May It Please The Court

RSS Feeds
MIPTC Author
About J. Craig Williams

May It Please The Court
by Leonard Rivkin
Barnes & Noble CLE Books
Latest Blogs
12/4/2008 - How to Get Sued

1/5/2005 - Your City Leaders Aren't Listening To You

12/29/2004 - Niagara Falls? Slowly I Turned, Step by Step, Inch by Inch.

12/25/2004 - Season's Greetings

This Month's Posts
Links of Interest [more]
Quote of the Day - I don't think we understand the importance of the present; there's nothing more important that what you are doing now. - Harold Clurman
Claim Your Profile on Avvo
There are 2034 Journal Items on 255 page(s) and you are on page number 234

Past, Present and Future Imperfect

The end of the year is here, and it's been just five months of blogging for me. Typically, articles at the end of the year look back on what's happened, recapping the most significant events of the year.

Admittedly, there's a lot to look at this year, but I prefer to look ahead. Where will this blog go in the next year?

It's hard to find a formula that works, so I've just stuck with Mark Twain's advice: "Write about what you know, son." I suspect there will be more of the same next year.

But is that all there is to it? Shouldn't the end of the year and the beginning of the next cause a time for reflection and planning? Take stock and store up for the coming months?

I guess there's some of that. The blog has come a long way from the first few articles. I've added a logo, which we sell in a store (thanks to those of you who've ordered), the left nav bar is up and working, the external links page now has categories, and the comment and Permalink sections have been added.

All with you in mind, dear reader.

Which then raises the question of who I write for - you or me. I must jealously say I write for me, with the thought that if it interests me, it's likely to interest a significant number of others. So far, it apparently has - nearly 15,000 of you a week.

The fun thing about writing each day is that when I sit down to the computer, I have no preconceived idea what I'm going to write about. I scour the internet, looking for legal news tidbits that, for the most part, fall into my practice area.

Sometimes, and pretty often, I think, an oddball article catches my eye, and that's what I pick for the day. It's as simple as that. Writing does take discipline, though, but I've found it entertaining and enlightening.

I have to admit I'm better informed for it. I learn much more than I would if I didn't read news articles and other blogs. I read a lot of other blogs, but try to stay away from things that others are writing about, which is somewhat self-serving since you don't find my material on someone else's blog. Sure, there are occasions when others write about what I do, but from what I've seen, for the most part it's rare.

I stay away from celebrity tidbits. You get enough of Kobe, Michael Jackson, Winona and others in the mainstream media. You wouldn't be reading this blog if that's what you wanted anyway. Besides, I get tired of people asking my opinion about the outcome of those cases, and I typically demur, saying that I don't know enough about the evidence and repeating, mantra-like, that the jury system works best if they are allowed to do their job, review the evidence, and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

Plus, the news media plays judge and jury enough as it is. They don't need me to add to it.

So, what's next? I suspect that there will be more improvements to the blog, especially as technology makes changes possible. For the articles, though, you'll just have to check back.

A post a day, that's all I can promise.

I hope you've had a wonderful holiday season and that you have a prosperous new year.

By the way, if you're wondering what I was going to write about today before this idea struck me, check out this foolishness.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 at 10:44 Comments (0) |

Frankenfish (Glofish) Enter the Market

Ethics or science? That's the conundrum facing the California Department of Fish & Game. The battle centers on a transgenic aquarium fish.

First developed at the National University of Singapore as a pollution marker, researchers spliced a sea anemone gene into what nature intended as a black-and-silver zebra fish. They made a freshwater fish that appears bright red - the color of a tropical saltwater reef dweller in normal light. In a dark room under ultraviolet or black light, however, the fish appear to glow.

Dubbed the FrankenFish, critics are concerned that it may survive in the wild and affect natural species. The species has been trademarked as the "Glofish."

Commissioners of the CDFG aren't "ethically" comfortable with the new species, although the science behind the fish led biologists to recommend approval. California is the only state to prohibit sales of the Glofish, which account for one-eighth of the country's ornamental fish sales.

Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the National Environmental Trust, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and Consumers Union all objected to the lack of regulation by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. They all said in a joint letter to the FDA that a decision not to regulate the zebra fish will open a "floodgate" for other transgenic species to hit the market with no oversight. The Center for Food Safety plans to sue to force regulation of such transgenic species.

You can check out the Glofish site, and also this detailed article for more information.

They go on sale elsewhere on January 5.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 at 11:43 Comments (0) |

Trains, Kisses, Population and New Year's

Think about this as you kiss on New Year's Eve. The U.S. Census Bureau today projected the January 1, 2004, population of the United States will be 292,287,454 up 2,816,586 or just 1.0 percent from New Year's Day 2003.

