Can't any of these guys keep it in their pants: "Indy 500" priest accused of abuse in U.S. lawsuit. On the other hand, we shouldn't pre-judge.

Washington Post: How our cars got safer. Quick answer: "History shows that litigation and the civil justice system have served as the most consistent and powerful forces in heightening safety standards, revealing previously concealed defects and regulatory weaknesses and deterring manufacturers from cutting corners on safety for the goal of greater profits."

What I tell clients is this: I cannot make it part of a lawsuit to compel wrongdoers to change their behavior or how they do business. All I can do is sue them for money damages to compensate the client. However, if pursuing a lawsuit gets the wrongdoer to change its behavior to everyone's benefit, well that's all right by me.

Quote of the Day: "Never say a humorous thing to a man who does not possess humor. He will always use it in evidence against you."

--Herbert Beerbohm Tree, British actor

The Tennessean: Tort reform bill defies principles of justice. That's why I call it rights restriction legislation.

Big verdict winners: It's not about the money. The takeaway:

State court records show that very few lawsuits in Tennessee ever go to a jury, and fewer yet end up with awards higher than the caps Gov. Bill Haslam is close to winning in the General Assembly. Last year there were 14 such trials in the state. Some people who did win awards say they didn't want the money as much as they wanted a weapon to stop actions like the ones that killed their loved ones.

When it comes to cases like defective products lawsuits or actions against businesses, the sad truth is that simply speaking sternly to the wrongdoer will not induce him to change his behavior. The only way to get their attention is to hit them in the pocket book.

Of course, the quote above shows that the whole thing is incredibly cynical from the defense side. As a colleague in the defense bar said to me recently, "No one tries big cases any more, they get settled." So, Big Insurance and the chambers of commerce may moan about the high verdicts, but the fact is that they usually will settle out any case where they think they've got serious monetary exposure. They voluntarily pay up. Because, to them, it's all about the money. It's a bean counter thing; if it's cheaper by their calculation to settle the case, they will.

Virginia's Governor vetoes bill to increase medical malpractice cap. This bill had bipartisan support, and was even favored by the Medical Society of Virginia, whose president said, "It really allows fairness but accountability for the physicians." Why can't we get that kind of legislation for Knoxville particularly and Tennessee generally?

Wouldn't want that, would we?

Here a kind of nifty graphic map showing unemployment rises from 2008 to the present. Interestingly, try as I might, I couldn't find Knox County. I found Roane, Sevier, Jefferson and Cocke Counties, but no Knox.

I guess that means we haven't had any unemployment increases here.

Memphis Commercial Appeal: New law weakens consumer protection.

WARNING: Banks want to reduce the number of foreclosure notices to make it easier for them to foreclose on property. So, where they now have to publish three notices, they want to reduce it to ONE notice. If you happen to miss the notice, you could have your property foreclosed out from under you.

Among the legislators supporting the bill: The House Democratic Leader, a bank executive who is also the president of the Tennessee Banking Association. No conflict of interest there, no sir! Jeez.

Murfreesboro Daily News Journal: Bill to cap damages not based on reality. But it'll be a reality unless Tennessee citizens wake up and smell the spoiled milk coming out of Nashville in the form of the Civil [In]justice Act of 2011. Here's the takeaway from this op-ed:

Ultimately, the question comes down to whether a jury of peers is competent enough to assess damage for a legitimate malpractice claim and award a proper amount. Or should elected officials determine an arbitrary amount that allows for no wiggle room in cases where larger amounts can be and should be awarded?

In this case of tort reform and the proposed capping of medical malpractice lawsuit awards, the fix appears worse than the problem.

A vote for this legislation is a vote of no confidence in the judgment of the Tennessee citizens who sit on juries, and have done so for the past 214 years.

Congressman Jimmy Duncan to Tea Partiers (and everyone else): Don't forget the 3rd through 9th amendments, either. That includes the 7th amendment right to a jury trial:

I have faith in the people - I have faith in the jury system. It's one of the most important elements of our freedom, and it was so recognized in the Constitution, was felt to be so important, it was specifically put into the Constitution in the 7th Amendment. And I'll tell you, it's a very dangerous thing to take away rights like that from the people... In fact, I can tell you, you have better regulation by juries than you have by federal government regulators - it's more effective.

RIP Roger Nichols. As a music engineer and producer, his contributions to the music world, just as Steely Dan's engineer, were incomparable. Here's a nice Wikipedia bio.

Tennessee Association for Justice:

A bill introduced in the Tennessee legislature would specifically allow hospitals and doctors to provide negligent medical care in Emergency Rooms in Tennessee. Unless a patient could prove gross negligence, a standard just short of criminal behavior, there would be no accountability or protection. The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Glen Casada and Sen. Jack Johnson, both from College Grove.

“For example, if you go to the ER with chest pains and the doctor carelessly misdiagnoses you with bronchitis and you go home and have a massive heart attack and die, under the proposed legislation there would be no recourse for this kind of sloppiness,” stated Phillip Miller, President, Tennessee Association for Justice. “In effect, a doctor would have no responsibility for careless errors that could cost
you your life.”

The current standard for medical negligence already affords protections to ER doctors. ER doctors are protected as long as they deliver care consistent with standards set by their peers—other ER doctors. Only if they fail to meet those standards and harm a patient will they rightfully be held accountable under the present law.

The immunity goes one step further and will also cover doctors in surgery and the OB unit if the patient is admitted through the ER. This means a patient who goes to the ER will have very little protection from negligence during their entire hospital stay.

This legislation has an unfair impact on women, children and low-income families since they are more likely to use the ER. Kids in sports go to the ER for injuries, pregnant women often go to the ER when they are in labor, and the elderly frequently rely on the ER for respiratory illnesses. These vulnerable citizens would be without any protection when seeking needed medical care.

