dole, living off their neighbors’ hard work, and we have a lot of people out there that are too lazy to get up and get out there and get the ID they need. If individuals are too lazy, the state can’t fix that.” [Emphasis added]

He is both right and wrong, but let me first say this: Republicans, you have a problem with the word “legitimate.” Seriously, you should consider not using that word for a long while.

Now then, Rep. Metcalfe is right that the state cannot compel a “lazy” person to take an interest in politics or society. I would think that would be obvious. Here’s the rub, though: the state cannot compel a person to jump through arbitrary hoops to participate in society. Rep. Metcalfe is placing the blame on people who have lived their lives, by all accounts perfectly well, without the documents that he now says they need in order to vote. I call bullshit.

The people affected by Rep. Metcalfe’s proposed law would need to obtain documentation, typically at a cost, in order to participate in their own democracy. Study after study has shown that voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem. The only reason certain people would need to obtain a driver’s license or other photo ID, therefore, would be to vote. It would be an expense solely associated with the act of voting, and there is a name for that: a poll tax.

Meet the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1964:

SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Efforts to make people incur expense as a condition of voting has quite the dirty history in this country. Let’s not tiptoe back into our utterly-backwards past whilst trying to blame it on a mythical “lazy” class of people, okay?

Share

This Week in WTF, September 21, 2012

320px-US_Navy_110309-N-FG395-007_The_Los_Angeles-class_attack_submarine_USS_Pittsburgh_(SSN_720)_pulls_into_Naval_Submarine_Base_Kings_Bay_a_routine_port– The commander of a U.S. nuclear submarine reportedly tried to end an affair by faking his own death, specifically by sending the woman a fake e-mail saying he had been killed. She then showed up at his house to express condolences as a “friend,” which kind of ruined the plan. I’m sorry, did I say “commander” of a nuclear submarine. That should say “former commander.” You can probably connect the dots.

– A teenager in Phoenix had a habit of sitting in a tree while waiting for the object of his youthful crush to come home from school every day. Before you start thinking this is the premise for a quirky romantic comedy, when I said “sitting in a tree,” I meant to say “sitting in a tree and masturbating.” He got caught because, and I quote, he “missed his signal” that indicated she was approaching. Since he missed the signal, she caught a full view of him in flagrante delicto with himself. At this point, I don’t want to make jokes anymore, because this (and I can’t believe I still have to say this) is not cool. To drive home the point that this kid has not yet gotten the memo about respecting girls as equal members of humanity, the news story says:

He said he eventually stopped following the girl around because her mother confronted him, and Murray didn’t want the girl’s mother to think that he was stalking her daughter.

However, police allege that sitting in trees and waiting to watch a girl walk home qualifies as stalking.

Gee, ya think?

– A fraternity at Loyola University in Chicago tried to get around zoning restrictions by claiming, based on its mission statement “In the Service of God and Man,” that it is a monastic order exempted from the zoning ordinance. As such, it argued, city officials violated its equal protection rights by denying it a permit. A federal judge disagreed, ruling that it is, in fact, a fraternity. I’m not sure if it’s one of those party fraternities or a service fraternity, but either way, its members are not monks.

– An Asian-fusion restaurant in New York City refused to host a wedding rehearsal dinner for a same-sex couple because, and I am not making this up, “the owner’s son said gay parties are bad for ‘feng shui.'” The restaurant also fired the manager who booked the dinner. The couple is now suing the restaurant. I suppose the restaurant could argue that gay people have an irresistible urge to rearrange furniture, and that it has a constitutional right to manage its own feng shui. Maybe it could introduce old Queer Eye episodes into evidence.

