Man charged with DUI after towing boat, trailer upside down: "Eric A. Willis, 40, of Avondale, was charged with DUI, reckless driving, resisting arrest and resisting arrest with violence, disregarding a police officer's signal, leaving the scene of a property accident, driving at an unreasonable speed, driving on the wrong side of the highway and two counts of failure to signal intention, said state Fish & Wildlife Enforcement Sgt. Gregory Rhodes."
What I want to know is whether the two counts of failure to signal intention occurred before or after he started driving on the wrong side of the highway.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
This congressman has yet another plan to "save" Social Security, by converting it to an investment plan. It also creates a new federal cureaucracy to administer it. Here's the fundamental problem: Social Security is insurance, which pays out upon disability or upon reaching a certain age. By turning it into an investment plan, you fundamentally change the nature of the program. Oh, and by the way, what happens if the market tanks? Answer: "the above investment scenarios will undoubtedly have some down years where the portfolios would have a negative return...."
It might be worth thinking about if you could guarantee at least the benefit recipients currently get. But that's the problem with market-driven investments: return on investment cannot be either predicted or guraranteed.
It might be worth thinking about if you could guarantee at least the benefit recipients currently get. But that's the problem with market-driven investments: return on investment cannot be either predicted or guraranteed.
I am seeing a lot of "news" stories excoriating Social Security lately -- more so than usual. Could it be that someone is trying to poison public opinion about Social Security in order to make it easier to gut the system? In light of Rick Perry's on-record statements condemning the program, I am skeptical about whether that's a coincidence.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Florida linebacker arrested for "resisting an officer with violence" and driving with a suspended sentence. Will the Gators suspend him or find a way to play him against Tennessee on Saturday?
I know what they ought to do, and I can guess what they'll probably do. And those are two different things.
I know what they ought to do, and I can guess what they'll probably do. And those are two different things.
Ok, now this is just too weird: Mel Gibson to make Jewish movie. You know, Mel, just leave well enough alone. This approaches the absurd, considering your past behavior.
What to look for in a new family car. Most of this is common sense, but it's a handy checklist if you're in the market.
The newer technology airbag is especially interesting. A number of years ago, our Knoxville personal injury practice had a client who was rear-ended and whose pickup was forced into the car ahead of hers. Yhe airbag deployed, and when she came to see me, her face looked like she had gone 10 rounds with Mike Tyson. If these improved airbags can reduce the amount of injury actually caused by an airbag deployment, that would be a good thing.
The newer technology airbag is especially interesting. A number of years ago, our Knoxville personal injury practice had a client who was rear-ended and whose pickup was forced into the car ahead of hers. Yhe airbag deployed, and when she came to see me, her face looked like she had gone 10 rounds with Mike Tyson. If these improved airbags can reduce the amount of injury actually caused by an airbag deployment, that would be a good thing.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Social Security is no swindle. I particularly like this part:
there's one other way that you -- and Gov. Perry -- can distinguish Social Security from a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes often leave their elderly victims penniless and with nothing to fall back on.
Nothing, that is, except Social Security.
To me, it is disturbing that a man who is governor of one of our larget states, and who thinks he is qualified to be President, doesn't know what a Ponzi scheme is. In and of itself, that ought to disqualify him from higher office. I mean, don't we want our best -- and brightest -- in these positions of great responsibility?
I've been somewhat following the U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife Services search warrant executed on Gibson Guitar in Nashville and Memphis. Here is the search warrant affidavit that led a judge to sign the search warrant for Gibson.
In that affidavit, it is alleged that: India prohibits export of wood from India. Aff., para. 17; prohibited Indian ebony was imported and allegedly received by a company called Luthier Mercantile International. Aff. para. 18. While the shipment was marked for transport to Nashville, the final consignee was not identified in the paperwork. Para. 20. Luthier Mercantile's representative advised that the shipment was intended for Gibson Guitar in Nashville, id., even though customs forms indicated the final consignee to be Luthier Mercantile in Canada, contradicting the other declarations and paperwork indicating the materials were intended for Nashville. Para 21. The Indian export declaration falsely classified the shipment as being allowed parts (finished parts of musical instruments). Eleven imports in the past year have been noted to be of the prohibited type of wood. Para. 28.
