• Speech tribunal in Alberta, Canada, acquits Ezra Levant over publication of Mohammed cartoons, and it only cost him C$100,000* [National Post, his site, Daimnation]
• Must not cover John Edwards-Rielle Hunter story … must not cover John Edwards-Rielle Hunter story … oh darn!
• U.K. version of a story we’ve seen stateside: noise restrictions threaten roving musical ice cream trucks [Telegraph, Times Online, earlier from NYC]
• “Lawyer Who Says She Was Chastised for Not Being Sweet Is Allowed to Sue” [ABA Journal]
• More thoughts about “going on disability” [White Coat Rants]
• Willie Gary perhaps less than gallant (though undeniably hard-hitting) in countering woman’s claim of sexual assault [WPTV, ABA Journal, Ambrogi]
• Arguing against release, federal prosecutors say millions in assets of two Kentucky fen-phen defendants can’t be traced [Lexington Herald Leader]
• Virginia restaurantgoers looking forward to sangria on sultry evenings [Lindsay Nair, Roanoke Times]
• “It’s true that [veep-buzzed Sen. Bayh] sided with Republicans on tort reform … but do Democrats really want to be the kind of party that makes litmus tests out of those issues?” [Patashnik, TNR "Plank"]
• Third Circuit strikes down ban on “depiction of animal cruelty” as unconstitutional, protecting both bullfight travelogues and those bizarro-fetish “crush videos” [Volokh, our 1999 report]
• Sen. Lieberman brought an outspoken pro-legal-reform voice to the Democratic ticket [eight years ago on Overlawyered]

*Levant can recover nothing from his tormentors because the so-called human rights tribunals are given a special dispensation from the normally prevailing Canadian rule of loser-pays.

A year ago (Jun. 26, 2007) guestblogger Christian Schneider reported on the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control’s suppression of a “frozen beer pop” specialty offered by the Alexandria restaurant Rustico. Now the state legislature has enacted a bill sponsored by Del. Adam Ebbin and Sen. Patsy Ticer (both D-Alexandria) re-legalizing the cooling treats, which went back on sale July 1 in such flavors as framboise, cherry kriek, cassis, plum, and chocolate stout. (Erin Zimmer, SeriousEats.com, Jun. 25; Gillian Gaynair, “Rustico brings back beer pops for summer”, Washington Business Journal, Jun. 20)(& welcome The Agitator and Reason “Hit and Run”, Belgian ladmag ZV, Christian Schneider/WPRI readers).

• Federal judge: asking employee to get coffee not an intrinsically sexist act [Legal Intelligencer]
• Kilt-clad Montgomery Blair Sibley, at press conference, adds certain je ne sais quoi to tawdry Larry Sinclair sideshow [Sydney Morning Herald]
• Remind us why Florida Gov. Crist is supposed to be an acceptable veep pick? [PoL]. Also at Point of Law: Hill’s FISA compromise may end pending telecom-privacy suits; interesting Second Circuit reverse-preference case on New Haven firefighters.
• Virginia bar authorities shaken by charges that Woodbridge attorney Stephen T. Conrad pocketed $3.4 million in injury settlements at clients’ expense [Va. Lawyers Weekly; case of Christiansburg, Va. lawyer Gerard Marks ties in with first links here]
• U.K.: Local government instructs staff that term “brainstorming” might be insensitive to persons with epilepsy, use “thought showers” instead [Telegraph; Tunbridge Wells, Kent]
• Big personal injury law firm in Australia, Keddies Lawyers, denies accusations of client overcharging and document falsification [SMH]
• Will this be on the bar exam? Massachusetts law school dean eyes war crime trials culminating in hanging for high officials of Bush Administration [Ambrogi and more, Michael Krauss and I at PoL]
• “Just another cash grab”? New Kabateck Brown Kellner “click-fraud” class actions against Google AdWords, CitySearch [Kincaid, TechCrunch/WaPo]
• Former Rep. Bob Barr, this year’s Libertarian presidential candidate, is no stranger to the role of plaintiff in politically fraught litigation [six years ago on Overlawyered, and represented by Larry Klayman to boot]

Toldjah so: The Virginia Supreme Court has unanimously ruled against Lisa Miller of Winchester, who has been ignoring a duly issued Vermont court order providing her former lesbian partner Janet Jenkins with rights of visitation to the child they had been raising together. Miller’s defiance of the law had been backed by Liberty Counsel, the ironically named pro bono group headed by the dean of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University School of Law, as well as other conservative religious figures such as Chuck Colson. Despite misreporting to the contrary in some quarters of the conservative press, the case had nothing to do with recognition of the former couple’s Vermont civil union, nor did it eventuate in an award of custody (as distinct from visitation) to Jenkins. (AP/Newport News Daily Press; Ed Brayton and more; our earlier coverage).

