A “slam dunk” story for the day after the NBA Draft:

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban isn’t shy about using multiple avenues to promote himself and his team. In what is likely an attempt to keep his name in the news, Cuban is suing Golden State Warriors head coach Don Nelson, who used to coach the Mavericks, for knowing the Mavericks personnel a little too well. This “inside” knowledge, claims Cuban, helped the eighth-seeded Warriors beat the #1 seed Mavericks in the first round of the NBA playoffs this year.

From the story:

Mavericks owner Mark Cuban believes Golden State’s sizzling shooting alone didn’t sink his basketball team in the most stunning playoff defeat in NBA history.

That’s according to Don Nelson’s attorney, John O’Connor, who said Cuban is suing Nelson, claiming the Warriors beat the Mavs in the first round because the Warriors’ coach — and former coach of the Mavs — had “confidential information and he [Cuban] wants to enjoin Don from coaching against the Mavericks.”

“There is no basis in our view,” O’Connor said. “I suppose he [Nelson] knows [Dirk] Nowitzki likes to go right instead of left, but normally that’s not a trade secret.”

In an e-mail, Cuban acknowledged he and his lawyer have “claims” against Nelson, but is “not sure how we are handling them.” Cuban offered a “no comment” when asked Thursday night for a description of “confidential information.”

According to the story, when Nelson left the Mavericks, he signed a “non-compete” agreement with Cuban, which Nelson claims ended when he took the job with Golden State. Cuban contends that this agreement is still in effect, which should prohibit Nelson from being able to coach another team.

I’ve often wondered how this actually affects sports teams - for instance, when a baseball player is traded mid-season to a competitor. Does it do his new team any good to have his inside knowledge of how the other team works? Isn’t it an advantage to know all the signals and shifts the other team can make, not to mention the personnel tendencies?

It’s still up in the air, however, which is a more embarrassing move for a franchise: Cuban’s lawsuit, or drafting a Chinese guy who may be lying about his age, refuses to work out against a human being, and has the Chinese government saying he will never play for your team. But I’m not bitter.

I smell class action:

Frequent N.H. Speeder Wants Limit Raised

DOVER, N.H. - A man with a penchant for speedy driving has come up with an unusual tactic for beating speeding tickets — raise the limit. So far this year, Larry Lemay has been ticketed four times for speeding.

Rather than slow down, Lemay is suing the state Department of Transportation to study traffic and speed limits across New Hampshire, to see whether limits could be raised. Lemay’s lawsuit, filed in Strafford County Superior Court, also asks a judge to order the Transportation Department to pay for his legal fees and the cost of the study, an estimated $1,853.

Lemay said he believes many speed limits are set intentionally low so the state can cash in on drivers.

“The state is making a lot of money doing this, and I want it stopped,” he said. “It’s wrong.”

Dave Hilts, the assistant attorney general representing the state, said Lemay’s view that higher speed limits would lead to safer driving is shared on the Internet by many speed limit abolitionists, but is misguided.

“Common sense will tell you that going too slow is only a hazard when other people are going much faster,” said Hilts. “It’s kind of a weird case.”

As for Lemay’s suggestion that the state sets low speed limits just to catch people with tickets:

“It seems ridiculous to me. I don’t know what incentive the state would have to do that,” Hilts said. “I’ve not seen any evidence that that occurs. I don’t believe it.”

I’m not sure exactly what this lawsuit is meant to accomplish. So he wins, and a judge orders the state to do a “study” that it doesn’t want to do? Want three guesses as to what the study is going to say?

On the other hand, I might have to give him a call to see if I can file an amicus brief. I have a lot of parking tickets that I think violate my right to park on the sidewalk.

27-year old former nursing student Nicholas Perrino is suing Columbia University to overturn an “F” he received after missing an exam:

Nicholas Perrino was kicked out of the Ivy League institution’s School of Nursing for missing an exam, and now he is suing to get back in.

“I should have went to Yale,” moaned Perrino, who is representing himself in the case.

The 27-year-old Illinois native said he was working toward two master’s degrees last summer, when his grandparents became gravely ill, forcing him to take a few days off.