If passed, HR HB 174/SB 360 would also place a financial burden on the taxpayers. If recipients of TennCare, Medicare and the uninsured are harmed due to carelessness in the ER, Tennesseans will end up paying the bill for a person’s medical care and treatment resulting from the doctor’s careless error. Medical errors cost the Nation approximately $37.6 billion per year, and this legislation would only add to that cost.

“Should a law be passed allowing ER doctors to commit negligent acts on patients in Tennessee? That’s exactly what this bill does.” said Miller. “With 98,000 people dying each year from medical errors, clearly the answer is NO. The focus should be on improving the quality of care – not on lobbyists seeking to pass a license to harm patients.”

More good news. Our (not so) wonderful governor wants to "deliver a knockout blow" to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, too. And, surprise, surprise: this bill would prohibit you from being able to sue your insurance company under the Consumer Protection Act (or most other laws) for unfair or deceptive practices if it fails to protect you properly.

This law has been in effect for 34 years. what possible reason -- other than the greed of Big Business and Big Insurance could be behind the sudden push to destroy this vital consumer law?

House Judiciary Subcommittee "rushes" vote on rights restriction bill: "Tennessee Citizen Action, a consumer rights organization, called the bill an 'attack on hard-working Tennesseans and their families. It should be called the "Miscarriage of Justice Act of 2011," ' " said executive director Mary Mancini.

This bill is bad law, bad policy, and a disaster for regular people in this state. Business and Big Insurance love it, though, because the bill, if passed into law, would prevent some types of legal redress, and make it that much harder to get compensated in other types of cases. Businesses don't have to worry so much about conducting themselves properly, and Big Insurance just keeps on rollin' on.

Tennesseeans need to tell their legislators to vote AGAINST this bill. Here's a link to figure out who your legislator is and contact them.

Would you take $750,000 for the life of your child? If the Tennessee Legislature passes the governor's rights restriction law, that's what you'll be limited to.

A word of warning here. I just ran across a site called "USWorkersComp.com." The site makes you fill out all your contact info, and then -- if you're in Tennessee -- it tells you there is no lawyer to assist you. The reason for this dead end is that the site is a marketing tool. Lawyers subscribe to it. Where are these attorneys from? California, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and so forth. Looks like the closest lawyer to us is in Alpharetta, Georgia or Fayetteville, North Carolina.

Steer clear of sites like this one if you're looking for information on Tennessee law or Tennessee claims. Look for reputable Tennessee lawyers, in your locale, and who have experience in the type of case you have.

RIP Ned Ray McWherter. What's interesting is that there was no love lost between Ned Ray and Victor Ashe and Lamar Alexander. Where were their testimonials while he was still alive?

We have our own little Japan-type environmental disaster. Oh, and Japan's disaster seems to have reached East Tennessee, as well.

I don't know, but whenever I am assured that all this radiation doesn't pose a health risk, I start to glow all over.

ATT does it again! My main line is down, for some unknown reason. They are "working on it." If anyone wants to call the office, This one works:

(865) 544-5726

Sorry about the problems. Ugh.

More evidence that Republicans have no interest in the rights of regular people: The Senate has approved and sent to the governor a bill that would reduce the maximum civil penalty for a "knowing" violation of state insurance laws from $25,000 per occurrence to $1,000 per occurrence. This means that an insurance company can deliberately and in bad faith deny your claim, and there is essentially no state penalty.

And by the way, talk about conflicts of interest: "The measure was sponsored by Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, and Rep. Charles Sargent, R-Franklin, who both operate insurance agencies."

If Governor Haslam cares a whit about this state's policyholders, he will veto this bill. Don't hold your breath.

I just ran across this article on the history of the Jack Daniels distillery in Lynchburg. Interesting fact: Moore County, where the whiskey is distilled, is a dry county. They can make it there, but you can't drink it there.

Molly's Plant Food confiscated by law enforcement: apparently, this stuff is considered as a synthetic substitute for ecstasy. But it's not been banned by statute, so if you wonder how the state can simply take this stuff off the shelves, read the AG's press release. In summary, the AG went to court, presumably in Nashville, and got a Chancellor to issue a temporary restraining order to allow the confiscation. Now, this shouldn't be a particularly easy task for the AG. He must prove there is a substantial risk of irreparable harm. His press release says that an emergency services doctor from Cookeville testified before the Legislature on this topic. His testimony must be how they proved imminent danger of irreparable harm.

Aha! Wait; did he really say that? Governor Bill Haslam admits his rights restriction legislation is unnecessary: "Tennessee has not had a problem with excessive awards in civil cases," he told the Tennessean newspaper in Nashville recently. But he's got to justify support for an unnecessary bill some way, doesn't he? This is the best he could come up with: Tennessee "should act to discourage trial lawyers from shifting their cases to the state in response to clampdowns on damages in other states." Well that's not right; Tennessee plaintiffs -- for the most part -- must have been injured in Tennessee before they can file suit in this state. As the retired circuit court judge author of the linked piece suggests, "Could it be that this corporate multimillionaire governor is attempting to remove yet one more layer of restraint on corporate greed and malfeasance in Tennessee?"

Uh, well yeah.

A few cosmetic tweaks to this blog. Hope you all like it!

The Tennessee Consumer Protection Act is one of the relatively few consumer-friendly laws in this state. It must be for that reason that the Haslam Administration is looking to gut that law, too. It's premium content, so here's the full article:

State lawmakers are taking a broad swing at the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, a far-reaching law that ups the stakes on legal liability for businesses while guarding consumers.

But changing the scope of the law, which could triple court damages, is about more than balancing business liabilities against consumer protection. Businesses not only deal with the risk of costly consumer lawsuits under the protection act, they use the law themselves to sue one another — as seen in high-profile cases involving May 2010 flood damage at Opry Mills Mall and Gibson Guitar Corp.

A large portion of the push comes within Gov. Bill Haslam’s tort reform proposal, a bill that’s drawn enthusiastic support from business interests and company leaders across many industries. Similar proposals in the Tennessee General Assembly are expected to fall under the Republican governor’s initiative, but others stand on their own and could create dilemmas for businesses.

