Tag Archives: legal

May 15, 2012

Trouble at Sea

By Stephanie Cohen

I don’t do boats. I mean I like the idea of sailing the high seas but it is one of those things in life that can remain a mystery to me as far as I am concerned. I read about the most horrible story today about a fisherman stranded at sea for 18 days that sued Princess Cruise Lines because essentially they just passed him by. The fisherman and his two friends were stranded at sea and three passengers on the cruise line happened to see the stranded men waving their arms. They told Princess employees but apparently they didn’t do anything. Two of the friends died and luckily the one fisherman was finally discovered by the Equadorian navy.

Princess Cruise is being sued for negligence as clearly they neglected their duty of care by just passing up three stranded men on a boat. The captain says he was never notified and there is a lot of speculation as to the communication process on the ship that would have allowed this to happen. I think it is just a sad tale and we know this will go the settlement route but I hope Princess has to pay up.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in lawsuit, Legal topics, Stephanie Cohen

May 4, 2012

Thunderslap anyone?

By Stephanie Cohen

I went to University of Florida and when I first got there, I remember all of this news about hazing in fraternities and sororities. So imagine my surprise (or lack thereof) when 9 students were suspended for hazing the pledges in their fraternity. Otherwise known as “thunderslapping”, apparently the 9 gentlemen got in trouble for paddling others — hitting them in the chest with a paddle to be exact. I want to know who turned them in and if that will end up being kept confidential. Hazing is a serious matter and I hope the suspension teaches these guys a lesson. All the charges filed are treated as misdemeanors with a punishment of possibly up to one year in prison and a fine of $1,000.00. Contrast this with the FAMU case where a student died because of a hazing incident. Those 13 students could each face up to six years in jail. The more awareness there is about hazing, the better. 

Although I am not miss sorority, I did in fact join one. We were not hazed and the whole idea of fraternity/sorority secrets are fine but hazing falls out of the protection circle. It isn’t worth being a part of something that involves that type of behavior. 

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , ,

October 28, 2011

Advice and Jobs

By Stephanie Cohen

The Not So Legal Show – what happens when you hit a biker and should honest recovering drug addicts still get hired for a job?

 

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in discrimination, employment, entertainment, lawsuit, Legal topics, Not so legal, Opinion, Stephanie Cohen

July 14, 2011

Some thoughts on Casey Anthony

By Stephanie Cohen

Should have been found guilty….

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , | posted in Legal Questions, Legal topics, life, Not so legal

January 16, 2011

2011 and the 4th Amendment

By Stephanie Cohen

Happy 2011 everyone.  I am not one for resolutions as why not take the year to be mindful of every action than deciding on one random day to take a few different paths that basically expire as of January 10th?  In any event, let’s take a look at the 4th amendment. Why, I don’t know but it’s always nice to take a look back at the Constitution at the beginning of the year. Also, I must mention that I am not sad Brett Favre is getting sued for sexual harassment (and I just read his sister got arrested – WTF!). I am so glad the guy is getting called out. I digress. Back to the 4th amendment.

In case you have forgotten,  the 4th amendment states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

So, what happens if you are sitting at home, doing something illegal of sorts and the police bust down your door? Would you be arrested? In Kentucky, Hollis King and his friends were doing just that when it just so happened that the police were chasing another criminal and mistakenly busted down Hollis’ door.  He and his friends were arrested but the Kentucky Supreme Court threw out the evidence against King ruling that the police did not have cause to bust into his house without a warrant. Was justice served? It isn’t as if King wasn’t doing anything wrong BUT, if the police wanted to bust down his door, they should have followed proper procedure. While I am all for punishment if you are doing something illegal, there is something to be said for freedom from the police just busting in your door at any point.

Or consider the case against Gregory Diaz, whose smartphone was accessed without a warrant when he was arrested on a drug charge in California.  Are any incriminating texts and emails admissible as evidence against him?  According to the Supreme Court, apparently so.  How about if they find evidence of another other crime – such as murder or tax evasion?  Sounds like we should all leave our wallets, phones and purses at home if we have anything to hide from Big Brother.

And for those of you who feel violated by the newly more molesting eyes of TSA, there’s line of underwear that’s got your back, I mean, ass.  Supposedly it protects your personal areas from prying eyes by emblazoning the 4th amendment in metallic ink across key areas.  Anyone interested in metallic pasties?  Going once, going twice…

Lastly, let’s examine the constitutionality of strip searching a 13-year-old girl due to allegations from one of her peers that she sold them drugs, which were later determined to be Ibuprofen.  The Ninth Circuit Court upheld the legality of the search, citing the existence of sufficient case law which supports the reliability of student informants.  Really? Reliable 13 year old student informants? Hmmm.
Overall I think we can feel safe about the 4th amendment in this new year of 2011 but I am going to be watching out for cases that deal with these topics and will keep you posted!