He told his instructors he would be absent for a skills exam and tried to arrange a makeup, Perrino claims in documents filed June 15 in Manhattan Supreme Court.

Instead, he says, the school failed him in the course - part of a fast-track master’s program. Without the test, the school wouldn’t let him continue his nursing coursework.

Filing academic grievances and appealing to the Columbia provost got him nowhere, he said, and he was withdrawn from the School of Nursing.

“It’s insane,” Perrino said. “It’s not like I killed someone.”

Perrino, who says he spent $65,000 on tuition, did complete a master’s degree in public policy. He says he had a nearly spotless academic record at the School of Nursing.

A Columbia spokesman said he could only confirm Perrino had been a nursing student, and cited privacy rules preventing him from discussing the case.

Perrino is asking a judge to remove the “F” from his transcript, reinstate him at the school and reimburse tuition costs for classes he has already taken.

Presumably, legal action against universities by disgruntled students is fairly common. However, two of Perrino’s statements deserve scrutiny.

First, he claims he “told his instructors” he would be missing the exam. That is far different than getting permission to miss the exam. Had his instructors granted his request, he likely would have said so in the court documents. The more likely scenario is that on the way out the door, he e-mailed his professor to say “sorry, I have an emergency and can’t make the exam,” or something similar.

Secondly, he complains that “it’s not like (he) killed someone.” Actually, there’s a much less compelling case against him had he actually killed someone and not missed the exam. If he ran over someone with his car and the professors flunked him as a result, he may actually have a case. But by missing an exam, he gave them every reason to fail him.

It’s difficult to envision Columbia not having some sort of written policy on unexcused absences for student exams. The fact that Perrino is representing himself may be an indication of how he feels about his chances in court.

Whereas some might think prison is a place to teach inmates valuable lessons (”don’t stab people,” etc.), it appears more Swedish prisoners are learning the value of a good lawyer:

Court Upholds Prisoners’ Right to Porn

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) — Convicted sex offenders in Sweden are free to read pornography in their cells following a court ruling that has angered the prison service.

The Supreme Administrative Court in Stockholm last week ruled that the Swedish Prison and Probation Service had no right to deny a rape convict access to his porn magazines.

Prison officials had argued that reading porn would interfere with the man’s rehabilitation program. They also said the magazines posed a security problem for staff and other inmates because they could increase the risk of the man relapsing into criminal behavior.

But the court, whose ruling cannot be appealed, said the prison service failed to prove that the magazines could “jeopardize the security of the institution.”

Prison officials said they had asked the government to change the law so that they could continue to ban porn magazines at the Nordic nation’s prisons.

“It increases the risk of assault for other interns and it is provocative for personnel,” Elisabeth Kwarnmark, a prison service psychologist, said about the ruling.

Kwarnmark said that other pornographic material, such as adult movies, channels and Web sites, are not permitted in Swedish prisons. Child and violent pornography are also banned.

On the bright side, he’ll be blind when he’s finally released.

Next time you feel like living on the edge, there’s no need to go sky diving or ski jumping. Simply bite into a Starburst fruit chew, cross your fingers, and hang on for dear life…

Michigan Woman Claims Starburst Candies Are Dangerously Chewy in Lawsuit

Starburst Fruit Chews are exactly as their name would indicate: chewy. But one Michigan woman says the candies are so chewy, they should come with a warning label.

Victoria McArthur, of Romero, Mich., is suing Starbursts’ parent company, Mars Inc., for more than $25,000 for “permanent personal injuries” she claims she sustained after biting into one of their yellow candy in 2005.

“I don’t know, maybe about 3 chews and it literally locked my jaw … and it just literally pulled my jaw out of joint,” she told MyFoxDetroit.com.

McArthur’s lawyer, Brian Muawad, says the candies caused her to develop a condition known as temporal mandibular joint dysfunction. McArthur says she has had trouble chewing, talking and sleeping since the incident.

I think we need to take whatever steps necessary to keep this woman away from jawbreakers.

British businessman Dennis North’s wife Jean left him 30 years ago after she began seeing another man. Their split became official in 1981, when they signed an agreement that granted Jean their house and income from rents on their various properties.