The implication here is obvious: that Gibson, in order to get away with obtaining prohibited materials, set up a series of "straw men" to receive the prohibited materials. If true, that suggests Gibson knew full well what it was doing was in violation of law.
I have tried to distill the legalese in the affidavit for brevity's sake. My judgment is that the affidavit shows probable cause sufficient to issue the search warrant.
Gibson's CEO denies wrongdoing, but doesn't seem to address the implicit charge that Gibson is importing prohibited wood. He is upset that his business is being disrupted. He is mad that the Justice Department has taken the position that sending out any guitars with questionable materials would be obstruction of justice. He said the wood materials seized Wednesday are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, a third-party organization that promotes responsible forest management. He does not address the implication in the search warrant affidavit, though -- that the importation itself violates Indian and U.S. law. He does trumpet the fact that he employs U.S. workers, and implies the dispute has to do with being compelled to use Indian-made finished parts.
Now, the conservative blogosphere immediately took the position that this search is a political vendetta by a Democratic administration against a CEO who is a known Republican. Aside from those bare circumstances, I see no evidence to support these muckraking allegations.
Gibson's CEO has allegedly said that "We have letters from a very high-level government agency in India that says that this product was allowable export," he notes. "And in fact, we have been buying the same product for well over 17 years, regularly." he also says that "Wood that we are buying is being bought by other companies in the industry, and they have not had any kind of action -- not so much as a letter or a postcard...." If there is evidence that other guitar manufacturers are importing wood in violation of law, then they ought to be subject to the same treatment. On the other hand, if the importation was above-board, why all the subterfuge about what was included in the shipment and who the final consignee was?
Frankly, I think it is inconceiveable that the Obama Administration is engaging in this action as some sort of low-level political chicanery, as suggested by the Administration's political/philosophical opponents. Given bureaucratic realities and the appearance of this action as a Fish & Wildlife operation, I would be surprised if the White House even had advance notice of the search warrant.
In that affidavit, it is alleged that: India prohibits export of wood from India. Aff., para. 17; prohibited Indian ebony was imported and allegedly received by a company called Luthier Mercantile International. Aff. para. 18. While the shipment was marked for transport to Nashville, the final consignee was not identified in the paperwork. Para. 20. Luthier Mercantile's representative advised that the shipment was intended for Gibson Guitar in Nashville, id., even though customs forms indicated the final consignee to be Luthier Mercantile in Canada, contradicting the other declarations and paperwork indicating the materials were intended for Nashville. Para 21. The Indian export declaration falsely classified the shipment as being allowed parts (finished parts of musical instruments). Eleven imports in the past year have been noted to be of the prohibited type of wood. Para. 28.
The implication here is obvious: that Gibson, in order to get away with obtaining prohibited materials, set up a series of "straw men" to receive the prohibited materials. If true, that suggests Gibson knew full well what it was doing was in violation of law.
I have tried to distill the legalese in the affidavit for brevity's sake. My judgment is that the affidavit shows probable cause sufficient to issue the search warrant.
Gibson's CEO denies wrongdoing, but doesn't seem to address the implicit charge that Gibson is importing prohibited wood. He is upset that his business is being disrupted. He is mad that the Justice Department has taken the position that sending out any guitars with questionable materials would be obstruction of justice. He said the wood materials seized Wednesday are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, a third-party organization that promotes responsible forest management. He does not address the implication in the search warrant affidavit, though -- that the importation itself violates Indian and U.S. law. He does trumpet the fact that he employs U.S. workers, and implies the dispute has to do with being compelled to use Indian-made finished parts.
Now, the conservative blogosphere immediately took the position that this search is a political vendetta by a Democratic administration against a CEO who is a known Republican. Aside from those bare circumstances, I see no evidence to support these muckraking allegations.
