The Not So Legal Show

David Letterman, yes or no?

Posted by: sdc10 on: October 25, 2009

It is interesting how the topic of sexual harrassment came up when David Letterman admitted to having sex with some of his workers. Is that what I should call them? Workers? Colleagues? Women who wanted to sleep their way to the top? Not that I think any of them intentionally would ever say that is what they were doing but it is an interesting concept to think through.

The US Equal Opportunity Commission website describes sexual harassment as the following:

  • The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.
  • The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
  • The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
  • Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
  • The harasser’s conduct must be unwelcome.
  • I can’t help but think that any conduct that David Letterman was ”conducting” was unwelcome.  I am not taking sides as I am all for women’s rights, etc, etc but I would have to hear more details and “the other side of the story” to see this as anything but a case of a man in power and women that are enamored with that power.  The person I feel the most sorry for is David Letterman’s wife.

    Good ol’ Manny manny fo fanny

    Posted by: sdc10 on: May 10, 2009

    Sorry folks but is it just me or is baseball going down the tubes. Can’t there just be an athlete out there that doesn’t screw things up? I know I am generalizing right now but it just seems interesting that the athletes that are known for bringing in the fans, also seem to bring the controversy. Is that planned?! I think life was easier when they were not getting tested as much. Anything to keep my impression of Reggie Jackson intact, thank you.

    Phil Spector has funny hair

    Posted by: sdc10 on: April 16, 2009

    I have to admit that I was a little surprised at the headlines that Phil Spector was found guilty. Not because I don’t think he is guilty but more because I thought the jury would have a hard time actually convicting the guy.  When I was in law school, I did this project where I compared movies that have juries in them to the real world of a jury.  Of course, what I found was that often a jury isn’t portrayed exactly correct in entertainment. So, what do you do when the guy you have to convict kind of is entertainment in his own right? I mean, can you imagine sitting on the jury and looking at Phil Spector all day? I can only imagine what it was like for the jurors.

    I have written about this before but I think it is really tough to decide someone’s fate. I am sure it was tough for these jurors as well but I think the security guard who heard Phil say “I think I just killed someone” probably is what did it. I feel sorry for the woman who went to his house. I wonder if she knew what she was in for by going over there. I doubt it.

    So it’s been awhile…

    Posted by: sdc10 on: March 9, 2009

    Well, it has been awhile. I have felt less than inspired about the legal world so I haven’t been writing too much. I have started to invest my energy into the health and wellness space as I think I can put my legal skills to good use in that arena. Speaking of health and wellness, I went to the Go Green Expo a few weeks ago. Quite interesting. I also realized that if I didn’t want to increase my OCD tendencies, I would steer clear from a website called www.safecosmetics.org.

    Not sure if you have seen it but WOW. Try typing in a product that you use and see what rating it gets. You might want to start throwing out every product you have but I would say to just look at it from a reasonable standpoint. For example, maybe if there is something you use every day (ie: body lotion), it couldn’t hurt to maybe change to something a little less hazardous.

    I just think it’s interesting that there is a website out there that gives certain products a 10 in the hazard arena  — and, they allege you could get every disease in the book by using them — but yet it’s not like I see lawsuits every day over Nivea lotion. It’s only a matter of time.

    I get bored while driving so I text…

    Posted by: sdc10 on: January 5, 2009

    So, awhile ago I wrote about how California was enacting a new law where you can’t talk on your cell phone while driving and now you can extend that to texting while driving as well. I have found lately that driving is so boring that texting becomes something to amuse myself as my attention span has gotten so short. I am thinking that this is not a good thing and am actually happy about this new law. I saw an article the other day that questioned whether accidents had actually been reduced as a result of people refraining from talking on their cell phone. As of the moment, there doesn’t seem to be any major data showing any type of conclusive result.

    I, however, am happy about this new law. Mainly because I feel as if I should be able to sit in my car and just drive, rather than feel the impulsive need to communicate with someone every five seconds. But, it sure was fun while it lasted.

    Happy 2009!

    Taser guns – try not to get shot

    Posted by: sdc10 on: December 11, 2008

    I saw this article about the use of Taser guns and whether they are lethal or not. Is it just me or doesn’t the word “taser gun” just sound so strange. It’s like, let’s invent something where it sort of shocks you and makes it so you can’t move.  The research is based on a case where a man, Robert Heston, died after repeatedly being shocked with a Taser gun. I am not sure why anyone finds this surprising. I think if you are shocked enough with anything that it is likely to kill you. In this case, the Taser guns were developed to give someone a 50,000 volt shock for five seconds. Mr. Heston was shocked 25 times. Can you imagine? It it just so sad. I mean, the guy was mentally ill and attacked the police officers but this is not like the movie Transformers – remember the scene in the dessert where the soliders just kept shooting at the robots? This is a human being that might have been out of control but the treatment in this case seems a bit severe.

    The jury found that the company that developed the Taser guns in this case were 15% liable for Robert Heston’s death as the company should have known that prolonged exposure would have lead to cardiac arrest and failed to warn the police officers of that danger.  It is a tough call though as I do believe that police officers should have some type of recourse when dealing with an unruly situation that shouldn’t result in their use of lethal force. However, in this case, the non-lethal force became lethal so we are back at square one.

