The lead plaintiff in Alli v. Decker, an ACLU-led class action lawsuit aimed at preventing the deportation of various aliens who commit crimes, turns out to be a conman who played a role in a huge Nigerian-led identity theft scam. Reports the Times:
The news media campaign was all set to go. There was even a Web site ready with a sympathetic profile of Alexander Alli, 49, the man the American Civil Liberties Union had chosen as the lead plaintiff …Court documents tell the story of Mr. Alli’s life before his fall as a familiar tale of immigrant pluck, luck and hard work.
Well, yes, court documents prepared by his lawyers would tend to do that, while tending to downplay or omit the massive identity theft operation in which Mr. Alli was a participant, which extracted more than $50 million by impersonating and victimizing some 30,000 credit card holders: he “admitted to being personally responsible for $70,000 to $120,000 of the multimillion-dollar losses to banks and credit card companies”. Start deporting people like that, and where is our next generation of scam artists supposed to come from? [New York Times, Patrick at Popehat]
Tagged as:
ACLU,
class actions,
immigration law
A long-running controversy pits some elected officials and townspeople of Framingham, Mass., west of Boston, against a social service agency that has proposed the town as a site for halfway houses and other residential facilities for recovering addicts, the homeless and others. Two years ago things turned particularly unpleasant:
…[South Middlesex Opportunity Council] filed suit in federal court this week demanding damages not just from town officials, but from citizens who have dared criticize the agency and challenge its plans.
SMOC’s 99-page complaint [which alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act, federal Rehabilitation Act, Americans With Disabilities Act and Civil Rights Act -- ed.] piles up charges against selectmen and planning board members not just in their official capacity, but as individuals. It targets town employees, both named and unnamed. It calls for damages against four Framingham Town Meeting members and two citizens for comments made on a private Web site and e-mails distributed on a privately-operated mailing list.
The ACLU of Massachusetts expressed unease at the naming of private citizens as defendants over their advocacy efforts. While the lawsuit has been narrowed somewhat in the two years since then, it continues to engender much acrimony as it drags on:
Aggravating the ill will is a recent revelation that a man charged with shooting a local police officer had lived in a home run by the agency, the South Middlesex Opportunity Council, or SMOC.
Tagged as:
ACLU,
Boston,
fair housing,
land use and zoning,
Massachusetts,
taxpayers
Hans Bader points out that a very important motivation for the pending expansion of federal hate-crimes law is to exploit a loophole the Supreme Court has created in its application of the important Constitutional principle, by exposing defendants to jeopardy a second time despite acquittal or dropping of charges in state courts.
Tagged as:
ACLU,
double jeopardy,
hate crimes
- Pajamas TV interviews me on Obama cabinet prospects (RFK Jr., Caroline Kennedy, Schwarzenegger, Gorelick, etc.) (Nov. 13, subscription-only)
- Federal court in New Orleans hits attorney with five-year practice suspension after “intentionally contemptuous” filing and other misconduct [Times-Picayune, Ashton O'Dwyer]
- Lawyer sues his straying wife for giving him herpes, but her lawyer says a test proves she doesn’t have the malady in the first place [Above the Law]
- Doctors (e.g.) being put through hostile depositions are often tempted to talk back sharply to the lawyer. Bad move, says Ronald Miller [Maryland Injury]
- It’s a shame most of the press remains incurious about that episode a few days ago in which talk of compulsory national service appeared, then vanished from the Obama site [K. Ryan James]
- Batting cage pitching machine without prompting hits customer in most sensitive part of male anatomy, he collects $1.2 million [The Big Lead]
- ACLU will defend preacher sent to prison on parole violation charge after writing “God will smite this judge” newspaper article (having earlier been convicted of election misconduct)[AP/FoxNews, western Michigan]
- On appeal, Long Island attorney beats charges of coaching clients to fake injury and using “steerers” to gain business [NYLJ]
Tagged as:
ACLU,
Long Island,
national service,
New Orleans,
on TV and radio,
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,
sanctions
After much discussion in the blogosphere this story would seem more than ready to cross over into mainstream-press coverage; here’s a local columnist who says he left three messages with attorney Clifford Shoemaker but got no response (Dave Brooks, “What a Web of actional links we can weave”, Nashua Telegraph, Apr. 9)(via Liz Ditz/I Speak of Dreams’ ongoing list monitoring coverage).
Update 5:30 p.m.: Here’s James Taranto at WSJ Best of the Web, giving just the shove the story may need:
It might behoove the ACLU, or some organization devoted to civil liberties, to devote some resources to figuring out how to defend speech that is inconvenient to plaintiffs lawyers.