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Legal Questions, Legal topics, life, Not so legal

July 8, 2010

I don’t look like Lindsay Lohan

By Stephanie Cohen

In honor of people saying I look like Lindsay Lohan, I thought perhaps I would discuss her new jail sentence. I don’t follow celebrity cases that closely but this one seemed to jump out – I mean come on, everybody remembers where she played those identical twins. I can’t remember the name of the movie. Hmm. In any event, for those of you who didn’t see the news today, Ms. Lohan violated her probation stemming from a 2007 DUI charge and the judge sentenced her to 90 days in jail.

I have to say that when I watched the video of her talking to the judge that I sort of believed the whole “I was working and thought that I could do two classes one week instead of taking classes every week so that would count”. She is referring to alcohol education courses. She is an actress after all and she certainly did a good job making me believe her.

Usually I take the hard line on these kinds of issues as I think getting a DUI is the most ridiculous and irresponsible thing you can do so anything resulting from that action is an unavoidable consequence. How hard is it to attend alcohol education classes? Wasn’t your previous 84 minutes that you spent in jail some kind of indication of what things could be like (a few years ago Ms. Lohan avoided her jail time)? In this case though, I do feel kind of bad for the girl but I can’t quite place why. I guess because with certain people you wonder if putting the in jail will really do the trick. I think the better plan is for her to be in rehab, which is where she will go after she goes to jail. They say she will probably only have to serve 25% percent of her ninety day sentence but I am sure two days in jail will do the trick.

People probably think she is a spoiled brat and deserves what she is getting but I am not so sure.

1 comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Opinion, Stephanie Cohen

March 10, 2010

Is it your responsibility to be safe?

By Stephanie Cohen

I had an interesting comment on my post that I did about Chelsea King. The idea was that Chelsea King herself had a responsibility in her ultimate demise. There was not much information that I saw about whether Chelsea told people she was going on a run, had her cell phone with her, etc. The person commenting on my post opined that there were things that Chelsea should have/could have done to ensure her own safety. I think it is tough in these situations as it reminds of me the woman who gets raped and her friend says “Well, you had a short dress on”. 

While I do think it is important for everyone to take responsibility for their own safety, I cannot place any blame on the victim in this case or most cases really. There is no tolerance for what her alleged killer did no matter what precautions Chelsea took or didn’t take.  It is the same scenario where there is domestic abuse and the abuser actually uses some excuse that the person “made him mad” so he “had” to act that way.  I think it is important to point out that clearly everyone needs to be safe, everyone should take precaution but it doesn’t justify any outcome whatsoever in the event that person does not take those precautions.

I appreciate the comments and welcome them, always.

2 comments   |  tags: , , , | posted in Legal topics, life, Opinion

July 29, 2008

My favorite legal jargon

By Stephanie Cohen

For anyone that has looked at a contract and thought – wow, ere sure are a lot of “notwithstandings” in here, I figured I might as well throw out some of my favorite legal jargon. Often I have wondered how my job has become to complicate a sentence so much that no one can even understand it. In fact, let’s say you wanted to tell someone, in one year from now, our agreement is over. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could just say it that way? Au contraire, mon frere. In fact, why not say something like this: “The term of this agreement shall commence on the effective date as set forth above and shall terminate in one (1) year. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party shall have the right to terminate this agreement in the event of a breach of the material terms and obligations as set forth herein.” 

Ahhh, doesn’t legal jargon just put a warm place in your heart? And that sentence isn’t even that complex. We can save the rest for later. How about some of my favorite words/phrases from Black’s Law Dictionary (for those of you fluent in Latin, you probably already know what this stuff means and no, I have not used all of these but I sure would like to find a way to some day):

Finalis concordia: A final or conclusive agreement (Doesn’t it sound like some type of medication?)

Farding – deal: The fourth part of an acre of land (I bet there are a lot of fights over fardings)

Farlingarii: Whoremongers; adulterers (What is a “Whoremonger”? Is that a bad sign when you don’t know the word they are using to describe the definition?)

Mutual affray: A fight in which both parties willingly enter and is similar to a duel (I love the word “duel”)

Nautica pecunia: A loan to a shipowner; to be repaid only upon the successful termination of the voyage, and therefore allowed to be made at an extraordinary rate of interest (I bet a lot of people are reading this thinking that it is about time they take a voyage on a ship as anything goes to get a good interest rate)

I could go on for days but I will settle for a few posts every now and then focusing on my love of legal jargon.