    I am happy there has been some light shed on this as apparently the company that developed the Taser guns were at one time immune to all lawsuits. They received some 70 or more dismissals prior to this case. I think anything we can do to make the manner in which police officers deal with the public more safe and sound, the better.

    Hey, I used a hooker but not with campaign funds

    Posted by: sdc10 on: November 7, 2008

    When I first started this blog, I wrote about Eliot Spitzer. It was a bit ago so I feel like I can hardly remember what I wrote. I do recall that my main point was that I wondered if Eliot ever had a thought in his head where he thought, hmmmmmmmmmmm, I am not really sure if what I am doing is legal. (For those of you who missed the story, Eliot Spitzer was the governor of NY who was found to be involved with a prostitute and can I add that apparently he paid something like $5,000 for sex?)

    The news came out today that lucky for Spitzer, there will not be any charges against him for his dealings with prostitution. Apparently the investigation didn’t really turn up anything so he is off the hook. Of course, it’s hard to say what that really means. The guy’s career is basically finished, he ruined his marriage and I would imagine his kids will have fun in therapy for the next few years. I suppose this story is just a sad close to the whole Spitzer saga.

    However, in more uplifting news, I am going to be interviewing a film producer, a life coach and a music producer so get ready!

    When No is Yes and Yes is No

    Posted by: sdc10 on: November 4, 2008

    I know the election is tomorrow. However, I wish things could be easier for people to understand. As an attorney, I can take ten sentences and make them so confusing that someone would need to read them ten times to understand it. I suppose it is something you learn as you go along in your legal career.

    However, when people are going to vote, I think it needs to be clear what your vote actually means. In discussions with various people, I have often heard that people don’t actually understand the way to vote on Proposition 8 and I have offered clarity on the topic. People keep asking, if I vote “yes” does that mean I want to vote for same-sex marriage? The actual language reads:

    ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

    • Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
    • Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

    After reading this, it is clear that voting yes means that you actually are arguing to ban same-sex marriage. I am not going to get into which way I want to vote as that is not the purpose of this post. The bigger purpose is to point out that you would think with such a big initiative such as this that they would make it a bit more clear as to what voting “yes” or “no” actually means. Seems to be in line with everything to do with politics as I just keep wanting to ask what the candidates really mean. I know everyone is passionate about certain candidates but I have to admit I have not fallen in line. Tomorrow should be interesting. Just know what voting “yes” and “no” really mean. Take your time.

    Keep out and I mean it, part II, sort of…

    Posted by: sdc10 on: November 3, 2008

    I had written a post about this guy, Compton Gardner, who erected a gate that prevented a bunch of his neighbors from accessing their property. I deleted the post because I didn’t really like it. However, someone read it and was asking what had happened. You will be happy to know that the judge ordered Mr. Gardner to take down the gate. This is one of those times where  you wish people would act rationally. I mean, is it really necessary to put up a gate to make a point! Neighborly disputes can be such an ordeal. Send me some comments on what you guys have had to deal with sometimes with your neighbors. I would be curious to hear about it. For those of you who missed the article that prompted my post, here it is:

    Man installs barrier on street, forcing residents to walk to their homes. L.A. officials are trying to resolve the dispute.
    By Bob Pool
    October 23, 2008
    Maria Freyre could not believe her eyes last week when she pulled onto the Lincoln Heights street where she has lived for 45 years.

    A neighbor had erected a steel gate across Forest Park Drive, blocking 18 residents’ access to their homes.

     
    A simmering neighborhood dispute had prompted Gardner Compton’s barricade. Forest Park Drive crosses private property, Compton said — his. He was willing to let his neighbors walk on foot along the narrow dirt road, but cars were no longer allowed.

    Angry residents called Los Angeles authorities, who pledged that they would move quickly to resolve the dispute and have the gate removed from the street, which has been in use since 1924.

    But the street remained blocked Wednesday morning when Freyre, 61, and her 30-year-old daughter, Norma Enriquez, squeezed past the gate to get to the car they had parked outside it overnight.

    Residents say they are lugging groceries past the gate and using miner-style flashlights to hike back and forth at night to their cars.

    “This is unbelievable,” said Freyre, who was worried what would happen later in the day when her son planned to bring his prematurely born child home from the hospital for the first time.

    She glanced past the gate to the quarter-mile walk that David Freyre would face while carrying the infant and his breathing monitor and oxygen tank.

    The street standoff, on an isolated hillside above Lincoln High School and the busy intersection of North Broadway and North Mission Road, was causing ripples Wednesday three miles away at Los Angeles City Hall.

    “This is a unique situation. I’ve never seen this level of animosity,” said City Councilman Ed Reyes, who represents Lincoln Heights. “It’s a tough situation. We’re trying to maintain public safety for all residents. It’s a delicate issue between residents’ rights.”

    Reyes’ staff was scurrying to find temporary housing for 5-month-old Aiden Freyre and his father and mother, Ruth Shafer.