Gibson's CEO has allegedly said that "We have letters from a very high-level government agency in India that says that this product was allowable export," he notes. "And in fact, we have been buying the same product for well over 17 years, regularly." he also says that "Wood that we are buying is being bought by other companies in the industry, and they have not had any kind of action -- not so much as a letter or a postcard...." If there is evidence that other guitar manufacturers are importing wood in violation of law, then they ought to be subject to the same treatment. On the other hand, if the importation was above-board, why all the subterfuge about what was included in the shipment and who the final consignee was?
Frankly, I think it is inconceiveable that the Obama Administration is engaging in this action as some sort of low-level political chicanery, as suggested by the Administration's political/philosophical opponents. Given bureaucratic realities and the appearance of this action as a Fish & Wildlife operation, I would be surprised if the White House even had advance notice of the search warrant.
Friday, September 09, 2011
What Would Happen if Social Security Disappeared? In short, a "calamity."
Check out our Social Security Knoxville practice.
Check out our Social Security Knoxville practice.
Todd Steed recalls his Blount County teenage triumph on eve of his musical return: Ah, the good old Etc. days. On the other hand, I don't remember it as a triumph as much as it was a marathon of two gigs in one night.
Actually the triumph was that my father restrained himself -- barely -- and didn't murder me the next morning when he saw the VW's dented quarter-panel and cracked window. Rock and Roll!
Actually the triumph was that my father restrained himself -- barely -- and didn't murder me the next morning when he saw the VW's dented quarter-panel and cracked window. Rock and Roll!
Reflections "from the Hill:"
I'm in my 41st year of Tennessee football, so I guess I have seen almost everything. From Bobby Scott (my first quaterback), to Condredge Holloway, to lights in Neyland Stadium for the first time (I was outside looking in -- there were no tickets to be had), to the return of favorite son Johnny Majors, to that magnificent third Saturday in October 1982 when we finally beat Alabama in the shadows of the World's Fair, to the glorious Sugar Bowl in 1986 when we whipped Miami and should have been named National Champions (nobody in the country was a better team that night), to Andy Kelly, the greatest comeback quarterback I ever saw at Tennessee, to Shuler, to Manning, to the 1998 national championship, and so forth.
In good times and bad -- and we had some terrible times -- there was always one constant: Neyland Stadium was always filled. Whether the team was good or bad, we always approached capacity. When the north upper deck was filled in, we always had in excess of 100,000 fans on hand. I would often quip: "101,000? Small crowd today." But it was no joke. Even when we were going 5-6 in 2005, we were still filling the place up.
Alas, no more.
At last Saturday's Montana-Tennessee game, the PA announcer was clearly thrilled to announce an [optimistic] attendance figure of 94,600. He's thrilled; I'm sad. For the opening game of the season. And not on broadcast TV? And no rain in the forecast? How is it that the stadium was so (relatively) empty?
The simple answer: the unbridled greed of the University of Tennessee Athletic establishment.
What do I mean by this? How about increasing mandatory "donations" from $500 to $4,000 per season for pairs of seats between the 20 yard lines?
How about building a very nice -- and totally unnecessary -- brick facade outside the stadium, and shaking down the fans to pay for it?
How about the east side skyboxes, which you don't get unless you have the net worth of, say, Warren Buffett?
How about the also-expensive club seats which took away prime seating from long time season ticketholders, with no real recomepense?
How about the apparently really nice concessions area for the club seating that we peons aren't allowed into?
How about the commercialization of the stadium experience, to the point where the constantly running ribbon ads around the bottom of the upper deck are actually more brilliant and vibrant that the football game we are there to see?
How about the concessions which, while not great before, are now licensed out to some outfit which charges more and gives less?
How about charging more for tickets to the "good" games, like Alabama, Georgia, LSU and Florida, while charging less ("less" meaning $40) for games like FCS opponent Montana?
How about the total prohibition on smoking (no designated smoking areas on the concourses), which affects probably half the fans in the stadium, making their game experience that much more difficult,stressful, and unpleasant?
Finally, and worst of all, how about charging the students of the University an activities fee which covers tickets to University sports, and then charging them an additional fee for football tickets?
To paraphrase Martin Sheen's classic line from Wall Street, "I know what these guys are all about, greed. they don't give a damn about football or the fans. They're in it for the bucks and they don't take prisoners."
