Eideard

An appellate court has affirmed a $311,000 federal jury award to a Laurel man who sued a North Dakota law firm over its debt collection practices.

The case of Timothy McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger was argued in Billings in July before a special panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor along with Judges Sidney R. Thomas of Billings and William A. Fletcher of San Francisco heard the case.

Thomas issued the 30-page opinion, in which the court upheld all of the rulings made by the presiding judge, U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby, and the jury’s verdict.

In April 2009, a jury awarded McCollough $311,000 in damages, finding that JRL had violated the Montana Unfair Trade Practices Act and that its prosecution of McCollough was malicious and an abuse of process. The damages included $250,000 for emotional distress, a statutory maximum of $1,000 for violating the law, and $60,000 in punitive damages, which was the maximum under Montana law.

… McCollough’s attorney, John Heenan noted…”I’m very proud of Tim for hanging in there for as long as he has.”

McCollough said he hoped the case showed debt collectors that “people are going to know they don’t have to take the garbage. They can fight back…”

McCollough had old credit card debts from the 1990s and worked with companies to pay the debts, despite a head injury that left him disabled and on Social Security, which is exempt from collections.

One of the old debts was sold to a collection company, CACV of Colorado, which sued him in Yellowstone County in 2005. Representing himself in the state case, McCollough said the statue of limitations had expired, he had no money and he had been harassed by the credit card company. The case was dismissed.

Two years later, JRL, which has offices in Fargo and Bismarck, sued McCollough for $9,800, which included $6,000 in attorney fees and interest. McCollough fought back a second time, got the case dismissed and then sued JRL for violating debt collection laws.

Good for you, dude. Standing up to creepy usury-hustlers who ignore laws should wrangle a lot more help from state and local governments than folks usually get.

Governments don’t mind helping out bankrupt corporations. It’s just citizens who generally get screwed.

For some Florida residents, the price of getting out of foreclosure will include taking on a second mortgage — payable this time to their lawyers.

The new mortgage, which takes effect only if the foreclosure is dismissed and the homeowner’s debt to the bank is reduced, is controversial among defense lawyers, some of whom call it “creepy” and “crass.” Yet even they acknowledge it offers a solution to a vexing question: How do they get paid?

After recent revelations that banks were sloppy in processing many foreclosures and in some cases lack standing to seize a house, potential clients seeking to challenge their lenders are flocking to lawyers. But while these distressed homeowners might have a case, they generally lack the resources to pay legal fees. Being in foreclosure usually means being broke…

Foreclosure defense is a new legal specialty whose strategies and techniques are still being worked out. Peter Ticktin, who has some 3,000 foreclosure clients, says his plan to collect fees by taking another mortgage on his clients’ properties has already been copied by other firms.

The Ticktin mortgages resemble the loans that the clients originally got from Countrywide, GMAC and other lenders. Each will be a contractual obligation with the law firm, labeled as a mortgage and structured like one, too, with the client paying a certain sum every month and using the house as collateral…

Mr. Ice, Mr. Ticktin and many other Florida foreclosure lawyers typically receive a few hundred dollars a month from each client. To supplement that, they seek legal fees from the banks they successfully challenge as well as contingency fees…

In foreclosure cases, however, the client pays the contingency fee. While such an approach is sometimes used in commercial litigation, this is a first for consumer cases, said Lester Brickman, a professor at Cardozo Law School in New York.

“For a lawyer to supplement or replace the banks as a long-term mortgage creditor of homeowners leaves me a little queasy,” said Mr. Brickman, an expert on contingency fees. “It’s an invitation for the public to say, ‘There go the lawyers again.’ ”

That’s exactly what I would say – here and now. When the only solutions to problems in a troubled economy guarantee reward to only one group of participants – lawyers – I’d say there’s something as corrupt with the solution as there was in the creation of the problems.

Egyptian writers have condemned a call by a group of Islamic lawyers for the classic book Arabian Nights to be banned because it is “obscene”.

The group, Lawyers Without Shackles, filed a complaint with Egypt’s prosecutor general after the collection of folk tales was republished. They called for the new edition to be pulped and the stories to be banned.

But the country’s writers union has said it will fight the group in the courts if they try to proceed.

