- British TV regulators field many complaints about performers’ setbacks on reality contest shows [Guardian via Marginal Revolution]
- “Judge Tosses Much of Campaign Contributions Case Against Katrina Lawyer” (Pierce O’Donnell, said to have reimbursed employees for donations to Edwards race) [NLJ, earlier]
- Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney in Chicago, threatens to sue publisher over contents of forthcoming book [WSJ Law Blog, NY Mag "Intelligencer"]
- Late-night neighbor dispute: “Honking horn not constitutionally protected” [Seattle Times]
- “Strippers Sue to Be Classified as Employees, Not Independent Contractors” [NLJ]
- Boston-based James Sokolove, biggest legal pitchman, is planning to get even bigger with $25 million ad budget [Wicked Local via Ambrogi]
- What more satisfying for a lawyer than to win an anti-SLAPP motion against someone trying to silence one’s client? [Ken @ Popehat]
- “Despite crazy rules, convoluted taxes and rampant lawyers, America is still a great place to do business” [The Economist]
Tagged as:
campaign regulation,
chasing clients,
John Edwards,
strippers and exotic dancers,
wage and hour suits
What with all the money in Edwards’ own name from his legal career, not to mention the late Texas trial lawyer Fred Baron’s generosity in solving the housing needs of Edwards’ girlfriend, it wouldn’t seem necessary to use campaign or charitable funds for her benefit, too, but a U.S. attorney is said to be pursuing allegations along those lines. Hunter was paid $100,000 to do documentary filmmaking about the Edwards campaign, which gave the couple many opportunities to be close to each other. [New York Daily News, CBS News, Raleigh News & Observer] More: Althouse, Kaus.
Tagged as:
campaign regulation,
Fred Baron,
John Edwards,
Rielle Hunter,
scandals
by SSFC on December 21, 2008
Overlawyered readers may well recall the travails of disgraced former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann. Dann dropped off the radar earlier this year after he was driven from office amid allegations of sexual harassment and workplace affairs within his office. Before stepping down, Dann touched off a brief constitutional crisis in Ohio, similar to what Illinois is now experiencing thanks to Rod Blagojevich.
Now Dann is back in the news, with a less sexy scandal involving campaign finance expenditures:
Former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann used his campaign account to bankroll home repairs and family vacations, according to a newspaper review of state investigative reports.
Interestingly, beyond the expected “lies all lies!” defense, Dann responds that while he didn’t do it, if he did do it, he did it on the advice of counsel:
“The allegations that have been made in these complaints are either false or they lack a basis in law,” Dann said. “We operated the campaign committee lawfully, and all the expenditures were made with the advice of counsel and were appropriate.”
It would be nice to know which counsel advised the former attorney general that home repairs and family vacations were appropriate campaign expenditures. Assuming that the counsel wasn’t Marc Dann.
Via Instapundit, who observes that the AP’s treatment of this story leaves the reader puzzled as to Dann’s party identity. Perhaps Marc Dann was an independent.
Tagged as:
campaign regulation,
Marc Dann,
Ohio
Occasionally a reader will ask why I’m averse to linking to the conservative publication WorldNetDaily. Reason #17,945: the birth certificate/citizenship trutherism by which WND promotes litigation aimed at keeping Barack Obama from being inaugurated President. (David Weigel, Slate, Dec. 4).
Update: Supreme Court turns down first of such cases (Doug Mataconis, Below the Beltway, Dec. 8).
