The plaintiffs don’t seem to have fully factored in the principle of foreign sovereign immunity, which leaves it to the democratically elected executive branch, rather than to the courts, to decide how to handle grievances against other nation’s governments. (Mark Hamblett, “Saudi Charity Dropped From Suit Over Sept. 11 Attacks”, New York Law Journal, Sept. 28). See Sept. 26 and Nov. 6, 2004.
“Who Will Deliver Our Grandchildren?”
Scathing editorial by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) about the implications of cerebral palsy litigation (restricted access; RedStateMoron, Oct. 7; MommyBlawg, Oct. 8) (my take).
Cameras in the courtroom
Justice Scalia isn’t a fan:
“We don’t want to become entertainment,” he said. “I think there’s something sick about making entertainment out of real people’s legal problems. I don’t like it in the lower courts, and I don’t particularly like it in the Supreme Court.”
(“Scalia Says Confirmation Too Politicized”, AP/Washington Post, Oct. 10). KipEsquire takes a different view (Oct. 11).
BlackBerry crush?
“A court decision Friday renewed the possibility that service to BlackBerry wireless e-mail devices might be cut off for most users in the United States.” (Ian Austen, “Court Ruling in BlackBerry Case Puts Service to U.S. Users at Risk”, New York Times, Oct. 8). However, TigerHawk (Oct. 8) offers some reasons to think that might not happen. See May 2.
LAPD faces suit in toddler-shield shootout
Relatives of Suzie Marie Pena, also described in news stories as Susie Lopez, have filed claims against Los Angeles and its police department over the 19-month-old’s death in a shootout in which her father, Jose Pena, was employing her as a human shield (see Jul. 14) (“Family of Baby Killed by LAPD File Claims”, AP/Washington Post, Sept. 27). Jeff Lewis of Southern California Law Blog has some pointed questions for the relatives (Sept. 27).
Ind. lawmaker withdraws permission-to-procreate bill
Following a public outcry, an Indiana state legislator has pulled back for further study a piece of proposed legislation that would have sharply limited the use of assisted reproduction medical technologies by married couples, and banned them for everyone else. “State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement this afternoon saying: ‘The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission.’ … Under her proposal, couples who need assistance to become pregnant — such as through intrauterine insemination; the use of donor eggs, embryos and sperm; in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer or other medical means — would have to be married to each other. In addition, married couples who needed donor sperm and eggs to become pregnant would be required to go through the same rigorous assessment process of their fitness to be parents as do people who adopt a child.” (Mary Beth Schneider, “Legislator drops controversial plan”, Indianapolis Star, Oct. 5).
The bill would have criminalized doctors’ as well as parents’ participation in assisted reproduction except as provided in the rules. Among details of the adoption-like procedures that would be contemplated for married couples under the bill:
A doctor can’t begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child’s being born until the intended parents of the child have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill.
The assessment is very similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.
Some of the required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, hobbies, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans, letter of reference and criminal history checks.
A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents is also required, including individual participation in faith-based or church activities.
(Niki Kelly, “State bill would limit procreation assistance”, Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, Oct. 4). For critical comment, see MedPundit, Oct. 6, and Nobody’s Business, Oct. 6. For favorable comments on the draft bill, some of which were sorry it didn’t go even farther, see various commenters at the Institute for American Values’ Family Scholars Blog (Oct. 4). (& welcome Andrew Sullivan readers).
More: David Giacalone comments (Oct. 11):
After representing hundreds of children in Family Court, I am well aware of the difficulties that arise in single-parent families (as well as in both “broken” and intact married families), but this legislation is far too broad and far too intrusive to be a valid response to those problems. Ironically, many who would support such restrictions do so in the name of the most famous child ever artificially conceived by an unmarried mother.
“The Great Society, only with a cross around its neck”
How copyright clearance problems stultify documentaries
Forty-five percent of the budget for the movie “Mad Hot Ballroom” covered the cost of “clearing” rights to songs. The filmmaker even had to negotiate with the subject of the film not to play certain music, because the presence of an uncleared song playing in the background on a boombox would prevent a scene from being used. A three-word-shout that corresponded to the lyrics of a song would have cost the filmmakers $5,000 alone; they had to cut the scene rather than risk litigation. Carrie McLaren interviews producer/writer Amy Sewell on the Stay Free Daily blog (Jun. 22), and a follow-up post notes how the fear of litigation prevented her from asserting her fair-use rights (Jun. 22), a problem that could be solved by loser-pays rules. (Hat tip to C.N.) More: Feb. 8-10, 2002.
John Torkelsen in plea deal
John Torkelsen, once described by Fortune as “the damages expert of choice for the entire plaintiffs side of the securities bar”, is “expected to plead guilty to reporting false information to a government agency in a D.C. federal court Oct. 21.” The charge arises from Torkelsen’s actions in handling a venture capital fund, rather than from his courtroom work. Before now, however, Torkelsen has declined to cooperate with prosecutors, and a change in that posture could give new impetus to the ongoing federal investigation of the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, for whom Torkelsen was a “notoriously effective expert witness … in dozens of securities suits throughout the 1990s,” according to sources interviewed by Law.com. (Justin Scheck, “Charge Against Expert May Spur Probe of Milberg Weiss”, The Recorder, Oct. 10).
For more on Torkelsen and the venture capital controversy, see Barbara Fox, “Unraveling the Torkelsen Case”, U.S. 1, May 7, 2003. Peter Elkind’s Sept. 4, 2000 expose for Fortune (“The King of Pain is Hurting“) reported:
Torkelsen’s calculations of shareholder losses routinely supported the hundreds of millions of dollars Lerach sought — and he was fabulous in front of a jury should a company decide to fight….Over more than 20 years, Torkelsen’s firm, Princeton Venture Research, not only had made tens of millions working for Lerach’s firm Milberg — by far its biggest client — but also had become the damages expert of choice for the entire plaintiffs side of the securities bar….
He sent thousand-dollar gift baskets as baby presents, and he invited his many friends in the plaintiffs’ bar to an annual black-tie Christmas party that was mind-boggling in its extravagance. At one, guests arriving in Torkelsen-provided stretch limos were heralded by buglers and greeted by costumed Disney characters. Entertainment was invariably provided by a big-name act: Little Richard one year, Aretha Franklin another.
For more on the Milberg probe, see Jun. 27, Jun. 28, Aug. 29, Point of Law Aug. 8, etc. On the reliability of Torkelsen’s numbers as submitted to courts, see the Delaware Chancery Court’s memorandum (PDF) in Cinerama v. Technicolor (2004), a non-Milberg case, pp. 10 et seq.
The (silica) dust settles
Judge Janis Graham Jack’s uncoverage of “great red flags of fraud” in silicosis litigation may mark a turning point in the mass-tort wars, notes the New York Times’s Jonathan D. Glater (“The Tort Wars at a Turning Point”, Oct. 9).