Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
That’s one claim in a lawsuit by the government of Arlington, Virginia against such a plan. The chair of the county board says the issue never came up in county discussions and “only arose [in the lawsuit] because the environmental review includes socioeconomic impact”. [MyFoxDC via Below the Beltway]
{ 6 comments }
{ 4 comments }
It’s leading to battles in New York and other states: “In March, Michigan gave schools a week to be certified by the state or cease operations. Virginia’s cumbersome licensing rules include a $2,500 fee — a big hit for modest studios that are often little more than one-room storefronts.” [NY Times]
{ 2 comments }
You might think such a lawsuit, filed against radio host Marc Bernier in Bristol, Va. two years ago, would not detain the legal system for long or inflict heavy costs. But you’d be wrong about that. [Daniel Gilbert, Bristol Herald-Courier, May 19]
{ 3 comments }
“The four bloggers named in a lawsuit brought forth by Christiansburg developer Roger Woody have been cleared of all charges by a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge.” The judge did not find it necessary to reach First Amendment issues but instead dismissed the case on demurrer; the four defendants had criticized Woody’s business practices.
Having invested a lot of time and energy into the issue, [defendant Terry Ellen] Carter said she was pleased with the judge’s decision and relieved after having gone through what she described as “the longest 10 and a half weeks ever.”“We have a right to express our opinions without being hauled into court, and that right was upheld,” Carter said.
(Lerone Graham, “Bloggers cleared in lawsuit”, Roanoke Times, Oct. 15; earlier).
{ 3 comments }
*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.
{ 1 comment }
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).
{ 7 comments }
{ 6 comments }
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).
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).
{ 22 comments }
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.
{ 11 comments }
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.]
{ 7 comments }
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.
{ 2 comments }
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).
{ 5 comments }
Point of Law Volokh