Following the revelation that author James Frey presented fantasies as if they were autobiographical fact, enough outraged readers have stepped forward to demand cash damages — or at least enough class action lawyers have simulated the stepping forward of such outraged readers — that defendants Random House and Doubleday are now seeking the consolidation of no fewer than twelve lawsuits filed around the country. The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will soon consider (PDF, scroll to p. 11) the publishers’ motion to aggregate into one proceeding suits filed in the Southern District of New York, Northern District of Illinois, Western District of Washington, Eastern District of Michigan, Central District of California, and Southern District of Ohio (via Childs). For Ted’s extensive coverage of the Frey scandal and suits, see Jan. 31 and links from there.
Posts Tagged ‘Michigan’
Burden of Proof
In a nationally-publicized case, an argument over a Detroit pool game resulted in one of the players pulling a gun and shooting the other in the head; Keith Bender Jr. died of his injuries a week later. Unfortunately for the shooter, Bender was a cousin of the bar’s bouncer, Mario Etheridge, who pulled his own gun, and shot the shooter three times, allegedly in an attempt to protect his cousin’s life. The shooter, rap star “Proof,” known best for being the friend of a more famous rap star, litigation-victim Eminem, was dead on arrival at the hospital. Prosecutors have not decided whether to charge Etheridge with murder, since Michigan law allows deadly force in the defense of another. But they have charged Etheridge with a felony count of “discharging a firearm inside a building.” (Josh Grossberg, “Alleged Proof Victim Dies”, E!Online, Apr. 18).
Constitutional Right to be a Jackass
One of our profession’s enfants terribles, Geoffrey Fieger, is back in court, this time defending his right to call Michigan appellate judges who ruled against him “jackasses” and “nazis.”
Fieger faces a reprimand from the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission for insulting three state appellate judges on a radio talk show in 1999 after the judges overturned a $15 million verdict he won in a medical malpractice case.
Fieger’s lawyer, Michael Alan Schwartz, maintaining that Fieger’s comments outside the courtroom are protected by the First Amendment.
Summing up Fieger’s modus operandi nicely, Schwartz offers this:
“There’s no law that says you’ve got to be dignified.”
He also offers Standing Committee on Discipline v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 and Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367 (1947) to support his client’s right to criticize the judges.
UPDATE: Sorry folks, I neglected to include a link to the story. It is the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission seeking to reprimand him. The Commission is “the investigative and prosecutorial arm of the Michigan Supreme Court for allegations of attorney misconduct.”
Ford Foundation Miffs Michigan A.G.
The descendants of Henry Ford were jettisoned long ago from his Ford Foundation, and now the Michigan Attorney General is investigating “governance, potential conflicts of interest and a comparatively thin record of giving to charitable causes in Detroit and the state.” (Detroit News, Apr. 2)
$500 per car, Chrysler says
“The cost of lawsuits adds at least $500 to the price of every vehicle, according to Chrysler Group President Tom LaSorda, who said Thursday that Chrysler is stepping up its fight for tort reform.” (Dee-Ann Durbin, “LaSorda calls for lawsuit reform”, AP/Saginaw News, Feb. 9). More on suits against automakers at our automotive page.
Fieger blackmail allegations
Howard Bashman has full coverage, including links to transcripts, of Fieger’s alleged attempt to block an investigation into Fieger’s alleged campaign finance violations by revealing details of the attorney general’s extramarital affair (Nov. 10). Fieger allegedly spent $400,000 on a Michigan Supreme Court race without disclosing his spending. “Sandler, in statements to sheriff’s investigators, says Fieger warned he would pat down Sandler so he did not wear a listening device.”
“Cox: Fieger tried to blackmail me about affair”
Further fireworks from the frequently fascinating Fieger files:
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox accused a potential 2006 political opponent, high profile Oakland County lawyer Geoffrey Fieger, of blackmail Wednesday, claiming that Fieger threatened to reveal his extramarital affair if Cox did not drop an investigation into the lawyer’s alleged campaign finance violations.
(Dawson Bell and L.L. Brasier, Detroit Free Press, Nov. 9). For more on Fieger, whose activities have long been a mainstay of this site, see Mar. 13, Oct. 24, and many others.
More on the story: David Shepardson and Mike Martindale, “Sex scandal”, Detroit News, Nov. 10 (check sidebar for over-the-top statement by Fieger); L.L. Brasier and Patricia Montemurri, “Figure in Fieger-Cox sex scandal has criminal past”, Detroit Free Press, Nov. 10); Dawson Bell and L.L. Brasier, “Cox: Fieger made threat over affair”, Detroit Free Press, Nov. 10 (“one of the most bizarre events in recent Michigan political history”):
Fieger has a long history of stirring up trouble, both for himself and others, and sometimes on a personal level.
In 1998, when he was the Democratic nominee for governor, he suggested that his opponent — then-Gov. John Engler — was not the father of triplet daughters born to his wife, Michelle, in 1994.