North went on to be a wildly successful businessman, while his ex-wife never worked. However, a judge has just ordered North to pay Jean a large lump-sum payment because she has “fallen on hard times” due to a number of money-losing investments:

Mr North, 70, has been ordered by a court to hand her another £202,000.

The order follows a series of big-money divorce cases which have swung the law against husbands and resulted in huge payments to ex-wives even after short childless marriages. The North case now threatens to make husbands pay large sums even decades after a split.

Three Appeal Court judges had heard Mr North’s lawyers call for the payment to be stopped.

His barrister, Philip Moor QC, said 61-year-old Mrs North was trying to get “a second bite at the cherry”.

He added: “The whole purpose of divorce is to disentangle people so they can lead independent lives.

“The changes in financial positions of the parties since 1981 and the differential between them that has arisen over the years cannot be relevant.”

The court heard that Mrs North moved to Australia in 1999 and lost much of her money in “unfortunate” investments said to have been based on bad advice.

Mr Moor said it had been her decision to sell up and move to one of the most desirable and expensive areas of Sydney and live beyond her means in a country where she was not entitled to benefits.

Existing English law gives ex-spouses who are receiving maintenance payments the ability to request a lump-sum payment instead. Jean’s attorneys believe she is entitled to this money, and state their case by responding to the odd “cherry” reference:

But Deborah Bangay, QC, for Mrs North, said: “This was not a second bite at the cherry but it is what are her reasonable needs. The court was entitled to take into account the obvious wealth of the former husband.”

She said it was not Mrs North’s fault that her investments had gone wrong. The district judge’s award had been at the “bottom end of the spectrum”.

So, to recap: This woman destroys her marriage, never gets a job, lives well beyond her means, loses a ton of money in bad investments, then gets a large cash payment for her trouble? Think there’s a line of people willing to be her investment advisor?

A Massachusetts inmate serving life in prison for murder is in court demanding the state pay for a sex-change operation:

The case of Michelle — formerly Robert — Kosilek is being closely watched across the country by advocates for other inmates who want to undergo a sex change. Transgender inmates in other states have sued prison officials, and not one has succeeded in persuading a judge to order a sex-change operation.

[...]

Kosilek, 58, was convicted of strangling his wife in 1990. He claimed he killed her in self-defense after she spilled boiling tea on his genitals.

Robert Kosilek legally changed his name to Michelle in 1993, and has sued the Correction Department twice, arguing that its refusal to allow a sex-change operation violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Naturally, expert witnesses are lining up to defend Kosilek, and a law firm is representing him pro bono:

Two other doctors retained and paid for by the department’s outside health provider, the University of Massachusetts Correctional Health Program, at a cost of just under $19,000 said they believe the surgery is medically necessary for Kosilek. Two other doctors who work for the health provider agreed with that.

In addition, two psychiatrists who testified for Kosilek recommended the surgery. A Boston law firm representing Kosilek for free paid for those experts but would not disclose the cost.

Aside from the propriety of taxpayers paying for a sex change operation (which Kosilek may or may not have been able to pay for himself had he not been in prison), corrections officials are correct that having a (now) woman in a male prison could pose significant problems. It is almost a given that should the operation be performed, Kosilek would petition to be moved to a women’s prison to protect his own safety.

Also, note the interesting correction at the bottom of the story:

(This version CORRECTS `himself’ to `herself.’)

Kosilek hasn’t had the sex change yet, so technically he is still a man - apparently the newspaper thought so, too. It would be interesting to find out who compelled them to change the story to portray Kosilek as a female - and in the process perhaps avoid their own lawsuit.

As noted in the story, Wisconsin went through a similar situation in 2004 when inmate Scott (now Donna Dawn)Konitzer was denied genital gender reassignment surgery by the Department of Corrections and sued the state. Department policy had been to provide hormone therapy to those who had been receiving it for a year before their incarceration, but surgery was not provided as an option. As Kosilek now has, Konitzer claimed denial of the procedure constituted “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

As a result of Konitzer’s lawsuit, the Wisconsin Legislature actually passed into law a ban on both hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery. Naturally, that new law has been challenged in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee.