Look, I know I'm one of the disaffected. I used to go to games under any conditions or circumstances. For example, I went to the Duke game in 1988 with a raging flu (I talked myself into believing I was over it, and promptly relapsed for another week; maybe because we lost, 31-26; still bothers me). If I could physically get into the stadium, I went. I used to say that Neyland Stadium was my church, and I attended six times a year.
I showed loyalty to the University that was loyal to me. When we paid a $500 mandatory "donation," it was a pain, but it didn't break the bank. But when it became clear that U.T. was interested in me only to the extent it could soak me for as much as possible, the bloom came off the rose.
And this disaffection afflicts many, if not most, of the Volunteer faithful. Along with the advent of HD TV, there are a lot of die hard fans -- me included -- who would rather watch the game in high definition than fight for an ever-more-expensive parking spot, pay a ton of money for concessions (last week: 2 hot dogs, 2 soft drinks, total $20.00. And no chicken sandwich, dang it!), get jammed in a too-small seat, get inundated by mindless and incessant advertising come-ons, not be able to smoke (for those who do) for hours on end, and ultimately watch a mediocre football team promoted by a greedy and insensitive athletic department administration. I began my football game trip at 2:55 pm last Saturday. I got home at 11:15 pm. Almost 8 1/2 hours. That's a major investment in time and energy.
I went to two games last year. I will probably attend more this year, but more for my kids than for me. I feel most sorry for the children; when I "got it" about Tennessee football at age 10, the subsequent years were wonderful -- rooting for my team through thick and thin. I wanted my boys to have the same profound football experience. It's a shame that the marketing geniuses at the Athletic Department have turned the pure joy of college football in the "First Tennessee Instant Replay," and other banal moneymaking devices. That is what I fear my sons and future Tennessee fans have in store for themselves: watching a series of commercials with a little football thrown in every now and then.
Until the University gets back to emphasizing the football game experience and starts showing some love to the 99% of the stadium-goers who, like me, sit in regular seats and have to work for a living to pay for the experience, it's going to continue to lose its previously loyal fan base. The way WE look at it is that, if the University doesn't show us any loyalty, why should we show any loyalty by attending games?
I'm still a Tennessee football fan. I will be rooting for the team against Cincinnati tomorrow. I'll still live and die by their (our!) wins and losses. But as great fans, we deserve better from an Athletice Department that wouldn't have a program without us.
Anyway, that's why we don't fill up the stadium regularly any more.
I'm in my 41st year of Tennessee football, so I guess I have seen almost everything. From Bobby Scott (my first quaterback), to Condredge Holloway, to lights in Neyland Stadium for the first time (I was outside looking in -- there were no tickets to be had), to the return of favorite son Johnny Majors, to that magnificent third Saturday in October 1982 when we finally beat Alabama in the shadows of the World's Fair, to the glorious Sugar Bowl in 1986 when we whipped Miami and should have been named National Champions (nobody in the country was a better team that night), to Andy Kelly, the greatest comeback quarterback I ever saw at Tennessee, to Shuler, to Manning, to the 1998 national championship, and so forth.
In good times and bad -- and we had some terrible times -- there was always one constant: Neyland Stadium was always filled. Whether the team was good or bad, we always approached capacity. When the north upper deck was filled in, we always had in excess of 100,000 fans on hand. I would often quip: "101,000? Small crowd today." But it was no joke. Even when we were going 5-6 in 2005, we were still filling the place up.
Alas, no more.
At last Saturday's Montana-Tennessee game, the PA announcer was clearly thrilled to announce an [optimistic] attendance figure of 94,600. He's thrilled; I'm sad. For the opening game of the season. And not on broadcast TV? And no rain in the forecast? How is it that the stadium was so (relatively) empty?
The simple answer: the unbridled greed of the University of Tennessee Athletic establishment.
What do I mean by this? How about increasing mandatory "donations" from $500 to $4,000 per season for pairs of seats between the 20 yard lines?
How about building a very nice -- and totally unnecessary -- brick facade outside the stadium, and shaking down the fans to pay for it?