    “That’s a priority. We’re working for housing so an ambulance could get to them easily,” Reyes said.

    Back on Forest Park Drive, Compton was pleased that the city was taking notice of the situation.

    “This is a little test of property rights,” he said . “It’s got everyone’s attention.”

    Compton, 76, is an Emmy-winning TV producer and writer who through a trust owns 23 lots on what many locals call Paradise Hill.

    He hopes to eventually build a solar-powered home on top that will have a view sweeping from the Hollywood sign to Mt. Baldy and Catalina Island.

    “It will be my ‘paradise’ in case I don’t get to paradise,” he said with a laugh.

    But his relationship has been rocky with some neighbors, Compton said.

    “It’s been very bizarre. They filed 112 complaints with the city against me last year. I’ve been attacked physically, yelled at. I got a restraining order against one of them.”

    Ilse Ackermann says she was the focus of the restraining order three years ago.

    “He was grading one weekend without a permit and I went out and screamed at him he had no right to grade,” said Ackermann, a 42-year-old music video production designer and mother of two. “I put myself in front of the bulldozer I was so upset.”

    Ackermann and her husband, Meeno Peluce, a photographer, purchased their 1905-era house from Compton in 2002. For the last six years, they have rehabilitated the wood-frame dwelling and lushly landscaped its grounds.

    “Our appraisal report when we bought the house said it was located on a public road,” Ackermann said.

    A 1924 subdivision tract map for the hillside she has also suggests it is considered public — although its alignment differs slightly these days because of an apparent washout decades ago.

    Others on the street said they also considered Forest Park Drive to be open to the public.

    “Never did we think it would be taken away from us,” said David Freyre, a postal clerk who has lived on the street for 26 years. “How do they have the power to bring the city to its knees?” he asked about Compton and the trust.

    Anthony Converse, a 43-year-old Echo Park musician who for 3 1/2 years has owned a pair of lots off Forest Park Drive where he intends to build a house, said the dispute has delayed development and caused him to forfeit an $80,000 construction loan.

    “The absurdity of this is kind of hard to grasp,” Converse said.

    He said he was particularly upset by a demand that he and other property owners on the street pay Compton and his trust $200,000 to “reimburse” and “compensate” them for their purported harassment of Compton over the last five years.

    Disagreement over who should pay for street widening, paving and maintenance if new homes are allowed next to Forest Park Drive are at the center of the dispute. Compton wants everyone to share in the cost and in fees for formal right-of-way dedication to the city.

    Residents have complained that the road was fine until unapproved grading done by Compton on the hill next to and above the road threatened its usefulness in rainy weather.

    Over the last few days the dispute has drawn representatives of the city attorney and the building and safety offices to the gate, along with Fire Department officials and police.

    Late Wednesday, Compton opened the gate so that Freyre and Shafer could drive Aiden home and agreed to give them a key to its lock in case they need to rush the baby back to the hospital. Firefighters will also get keys.

    Police Officer Austin Fernald, the LAPD’s senior lead officer for the Lincoln Heights area, said he had been to the scene eight times in recent days.

    “So far, there’s been no dispute, no physical altercation when I was there. Just frayed nerves,” Fernald said.

    Reyes, meantime, said the city was weighing going to court today to seek a resolution to the street dispute.

    Reyes believes that the law is on the residents’ side and that any court would find that a road that has been public for decades cannot revert to private use.

    For his part, Compton said he plans to up the ante in the next few days.

    “By this weekend, foot traffic will be blocked too. Side wings will be welded on both sides of the gate to prevent trespassing,” said Compton, adding that residents would still be able to use an old hillside trail and steep wooden steps to get from Broadway to their homes.

    Meanwhile, the hillside dust-up might make for good television, the show-business veteran allowed.

    “I’m thinking it would be a great TV show,” he said. “Not a reality show, a comedy show.”

    Maybe he could name it after his trust — which Compton calls “Le Bout du Monde.”

    “It means ‘the end of the world.’ Not cataclysmically, but the last crumb of cake on the platter,” he said.

    Pool is a Times staff writer.

    Inspiration

    Posted by: sdc10 on: October 30, 2008

    I think it is important that we all find some inspiration in our careers at some point. As an attorney, I sometimes find the word “inspiration” a difficult concept to grasp as the more cases I read about, it actually seems impossible for there to be any inspiration at all. My goal would be to help people with legal matters and actually have it be inspiring along the way. Is that possible?

    I know everyone thinks of the law as “serious” and yes, I understand that. However, why does it have to lack inspiration? I have noticed many of the posts that I write always point out a negative direction that a particular legal case or issue addresses and I suppose it comes from wanting to see some inspiration in the law — but not finding it. I want to see a time when someone can realize they really don’t have a claim and decide to refrain from filing a frivolous lawsuit. I want to see two people peacefully discuss a dispute rather than build it up so much that by the time they appear in court, they are at each others throats.

    I know it sounds very Jerry Maguire-ish but I just wish we could have a bit more inspiration in the law. My goal is to find it.