The legal risks that come with the Consumer Protection Act are real to Jim Amos. As CEO of Tasti D-Lite — which moved to Franklin from New York for the friendly business climate — he considers steep legal liability a threat to the company’s network of small franchisees, no matter how good they are at customer service.

“That’s an extraordinarily difficult issue,” said Amos, who considers legal reform a gap in Tennessee’s business-friendly reputation. “In many cases the kind of litigation that results puts these folks right out of business.”

He and other businesses — including a new coalition across several industries called Tennesseans for Economic Growth — believe Haslam’s proposal will spur job growth by reducing risk.

Though an amendment was pending this week, Haslam’s tort proposal would make it more difficult for plaintiffs to invoke the Consumer Protection Act in a range of cases. It also would eliminate it from use in class-action lawsuits that challenge companies on behalf of a broad swath of consumers.

Critics warn that tort reform’s consumer provisions degrade the court system that’s supposed to protect everyone equally, while also opening up direct risks to businesses. Mark Chalos, a Nashville attorney with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, argued that the Consumer Protection Act is a guard for responsible companies looking to do business in Tennessee.

“Weakening the civil justice system only protects wrongdoers and encourages bad conduct,” he said.

Another bill that progressed in the legislature this week would prevent the consumer act from being used in insurance cases, which Republicans say would end improper use of treble, or triple, damages.

They say customers still have legal standing and other recourse, but companies have become accustomed to invoking the law.

Simon Property Group, owner of the still-closed Opry Mills Mall, and Gibson, the Nashville guitar manufacturer that also sustained flood damage last year, both cited the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in suits seeking tens of millions of dollars from insurers. The companies declined comment, but the triple damages under the law would provide the sort of compensation that trial lawyers argue is fitting as insurance disputes drag on.

That bill in particular creates a careful dance for business interests, who are enthusiastic about the governor’s proposal but are mulling how to sort out matters like insurance law.

Bills address range of consumer protection
The bills that compose Republicans’ broad push on consumer protections address a number of business concerns, but also contain unexpected dilemmas.

• House Bill 2008/Senate Bill 1522 — The bills, being carried by Republican leadership in the House and Senate, compose Gov. Bill Haslam’s tort reform proposal. One portion of the proposal deals with the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act on a number of fronts.

Opponents warn that eroding protections damages the court system and poses business risks — like lessening legal remedies against Ponzi schemers. But Bradley Jackson, vice president of governmental affairs for the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry, said the bill’s consumer measures provide more stability for businesses without eroding consumer protections.

“(Current law) creates an unpredictable and unstable environment,” he said.

• House Bill 1189/Senate Bill 1912 — These bills would prevent plaintiffs from leveraging the Consumer Protection Act in insurance lawsuits and the triple damages it can lead to in judgments.

This reduces risk for insurance companies, and Rep. Pat Marsh, the Shelbyville Republican pushing the bill in the House, said consumer protections have been used as “blackmail” by attorneys to force big settlements. Consumers and companies alike use the act in litigation, and Democrats raised some questions about consumer protections before consenting to the bill’s easy passage in a subcommittee this week.

Marsh said consumers — and companies who use the act — still have options for insurance disputes, including suing under the insurance code.

“You’ve got all the protection you’ve ever had,” he said.

• Other bills — A range of other bills address consumer protections. Most of those that seek to scale them back will likely fall behind Haslam’s proposal, insiders say, but there also are a range of bills that add consumer protections that are getting less traction.

Just to illustrate the way propaganda works, consider this statement from the link: “In many cases the kind of litigation that results puts these folks right out of business.” I don't know. I carry business liability insurance to protect me against those kind of risks. If the businesses complaining about consumer protection don't carry proper insurance for their protection,then I see no reason for them to complain.

Thompson joins rights restriction debate: I like this quote in terms of describing what the Republicans want to do to the rights of people in this state: "If you're in a nursing home and a janitor hits you with a mop, it's going to be a medical malpractice claim." Why is that important? Because previous Republican legislatures have made it very difficult to prove a winning medical malpractice case.

UPDATE: Here's another report on the hearing. And another. Here's a good Thompson quote from that last link: "Folks, we are about to kill a mouse with a bazooka."

Let's also understand the big lie the Republican Administration is trying to foist on the public. There is no reliable data -- none -- that supports the claim that restricting individual civil litigation rights would "scare off potential businesses" from locating in Tennessee. In fact, the lack of a state income tax makes Tennessee very attractive for many businesses.

What I wonder is why businesses are so worried -- if they actually are? If a citizen -- individual or corporate -- acts reasonably, that citizen has nothing to worry about. This Administration is openly and arrogantly admitting that it places the interests of corporations and Big Insurance before the rights and welfare of Tennessee citizens and residents.

If you think there's something wrong with that picture, you're right.

Why is the "Tea Party" perceived as a bunch of loons? This is one reason.

RIP Elizabeth Taylor. Here's a tribute.

Tort Reform -- A Solution Without A Problem. Why is the Legislature even considering this, when "medical malpractice lawsuit filings have decreased 44 percent since 2008, accounting for only three percent of all civil suits"?

UPDATE: Former Senator Fred Thompson, who sponsored tort reform legislation in Congress back in 2003, is now a vocal opponent of the Haslam rights limitation bill. In fact, the Tennessee Association of Justice has employed him to lobby against such legislation. Here's an interview with Thompson. His message: "The fact of the matter is we have a good system here in Tennessee that has served us well for a long period of time."

This type of rights limitation legislation keeps popping up, despite the lack of any real evidence that it benefits the public, as opposed to Big Insurance. I blogged about similar federal legislation back in 2003. Thompson was, I believe, a Senate co-sponsor of this bill, which was -- properly -- defeated.

"Where is America?" bemoans Libyan rebels. They bitch when we go in, and they bitch if we stay out. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Did the Japan earthquake screw up GPS systems? Yes! Uh, no! Well, kinda. . . .

