Law Blog

I was thinking the other day how there are a lot of things that I don’t know.  For example, I don’t know why the staff at Chipotle constantly puts cilantro in my burrito despite how much I tell them I don’t want it (though from the looks of it, that place has got a whole other set of problems).  I don’t know why $50 shampoo is better than the generic stuff I get at Walgreens because it works just fine despite what my sisters tell me, seeing as how my hair has yet to fall off or cause me to contract cancer.  I also don’t know why I occasionally see a squiggly line in my eye fluid.  The list goes on and on, and continuing it any further in this post will do nothing but increase my already growing depression.

Anyway, the reason why I was thinking about my intellectual inadequacies is because sometimes you just see a news story and realize how much there is to know in this world and also how little of it that you actually know.  For instance, is there any reason why regular people like you and me can’t keep chickens as pets?  Because apparently there’s a movement in Ann Arbor, MI to get the city to pass an ordinance that would allow its residents to keep chickens as pets.

Really, is this an issue?  I had no idea there was even a problem with doing this, let alone that it was illegal.  I remember when I was a wee lad my neighbor had a couple of chickens in his backyard.  He’d feed them corn, harvest their eggs, and occasionally even allow them to berth a couple of chicks.  This all wouldn’t be so strange except that I grew up in a major urban California city.  Though I never thought twice about it when I was a kid, I just thought my neighbor really liked fresh organic eggs and playing farmer.

Coincidentally, the organic food movement is what Stephen Kunselman, the Ann Arbor councilman spearheading the move to pass the ordinance, is using as the basis to promote chickens as pets.  Supposedly, fresh eggs are a lot tastier and healthier for you than what you get at the supermarket.

Sounds great right?  Except that a lot of residents and the local Ann Arbor government are clucking (HA, I’m so witty) about the health and safety issues that come with owning chickens.  Apparently there’s a concern that allowing people to keep chickens as pets will encourage or at least not help to stem the spread of avian bird flu – which I hear is pretty nasty.  There’s also the issue of noise disturbance – less we forget what it is roosters are known for besides providing hours of entertainment (I’m joking, please no letters).

Anyway, all this got me thinking about chicken laws in other cities, specifically what’s the penalty for owning chickens?  Well, it ranges from fines to a misdemeanor depending on the circumstances (e.g. number of chickens, sanitation issues, etc.).  For those of you interested in keeping a chicken(s) as a pet(s), I strongly suggest you check your local laws to find out whether it’s legal.  The internet is an amazing place, by the way, so be sure to use it.

If you’ve been watching cable news, you’re probably aware of the “Birther” movement – a loose coalition of individuals and organizations promoting the idea that Barack Obama is, for one reason or another, not constitutionally eligible to serve as President.

They make a variety of factual and legal arguments to support their conspiracy theories. The most common “factual” (a term I use loosely) argument they make is that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii, as is widely accepted. Instead, they claim, he was born in a foreign country (usually Kenya). Of course, they ignore that a Certification of Live Birth has been released, and confirmed to be accurate by the relevant officials in Hawaii.

Others concede that he was born in Hawaii, and rely on dubious legal arguments to support their claims. Some claim (usually without citing any supporting authority) that, in order to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, both parents must also be citizens of the United States. To be fair, the Supreme Court has never firmly ruled on what it means to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the Constitution. So, the birthers have simply settled on their own definition, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions.

To support this point, they often rely on the writings of a Swiss political philosopher named Emerich de Vattel, author of the 1758 book “The Law of Nations.” This tome was apparently quite influential in the early development of international law, and it advocates the idea that, for a person to be a “true” citizen of a nation, both of his or her parents must also be citizens. There’s just one problem: no evidence suggests that this work particularly influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution when they were drafting that document. Even if it did, a Swiss book on political philosophy is not binding legal precedent in the United States.

None of this has stopped a dentist/lawyer named Orly Taitz from filing a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s eligibility to serve.

The result? The case was dismissed almost immediately. However, Ms. Taitz continued to file motions, and, after repeated warnings from the judge, was slapped with a $20,000 fine for misconduct, noting that she made no coherent legal arguments, and that her briefs and motions read more like political manifestos than court documents.

It should be noted that one of the best things about this country is the fact that you can say almost anything about anyone, especially elected officials, with relatively few legal ramifications. However, that does not mean that you are guaranteed a platform to air your views, or that you get to use the courts to air whatever crazy idea happens to pop into your head. If that were the case, I’d be in court right now, arguing the merits of hamburger earmuffs.

In the end, we should all remember that the courts are a place to settle genuine legal disputes, and the non-issue of Mr. Obama’s citizenship is not one of them. Ms. Taitz has every right to express her political views in any number of ways. She could buy space on a billboard, she could run spots on the radio, or she could simply make like this guy.

With the democratic vote down of the public option of President Obama’s health care plan, the tired, poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free are understandably upset.  Essentially, free public health care for those who need it most sounds like a no-brainer, right?  Apparently not.  It’s fine, I guess.  I mean, who cares about the health of poor people?  Those sub-humans have been dragging our economy down for, too, long.  Always complaining about how hungry and sick they are.  Such a group of whiners…

Was I laying the sarcasm on a little too strong again?  Sorry, bad habit of mine.  *sigh*  The rich not only seem to be getting richer, but they also seem to be able to dictate how this country runs…

Anyway, I guess it’s back to the grind for all us working-class schlubs (and humble bloggers) since we don’t have the luxury of extended vacations and daddy’s money to preserve our physical and mental health.