How about the east side skyboxes, which you don't get unless you have the net worth of, say, Warren Buffett?
How about the also-expensive club seats which took away prime seating from long time season ticketholders, with no real recomepense?
How about the apparently really nice concessions area for the club seating that we peons aren't allowed into?
How about the commercialization of the stadium experience, to the point where the constantly running ribbon ads around the bottom of the upper deck are actually more brilliant and vibrant that the football game we are there to see?
How about the concessions which, while not great before, are now licensed out to some outfit which charges more and gives less?
How about charging more for tickets to the "good" games, like Alabama, Georgia, LSU and Florida, while charging less ("less" meaning $40) for games like FCS opponent Montana?
How about the total prohibition on smoking (no designated smoking areas on the concourses), which affects probably half the fans in the stadium, making their game experience that much more difficult,stressful, and unpleasant?
Finally, and worst of all, how about charging the students of the University an activities fee which covers tickets to University sports, and then charging them an additional fee for football tickets?
To paraphrase Martin Sheen's classic line from Wall Street, "I know what these guys are all about, greed. they don't give a damn about football or the fans. They're in it for the bucks and they don't take prisoners."
Look, I know I'm one of the disaffected. I used to go to games under any conditions or circumstances. For example, I went to the Duke game in 1988 with a raging flu (I talked myself into believing I was over it, and promptly relapsed for another week; maybe because we lost, 31-26; still bothers me). If I could physically get into the stadium, I went. I used to say that Neyland Stadium was my church, and I attended six times a year.
I showed loyalty to the University that was loyal to me. When we paid a $500 mandatory "donation," it was a pain, but it didn't break the bank. But when it became clear that U.T. was interested in me only to the extent it could soak me for as much as possible, the bloom came off the rose.
And this disaffection afflicts many, if not most, of the Volunteer faithful. Along with the advent of HD TV, there are a lot of die hard fans -- me included -- who would rather watch the game in high definition than fight for an ever-more-expensive parking spot, pay a ton of money for concessions (last week: 2 hot dogs, 2 soft drinks, total $20.00. And no chicken sandwich, dang it!), get jammed in a too-small seat, get inundated by mindless and incessant advertising come-ons, not be able to smoke (for those who do) for hours on end, and ultimately watch a mediocre football team promoted by a greedy and insensitive athletic department administration. I began my football game trip at 2:55 pm last Saturday. I got home at 11:15 pm. Almost 8 1/2 hours. That's a major investment in time and energy.
I went to two games last year. I will probably attend more this year, but more for my kids than for me. I feel most sorry for the children; when I "got it" about Tennessee football at age 10, the subsequent years were wonderful -- rooting for my team through thick and thin. I wanted my boys to have the same profound football experience. It's a shame that the marketing geniuses at the Athletic Department have turned the pure joy of college football in the "First Tennessee Instant Replay," and other banal moneymaking devices. That is what I fear my sons and future Tennessee fans have in store for themselves: watching a series of commercials with a little football thrown in every now and then.
Until the University gets back to emphasizing the football game experience and starts showing some love to the 99% of the stadium-goers who, like me, sit in regular seats and have to work for a living to pay for the experience, it's going to continue to lose its previously loyal fan base. The way WE look at it is that, if the University doesn't show us any loyalty, why should we show any loyalty by attending games?
I'm still a Tennessee football fan. I will be rooting for the team against Cincinnati tomorrow. I'll still live and die by their (our!) wins and losses. But as great fans, we deserve better from an Athletice Department that wouldn't have a program without us.
Anyway, that's why we don't fill up the stadium regularly any more.
Dramatic video of Des Moines Iowa police pulling victims out of a burning car. This is a great example of law enforcement at their best.
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
This day in tech: "Handed a check for $100,000 made out to “Google Inc.,” [founders] Sergey Brin and Larry Page figure they better incorporate their fledgling search engine. So they do."
Note: it doesn't usually happen that way....
Note: it doesn't usually happen that way....
Knoxville red-light camera tickets fall sharply because of new state law. Well, it seems the Legislature -- kind of -- did something worthwhile this year.