29-year old Russell Parrish decided he wanted to tell his life story through his tattoos. Unfortunately for him, his life story now contains a chapter on why he couldn’t get a job because he’s covered with tattoos. Naturally, he claims this is all a result of discrimination:

His tattoos cover his right and left arms and hands. There is a spider in a web crawling up his neck.

“It goes back to Sir Walter Scott, ‘Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.’ It reminds me not to lie,” he explained.

On his left arm, the faces of old-school horror movies: Boris Karloff, Lon Cheny, Bela Legosi. Those were his father’s favorites. When the fingers of his right and left hands intertwine, it spells ‘Hound Dawg.’

“That’s my nickname,” the 29-year-old said proudly.

[...]

With a wife and dreams of kids on the way, he wants a career. He’s looked at theme parks in Kissimmee, home improvement stores down the street in his hometown of Lake Wales, even straight-laced coat and tie jobs. Everywhere he went, he said, “I got a door shut in my face.”

Russell says in the last two months he’s applied for over 100 jobs. In almost half of them, he says he was denied because of his tattoos. He says that’s discrimination.

Having tried the EEOC and the Department of Labor, Parrish is now lobbying state lawmakers for a new law that would protect him from discrimination against tattoos. In other words, he now needs the government to step in and bail him out of the bad lifestyle decisions he’s made.

Yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life is of special importance to those of us in Wisconsin, since we have watched the case unfold before our eyes since its inception. As you’ve probably heard by now, the Court, in a 5-4 vote, struck down a portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law which prohibited so-called “issue advocacy” by unregistered groups in a period of 60 days before a general election. Wisconsin Right to Life had run advertisements critical of Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl for their perceived role in holding up judicial appointments, but these ads were deemed to be illegal under McCain-Feingold, despite not advocating for the electoral defeat of either. Yesterday’s decision upheld WRTL’s right to run the ads, as the Court determined they were not “express advocacy.”

The culture of speech restriction with regard to campaigns has been prevalent in Wisconsin for some time, and produces some fairly odd applications of the law. This was demonstrated during last November’s elections, when the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (a pro-campaign finance reform group) actually filed a complaint to bar a Catholic diocese from urging its parishoners to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. (Church Accused of Illegal Lobbying, Madison Capital Times, Oct. 18, 2006) At the same time they were attempting to use state law to block the Catholic Church’s right to support the constitutional amendment, the WDC was actually publicly lobbying against the amendment - yet they didn’t see their own activities as “express advocacy.”

So while it is clear yesterday’s decision represented a marginal victory for free speech rights at the federal level, there are steps states can take to ensure political speech isn’t muzzled come election time. When churches break the law by teaching their beliefs, it should alert states to dangerous path campaign finance restrictions are taking us.

When showing your crack is outlawed, then only outlaws will be showing their crack:

Cajun Town Bans Saggy Pants (NYT, June 13)

DELCAMBRE, La. (AP) — Sag your britches somewhere else, this Cajun-country town has decided. Mayor Carol Broussard said he would sign an ordinance the town council approved this week setting penalties of up to six months in jail and a $500 fine for being caught in pants that show undergarments or certain parts of the body.

Broussard said he has nothing against saggy pants but thinks people who wear them should use discretion. ”It’s gotten way out of hand out here,” he said.

Albert Roy, the councilman who introduced the ordinance, said he thought the fine was a little steep and should be more in the $25 range, but he still favored the measure.

”I don’t know if it will do any good, but it won’t hurt,” Roy said. ”It’s obvious, and anybody with common sense can see your parts when you wear sagging pants.”

Broussard’s advice for people who like their pants to hang low: ”Just wear it properly. Cover your vital parts. I mean, if you expose your private parts, you’ll get a fine. If you walk up and your pants drop, you get a fine. They’re better off taking the pants off and just wearing a dress.”

I totally envision a Footloose-type of situation here where a spry young high schooler rolls into town and teaches all the townsfolk that butt cracks can be a perfectly beautiful and natural occurrence.

The downside of this ordinance, of course, is that it will drive all the plumbers out of town. Better get your sink fixed before it goes into effect. Oh, and as long as we’re talking about plumbers, it gives me an excuse to show you this outstanding commercial. That is all.