All-free-speech edition:

• Christiansburg, Va. land developer Roger Woody sues local bloggers and two other critics for more than $10 million for speaking ill of big dirt pile on one of his properties [Roanoke Times, editorial; more on Woody's dealings]
• Lots of developments on free speech in Canada: trial begins in Vancouver in complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s over book excerpt critical of Islam [his site]; after defending speech-restricting network of human rights tribunals, Conservative government in Ottawa now says it will take another look [Ezra Levant, with much other coverage including favorable nods from Toronto literati]; Alberta tribunal orders conservative pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” [Levant; Calgary Herald; Gilles Marchildon, Egale.ca] (more, Eugene Volokh)
• Brief filed for Kathleen Seidel in her resistance of abusive subpoena, with assistance of Public Citizen [her site, theirs, and our comment section]; Seidel is among autism bloggers profiled in NY mag [w/pic]; profile of thriving Boston “vaccine injury” law firm” Conway Homer & Chin-Caplan [NLJ; Seidel's critical comments on that firm]
• Views critical of religion unlawful unless expressed in respectful and non-scoffing way? Lots of precedent for that approach, unfortunately [Volokh on Comstock]
• Score one for fair use: judge denies Yoko Ono preliminary injunction against creationist film’s use of 15 seconds of John Lennon’s “Imagine” in context implicitly criticizing song’s point of view [Hollywood Reporter, WSJ law blog, Timothy Lee/Ars Technica]

I’ve often linked in the past to the work of New Hampshire blogger Kathleen Seidel, whose weblog Neurodiversity presents a fearless, systematically researched, and frequently brilliant ongoing critique of autism vaccine litigation. A prominent plaintiff’s lawyer in that litigation, Clifford Shoemaker of Vienna, Virginia, has just hit Seidel with an astoundingly broad and sweeping subpoena (PDF) demanding a wide range of documents and records relating to her publication of the blog. Seidel has been sharply critical of Shoemaker’s litigation, and indeed the subpoena arrived only hours after she posted a new Mar. 24 entry, “The Commerce in Causation“, critical of his legal efforts.

The subpoena contains no indication that Seidel herself is accused of defaming anyone or violating any other legal rights of any party. Instead it seems she is being dragged in as a third-party witness in Shoemaker’s suit on behalf of his clients, Rev. Lisa Sykes and Seth Sykes, against vaccine maker Bayer. Although Seidel has been a remarkably diligent blogger on autism-vaccine litigation, I can find no indication that she is in possession of specialized knowledge that Shoemaker would not be able to obtain for his clients through more ordinary means.

Instead, the first phrase that occurred to me on looking through the subpoena was “fishing expedition”, and the second was “intimidation”. Several clauses indicate that Shoemaker is hoping to turn up evidence that Seidel has accepted support from the federal government, or from vaccine makers, which she says she hasn’t. Also among the documents demanded: Seidel’s correspondence with other bloggers. As she puts it in her response:

The subpoena commands production of “all documents pertaining to the setup, financing, running, research, maintaining the website http://www.neurodiversity.com” - including but not limited to material mentioning the plaintiffs - and the names of all persons “helping, paying or facilitating in any fashion” my endeavors. The subpoena demands bank statements, cancelled checks, donation records, tax returns, Freedom of Information Act requests, LexisNexis® and PACER usage records. The subpoena demands copies of all of my communications concerning any issue which is included on my website, including communications with representatives of the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, advocacy groups, non-governmental organizations, political action groups, profit or non-profit entities, journals, editorial boards, scientific boards, academic boards, medical licensing boards, any “religious groups (Muslim or otherwise), or individuals with religious affiliations,” and any other “concerned individuals.”…

Plaintiffs and their counsel seek not only to rummage through records that they suspect pertain to themselves, but also through my family’s bank records, tax returns, autism-related medical and educational records, and every communication concerning all of the issues to which I have devoted my attention and energy in recent years.