“I was shocked at the offensive phrases it contains,” Ayman Abdul Hakim of Lawyers Without Shackles was quoted by the TV station Al Arabiya. They catalogued several references to sex in the book and said they were “calls to sin”…

“Those who want to destroy our heritage are taking the same path as the Taliban when they destroyed Buddha’s statues,” Mohammed Salmawy told the news agency AFP, referring to the destruction of the giant sculptures of Buddha in Bamiyan.

The books publishers, the state-run General Organisation Cultures Palaces, said the republishing had been very popular and the print run had sold out.

“Egyptians are avid readers and they will not be influenced by a bunch of people who take advantage of Islam in order to suppress freedom,” Ahmed Megahed, Chairman of the GOCP was quoted by Al Arabiya.

Bravo! For the Writers Union that is.

Lawyers Without Shackles should rid themselves of the religious chains weighting their hearts, the dedication to sectarian dogma obscuring their vision.

Voters in Switzerland have rejected a proposal to introduce a nationwide system of state-funded lawyers to represent animals in court.

Animal rights groups had proposed the move, saying that without lawyers to argue the animals’ case, many instances of cruelty were going unpunished.

But the measure was rejected by around 70% of voters in a referendum.

Voters were almost certainly swayed by worries about how much such a system might cost taxpayers, and by objections from Switzerland’s farmers already struggling with reduced subsidies and falling milk prices.

Switzerland already has some of the strictest animal welfare legislation in the world: Pigs, budgies, goldfish and other social animals cannot be kept alone; horses and cows must have regular exercise outside in summer and winter; and dog owners have to take training courses to learn how to care for their pets.

Most sensible people realize the need to protect the lives of our fellow critters – especially those who are domesticated.

Maybe Swiss lawyers could be trusted to that end? Seems to me representatives of the state should have that trust – watched closely by the people.

Saudi Arabia is planning to bring in a new law to allow women lawyers to argue cases in court for the first time.

Justice Minister Mohammed al-Eissa said the law was part of King Abdullah’s plan to develop the legal system.

The law – to be issued “in the coming days” – would allow women to appear in court on family-related cases, including divorce and child custody…

Under a system of male guardianship, Saudi Arabian women are required to be kept separate from men they are not related to.

All are veiled to a greater or lesser degree in public, they are not allowed to drive, and women under 45 must receive permission from a male when they travel.

Opportunities for education and employment are also dependent on male guardianship.

Hey, Saudi Arabia. Welcome to the 19th Century!

Daylife/Getty Images used by permission

Officials have agreed to pay $1.5 million to the daughter of a man fatally shot in the back by a transit police officer on New Year’s Day 2009 in Oakland, California.

A bystander’s cell-phone video of the shooting on a transit platform was widely circulated on the Internet and on news shows.

The Bay Area Rapid Transit train system late Wednesday announced the settlement over the killing of Oscar Grant, 22.

“It’s been a little over a year since we experienced the tragic death of Oscar Grant,” BART Board President James Fang said. “No matter what anyone’s opinion of the case may be, the sad fact remains this incident has left Tatiana without a father. The $1.5 million settlement will provide financial support for her.” Grant’s daughter, Tatiana, is 5.

The video showed then-Officer Johannes Mehserle, 27, pulling his gun and shooting Grant in the back as another officer kneeled on Grant.

The shooting sparked large protests in Oakland and led to Mehserle’s arrest on a murder charge. The case against him is pending.

There are no social or political excuses for a judicial system where and when a civil settlement can be reached before the criminal side of a case has been decided. Isn’t it time to sort of wheat from the chaff in due process?

The head of a powerful Florida trial lawyer lobbying group apologized for a flier linked to his group that used race-baiting in a recent state Senate election.

“Morally and politically, it was indefensible,” Florida Justice Association Executive Director Scott Carruthers said of the flier aimed at senior citizens that juxtaposed images of Black Panther “black power” advocates from the mid-1960s and 1970s with U.S. President Barack Obama, the Rev. Louis Farrakhan of Nation of Islam and black marchers holding a large ACORN banner…

The flier’s caption read, “Is this the change YOU want to believe in?” and suggested “armed thugs” might try to intimidate seniors at the polls.

“I accept full responsibility for not having done everything to stop that piece from going out,” Carruthers said…

The $69,000 cost of the flier, distributed in Jacksonville, was paid for by a group calling itself Conservative Citizens for Justice.