Geoffrey Fieger update
You will recall that Geoffrey Fieger’s modus operandi is to engage in outrageous behavior to get judges thrown off of cases and otherwise accuse judges who rule against him or his clients of misconduct (Nov. 20; Mar. 24). Now, in the aftermath of Hollins v. Jordan (Nov. 20 and links therein), Fieger is attacking an Ohio probate court judge who is daring to try to protect the settlement of the brain-damaged and legally incompetent plaintiff from Fieger’s machinations.
“This is all about intimidation,” [Judge] Corrigan said. He accused the plaintiffs’ out-of-town lawyers of “forum-shopping” to take the case away from him and give it to a Michigan judge more acquiescent to their wishes.
(James F. McCarty, “$30 million verdict spawns new legal battle”, Cleveland Plain-Dealer, Oct. 9). This dispute is over a $1.5 million pretrial settlement with another defendant; the $30 million verdict is also on appeal.
Back in Michigan, Fieger is offering to spend millions of dollars of his own money to run for Michigan Attorney General on the Democratic ticket. (Steven Harmon, “Fieger ready to pour own cash into attorney general fight”, Grand Rapids Press, Oct. 21). Fortunately for the Democratic Party, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of support for the idea. (Kathleen Gray, “Fieger considers running for state attorney general”, Detroit Free Press, Oct. 12). John Engler easily beat Fieger, 62 percent to 38 percent, when Fieger ran for governor in 1998.
The targeting of the incumbent attorney general, Mike Cox, may be related to “an ongoing criminal investigation of a complaint from Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land about alleged filing irregularities on $400,000 of Fieger-financed spending opposing the successful 2004 re-election of Republican Michigan Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman.” (George Weeks, “Fieger isn’t faking bid for attorney general”, Detroit News, Oct. 13). Fieger has demonstrated his misunderstanding of principles of federal jurisdiction with a federal lawsuit against Cox and Land in an attempt to squelch the campaign finance investigation. (AP, Oct. 13).
Don’t take his money, St. Luke’s
Many Houston doctors are outraged that St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital is preparing to rename its medical tower, a local landmark, after controversial plaintiff’s attorney John O’Quinn (Apr. 28, 2004, etc.) in exchange for a $25 million gift. O’Quinn was the chief driver of the silicone breast implant litigation, which though decisively refuted in its major scientific contentions inflicted billions of dollars in costs on medical device providers and, not incidentally, plastic surgeons. And just this year O’Quinn’s law firm was singled out for condemnation by federal judge Janis Graham Jack in her scathing ruling on the shoddy business of mass silicosis-screening — “diagnosing for dollars”. Doctors “last week began circulating a petition against [the renaming proposal] and Monday night convened an emergency meeting of the medical executive committee….By late Monday, about 80 had signed the petition. ‘It offends us to have money we earned — and which he took by suing us — going to name after him a medical building in which we work each day,’ says the petition.” The University of Houston law school has already renamed its law library after O’Quinn, a full-length oil painting of whom looms over the students. (Todd Ackerman, “Doctors push St. Luke’s to forgo $25 million gift”, Houston Chronicle, Aug. 9). More: Kirkendall and MedPundit comment; so do GruntDoc and Michigan Medical Malpractice.
Kids’ do-not-email registries
New laws that went into effect in Michigan and Utah at the beginning of the month could open up substantial and surprising areas of civil and criminal liability for entities that put out email newsletters, critics say. The laws authorize parents, guardians and others to enroll minors’ email addresses in new do-not-mail registries; after 30 days’ listing, it becomes illegal for anyone to send material unsuitable to minors to such addresses even at the account holder’s request. Among material that has in various contexts been tagged as unsuitable to minors are sites such as Salon.com and discussions of various controversial public issues. (Declan McCullagh, “Why ribaldry could earn you prison time”, News.com, Jun. 27). According to one commentator, an email may be unlawful if it merely contains a link to a third party site (such as a newspaper’s or magazine’s website) which in turn displays advertising for beer, wine, betting or other products and services that are off limits to minors. (Paul Collins, “New Michigan and Utah Child Protection Registry Laws”, spamfo.co.uk, Jun. 29). Already, libertarian feminist author and FoxNews.com commentator Wendy McElroy has suspended publication of her email newsletter, citing fear of liability under the new laws (“Suspension of Emailed Ifeminist Newsletter”, History News Network/Liberty & Power, Jul. 13)(via Tom Palmer). It is contemplated that maintainers of email newsletters that wish to retain the right to discuss or link to liquor/gambling/off-color content will purchase match/purge services on a monthly basis from the registrars of the do-not-mail lists, but such cross-checking will require the payment of fees as well as raising troubling privacy questions. For details of how entrepreneurial Utah law firms have seized on earlier anti-spam legislation to generate mass litigation against legitimate businesses in that state, see my Reason Online article, “You May Already Be a Loser”, Dec. 8, 2003.