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
campaign regulation,
wrong right
- Time for another aspirin: Harvard Law’s Charles Ogletree, key backer of lawsuits for slave reparations, mentioned as possible Attorney General [CBS News, BostonChannel WCVB, Newsweek; earlier speculation about post as civil rights chief]
- Calif. law requires supervisors to attend sexual harassment prevention training, a/k/a sensitivity training, but UC Irvine biologist Alexander McPherson says he’ll face suspension rather than submit [AP/FoxNews.com, On the Record (UCI), Morrissey, Inside Higher Ed, OC Register; ScienceBlogs' Thus Spake Zuska flays him]
- Fan “not entitled to a permanent injunction requiring American Idol singer Clay Aiken to endorse her unauthorized biography” [Feral Child]
- Local authority in U.K. orders employees not to use Latin phrases such as bona fide, e.g., ad lib, et cetera, i.e., inter alia, per se, quid pro quo, vice versa “and even via” [via -- uh-oh -- Zincavage and Feral Child]
- Participants in 10th annual Boulder, Colo. Naked Pumpkin Run may have to register as sex offenders [Daily Camera, Obscure Store]
- Joins drunk in car as his passenger, then after crash collects $5 million from restaurant where he drank [AP/WBZ Boston, 99 Restaurant chain]
- Election may be over, but candidates’ defamation lawsuits against each other over linger on [Above the Law, NLJ]
- School nutrition regs endanger bake sales, but they’ll let you have “Healthy Hallowe’en Vegetable Platter” instead [NY Times]
Tagged as:
California,
campaign regulation,
Charles Ogletree,
Colorado,
harassment law,
libel slander and defamation,
Massachusetts,
obesity,
personal responsibility,
pro se,
reparations,
restaurants,
schools
- Chemerinsky, other critics should apologize to Second Circuit chief judge Dennis Jacobs over bogus “he doesn’t believe in pro bono!” outcry [Point of Law and update]
- New York high court skeptical of ultra-high contingency fee in Alice Lawrence v. Graubard Miller case [NYLJ; earlier here and here]
- Panel of legal journalists: press let itself be used in attack on Judge Kozinski [Above the Law]
- Unfree campaign speech, cont’d: South Dakota anti-abortion group sues to suppress opponents’ ads as “patently false and misleading” [Feral Child]
- Even if you’re tired of reading about Roy Pearson’s pants, you might still enjoy Carter Wood’s headlines on the case at ShopFloor ["Pandora's Zipper", "Suit Alors!"]
- Rare grant of fees in patent dispute, company had inflicted $2.5 million in cost on competitors and retailers by asserting rights over nursing mother garb [NJLJ]
- Time to be afraid? Sen. Bingaman (D-N.M.) keen on reintroducing talk-radio-squelching Fairness Doctrine [Radio Equalizer]
- “Yours, in litigious anticipation” — Frank McCourt as child in Angela’s Ashes drafted a nastygram with true literary flourish [Miriam Cherry, Concurring Opinions]
Tagged as:
Alex Kozinski,
broadcasters,
campaign regulation,
contingent fee,
Erwin Chemerinsky,
Ireland,
nastygrams,
New York state,
patent quality,
pro bono,
Roy Pearson,
sanctions,
Second Circuit,
South Dakota
They seem now to be part of the accepted armament of campaign law. “Of course the McCain-Palin team could counter-notify, but the DMCA’s 10-14 business day waiting period makes that option next to useless, when ‘10 days can be a lifetime in a political campaign.’” (Seltzer/Citizen Media Law, Levy/CL&P; but see Ron Coleman, Oct. 15: process need not be as slow as waiting period implies).
Related: Does trademark law allow candidates to suppress some types of opposition keyword advertising, as when candidates put up negative ads keyed to each others’ names? [Levy/CL&P]
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
campaign regulation,
copyright,
John McCain,
trademarks,
YouTube
“While no one tracks the number of legal notices broadcasters receive on political ads, station managers and lawyers say attempts to block ads are growing both in number and intensity, particularly in states with closely contested elections. … While some stations buckle under the pressure and drop the ads, most refuse.” (Sarah McBride, “Campaigns Pressure Stations Over ‘527′ Ads”, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 26). More: Jesse Walker, Reason “Hit and Run” (NRA ads in Pennsylvania); Eugene Volokh (Missouri “truth squad” controversy).
Tagged as:
broadcasters,
campaign regulation
- One for your “firefighter’s rule” file: firefighter perishes in blaze, his widow sues security alarm company [SF Chron, San Pablo, Calif.]