It was designed by Republican campaign consultant Bill Helmich in the name of the Conservative Voters’ Coalition, created to serve as a front for the trial lawyers association, the Times said.

Republicans are on a hypocrite trip trying to excuse their racism as simply being sleaze.

Amrit Singh and Jameel Jaffer

In the spring of 2003, long before Abu Ghraib or secret prisons became part of the American vocabulary, a pair of recently hired lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union noticed a handful of news reports about allegations of abuse of prisoners in American custody.

The lawyers, Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh, wondered: Was there a broader pattern of abuse, and could a Freedom of Information Act request uncover it? Some of their colleagues, more experienced with the frustrations of such document demands, were skeptical. One made a tongue-in-cheek offer of $1 for every page they turned up.

Six years later, the detention document request and subsequent lawsuit are among the most successful in the history of public disclosure, with 130,000 pages of previously secret documents released to date and the prospect of more.

The case has produced revelation after revelation: battles between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the military over the treatment of detainees at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp; autopsy reports on prisoners who died in custody in Afghanistan and Iraq; the Justice Department’s long-secret memorandums justifying harsh interrogation methods; and day-by-day descriptions of what happened inside the Central Intelligence Agency’s overseas prisons…

But Mr. Aftergood said the case also illustrated how costly litigation was often necessary to unearth documents the government preferred to protect. “The law gives you standing to fight,” he said. “It doesn’t guarantee victory.”

Nor, in reality, does it guarantee the American people an open and trustworthy government. The months and years of stonewalling by the Republican administration and the bureaucrats loyal to obfuscation rather than the Constitution they were sworn to uphold – leave us with only a few lawyers dedicated to the task.

RTFA. Think about it. We’re supposed to be the freedom-loving nation that shines the light for the rest of the world – if you accept the propaganda. Then why should we even need a Freedom Of Information Act – and why do we have to sue our elected officials to wring out the truth of what they do in office?

Daylife/AP Photo used by permission

Michael Jackson’s death has been ruled a homicide.

Eight weeks after the King of Pop was found unconscious, a search warrant of his doctor’s office revealed Monday what had long been suspected – that Jackson was given “lethal levels” of a dangerous anesthetic.

Jackson’s doctor, Conrad Murray, the target of a manslaughter probe, told Los Angeles cops that he had been treating the singer for insomnia for about six weeks, according to the document…

On the morning Jackson died, Murray told cops he tried again to get the singer to sleep without using propofol, the records state.
Murray said on that fateful night he first gave Jackson valium at 1:30 a.m. When that didn’t work, the doctor said he injected lorazepam intravenously at 2 a.m.

An hour later, Jackson was still awake so Murray said he gave him midazolam. Still, Jackson could not sleep.

Finally, at 10:40 a.m., and after Jackson insisted on the propofol, Murray said he caved and gave into the singer’s demands.

And Jackson was doomed.

I wonder if there will be a trial verdict, say, before the next presidential election?

Daylife/AP Photo used by permission

As a few more libraries begin lending the Kindle, the ebook reading device from Amazon, the company continues Kindle 2 Libraryto offer ambiguous messages regarding its policies. Asked by the Howe Library, Hanover, NH, if it was OK to lend a Kindle, an Amazon support staffer said yes—and the library has proceeded to do so, with much positive response.

However, another support staffer told blogger Rochelle Hartman that the Amazon Terms of Service bar lending of Kindles. Amazon spokesman Drew Herdener confirmed to LJ—as he did last year—that the policy bars library lending, but “we don’t talk about our enforcement actions.”

In practice, that apparently means that Amazon doesn’t pursue enforcement, given the negative public relations impact from going after libraries, coupled with the potential ambiguity of the Terms of Service, which bar a user who wishes to “sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party…”

Maybe Amazon didn’t contemplate library lending, White noted, but the Kindle has been on the market for a year and a half now. “Amazon is missing a great opportunity,” White observed. “If Amazon donated Kindles to public libraries, many patrons would discover that they love this newer technology and would then purchase a Kindle for personal use.”

Sounds like Amazon is almost as dumb as the RIAA. Except I don’t find that believable. Then, what could be the source of all this reader unfriendly paperwork?

You know the answer as well as I do. Amazon’s fracking lawyers.