You may have heard of condemned Texas death row inmate Patrick Knight, who has expressed his desire to tell a joke as his final statement tonight. (June 4)

From the story:

Knight acknowledges there’s nothing funny about his likely execution later this month for the fatal shooting of his neighbors, Walter and Mary Werner, almost 16 years ago outside Amarillo. But to help him come up with his final statement, Knight is accepting jokes mailed to him on Texas’ death row or e-mailed to a friend who has a Web site for him. The friend then mails him the jokes…

“I’m not trying to disrespect the Werners or anything like that,” he told The Associated Press from death row. “I’m not trying to say I don’t care what’s going on. I’m about to die. I’m not going to sit here and whine and cry and moan and everything like that when I’m facing the punishment I’ve been given.

He said he’s already received about 250 wisecracks.

“Lawyer jokes are real popular,” he said. “Some of them are a little on the edge. I’m not going to use any profanity if I can find the one I want, or any vulgar content. It wouldn’t be bad if it was a little bit on the edge. That would be cool.”

Thank goodness he is sparing lawyers from being subjected to an off-color joke. Good thing he’s on their side - unfortunately, it’s with everyone else that he gets a little “murdery.” And I especially appreciate his concern for the feelings of the family. Here’s a valuable tip when you want to show respect for a family - try to avoid shooting them to death. I read that in an etiquette book once, I think.

In Ontario, Canada, a 24 year-old man has been ordered not to have a girlfriend for the next three years - due to a violent argument he had with his girlfriend. From the story:

Mr. Justice Rhys Morgan told a 24-year-old, characterized as having a dependent personality disorder, yesterday he could not have a girlfriend for the next three years.

The unusual order was added to Steven Cranley’s probation order after he pleaded guilty to six charges relating to an argument he had with his former girlfriend and a roommate Jan. 17.

Reacting to the recent breakup of their relationship, Cranley began an argument with his girlfriend who he shared a home with, court heard. The argument began escalating and when his girlfriend tried to call the police, Cranley entered her room, cut her phone cord with wire cutters and began slapping and punching her, Crown attorney Shonagh Pickens said.

While this may seem like an unusual punishment, some of us have already had to suffer through similar periods of not having a girfriend. For me, it was a time period commonly known as “the 1990s.” And I didn’t even need a judge to mandate it. Fortunately, I now have an in-home judge that forbids me from having girlfriends. She is often referred to as “my wife.”

There’s no doubt this guy has mental problems. But as a result, he can now look forward to three years’ worth of late nights watching Cinemax, praying to God he doesn’t recognize any of the actresses’ names in the opening credits.

Visitors to Rustico restaurant in Alexandria, VA may think they’re merely enjoying an innocent Beersicle (video)- but state regulators seem to think they are practicing their own vigilante brand of thirst amelioration. The new “frozen beer on a stick” offering apparently violates a state law that requires beer be sold in its original container or served immediately after it is poured.

It would seem to me that the beersicle actually serves as a deterrent to consuming large amounts of beer as fast as possible. This isn’t a good thing? Wouldn’t the cops be a little better served by making sure terrorists aren’t amassing a stockpile of bomb pops?

[Update Jul. 2008: state legislature legalizes the pops.]

It appears that I have won the Guestblogger Pageant (despite falling down and being booed by angry Mexicans), so here’s a little bit about me. My name is Christian Schneider, and I work for the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute here in lovely Madison, Wisconsin. I run the WPRI blog, a little personal project called Atomic Trousers, and as a former legislative staffer, I blogged pseudonymously as Dennis York (a blog that could generously be described as humorous). I am originally from Alexandria, VA, and I have a master’s degree in political science from the prestigious Marquette University in Milwaukee (which means I am qualified to read the newspaper). I also occasionally contribute commentaries to the show “Here and Now” on Wisconsin Public Television.

While I am not an attorney, I am a long time fan of Overlawyered.com. Plus, there’s a reasonable chance Jessica Alba will be filing a restraining order against me sometime soon, so I thought it might be a good idea to familiarize myself with the legal community.

Here are a couple past posts that people seemed to find moderately inoffensive:

Scientists to Harvest Seniors for their Coupons
Keep Your Laws Out of My Pants (and a Follow-Up)
When Religions Lobby

So there’s my resume. References available upon request.