- And another: Nassau County, N.Y. cop injured by drunk driver while on duty is suing the county over Long Island Expressway design and signage [Newsday; Kenneth Baribault]
- Stop fighting over the $60 million in fees, judge tells feuding lawyers, your lawsuit has been over for four years now [Legal Intelligencer, corrugated paper antitrust class action]
- Public-health prof: red-light cameras “don’t work” and instead “increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop” [Bruce Schneier via Instapundit]
- Criminal prosecution of political attack ads? Time to rethink campaign finance law [Bainbridge]
- Teenagers send each other racy cellphone videos, and then their legal nightmare begins [Des Moines Register]
- Sounds interesting but haven’t seen a copy: “How To Get Sued: An Instructional Guide” by well-known blawger J. Craig Williams [Giacalone, Ambrogi]
- Mississippi AG Hood goes after MillerCoors over caffeinated alcohol drinks, but Anheuser-Busch hired Mike Moore and sprung big for DAGA, hmmm [Alan Lange, YallPolitics]/li>
Tagged as:
alcohol,
Anheuser-Busch,
campaign regulation,
child protection,
feeing frenzy,
firefighters rule,
Jim Hood,
legal blogs,
Long Island,
Mississippi,
red light cameras
Update: See important update below. The Toben-Young transaction appears to be for a different parcel of land than the $1.2 million house–but the new documents reveal something else that’s interesting. More details below.
Andrew Young, who publicly claims to be the father of Rielle Hunter’s baby (though he hasn’t been heard from since John Edwards’s confession of an affair), was moved to Santa Barbara by the generosity of John Edwards’s campaign chairman, trial lawyer Fred Baron. He was paid $3,500/month to work for the Edwards campaign. Yet the Raleigh News & Observer reports that Andrew Young and his wife sold their Raleigh house to Carolyn Grissom for a jaw-dropping $1.2 million on February 14, 2007, and moved into the Chapel Hill Governors Club country-club gated community, where they rented a few doors down from Hunter. (Rentals there are available for as low as $1700/month, and home prices range from $289,000 to $2.3 million, so nothing necessarily unusual about that.)
(Update: New documents I’ve found show that the Toben-Young transaction appears to be for a different parcel of land than the $1.2 million house. More details below. This paragraph, based on the mistaken reading of the transaction that it was for the Raleigh home, is incorrect. I regret the error, but the correction reveals something else interesting about the Toben transaction; see the discussion below.) What’s more unusual is that North Carolina real-estate records on the web show that Andrew and Cheri Young purchased the 5000-square-foot house for $300,000 on September 28, 2005. (Update: this is incorrect. The house was purchased in 2001.) (The home was built in 1989, so they weren’t buying a vacant lot and building.) So either Andrew Young is a secret real-estate genius on a level not seen since Hillary Clinton’s commodities trading, and was able to flip a house for a 300% and $900,000 return in under eighteen months, or something else is going on.
It’s interesting to note that the Youngs purchased the place from North Carolina real-estate developer Timothy Toben–a long-time North Carolina Democratic fundraiser who donated $6,500 to the Edwards campaign in 2007 (which, if the FEC reports are accurate, exceeds the federal campaign limits substantially). If Toben gave Young an unusually good deal, the 2005 timing suggests that Young got the deal for some reason other than Rielle Hunter, but, if so, what?
Meanwhile, if one looks up the home on Zillow.com, one sees that Zillow is skeptical of the $1.2 million purchase price, and values the house for substantially less (though well over $300,000), because of “anomalies” in the deal, though it does not specify what those anomalies are. (I found no indication that Carolyn Grissom is anything other than an innocent homebuyer; she’s not listed in the FEC database.)
This could all be coincidence in hindsight, and there could be a perfectly innocent explanation for all of this. It could be that the $300,000 figure is wrong, though then that raises the question of how Young was able to afford a 5000-square-foot house on a $42,000/year salary. But reporters with more resources than I might want to look into whether an Edwards staffer was getting a sweetheart deal from an Edwards contributor, why, and whether campaign finance laws were violated.
And welcome Michelle Malkin readers; apologies that so many of you clicked through that you briefly crashed the site. For Overlawyered’s coverage of the Rielle Hunter scandal, see the tag, and don’t miss our years-long coverage of John Edwards and his trial-lawyer record.
(August 14: Welcome Kaus and Instapundit readers. Post was corrected August 14, because it incorrectly said “Chapel Hill” instead of “Raleigh” as the location of the $1.2 million house.)
[click to continue…]
Tagged as:
campaign regulation,
John Edwards,
politics,
Rielle Hunter,
scandals
Where’s the trial lawyer bringing a class action on behalf of all of the people who were defrauded when they gave money to John Edwards’s presidential campaign? It’s certainly a much more plausible claim of causation, reliance, and financial injury than the typical class action.