That’s no joke either.  The working class really does need to keep on working in order to stay above that proverbial poverty line.  Even under an employee co-pay system, the average cost of health insurance for a family of 4 in America is $13,000.  $13,000 is a lot of money, but considering this amount is over a third of what the average person makes in a year and the fact that food, living, and incidental costs just keep going up, you’ll start to get a better picture if how important that chunk of income in.  Not to mention how important and vital a publically funded health care option really is to the vast majority of citizens in America.  Oh, and by the way, don’t forget that the average cost of raising one; ONE child to adulthood (which is 18 years old, just in case any of you alcoholics out there think it’s 21) ranges between $124,000 to over $250,000.  Another interesting note is that single parents with incomes over $39,000 actually spend more on their kids than two-parent households.  Guess missing a parent makes you more likely to throw money at your kid’s problems.  Wish my parents did that with me…

Having free, or at the very least, affordable health care for people and their families in light of these statistics emphasizes how vital the public option really was and is.  People will always fight over money simply because there never seems to be enough of it to go around, whether that money is taken from them through taxes or services that were once free, but no longer given as such.  It’s no surprise then why according to the latest statistics from LegalMatch, over a third of all litigation raised against employers is regarding coverage of employee benefits.  In other words, health insurance.

It’s a brain-teaser how this new democratic congress voted down such an important reform.  I mean, the majority of citizens seemed to be for it.  And last time I checked, public official were supposed to be elected in order to represent the people’s interests.  I guess we’ll never know why thing turned out like they did.  But I wonder if someone might have some clues that could point us toward this anomalous outcome.

There is almost nothing more dreaded than seeing a letter from your local court in your mailbox. For most of us it means one thing: jury duty. It is our society’s great equalizer, requiring all of us, big and small, rich and poor, smelly and not smelly, to report to court and sit in the jury pool.

Well actually, not the smelly people. You can go home, according to courts in Massachusetts.

During a murder trial, a judge in Massachusetts dismissed a juror because, in her words:

[The juror], for whatever reason, had some very bad, I guess to be blunt again, body odor, which was extremely strong, and I was able to detect in my lobby, as was the clerk…

The judge went on to say she was concerned that the other jurors could not actually concentrate on the trial due to the offensive smell emanating from their fellow juror. I guess if it is stinking up the lobby behind the court room, then it must have been pretty bad.

This case comes on the heels of another recent controversial juror dismissal, this time out of Florida. In a drug, weapon, and assault trial, the prosecutor struck the only African American on the jury pool. The defendant immediately challenged the prosecutor’s decision. The prosecutor stated that in his experience, overweight jurors were sympathetic to defendants. The prosecutor’s conclusory reasoning, coupled with their failure to strike other overweight defendant’s from the jury pool, did not sit well with the Florida Appeals Court and the decision was reversed.

How are these different? Issues of fairness to the defendant were not the main concern with the dismissal of the smelly juror. Instead, it was more an issue of fairness to the court. Can you conduct trial, (or do anything, for that matter) while being distracted by an offensive odor? Probably not, according to the judge.

So next time you get your jury summons, note the date you are supposed to report. Usually it is a good month away. If a deferment is not in the cards, don’t cancel those holiday plans! Just neglect your personal hygiene in the meantime, and you’ll be home free.

Recently, Congress passed a settlement agreement in which $38 million will be disbursed to victims of the 2007 Minneapolis bridge collapse.  Victims who agree to the settlement waive their right to sue the Minnesota government, but retain the right to sue private companies and contractors involved.  Under the agreement, victims who were on the bridge are entitled to up to $400,000, and $12.6 million is reserved in a special fund for those who sustained the worst injuries and losses. 

While this agreement may seem generous, some criticize Minnesota law for granting too much immunity to government officials.  While the state no longer adheres to principles of Sovereign Immunity, statutes and case law have severely circumscribed the ability of private citizens to sue the government; for example, Minnesota’s law limits government liability to $1 million per incident (note, that’s per incident, not per victim). 

Governmental immunity laws serve important public interests, namely they allow state officials such as firefighters and police officers to use their discretion during highly complex and intense situations without fear of reprisal.  Ideally, immunity allows officials to do their best on the job.  However, such laws may also be used to cover up improper practices on the part of officials.  Obviously, the government should not be allowed to shirk its responsibilities to citizens. 

Moreover, private companies should not be left to absorb a disproportionate amount of the blame.  For example, some victims of the bridge disaster sued consulting firm URS Corp., which evaluated the bridge for the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 

Do victim compensation funds like Minnesota’s offer adequate relief, or do governmental immunity laws need reform?  One problem with compensation funds is that it can be difficult to choose which disasters to compensate.  Should public funds be used to compensate tornado victims or those who die in a fire because an inspector failed to identify a violation?  Another problem with compensation funds is that many are riddled with restrictive requirements which limit the amount victims can recover – or prevent them from recovering at all.  Additionally, administrative policies may deplete valuable money, and legislatures have even been known to raid funds. 

Only time will tell if Minnesota’s fund provides the bridge disaster victims with the help they deserve.  For more information about applicable Minnesota law, visit: LawMoose.