Photo credit: “US Navy 110309-N-FG395-007 The Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Pittsburgh (SSN 720) pulls into Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay a routine port” by U.S. Navy, photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class James Kimber [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

Constitution Day Celebration

ACC's Constitution Day event, September 18, 2012I had the opportunity this past Tuesday, September 18, 2012, to serve as a facilitator at Austin Community College’s annual Constitution Day event. I got to lead a group of ACC students in a discussion of a constitutional issue. After the discussion, each group has two students get up: one to argue for the constitutionality of the subject, and one to argue against it. This was the second year I have participated, and for all that I joke about warping the minds of America’s youth, it is a truly great experience to help people explore these issues. The students range in age from high school to retired, and from painfully shy to please-let-someone-else-speak.

My table’s question dealt with the assassination of Anwar al-Aulaqi (sometimes spelled “Awlaki”), an American citizen living in Yemen. After he was linked to al-Qaeda, the Fort Hood shooter, and the “Underwear Bomber,” he was placed on a CIA assassination list. An unmanned drone killed him and several others in Yemen on September 30, 2011. The question, in essence, was this: since al-Aulaqi was a natural-born U.S. citizen (born in Las Cruces, New Mexico), did his placement on a “kill list” without trial or conviction violate his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? Discuss.

Discussion Topic from ACC's Constitution Day event, September 18, 2012

Click to embiggen

Share

Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Lean Finely-Textured Beef

Beef Products, Inc. (or “BPI”) is mad. You may have never heard of BPI, but you have probably heard of their product, lean finely-textured beef (“LFTB”). Of late, LFTB has gained some prominence in the public eye under the slightly more-descriptive name “pink slime.”

BPI is not happy that people in the media are calling their product “pink slime,” and they believe that it is hurting their business. They are therefore doing what we in this country always do: suing.

[BPI] has just filed a defamation (“veggie libel”) lawsuit for $1.2 billion (!) against an amazing cast of characters:

  • ABC News (owned by Disney)
  • TV news anchor Diane Sawyer
  • ABC correspondent Jim Avila
  • ABC correspondent David Kerley
  • Gerald Zirnstein , former USDA employee who invented the term “pink slime”
  • Carl Custer, former USDA employee
  • Kit Foshee, whistleblower former BPI employee

From what I understand, the concern is not just that the concept of “pink slime” is kind of gross. People have raised health concerns as well, due to questions of ammonia content or something. BPI disputes that the process that involves ammonia poses any danger to consumers.

I get that we cannot expect, as end users in a vast, complex society, to receive our consumer goods in anything much resembling their natural state. We’ve probably all been to Subway or Blimpie and seen the giant cylindrical loaves of turkey (just like the Pilgrims ate!) Continue reading

Share

This Week in WTF, September 14, 2012

– Obie, a 5 year-old Dachshund from Oregon, weighs seventy-seven pounds, qualifying him as “morbidly obese.” His elderly owners, whose health was failing, reportedly couldn’t properly care for him anymore, so they “loved him with food.” They eventually gave Obie to Oregon Dachshund Rescue, where he is getting some serious rehabilitation. Good luck, little guy!

– The owner of an Arlington, Texas strip club called “Flashdancer” (the club, not the owner) pleaded guilty to, uh, just read it:

The owner of an Arlington, Texas strip club pleaded guilty Thursday to trying to hire hitmen to kill the mayor and a Dallas attorney, after the city forced his club to close.

– In a poll that asked likely voters in Ohio who was more responsible for the death of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney………..hold on a second. Let me begin with a declaratory WTF that a poll even poses a question about apportioning credit  for the death of Osama bin Laden between the President of the United States and an unemployed guy. Who comes up with this stuff? Was it a practical joke on Ohio? At any rate, fifteen percent of Ohio Republicans seem to think that Romney deserves more credit than President Obama, presumably because shut up you socialist.

– A Hooters restaurant in Queens now faces a lawsuit after a server allegedly printed an unkind racial slur on a receipt for a Korean-American couple. A 17 year-old hostess apparently confessed and promptly resigned.

– Four Americans died in Libya this week, and of course it is affecting the presidential campaign. I don’t really want to talk about it right now.

Share