1 comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Legal topics, life, Opinion

June 22, 2008

Victoria’s Secret…watch out for the wrath of the thong?

By Stephanie Cohen

As someone who likes to buy lingerie, when I saw the headlines about Victoria’s Secret and some type of lawsuit, I figured I should check it out. In an adventure of her own, 52 year old Macrida Patterson damaged her cornea when a piece of metal holding some type of rhinestone on her thong underwear flew into her eye after she was trying to put it on.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSKUA04469620080620

A products liability lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles and certainly this sounds ridiculous. 1.) What are the chances that a piece of metal would fly off of a piece of thong underwear? 2.) Does this woman know how to put on underwear? but, 3.) Is there any chance this really could be a logical lawsuit?

When someone files a products liability lawsuit, the claim is that the product is defective in some way. There are three ways a product can be defective either in its design, how it was manufactured or the way the product was marketed. So where does our defective thong fit in? Most likely it is a combination of the way it was manufactured or its design. However, most people are probably wondering about the plaintiff in this case. Doesn’t everyone know how to put on underwear? Why should Victoria’s Secret have any liability if this lady has her own underwear issues? 

Here is a key page from The Smoking Gun, which shows the actual complaint that was filed. 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0617081secrets4.html

As part of a products liability claim, you will note the plaintiff has to state that the product was “defective” when it left the control of each defendant. The defendants can include the manufacturer, the supplier — anyone in the ”chain of command” the product followed. As for being “defective”, the focus is to show the product does not meet the safety standards expected by the public. Further, if you can show that the defective nature of the product is something that the defendant(s) could have foreseen, despite how the injury actually happened (ie: user error), the manufacturer could still be held liable.  The tricky part about this claim for a defendant is that products liability claims can be considered “strict liability” torts. So, if the product is found defective, the defendant could be liable, period. Regardless of how the plaintiff uses the product. Seems kind of strange doesn’t it. 

Is it defective if a piece of metal pops off your underwear and hits you in the eye?  Again, the issue is strict liability. If it ends up being that the alleged thong was defective, it won’t really matter whether the plaintiff needs some lessons in putting on underwear. Thus is the life of a products liability claim.

I’m sure when everyone hears about this lawsuit, they will roll their eyes as that is what I did. I get it — damaging your cornea probably isn’t fun. But, a lawsuit?    

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in business, girl, lawsuit, Legal Questions, Legal topics, life, Opinion

June 16, 2008

Jury Duty – friend or foe?

By Stephanie Cohen

Apparently I am one of the few people that feel that jury duty provides a sense of accomplishment. There is something about going to the courthouse, sitting around with your fellow jury duty servers, making sure you are doing your part in helping our system run properly. However, it seems many people often like to tell me about how they got out of a jury summons. How they just kept thinking of excuse, after excuse to delay the inevitable. In California, on the FAQ page for people that receive a jury summons, (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/faq.htm) one of the questions is: I’m busy. Why should I serve? The response is as follows:

As a juror you participate in an important public process and fulfill a civic obligation. All persons accused of a crime or involved in a civil dispute have a constitutional right to have a jury decide their cases. When you serve on a jury, you make important decisions affecting other people’s lives as well as your own community.

I suppose not getting paid, having to sit somewhere all day where something may or may not happen, missing an important meeting or lunch because you are stuck in jury duty are a few of the issues people have with jury duty. I have never been on a jury so I suppose my cheerful attitude rests on the fact that I feel as if I am participating in some larger system of good and I have not had the experience of being stuck on a trial for three weeks.

A friend of mine was saying she was selected for a drunk driving case. Despite hearing all of the facts, there was still a part of her that felt that maybe she still didn’t know all of the facts and she didn’t want to be put in a position of making a decision that would significantly affect the defendant’s life. At that moment, I realized that being a juror might be more difficult than I thought. Probably because I have never spent much time thinking about it because I have never been chosen as a juror. But, if I WAS picked, I think those same thoughts would likely go through my mind as well. Forget about the time it takes up, the endless waiting. What about when you actually have to make a decision? Can we trust the facts that are presented to us?  Let’s all hope so.

I wonder how many other people feel that way? That even if you are selected as a juror and you are presented with both sides of the facts, you still don’t feel that comfortable with putting someone in jail or making a decision that would affect someone’s life forever? Would love to hear some feedback.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Legal Questions, Legal topics, life, Opinion

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.