Lionfish: deadly to our reef populations, but tasty, too. At the top of the food chain, our message to these dangerous nuisances: "We will kill you and eat you with your own spines."

When I was seven years old, there was a TV show that, for some reason I loved. It involved a goofy superhero who was able to fly. He wore some sort of silvery flight jacket/apparatus; I remember this because I would turn my coat inside out to play like I was that guy. I couldn't even remember the name of the show or the superhero. I despaired of ever learning this piece of useless trivia.

Enter the Web, namely YouTube! Turns out that the show was called "Mr. Terrific." It played for just 17 episodes in 1967. Here's the theme song, which I even kind of remember:



There are even some clips on YouTube:



I could even view the unaired pilot for this show.

Sometimes, the Internet is just plain cool.

I happened to come across this while shirking my duty to pack up. Kenny Chesney, from Luttrell (metro Knoxville), and a big football fan, has made a documentary on Condredge Holloway, to be aired on ESPN on Sunday, February 20, at 8:00 pm ET. Here's an ESPN print story on the documentary. Here's the trailer:



This movie has special significance for me. I started watching Tennessee football in 1970. I first saw Condredge play in the 1972 spring "Orange and White" game. He was so good that the coaches had to put him on the other team after halftime, because whatever side he was on was unstoppable. My parents and I looked at each other and said, "this guy is special."

And, boy, was he. Although diminutive -- he stood 5' 9" on his tippy toes -- Condredge played like a giant during his three years with the varsity (Freshmen were not allowed to play with the varsity in those days). He could run, he could pass, and he could scramble. A lot of the time, Condredge didn't have a lot of help, and ended up making things happen by himself.

We loved his talent, but most of all we loved his heart. An episode much remembered in Holloway lore is the 1974 UCLA game. The Bruins had knocked Condredge out of the game -- I mean, they took him to the locker room. It was 10-10, when he not only returned to the sideline, but immediately -- and without consulting the head coach -- re-entered the game. His courageous play allowed Tennessee to turn a sound defeat into a tie, on the order of "Tennessee Beats UCLA, 17-17." Here's the video:



I figure the documentary is going to make a big deal of the fact that Condredge was the first Black QB in the Southeastern Conference. I can tell you that, from my 12 year old perception, as well as the perception of anyone I talked to about football at the time, his color was of no consequence whatsoever. He was just a great player, and that was all that counted. I'm proud of Vols fans from that era for having such a color blind attitude.

I've been off the radar screen for a while, mostly because it appears that we will be moving out of our office at the end of the month. Maybe that doesn't sound so traumatic, but consider that in the 53 plus year history of this firm, we have moved exactly once, in 1987, from the old Bank of Knoxville Building to the Medical Arts Building. We have been here ever since. Until now.

Stay tuned for our new address and directions to our new office.

Dr. King and Sarah Palin: Pretty Much the Same Person. Not.

Making the world safe for democracy: Hooters comes to Japan.

Wear clean underwear: Routine traffic stop results in body cavity search under anesthesia. Tennessee law requires a search warrant be issued before a body cavity search is performed. Did Oak Ridge police request a federal prosecution in an attempt to get around state law?

Kibbutz Centennial: Degania Aleph turns 100 years old.

Carnival: dead in the water. I love that the cruise line is offering a free trip to the Splendor's passengers. If it was me, I don't know if I would be too eager to take another trip with Carnival.

The New Republic: Lessons From Bush 43. Here's the most interesting quote:

Those who study his presidency, then, won’t find a huge amount in the man himself. They’ll try to reach out and touch Bush the man, the thinker, the politician—and accidentally punch through a cardboard cutout. Behind the cutout? People who had been wanting to invade Iraq forever and got their way. People who had wanted to cut taxes for the rich forever and got their way. People who had been waiting forever for lucrative Pentagon contracts and got their way. The list goes on and on. The story of Bush will be much more about the myriad ambitious thinkers, ideologues, charlatans, and capitalists who threw themselves gleefully into the president’s orbit than it will be about the man himself.

This confirms what I have been saying since the 2000 presidential campaign: that Bush was a nothing -- simply a placeholder for the Republican establishment whose positions had been repudiated by the success of the Clinton Administration. We traded the Clinton success -- both foreign and domestic -- for eight years of the Republican/Bush chaos that ensued. Is it any wonder that we are where we are?

Important economic news! Oh wait, this is a joke. Isn't it?

Mick Jagger replies to Keith Richard's autobiography's criticisms. I like this bit:

I am forced into the role of martinet, the one who gets blamed for silly arbitrary rules. (Like, for a show in front of 60,000 people for which we are being paid some $6 or $7 million for a few hours' work, I like to suggest to everyone that we start on time, and that we each have in place a personal plan, in whatever way suits us best, to stay conscious for the duration of the show.)

I like Jagger a lot better -- and Richard a lot less -- after reading this non-apologetic, "sadder-but-wiser-girl" rejoinder.

Slate: Democrats didn't lose the battle of 2010. They won it.

Yes, Virginia, there is scuba diving in East Tennessee.

Your archetypal "Tea Party" candidate? The New Republic:

Since winning the Republican nomination for Joe Biden’s Senate seat in Delaware (thanks in part to $150,000 in out-of-state Tea Party money), Christine O’Donnell has provided virtually all of the race’s rhetorical oxygen. She has been asked to explain why it took her 15 years to get her college degree; what exactly happened when, in high school, she and a witch had a midnight meal “on a satanic altar;” how serious she was when she campaigned publicly to stop people from masturbating; and why the IRS has taken a lien on her property for unpaid taxes.

I'm still waiting to learn her answers.

John B. Judis:

The Tea Party is an accretion of various movements of the past decades, including the Christian right and, as Wilentz shows, the older anti-Communist Right. But it fits above all into the framework of American populism, which has always had right-wing and left-wing variants, and which is rooted in a middle class cri de coeur—that we who do the work and play by the rules are being exploited by parasitic bankers and speculators and/or by shiftless, idle white trash, negroes, illegal immigrants, fill in the blank here.