Seidel has responded with a self-drafted motion to quash the subpoena, and expresses confidence that a judge will rule in her favor, and perhaps go so far as to agree with her contention that it constitutes sanctionable abuse. Should the subpoena somehow be upheld and its onerous demands enforced, it could signal chilly legal times ahead for bloggers who expose lawyers and their litigation to critical scrutiny (& welcome Instapundit, Pure Pedantry, P.Z. Myers, I Speak of Dreams, Law and More, Open Records, Matt Johnston readers. And Orac/Respectful Insolence, with what he terms an “important rant“. More reactions here and here).

An Alexandria tapas bar was cited for serving sangria—which violates a 1934 Virginia law against mixing wine with spirits, with penalties of up to a year in jail. Virginia Spanish restaurants, so warned, now only serve a bowdlerized version of the drink, to the dismay of customers who can get the real thing a few miles away in DC or Maryland. The legislature is contemplating a change, though a pending bill would fail to exempt the similarly illegal kir royals or boilermakers. (Anita Kumar, “Virginia’s Sangria Ban At Issue in 2 Hearings”, Washington Post, Jan. 24). (According to Instruction 33 on this bulletin, Virginia also appears to ban the pitcher of margaritas the local Mexican restaurant serves.) Left unspoken: when is someone going to bring a consumer class action against the Spanish restaurants serving faux sangrias without warning customers?

(ObJingoism: At least Virginia still has better Thai, Indian, and Vietnamese food than DC or Maryland.)

For more on the more modern food police, see Overlawyered’s Eat, Drink, and Be Merry section or my article, A Taxonomy of Obesity Litigation.

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.]

The Vermont Supreme Court has rejected (opinion, Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, Aug. 4) a Virginia court’s attempt to invalidate a pre-existing Vermont order giving Janet Miller-Jenkins rights to visit the child that she and former partner Lisa Miller-Jenkins raised before their breakup. Eugene Volokh (Aug. 4, see also second post of that date) explains why the Virginia court is on shaky ground:

First, despite how Lisa’s lawyers (Liberty Counsel) are characterizing the case, this is not primarily a case about civil unions. Child custody cases often arise in divorces (or, where civil unions are available, in civil union dissolutions), but they can arise even if the parties aren’t married. The relevant federal statute, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (which the Vermont court calls, in a possibly amusing mistake, the Parental Kidnapping Protection Act), requires courts to adhere to preexisting custody awards generally, not just ones that follow the dissolution of a marriage. The Act requires each state to “enforce according to its terms” out-of-state custody orders if, among other things:

(1) [the original] court has jurisdiction under the law of [the court's] State; and
(2) … (A) such State
(i) is the home State of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or
(ii) had been the child’s home State within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such State because of his removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in such State;

And if this provision protects the original Vermont judgment (which I think it does), then the later Virginia judgment is invalid (see subdivision (g), “A court of a State [here, Virginia] shall not exercise jurisdiction in any proceeding for a custody or visitation determination commenced during the pendency of a proceeding in a court of another State [here, Vermont] where such court of that other State is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of this section to make a custody or visitation determination”).

Volokh rejects the position — advanced by some readers in the comments thread — that the federal Defense of Marriage Act should be construed as overriding the PKPA in this case. It is rather remarkable how many social-conservative commentators fail even to mention the PKPA in discussing the dispute. Earlier coverage of the case: Aug. 15 and Dec. 16, 2004.

I’m quoted in yesterday’s Roanoke Times article. (Mike Allen, Aug. 17). We noted the case, where the lawn mower manufacturer was blamed when a day-care center operator ran over a small boy after overriding safety features, June 16.

The official recruitment of cosmetologists as informants (and as intermediaries steering customers to approved “domestic-violence” programs) continues, with programs reported in Florida, Idaho, Oklahoma, Virginia, Ohio and Maine, as well as Nevada and Connecticut (see Mar. 16 and Mar. 29, 2000). It’s not just black eyes or lacerations that the salon employees are supposed to be on the lookout for, either. A customer’s protestation that “he would not like that”, as a reason to turn down a new hairstyle, might be a sign of “controlling behavior” that needs watching. (”Salons join effort to stop violence”, Bangor Daily News, Jun. 15) (via van Bakel).

Lawyers successfully urge a Virginia jury to send a message:

Justin Simmons was killed in April 2004 in Daleville, north of Roanoke, when a mower operated at his daycare center rolled backward while going up a slope and over the child….

The jury held MTD responsible for not designing a mower that automatically stops its blades whenever it rolls backward. No such mower exists or has ever been tested, [company attorney John] Fitzpatrick said.

