“Fox Business Network’s John Stossel interviews US Consumer Coalition’s Brian Wise and Kat O’Connor, owner of TomKat Ammunition LLC, on the Justice Department’s Operation Choke Point.” The Gaithersburg-based ammo seller was cut off from credit card processing services and suspects that the federal Choke Point program was the reason. [cross-posted from Free State Notes; earlier on Operation Choke Point].
Supreme Court of Canada: “Judges may ‘cut and paste’ when writing their judgments” [Globe and Mail]
Lack of proper land title and registration holds Greece back [Alex Tabarrok]
I try not to clutter this blog with links to memoir-ish personal pieces of mine, but if you’re interested in adoption, or in how America manages to be at once the most conservative and the most socially innovative of great nations, go ahead and give this one a try [HuffPost]
OSHA cracks down on a shooting range with punitive fines. A coming trend? [Kopel, earlier on David Michaels here, here, here, etc.] Gun control lobbying on the public dime, courtesy Mike Bloomberg & Co. [Ron Arnold, Examiner]
The quota pressure in sports has been around for a while, but the idea of an enforcement push in hard academic disciplines may be getting extra encouragement from the very top:
Obama himself seems to have latched onto the idea. While praising Title IX’s impact on increasing women’s participation in athletics, he said, “If pursued with the necessary attention and enforcement, Title IX has the potential to make similar, striking advances in the opportunities that girls have in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (“STEM”) disciplines.” The nation’s university science, engineering, and mathematics departments may thus soon find themselves faced with the task of complying with a regulatory regime similar to the intercollegiate athletics three part test.
Corner-cutting document prep proves costly to mortgage lenders at foreclosure time [NYTimes; related, Felix Salmon and more] Connecticut AG Blumenthal orders 60-day halt to all foreclosures, whether or not paperwork-impaired, conveniently carrying him through Election Day [WaPo]
P.S. Note that by editing down Stossel’s words AAPD has made it appear that his harsh criticism of “parasites” was somehow aimed at disabled persons generally, rather than, as was entirely clear from the context, at opportunistic lawyers and litigants who generate complaints to obtain assembly-line cash settlements. Sure enough, I’ve been getting cc’s of furious letters to Stossel saying, “How dare you call disabled persons parasites?!” He didn’t say that, folks. The AAPD should consider carefully whether it wants to go on claiming that he did.
I’m a guest on tonight’s John Stossel program on the Fox Business Network, on the subject of the consequences of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The show was shot live to tape yesterday in New York and was fascinating throughout; even those who think they know this subject well will learn a lot. I’m also quoted in John’s latest syndicated column on the same issue.
Among the highlights of the taping: a disabled-rights lobbyist defended several extreme applications of the law, including the notion that it might be appropriate to force networks to hire someone who suffers from stuttering as on-air television talent. We also shed some light on the state of California’s up-to-$4,000-a-violation bounty system for freelancers who identify ADA violations in Main Street businesses, and the case for at least requiring complainants to give business owners notice and an opportunity to fix an ADA violation before suing. (The disabled-rights lobby has managed to stifle that proposal in Congress for years.) Also mentioned: the suit against the Chipotle restaurant chain recently covered in this space.
Other recent coverage of the ADA here and here (cross-posted from Cato at Liberty). More: Amy Alkon notes some New York City examples from a commenter.
In his show last night on “Crony Capitalism”, with CPSC Commissioner Anne Northup as a guest, he told how Mattel and Hasbro are fine with the law that is wiping out many of their smaller competitors. Other segments of the show can be watched here.
“Fee arbitration offers cheaper, faster alternative to litigation.” Where did that headline run? Give up? In the California Bar Journal, the “Official Publication of the State Bar of California! The story beneath it praises fee arbitration between lawyers and clients, saying that arbitrators are reporting that their work “gives people immediate results, unlike protracted litigation.”
The Bar’s presiding arbitrator, Arne Werchick, is quoted as saying: “It’s a neutral program that gives everyone a fair shake.”
We hope Mr. Werchick, who was president of the trial lawyers association in 1980, sends copies of the article to personal injury and other plaintiffs’ lawyers in Sacramento and Washington. They are once again firing up their endless campaign to block people’s constitutional right to contract to settle future disputes by arbitration rather than going to court.
Separately, ABC News parrots the trial-lawyer line with misleading coverage of another arbitration involving Tracy Barker: they falsely report that Barker’s lawsuit was “killed” (when it will in fact be heard in the forum that Barker contractually agreed to litigate in), that the proceedings will be “secret” (when Barker has the right to publicize them the same way she can publicize a trial), and waits until deep into the story to acknowledge that the arbitration clause does not prohibit the employee from bringing litigation against her alleged rapist. Where’s John Stossel and “Give Me A Break” when you need him?
For more on the litigation lobby’s battle against arbitration, see the Overlawyered arbitration section.
UK paternalism watch: new ad rules officially label cheese as junk food; breast milk would be, too, if it were covered [Telegraph; Birmingham Post]; schoolgirl arrested on racial charges after asking to study with English speakers [Daily Mail via Boortz]; brothers charged with animal cruelty for letting their dog get too fat [Nobody's Business]
Get your copy today!My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.