Tagged as:
ACLU,
bloggers and the law,
Kathleen Seidel subpoena,
online speech,
vaccines
- Judge expresses surprise at how many law firms want in on fees in Visa/MasterCard issuer settlement [NYSun]
- Mississippi bill would require a lawyer’s presence at real estate escrow closings; so rude to cite the profession’s self-interest as a factor [Clarion-Ledger]
- Following Coughlin Stoia’s lead, Mark Lanier announces he’s expanding into intellectual property litigation [The Recorder]
- Maryland legislation would require state-aided colleges and universities to report on what they’re doing to advance “cultural diversity” [Examiner via Bader/Open Market]
- New era at UK pubs? Under new directive, “employers will risk being sued if a bar worker or waitress complains of being called ‘love’ or ‘darling’, or if staff overhear customers telling sexist jokes.” [Daily Mail]
- ACLU just sued city of San Diego and snagged $900K in legal fees, but that’s no impediment to the city’s council’s enacting a special day of tribute to the group [House of Eratosthenes]
- George Wallace, who’s guestblogged here, hosts twin editions of Blawg Review #153 at his blogs Declarations & Exclusions and A Fool in the Forest, on piratical and Punchinello themes;
- Obama won’t support lowering drinking age [Newsweek]
- Such a shame for entrepreneurial plaintiffs, post-Proposition 64 if you want to sue a California business you might actually need to have been injured [CalBizLit]
- Time mag appeals $100 million Suharto libel ruling [IHT]
- Hey, no fair enforcing that fine print disclaiming liability for sweepstakes misprints [three years ago on Overlawyered]
Tagged as:
ACLU,
attorneys' fees,
Barack Obama,
Coughlin Stoia,
diversity,
harmless lawsuits,
libel slander and defamation,
Mark Lanier,
Maryland,
Mississippi,
Prop 64,
roundups,
San Diego
Controversy continues over the extent to which litigation has tended to obstruct brush and understory removal as well as post-blaze recovery efforts in the fire zones: Damien Schiff (Pacific Legal Foundation), “Misguided litigation magnifies wildfires”, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 5); John Berlau, “The Environmentalist Fires”, American Thinker, Oct. 29; BioStock blog, Oct. 5. The Sierra Club defends environmental litigation in this Oct. 23 statement. Last year the Society of American Foresters last year released a study entitled “Forest Service Land Management Litigation 1989-2002″, which is available at the Society site. Earlier: Oct. 24, etc.
Tagged as:
ACLU,
environment,
wildfires
This Sunday’s Boston Globe magazine had a long feature piece which addressed the burning question, “Do We Really Need A Law To Protect Fat Workers?” The “law” in question would be a law which forbid “discrimination against overweight and unusually short people.” While I resemble that remark, you won’t be surprised to find me answering the question, “No,” in contrast to the politicians and activists who think it’s a great idea. The problem they face? Too many people inconveniently think that being overweight is a choice; they need to convince these skeptics that weight and race are really the same thing.
Although some people worry that the law would lead to a flood of lawsuits, the supporters of the bill pooh-pooh that notion, based on implausible statistics about disability discrimination lawsuits. Besides, their goal (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) isn’t really lawsuits at all:
Like the race laws, then, the weight-discrimination bill has a goal that extends beyond the legal system: to change the way we think. The idea is not to clog up the courts. Instead, it’s to create a society where hundreds of lawsuits aren’t needed, because there’s not as much to sue over – a society of people who have the legal right to say hurtful things and the compassion to know better than to act on them.
But if it does clog up the courts — the ADA only applies to those so obese that they can call themselves disabled, while the proposed Massachusetts law would apply to anybody who is overweight, which seems to be most of the population — it won’t be the author of the bill who suffers, but employees and business owners.
Of course, even if Massachusetts does pass this law, it wouldn’t be the worst; California already has far wackier anti-discrimination laws with its full-employment-for-lawyers Unruh Act. Unruh, despite listing the usual categories found in anti-discrimination laws (sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, and sexual orientation) actually has been interpreted by state courts to prohibit all “arbitrary” discrimination. As Cal Biz Lit explains:
In earlier cases, the courts have held the act to prohibit business discrimination based on :
• A customer’s association with a male with long hair and “unconventional” dress;
• Having children; and
• Status as a police officer (when the ACLU tried to kick a cop out of a meeting).
If a creative lawyer hasn’t shoehorned obesity in there already, he will soon enough.
Tagged as:
ACLU,
Massachusetts,
workplace
“Three homeless men mistakenly arrested last year on charges of sleeping too close to a pile of feces have settled a lawsuit against the city of Las Vegas for $45,000.” Police made the arrest although a sleeping-too-close-to-feces provision in one of the city’s ordinances had in fact recently been repealed. The ACLU of Nevada proceeded to sue:
The men sought $2 million each in compensatory and punitive damages. Their attorney E. Brent Bryson said Wednesday the $45,000 settlement was reasonable.
“The realities are that these individuals are not capable of maintaining and sustaining an ongoing litigation,” he said. “This quick money to them represents an ability for them to get back on their feet.”
Bryson collected a $15,000 fee from the settlement.
Two of the three men say they haven’t decided yet what to do with their $10,000 windfalls, a sum that will equally well pay for a fair bit of not-getting-back-on-their-feet should they choose to spend it that way. (”Vegas homeless men win $45,000 in suit over sleeping near feces”, AP/Las Vegas Sun, Mar. 29; “Homeless men win $45,000 settlement with City of Las Vegas”, KVBC, Mar. 29).
