The Not So Legal Show

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.

Poodle on the loose

Posted by: sdc10 on: October 28, 2008

In Boston, “Choochy” the poodle caused a bit of an ordeal at the Boston airport when she escaped from her kennel as airport personnel were trying to unload the kennel. These same airport personnel could not catch the poodle for OVER SEVENTEEN HOURS. Is it just me or does that sound crazy? Should they have called in the Dog Whisperer? Being a new dog owner myself, I know that sometimes my dog thinks it’s kind of funny to run away from you when you want her to stop and stand still. However, for 17 hours? It would seem that airport personnel would be trained to handle these types of situations as you know there is someone out there whose flight got delayed because of this whole mess. I can already see the lawsuit now. Luckily flights were only delayed for 30 minutes but I read this article that said 15 firefighters and similar personnel chased after the dog. I just find this story so funny. Choochy on the loose!

If someone were to bring a lawsuit, it would be difficult to classify the damages. The article stated that flights were delayed for 30 minutes which I would not see has a material delay but I would certainly think it is negligent for airport personnel to not know how to catch a dog.

Manny Manny fo Fanny

Posted by: sdc10 on: October 22, 2008

I have decided to take a bit of a departure tonight and write about something not necessarily so legal. Then again, I suppose that is why I called this the The Not So Legal Show. Can we please talk about Manny Ramirez. Ok, so fine, maybe I am not the biggest baseball fan and I might, on occasion, beg to leave a game before it is over but something about this guy caught my attention.

I love reading the paper and I do typically check out the sports page from time to time. Thus, in light of the Dodgers somewhat close call to making it to the World Series, I have found myself a bit interested in this Manny Ramirez situation. Where will he go? Are the Dodgers forced to take him on? It is an old argument to say that athletes should play for the love of the game and not the money but I think it is true! I mean, sure, should Manny get money for his skills? Yes but there just seems like there is something about it that makes it seem as if his next steps are a bit on the greedy side.

I am curious to see what happens next and in case you are wondering, I am not wearing one of those hats that has the dreadlocks hanging down on it.

Blondes don’t always have more fun

Posted by: sdc10 on: October 13, 2008

So this is a good one. Charlotte Feeney of Stratford brought a claim against L’Oreal claiming that she tried to dye her hair blond but the dye turned her hair brown so of course, L’Oreal should pay for this traumatic situation.  Ms. Feeney claimed this situation has led to her ultimate demise as her social life has been ruined, she doesn’t get as much attention anymore and she was forced to go on anti-depressants because she was so traumatized by the fact that she couldn’t return to her natural blonde hue. Um, hate to say it but for any woman out there that has had her hair colored, we all know that you absolutely can get your hair back to its natural color. It might take awhile but maybe Ms. Feeney doesn’t have any friends that could tell her that.

The judge dismissed the suit saying that Ms. Feeney never actually proved that L’Oreal had made an error by saying that the dye was for blond hair when in fact it was for brown hair.

This is one of those cases where you wonder if Ms. Feeney maybe had a good friend that would have told her this lawsuit was ridiculous as apparently her lawyer never did. It kind of makes you feel like you could bring a lawsuit for anything these days and even your lawyer won’t stop you. I love hearing about cases like these though as it’s kind of fun to see what people out there really try to get away with these days. At least the judge wouldn’t have any of it.

Insurance…again, can’t you cover these people?

Posted by: sdc10 on: October 11, 2008

My insurance post offered some very good feedback and probably another sign how screwed up the insurance system is. In response to one comment I received, I am pretty sure that just because your employer goes out of business, they cannot simply ignore your right for COBRA. COBRA and the insurance companies have an odd way of communicating with each other sometimes. It may take a few weeks to get it sorted out that you have in fact paid COBRA your insurance premiums but you have to stay on these people otherwise the insurance company will drop you from the policy. It doesn’t really seem to matter to them whether your coverage lapses so it is up to you. It’s a bummer sometimes to have to go on COBRA, but ultimately sometimes staying on your group coverage is easier than trying to get an individual policy. These days it seems if you have ever gotten sick, they will deny you.

I am also looking into the way that employers choose their insurance policies. Sometimes an insurance company may actually cover what you need but your employer chose a policy that doesn’t include that coverage. I am wondering why they don’t create a system where if your employer chooses one policy that you are still allowed to buy other portions of coverage. Like, hmm, I will have a side of “can you cover my diabetes?” I’m sure that would get way too confusing for the insurance companies in light of the fact that they can’t seem to figure anything else out but I think it would be a start. Why should you have to be held to what coverage your employer thinks you need?