There's an ugly mood in the political air these days. Times are hard and the public is looking for someone to blame. The tea partiers are blaming -- who? Mostly, they blame Democratic politicians, despite most of the perceived problems occurring on a Republican watch. Regardless, my sense is that the "tea party movement" is more about scapegoating than anything else. And whether it is scapegoating to further Republican or Libertarian aims, this movement is certainly taking advantage of a weak economy to further such right wing partisan goals.

What worries me is that, the last time a national public was looking for someone to blame for bad economic times, we ended up with the Germans electing Hitler as Chancellor of Germany. And the internal group that got blamed for the disastrous German economy was, well, you know. While it hasn't happened yet, the ever-cyclical nature of anti-semitism suggests that, sooner or later, someone's going to try to lay it all on the Jews. Or the Muslims, or the Catholics, or the Blacks. And so forth.

The irony is that, despite the apparent middle class domination of the "tea party movement," that same middle class is unlikely to be the beneficiary of the the "movement's" success: "What’s undeniable, though, is that those most likely to benefit from right-wing middle class insurgencies are not the embattled middle classes, but the business interests and the wealthy associated with the Republican Party. That was certainly true of the 'Reagan Revolution,' which put an end to the movement toward income equality that had begun in the 1930s. So who benefits from these movements is not the same as who controls them on a day-to-day basis."

There's an ugly mood in the air.

Henley Bridge closes Jan. 3 for at least 2 years: But where will they have Boomsday?

Every homeowner's nightmare.

School bus driver charged with drunken driving: She was en route to pick up kids for Cedar Bluff Elementary School. Is a story like this why my kids don't ride the bus?

Todd Purdum in Vanity Fair:

[I]t’s an interesting thought experiment to imagine what the first two years of a McCain-Palin partnership in the White House might have produced. There would probably have been no stimulus bill, and the country’s economic condition would be no better (and probably worse). General Motors and Chrysler would have been allowed to go bankrupt rather than helped to emerge into a state of healthiness, as they may well be doing. There would have been no significant new regulation of the financial industry. The Bush tax cuts for those Americans with the highest incomes—something McCain had opposed before reversing himself—would have been extended. There would have been only modest health-insurance reform, at best—McCain’s proposals were Republican boilerplate and meant for use in the campaign, never a serious program. Perhaps there would have been greater progress on immigration, though McCain had already abandoned that issue, and it’s easier to imagine his taking the more nativist stance he has since adopted. There would be no Supreme Court justices Kagan and Sotomayor, but there would likely be two more conservative justices, and the days of Roe v. Wade would be numbered. There would be no troop drawdown in Iraq. The United States might well have bombed or blockaded Iran in response to that country’s flawed election last year, or in response to its nuclear program. There would have been serial feuds between aides to the president and vice president, but the fact that Vice President Palin had an independent power base, far larger and more enthusiastic than McCain’s own, would have limited what President McCain could do about it. The “Ground Zero mosque” dispute would probably have arisen anyway, and McCain might have been hard put to do anything but side with the opponents. The Palin-family soap opera would now be daily fodder for the national press rather than mainly the tabloids.

In that the Republicans/Tea Partiers are trying to regain congressional power by blasting the current Administration, it's valid and important to consider where the country would be had McCain won the election in 2008. Based just on Chrysler and GM going under and the resulting massive additional unemployment, we'd be in even worse shape. A McCain win would have meant Bush redux; with the country sliding down the recession slope at an ever-increasing pace back in late 2008, a McCain administration likely would have continued the descent, at a terrible cost to even more Americans.

Another thought: I am not, and have never been, a particular supporter for the Obama Administration. However, I have been saying for years that what we need are statesmen: public servants who have the courage of their convictions, even in the face of powerful opposition. In that context, the Administration and the congressional Democrats who have cast supporting votes -- even at the potential cost of their jobs -- have been acting like statesmen. We should remember that.

Man shoots couch during dispute: Guns don't kill people; stupid people kill people.

Are the couch's injuries life-threatening?

Study: Health reform will save Tennesseans $2.7B. Gee, I thought that health care law spelled the end of life as we know it.

E.J. Dionne, Jr.:

The country doesn't need this class war, and it is irrational in any case. Practically no one, least of all Obama, is questioning the basics of the market system or proposing anything more than somewhat tighter economic regulations—after the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression—and rather modest tax increases on the wealthy.

But even these steps are apparently too much for those financing all the television ads, which should lead voters to ask themselves: Who is paying for this? What do they really want? And who gave them the right to buy an election?

Why, the Supreme Court did.

Mississippi Judge Jails Lawyer for Refusing to Recite Pledge of Allegiance. Here is the Contempt Order, too.

What blows me away is that, in this day and age, such nonsense still happens. Being able to refuse to recite a pledge of allegiance is fundamental to our constitutional liberties. Props to this attorney, who is willing to go to jail to protect this basic right.

And by the way, this issue was decided by the Supreme Court back in 1943: "'[N]o official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.' West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 1187, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943). A state therefore may not compel any person to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag." Sherman v. Community Consol. School Dist. 21 of Wheeling Tp., 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992).

Requiring the lawyer to recite the Pledge upon pain of contempt and jailing is a clear violation of well-settled constitutional law. The Mississippi Chancellor should know better.

Well, I never thought I'd see this: Some in G.O.P. Find Soft Spot for Bill Clinton. I don't know. As a consistent Clinton supporter during his Administrations, I can still remember quite easily the Republican vitriol manifested by such memories as the Lewinsky/impeachment charade, Whitewater, Paula What's-her-name, and the "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Bush" bumper stickers. Now, if this article suggests a Republican desire for governance from the middle, well, that would be news.