Tagged as:
ACLU
Richmond, Va.: “A high school art teacher has hired the ACLU to challenge his firing after a video of him moonlighting as a ‘butt-printing artist’ was widely circulated among his high school students.” Stephen Murmer was fired from his job at Monacan High School. (Matt Reed, “Backside artist to challenge firing”, AP/ABCNews.com, Jan. 24).
Tagged as:
ACLU,
schools,
workplace
I have perused the decision by a federal district judge in Michigan declaring the NSA warrantless wiretapping program to be in violation of both FISA and the Fourth Amendment and have some thoughts.
While the decision contains a wealth of flowery language reminiscent of, say, a post by a libertarian blawger, it is rather weak on actual analysis. On the other hand, what little analysis it contains is spot-on accurate.
[click to continue…]
Tagged as:
ACLU,
Michigan
Not according to the ACLU of Southern California, at least. That’s the apparent lesson of a 1986 incident which drew little publicity at the time, but which David Bernstein recently investigated. The proprietors of the Alpine Village Inn in Torrance, Calif. were understandably outraged when a group of four customers came in wearing swastika pins and other Nazi regalia. It asked them to leave, but they refused and so it called the cops; its reward was to be sued by the ACLU under California’s Unruh Act for its failure to provide public accommodation to the Hitler fans. According to Bernstein’s informant, the restaurant’s insurer paid a settlement. (Feb. 24)
Tagged as:
ACLU,
harassment law
Greg Skidmore at Sports Law Blog (who has guest-blogged on this site) analyzes the ACLU-aided suit against the Tampa Sports Authority challenging the National Football League’s anti-terror measures.
Tagged as:
ACLU,
sports
Eugene Volokh (Aug. 29) finds particularly egregious — and at odds with the First Amendment — the practice of courts in various states of “discrimination in favor of religious parents and against irreligious ones, or in favor of more religious parents and against less religious ones, in child custody cases, on the theory that it’s in the child’s ‘best interests’ (that’s the relevant legal test) to be raised with a religious education.” For more on civil disabilities of freethinkers, see Jan. 21-23, 2000.
P.S. Reader John Steele Gordon writes to say, “It seems to me that the ACLU could much more profitably direct its jihad against religion at these cases, which do a great deal of harm to real people, than at carvings of the Ten Commandments on public property, which do not.” And here’s quite a bit more from Eugene.
Yet more: Reader Carl Fink, in response to John Gordon’s comment above, defends the ACLU:
The ACLU is just as likely to assist a religious person whose right to practice has been denied, as a nonreligious person whose tax money is being spent to promote a religion. To name one recent case, in State of New Jersey v. Lloyd Fuller, an ACLU attorney submitted a friend-of-the-court brief arguing for the rights of potential jurors to wear traditional Muslim (or by extension other religious) dress without being excluded from juries (see link).
What we object to is government enforcement of any religious policy, including religious EXCLUSION.
Tagged as:
ACLU,
family law,
New Jersey
Some years back, Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court wrote a dissent in the widely noted harassment-law case of Aguilar v. Avis, in which the court ordered the drawing up of a list of forbidden words that employees of a rental car franchise were to be prohibited from using to each other on the job even in private conversation (see Sept. 11, 2000). The other day a New York Times editorial (”Disarmament in the Senate”, May 25) assailed Rogers for her supposedly extreme position in dissenting from Aguilar (which was decided 4-3), and James Taranto of the WSJ’s “Best of the Web” quite appropriately rises to her defense (May 27). As Taranto notes (but the Times somehow fails to), Justice Stanley Mosk, regarded as the California high court’s most liberal member, joined Brown in dissenting from Aguilar as a prior restraint on speech rights. For more, see Tim Sandefur, Sept. 23, 2004.
Tagged as:
ACLU,
harassment law
On Jan. 21 Mayor Don Williamson of Flint, Mich., issued an executive order directing the city not to do business with any enterprise or person who had sued the city during the previous five years. Last week he announced a retreat from that policy, his spokesman saying a record of having sued the city would henceforth be considered as one factor among others rather than as an automatic bar to doing business.
Williamson’s original order had been criticized on various grounds, and the local ACLU chapter had threatened — what else? — to sue the city over the policy. Now, it should be noted that a municipality’s blanket refusal to do business with lawsuit-filers very likely might run afoul of various laws: employment discrimination statutes, to take one notable example, typically include provisions banning employers from “retaliating” against persons who sue under them. Other state laws on topics such as procurement might also be plausibly implicated, and perhaps constitutional doctrines as well. On the other hand, news accounts portray the ACLU chapter as adventurously asserting some sort of universal if heretofore unenumerated right not to be retaliated against by any official body on the grounds of a record of litigiousness — so that an asphalt contractor, for example, with a record of getting into repeated wrangles with the city over the terms of past contracts might have a constitutional right not to have that held against it in future competition for business. Given Flint’s announced policy of continuing to consider proneness to litigation as one factor among others, it may be predicted that the controversy has not been finally put to rest. (Christofer Machniak, “Flint’s no-sue policy modified”, Flint Journal, Feb. 25; “Flint rescinds policy barring business with companies who have sued city”, AP/Detroit Free Press, Feb. 24).
Tagged as:
ACLU,
Detroit