According to a University of Florida study, Parents play a powerful role in predicting DUI:
for parents, even moderate drinking can result in one unintended consequence: an increased risk their children will drive under the influence as adults. . . . Writing in the current issue of the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention, University of Florida researchers found that about 6 percent of adolescents whose parents drank even sporadically reported driving under the influence at age 21, compared with just 2 percent of those whose parents did not imbibe.
I'm not sure if I completely buy this connection. The thrust of the article is that if a parent takes a drink, then the kid's chances of driving drunk increase by 4 percentage points. It seems to me that making this correlation minimizes the many other factors involved in the decision to drive drunk. Speaking personally, the times in my youth when I drove after having too much to drink had nothing to do with my parents, who drank sparingly [father] and never [mother].
Now, I do believe that a child who is raised in a household where drinking is a normal and regular part of the day is more likely to be a drinker in the same vein as the parent. Environmental factors count. Intuitively, however, taking that generality and applying it to drinking parents causing drunk driving may be a stretch.
Courtroom attire don'ts:
Deputy District Public Defender Karl Gordon once had a client, on trial for four carjackings, show up to court wearing the same sweatshirt he committed the crimes in.
Years ago, Deputy State's Attorney William Roessler watched a man argue a speeding ticket in district court while wearing a jacket with the words, "Hell On Wheels" printed on the back.
"I just wanted to ask him what he was thinking," Roessler said. "When he got up that morning and thought, 'What should I wear for my speeding ticket? Oh, I think I'll wear my 'Hell On Wheels' jacket.' "
Defense Attorney David Fischer once had a client show up to a DUI trial wearing a Bud Light T-shirt, featuring Spuds McKenzie, the iconic beer mascot of the 1980s.
"You kind of shake your head at them," Fischer said. "You want them to enter an insanity plea."
Gordon has instructed clients, who show up wearing shirts featuring 9mm handguns and marijuana leaves, to turn them inside out, at the very least.
While I generally dress casually in the office, I am very picky -- maybe more picky than other lawyers -- when it comes to what I wear in court. If I have to go to the courthouse for any reason, a coat and tie is required. Frankly, if I have to go over to the courthouse, I get uncomfortable even in a blazer/pant combination; in court, one wears a suit. Period.
Clients appearing in court want to wear clothes that show respect to the court as an institution and the judge as a person. Dressing nicely and respectfully can't hurt, and it certainly can help, when it comes to affecting the judge's opinion of you sitting in judgment of you as a litigant. On the other hand, dressing like a slob, or dressing for humor, or dressing over the top ("one couple ... after being reminded that court was a formal proceeding, came in to testify for the state wearing a tuxedo and prom gown") is not going to win you points with the judge.
Good luck applying for Social Security Disability: "Only 30% who applied in 2009 were awarded benefits, down from 44% in 1999, according to agency data." (click through to item 5 on the 10 item list)
As Knoxville Social Security attorneys, we hear all the time how easy it is to get approved for Social Security Disability. The statistic above is much more in line with our experience. From a practical point of view, it means that a lot of deserving claimants get the shaft, for basically arbitrary and unfair reasons. All the more reason to make sure that disability claims are filed on a timely basis and pursued aggressively.
As Knoxville Social Security attorneys, we hear all the time how easy it is to get approved for Social Security Disability. The statistic above is much more in line with our experience. From a practical point of view, it means that a lot of deserving claimants get the shaft, for basically arbitrary and unfair reasons. All the more reason to make sure that disability claims are filed on a timely basis and pursued aggressively.
Friday, September 02, 2011
"No Refusal" Weekend in DuPage County, Illinois: Those darn citizens, trying to "skirt the law by refusing to be tested" via breath test. How dare they know that breathalyzer equipment is notoriously unreliable. How dare they rely on their constitutional rights.
As Knoxville DUI attorneys, we generally recommend that persons stopped on suspicion of DUI decline the field breahtalyzer because of its known lack of accuracy. There should be no stigma in insisting that the police use only the most accurate possible test to determine whether a violation has occurred. And taking blood test is the most accurate test.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)