The spate of Obama Administration reform initiatives made political sense to the Administration; it is accepted wisdom that, if you don't get your legislative agenda done within the first year or so of an administration, then it won't get done at all, because of mid-term elections and then the the presidential re-election campaign. But I am reminded of Hal Holbrook's line from All the President's Men: "You build from the outer edges and you go step by step. If you shoot too high and miss, then everybody feels more secure."

In other words, while politically difficult, if not impossible, gradual reform is better than sudden and profound change. So, while legislation such as health care reform may be societally or philosophically laudable, such intitiatives may well be politically damaging or downright suicidal. While I take no real position on such legislation, there used to be a word for doing the right thing at the risk of one's personal interests: statesmanship.

Shooting themselves in the foot: It's not enough that all these lenders are foreclosing on homes and ruining their borrowers' lives. It's not enough that they can't get out of their own way long enough to effectively process loan modifications, for which they have received (a lot of) federal money. Now, these same lenders have screwed up the foreclosure paperwork so badly that many of them are suspending their foreclosure sales, putting yet another category of would-be homeowner into potential eternal limbo.

Can you imagine how much worse it would be if there were no government regulation at all?

Co-counsel every lawyer needs: Superboy. And Superman.

Hmm. I wonder whether the judge would consider his uniform inappropriate courtroom attire?

A La Carte Government in action? Fire Department allows house to burn because resident had failed to pay $75 subscription fee.

Yeah, I know he didn't pay the fee -- he says he forgot to do it -- but it seems awfully heartless to literally stand by, watch the guy's house burn (killing three pets inside, by the way) and only swing into action to prevent the fire from spreading to a paid-up neighbor's house. What if people had been inside? Would the fire department still have refused to take action?

This sounds encouraging: New Israeli treatment kills HIV cells.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face: Some 25,000 Palestinians at work building Jewish settlements. Here's what's important, according a one worker on these jobs: "We have lived with Israelis and we will have to live together in the future. I'm pleased that I will be able to make a living,"

Exactly.

Photoshop magic:

Before:








And After:










This photo is from a rebreather dive Glenn Reynolds and I did in 2006, off Cobalt Coast in Grand Cayman. Glenn's wrote and videoed about it in Popular Mechanics. Guess who the photographer/videographer was? The intrepid diver is Nat Robb of InDepth Watersports in Grand Cayman. To learn how to do it yourself, see this YouTube video.

Just, uh, unearthed: In the year 3000, remembering the Beatles: John, Paul, Greg, and Scottie (Pippin). What they were best known for? Their seminal album, "Sgt. Pet Sounds and the Spiders From Aja." This is important history, folks. Pay attention!

Gotta get that record....

Glenn Reynolds links to this naive and somewhat misleading article by Larry Ribstein about "the growing problem of poor people facing civil cases without lawyers...." The article refers to one example of a Florida resident seeking worker's compensation benefits by using a non-lawyer representative or advocate in court. The Florida Bar is seeking penalties from the non-lawyer for unauthorized practice of law. The article apparently considers this situation as an example of "the disgrace of the legal services market."

As a Tennessee lawyer, I can say that there are plenty of lawyers who would have taken that Florida resident's case, if it had been in Tennessee. And the premise of the article -- that hourly fees of $150 and greater is beyond the reach of most people -- doesn't even apply to many civil legal actions, including worker's compensation. In many types of civil cases it is just flat wrong to suggest that lower income people (or anyone else, for that matter) can't hire a lawyer unless they've got big bucks for an up front retainer. What I'm talking about is contingent fees.

As opposed to many lawyers, most trial lawyers don't charge a client up front for many types of legal matters. In personal injury, worker's compensation and Social Security Disability cases, we here at Slovis, Rutherford & Weinstein essentially never charge cash on the barrel head, nor do we ask for any kind of expense or cost deposit, if the client can't afford it. Thus, in the great majority of such cases, a client will get the legal services they need, and will pay an attorney's fee and expense reimbursement only if the lawyer gets a recovery for the client.

Now, sometimes a lawyer who doesn't want to be mean and tell a potential client there's no case will quote a high fee as a "nice" way of sending the client off to another lawyer. I don't favor that practice, but I acknowledge that it has happened and does happen, from time to time.

It is also true that there are types of civil legal issues where lawyers must charge a retainer and/or hourly fee if they are to be paid at all. Besides legal aid, there are many lawyers that do cases pro bono, or free, as a way of giving back. There are also a lot of young, hungry lawyers who may take the case for a discounted fee. The persistent person is going to find a lawyer.

Mr. Ribstein proposes "the development of a legal information market that can serve the millions of people who now have little recourse but self-help. Such a market would give the middle and lower-middle class ready access to paralegals trained to handle lower-level cases and expanded legal offerings of legal software and forms." Mr. Ribstein, an academic and law professor whose biography reflects a background in "corporate, securities and partnership law, constitutional law, bankruptcy, film, the internet, family law, professional ethics and licensing, uniform laws, choice of law, and jurisdictional competition," badly underestimates the difficulty and complexity of non-lawyers trying to be effective (i.e., successful) representing themselves in court and most legal matters. He also gives entirely too much credit to paralegals who have very uneven levels of education and experience, as well as "legal software and forms" that often do not even apply in a particular jurisdiction. Reliance on such resources can lead to disaster -- and more legal expense -- for the client.

As an example, I had a client a couple of years ago who downloaded and used for an elderly and infirm relative a power of attorney form he found on the Internet. Unfortunately, it was not a durable power of attorney. That means that if the elderly subject of the POA is at some later time found to be not competent, then the power of attorney, at that time, becomes of no force. Which is, of course, exactly what happened to that client. Property conveyances to the client under the POA were disputed and voided. Two years later, he has incurred thousands of dollars in legal fees to try to obtain the property he thought he already owned. All of his troubles could have been avoided had he used a lawyer to prepare the power of attorney. I usually charge under $100 for one. You do the math.

The reason lawyers have to be trained, pass the bar exam, and be admitted to practice is that our society believes that legal representatives ought to be, well, qualified. Licensing laws are not in place to protect lawyers' jobs; they are there to protect the public.