More seriously, I hope someone somewhere is investigating whether Fred Baron violated federal campaign finance law when he set aside tens of thousands of dollars to pay Rielle Hunter hush money without disclosing the payments on behalf of Edwards. Edwards said he was in the Beverly Hilton to help keep the story from becoming public, which makes it seem unlikely he’s telling the truth when he said that he had no knowledge that Baron moved Hunter to California. Alas, ABC didn’t ask the right follow-up questions, such as how Edwards thought meeting Hunter in a hotel room would help keep the story quiet. And “Fred Baron” appears nowhere in the New York Times story, even as he is a major fund-raiser for Barack Obama today. Obama is still running for president, right?
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
campaign regulation,
class actions,
Fred Baron,
John Edwards,
media bias,
Rielle Hunter
Big-league Arkansas trial lawyer Tab Turner did it, and was fined $9,500. Big-league Michigan trial lawyer Geoffrey Fieger did it, and managed to beat the rap at his recent trial. And now we learn that big-league California trial lawyer Pierce O’Donnell did it too: evaded limits on campaign contributions to John Edwards by reimbursing underlings to enable them to contribute. Would it be simpler to compile a list of the big Edwards backers who did obey the law? (WSJ law blog, Jul. 24). More on Edwards campaign finance shenanigans here.
Update Jul. 25, NLJ: O’Donnell indicted, based on a separate episode of laundering of contributions (to Los Angeles mayoral campaign of James Hahn).
Tagged as:
campaign regulation,
crime and punishment,
John Edwards
Detroit’s liberal newspaper voice, which supports extending campaign finance law, has this to say in an editorial:
…There is no doubt that Southfield attorney Geoffrey Fieger completely subverted [the aims of campaign law] when he essentially laundered through employees of his law firm hefty contributions to the 2004 presidential campaign of John Edwards.
But can you make a federal case out of it? A U.S. District Court jury didn’t think so, refusing Monday to convict Fieger and law partner Vernon (Ven) Johnson of doing anything illegal. So congratulations to Fieger for gaming the system and then beating it.
But that doesn’t make what he did right. …
…the system ought to have some integrity, and the limits established by law ought to be enforced. Fieger got around them by being clever, pleading ignorance, then getting a jury to see it his way. It certainly helped that the local U.S. attorney’s office had been frighteningly aggressive in its pursuit of Fieger, and that he had the cash to hire an attorney who reputedly has never lost a case. Yes, money matters in criminal justice at least as much as it does in politics.
No doubt, Fieger’s acquittal gives a little more mettle to other fat cats who want to skirt the law. It’s a victory for him, but a step back for the political process.
Fieger himself has tried to put out the line that it is only because of some mean old plot against politically active trial lawyers that he was ever prosecuted at all. If the Free Press editorial is any indication, it doesn’t look as he’s getting very far with that line. More here and here.
Further: Scott Greenfield, and Freep reporter Dawson Bell (unless your name is Geoffrey Fieger, don’t try to get away with doing what he did: “It’s still a crime.”). Ted in comments adds: “And let’s not forget the all-too-typical and appalling sight of the defendant partying with the jurors he snookered.” Per the account in the Free Press, “Champagne sat on ice at each table” in the Greektown establishment. “A stocked bar was in the corner.” Earlier on post-trial juror fraternization with winning disputants and their lawyers here, here, etc.
Tagged as:
campaign regulation,
Geoffrey Fieger,
juries
Terry Carter in the ABA Journal has more on the legal background:
The straw-donor law invoked against Fieger has been around since 1972, though Congress upped the ante and made it a felony as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as the McCain-Feingold Act. In all these years there has been but one jury verdict concerning the law, before it was a felony, and it was for acquittal. (There have been several plea agreements in recent years.)
Thus no court has crafted an opinion concerning the law itself, according to some of the few experts in this narrow slice of election law.
Spence told the jury that the government tried to use snippets of law to go after Fieger, a prominent plaintiffs lawyer and former Democratic candidate for governor in Michigan, for political purposes. The campaign finance law (2 U.S.C. § 441f) says:
“No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.”
The defense argued that the law, as worded, does not prohibit reimbursing people who make contributions.
If in fact Fieger’s acquittal will be cited in favor of the notion that the use of straw donors reimbursed after the fact is lawful after all, that might seem to blow a rather large hole in the side of the McCain-Feingold law — which makes it all the odder that the Fieger trial drew so little attention from either backers or critics of that law on the national level.
Tagged as:
campaign regulation,
Geoffrey Fieger