The company also argued that the operator of the mower, whose wife was the daycare provider, had ignored safety warnings. (”Jurors award $2 million in child’s mower death– company to appeal”, AP/Richmond Times-Dispatch, Jun. 15).

More: Considerable further detail is to be found in Mike Allen’s coverage for the Roanoke Times: “Lawyers for lawn mower maker, operator lay blame in boy’s death”, Jun. 8, and “Lawn mower company liable in boy’s death”, Jun. 15.

More: Aug. 18.

In Washington state, voters defeated I-330, a doctor-backed plan to limit medical malpractice awards and lawyers’ fees, by about a 54-46 margin, while also drubbing I-336. a lawyer-backed alternative (Seattle P-I, Seattle Times). California voters trounced, by a 61-39 margin, Proposition 79, which would have regulated drug prices via freelance lawsuits among other means; they defeated Proposition 78, a drug-industry-backed alternative, by nearly as wide a margin. (L.A. Times, Sacramento Bee). In Virginia, former Richmond mayor and Democrat Tim Kaine, who had been criticized by the American Justice Partnership (Nov. 2), won the governorship anyway (Wash. Post). Texas voters easily passed an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment that Houston attorney Warren Cole, chairman of the State Bar of Texas’ family law section, called “horribly drafted” and which would prohibit the recognition of any “legal status” that is “similar to marriage” (more from Cathy Young)(see yesterday’s post) (Dallas Morning News) (cross-posted at Point of Law).

David Frum at National Review Online, in the course of his latest piece (Dec. 9) arguing for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, invokes — and badly misdescribes the facts of — the Miller-Jenkins custody case, discussed in this space Aug. 15.

Writes Frum:

Continue Reading »

More developments regarding Virginia’s antigay law, much criticized in this space (see May 31 and links from there): the state’s Attorney General, Jerry Kilgore, has put forth an opinion (which of course does not bind the courts) construing the statute narrowly so as not to restrict persons of the same sex from entering private contractual arrangements that convey any “rights or privileges not exclusive to the institution of marriage”. (”The law”, Style Weekly (Richmond magazine), Jun. 30; Lisa Provence, “Not gay: Marriage affirmation sparks protests”, The Hook (Charlottesville), Jul. 17; Adrian Brune, “ACLU to challenge Va. union ban”, Washington Blade, Jul. 16). The law is already being cited by some attorneys as reasons why persons in Virginia should be considered free to disregard not merely civil unions, but even court orders arising out of such unions, originating in other states. Attorneys for Lisa Miller-Jenkins, who recently moved to Virginia from Vermont after the breakup of a civil union in the latter state, are citing the Virginia law to justify their client’s reported refusal to comply with a two-month-old Vermont court order awarding her former partner, Janet Miller-Jenkins, rights to visit the daughter born to Lisa during their time together. “State law forbids Virginia courts from handling legal custody and parental rights disputes if proceedings are already under way in another state.” (Calvin R. Trice, “It’s Virginia vs. Vermont in custody case”, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Aug. 14; Justin Bergman, “Judge delays ruling on jurisdiction in lesbian custody battle”, Newport News Daily Press, Aug. 13; Jonathan Finer, “Custody Case Puts Lesbian Civil Union On Trial”, Washington Post/National Constitution Center, Aug. 7)(via Tim Hulsey). And some gay residents of the Dominion have reacted to the law by deciding to move away. Update Aug. 25: Va. judge takes jurisdiction of custody case notwithstanding court order (Washington Post). More background on case: Washington Blade, Aug. 20. Further updates Dec. 16 (I challenge conservative commentator David Frum’s description of the case); Aug. 26, 2006 (Vermont Supreme Court rules against Miller); Nov. 29, 2006 (Virginia appeals panel, reversing lower court, rules against Miller).

Yesterday at 3:15 p.m. EST I was a guest on Michael Graham’s talk show on WRVA, Richmond, Va., to discuss money laundering regulations and the latest controversy to assail radio host Rush Limbaugh (I wrote about the general subject of money laundering law in 1999 for Reason). And tomorrow morning at 8:35 a.m. CST I’ll be a guest on Oklahoma City’s WKY radio morning program.

I’ll be a guest on HearSay with Cathy Lewis on Hampton Roads, Va.’s NPR affiliate today just after noon (around 12:10 p.m. EST), discussing this site and the issue of personal responsibility. You can tune in live via WHRO/WHRV’s website. Also check out our archive of personal responsibility items.