I have no problem whatsoever in people having access to legal forms and information if they want to represent themselves. The strong likelihood is that they will not be successful in any litigation where they have to face off against an trained, experienced lawyer. But if they want to take that chance with eyes open, have at it.

I do have a big problem with untrained, un-experienced lay people representing litigants, however. No reasonable client wants to place his faith in a legal "representative" who is unqualified to represent him.

An interesting case from the Tennessee Supreme Court. In the Tennessee medical malpractice statute, plaintiffs are prohibited from telling the jury how much they are asking for. This prohibition is usually interpreted as forbidding the plaintiff even from stating in the Complaint's (the initial lawsuit filing) ad damnum clause the amount sought.

Now, the Court has clarified how far this bar goes. Justice Sharon Lee said this:

We do not find sections 29-26-117 and 20-9-304 to be in conflict. Interpreted in accordance with the clear and unambiguous language of each section, the statutory scheme allows a plaintiff to argue or suggest a monetary value to be placed on non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and to make an argument concerning the ultimate monetary worth of his or her action, but precludes either party from disclosing the amount of the ad damnum clause in the plaintiff's complaint.

I've never quite understood why, of all the different kinds of lawsuits, it's only in malpractice cases that we cannot tell the jury what we are asking for. I've always assumed that the strength of the medical lobby is behind this law, which sets apart doctors and hospitals from other kinds of potential wrongdoers.

In any event, this case, for all intents and purposes, allows plaintiffs to tell the jury what they think the case is worth -- just not the specific sum of what was asked for in the complaint. I presume that we can tell the jury what we think the value of the case is even if it's the same as what's in the complaint, as long as we don't tell the jury that the amounts are the same.

It's interesting that the Court seems to validate putting the amount sought in the complaint, which we have previously thought was not allowed. This case is a victory for injured victims of medical negligence.

Here's the full opinion from the Court.

Here's a 9 minute animated movie explaining the Health Care reform package pretty well.

Of Counsel lawyer Brett D. Stokes has had a notable victory up in the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

Here are the basic facts: The matter is a divorce case where the Wife denied that the parties were married. The Husband and Wife were originally married in 1997 in Texas, and then returned to their residence in California shortly thereafter. In 2002 the parties were made aware that the Husband’s prior divorce was never actually granted. This law school exam set of facts led to the legal issues of: (1) whether the parties' 1997 marriage was legitimate under Texas and California law; and (2) whether the State of Tennessee would recognize the marriage?

The trial court agreed with the wife and held that -- despite the fact that the parties had not been married under Tennessee law -- the parties were never married, according to Tennessee law.

Brett appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, and prevailed in that Court. Congratulations to Brett!

Slovis, Rutherford & Weinstein will be at the Tennessee Valley Fair, in the Jacob Building, from September 10 through 19. We'll be in Booth 79. Take a look at our flyer. Come on out and say hello!

From the CBC:

Hamas, which does not recognize a place for a Jewish state in the predominantly Muslim Middle East, won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006 and overran Gaza in 2007, expelling forces loyal to Abbas. Before the Washington talks began, Hamas took responsibility for two drive-by shooting attacks in the West Bank that killed four Israelis and wounded two others, signalling that it cannot be ignored.

Actually, what it signals is that Hamas is a pack of terrorist murderers. It also signals that, even if the Israelis make grand concessions, the Palestinean side is so fragmented that no deal will be possible. Same as in 2000. Nothing ever changes with them....

Jonathan Chait correctly interprets this screen shot:

Everything you need to know about Fox News is captured in this screenshot: the American flags, the fear-mongering image in the upper-right corner, the blond anchor with a facial expression that somehow combines sneering with absolute terror.

She is cute, though....

UT College of Law: best bang for the buck.

Way to go, Glenn!

Lockett gets one year's probation: This is a sad and infuriating story. Bill Lockett, by most accounts a decent guy and a good lawyer, one day decided to start taking fees from his clients, not give it to the law firm where he was a partner/owner, and instead pocketed the $40-50,000 in fees himself. He even continued this outrageous behavior while running for public office. He claimed he did it because he had a sick child and needed the money for medical bills. What, no health insurance? And anyway, if he was that hard up for cash, why not seek a loan from his partners?

As my dad used to say facetiously, "if you're going to steal, steal big." Now he is disgraced, unemployed indefinitely, and a convicted criminal. Was it worth it? I think not.

LaFollette teen killed by train: See, iPods are dangerous.

Following up on the Nazi march in Knoxville, from the Knoxville News-Sentinel, August 17, 2010:

Instapundit posts to a Reason article about a San Francisco lawyer who is criticized for aggressively going after businesses that fail to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Unfortunately, the Reason article spews the same nonsense as other outfits seeking to tar and feather trial lawyers who are trying to help their clients. Reason's Brian Doherty refers to ". . . an aggravating tale of disability access laws providing lawyers with a cheap means of making money, harassing small business, and not really making anyone's life much better."

First, the story refers to ONE lawyer, not the impliedly many "lawyers." This overstated generalization is a classic tactic of smearmongers. While the one cited lawyer has made some silly and over-the-top statements about his pursuit of ADA violators, why is Mr. Doherty condemning essentially all lawyers for the perfectly appropriate actions of this one guy? Answer: just another snide attempt to cast as greedy non-caring sharks the lawyers who actually are trying to help people by seeing that the law is enforced.

Second, this lawyer is condemned for making claims against businesses that are allegedly violating the law. What's wrong with that? Assuming the affected businesses are subject to the ADA, a 20 year old law passed during the Republican George H.W. Bush Administration, then I would think efforts to enforce the law should be lauded, not derided. What, should small businesses be given a pass when they continue to ignore what the first Bush Administration called "the world's first comprehensive declaration of equality for people with disabilities."

Third, there is essentially no "cheap means of making money" in the lawyer business. Take it from me, another small business owner. ADA claims generally are expensive and time-consuming to prosecute. The San Francisco lawyer referred to in the story must think he's got a case; otherwise, it would make no business sense to pursue the claims. So, when my friend Glenn says "WELL, LAWYERS NEED WORK TOO, THESE DAYS: The ADA In Action," he unfairly and wrongly implies that these San Fransisco claims are inappropriate make-work of some sort, and that the ADA is somehow a misbegotten and ill-utilized law.

Finally, Mr. Doherty should be ashamed of himself when he says that ADA claims don't really make anyone's life better. I bet that the disabled would say otherwise.

Very sad news. Kenny Edwards, an unsung giant of the California country-rock genre, died Wednesday. I got to meet him in 1996 when he was playing with Bryndle, a band he, Andrew Gold, Wendy Waldman and Karla Bonoff started out of high school. It didn't happen for Bryndle then, but they resurrected the band in 1995, made an album and toured to critical praise.

Check out what Linda Ronstadt had to say about Kenny. A big loss to music fans.

209 markets in this country now broadcast their local news in high definition format. But not one station in Knoxville. Considering that I bought a nice quality HD video camera a year and a half ago, I'd like to know why.

Jazz Time Capsule: Bill Savory's legendary transcriptions of 1930s jazz radio broadcasts have finally gotten into the hands of the National Jazz Museum in Harlem. They're cleaning up the sometimes badly deteriorated aluminum and acetate discs. What's neat about this is that these jazz artists couldn't stretch out when recording for a 78 RPM record; they had to fit their performance on one side of the record. On the radio, however, they could play as long as they wanted, for all practical purposes. And because Savory had larger discs and was sometimes recording at 33 RPM, he could fit in these longer performances.

Take a listen to some excerpts, which have been digitally cleaned up by the renowned Doug Pomeroy, who comments, “As fate would have it, a couple of the most interesting Count Basie things are so badly corroded that it took me two afternoons and 47 splices just to put one of them back together again.” Here are more excerpts.

I love stuff like this!

Nazis march in Knoxville, outnumbered by anti-protesters 5 to 1. Two of the nazis were arrested for carrying weapons with intent to go armed. I sure hope the NRA doesn't try to defend these bozos. This photo kind of says it all.

Members of the Coup Clutz Clowns provided an appropriate counter-point to this unsavory event. CCC member Jake Weinstein, by the way, is not related to me.

Uh, keep it in your pants?

Pole-dancing Memphis Councilwoman says she was sober: On a booze cruise? There's a good explanation, though -- she was just trying to "do the Soul Train."

We need more council people like that around here. . . .

Knox County School Superintendent Jim McIntyre makes over $7,300 per week, and my 5th grader doesn't have school books. What's wrong with this picture?

I've been saying for years that canned green beans are bad for you.

1970 musical redux.

CBS's Dennis Dodd on the current state of Tennessee football: "It's one that can be cleaned up in time, but let's be straight about this: Maybe the best thing the Vols' new coach has going for him right now is his surname. Dooley is son of one of the most respected men in the sport. Not being Lane Kiffin is a huge plus too. In Knoxville, those two things will get Vince Dooley's son through a season or two as Tennessee tries to cap its current oil spill."

Dodd is basically on target. It is certainly true that, to UT fans, the BP Gulf oil spill looks like a minor spill on the kitchen floor compared to the mess in the Tennessee football program these days.

For what it's worth -- and I'm a Tennessee fan -- my prediction is the Vols will go a dismal 4-8, with wins over UT-Martin, UAB, Memphis and Vanderbilt. I also anticipate that anything over a 3-9 season will be hailed by the program and the pundits as a successful campaign. That's three wins. Nine losses. And for this team, the athletic department wants a $2,500 mandatory "donation" plus the ticket prices for two decent seats in the stadium. For the math-challenged out there, that's something like $188 per seat, per game. No wonder so many long time fans like me are peeved to the point of apathy with the program. Love the team; hate the program.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Pigeon Forge welcomes the USS Enterprise Association reunion this week.

Social Media Monopoly: Have we gone too far down the Facebook road? "The premise of the game is that social media masters like Mashable founder Pete Cashmore, Digg founder Kevin Rose, Tom from MySpace, Web Nation host Amber MacArthur, and Huffington Post founder Ariana Huffington are competing for total control of the social media scene on the board, and must gain capital and power while avoiding fees and jail (which is, perhaps appropriately, MySpace.)"

My Space is Jail? Funny.

Would you spend 27 years in a Texas state prison for $2.2 million?

Why does everyone think that this state begins and ends in Nashville?

Busking is not illegal. On the other hand, what is busking?

Busking is not illegal. On the other hand, what is busking?

Lebanon Bookkeeper Accused Of Stealing $425K from Nursing Home Patients. What's curious is that her alleged embezzlement was discovered in December 2008, almost two years ago. What took so long to indict her?

Stop crime: use Facebook!

In a shameless self-promotion, check out our Facebook page by going to Facebook.com and searching for Slovis, Rutherford & Weinstein.

Shootings in West Knoxville.

Now the federal smoking nazis are preventing families from sending cigarettes to their soldiers fighting overseas. Ridiculous. If we can send our people to fight and die in wars, at least we can let them have a smoke if they want one.

Gallup: 79% of those in the "tea party movement" identify themselves as Republicans. 62% consider themselves conservative Republicans.

So much for the notion that this tea party hoo-ha is bi- or non-partisan; it's merely rebranding: "...the presence of a new political force that is not called Republican and is not tied to George W. Bush has given the GOP a glorious opportunity to remake its image, at a time when trust in the party is very low. Some liberals deride the Tea Party as a new bottle for old Republican wine. But rebranding works...."

Sarah Palin:

"Refudiate," "misunderestimate," "wee-wee'd up." English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!

This is the person who might have been a heartbeat from the presidency?

Haslam team credits calls for win. Well, that and $10 million....

Two indicted in botched drug deal, shooting. For God's sake, if you've got to got out to do this kind of thing, get a babysitter.