The Census Bureau offers us these mathematical calculations. In January, the United States is expected to register one birth every 8 seconds and one death every 13 seconds. Meanwhile, net international migration is expected to add one person every 25 seconds.

So, if one train is approaching at 50 miles an hour, and the other is traveling at 120 miles an hour, and the wind is out of the east ... you get the idea.

The result is an increase in the total population of one person every 12 seconds. So, where does everyone go?

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Monday, December 29, 2003 at 23:23 Comments (0) |

Ground Zero - Legislation by the Executive Branch

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is gloating. Along with 11 other State's Attorneys General, he challenged the USEPA's proposed regulations scaling back Clean Air Act regs.

As an early Christmas present, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (actual opinion not released as of today) issued a decision on December 24 blocking the USEPA's loosened regs.

The import of the ruling is not so much that the Court blocked the USEPA's regulations changing the Clean Air Act, it's more that the Court prevented the USEPA from making a change by means of regulation. Although there appears to be no firm ruling yet, the Court signaled that it was not inclined to allow the USEPA (read: the Bush Administration) to change a legislative act by executive fiat.

In other words, the Court is upholding that old separation of powers. If President Bush wants to change laws, he has to do it through Congress, not by changing the regulations that implement the laws.

This article from the Salt Lake Tribune quoted several commentators, long ago quoted in this MIPTC blog posting. In fact, MIPTC scooped this New York Times article more than a month ago.

Nice to know you can get up-to-the-date news here first. Now you can stop reading the newspaper for legal news, and just turn to MIPTC.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Saturday, December 27, 2003 at 12:11 Comments (0) |

Trespassing in Cyberspace

NPR, or National Public Radio, recently featured an hour-long program on Trespassing in Cyberspace. It features an interesting discussion about whether unsolicited emails constitute trespass.

If you're interested in an intelligent discussion of the issue and have some time between shopping trips to return those unwanted gifts, it's a worthwhile listen.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Friday, December 26, 2003 at 16:45 Comments (0) |

Twas the Night Before Christmas - Legally Speaking

Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter, the "House" a general lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to, to wit, a mouse.

A variety of foot apparel, e.g. stocking, socks, etc., et al., had been temporarily affixed by and around the chimney in said House, with appropriate care, in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick a/k/a St. Nicholas a/k/a Santa Claus (hereinafter, "Claus") would arrive at sometime thereafter.

The minor residents, i.e. the children, of the aforementioned House were located in or around their individual sleeping locations, or beds, and were nestled and engaged in nocturnal hallucinations, i.e. dreams, wherein visions of confectionery treats, including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums (without and not meeting FDA labeling requirements) did dance, cavort and or otherwise appear in said dreams.

Whereupon the party of the first part, (sometimes hereinafter referred to as I ("I")), being the joint owner or tenant-in-common in fee simple absolute of the House, with the party of the second part, (hereinafter "Mamma"), and said Mamma had retired for a sustained period of sleep (at such time, the parties of both parts were clad in various forms of headgear, e.g. kerchief and cap) for a long, seasonal ("winter") nap.

Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the unimproved real property adjacent and appurtenant to said House, i.e., the lawn, a certain disruption of unknown nature, cause and/or circumstance ("clatter"). The party of the first part ("I") did immediately arise and rush to a fenestration ("window") in the House to investigate the cause of such disturbance. In the process, the party of the first part ("I") mistakenly tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.

The party of the first part noticed the moon, in full phase, on the topmost part of the new-fallen snow. The party of the first part was informed and believed, and based upon such information and belief, alleged that said moon gave the lustre of mid-day, otherwise known as noon, to objects below. At that time, the party of the first part ("I") did observe, with some degree of wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter the "Vehicle") being pulled and/or drawn very rapidly through the air by approximately eight (8) reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be and in fact was, the previously referenced Claus.

Said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction and guidance to the approximately eight (8) reindeer and specifically identified the animal co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen (hereinafter "the Deer"). (Upon information and belief, it is further asserted that an additional co-conspirator named "Rudolph" may have been involved.)

The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle and the Deer intentionally and willfully trespass upon the top of the porches, walls and/or roofs of several residences located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the Vehicle was heavily laden with packages, toys and other items of unknown origin or nature. Suddenly, without prior invitation or permission, either express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus entered said House via the chimney.

Said Claus was clad in a red fur suit with white fur, which was partially covered with residue from the chimney, and he carried a large sack containing a portion of the aforementioned packages, toys, and other unknown items. He was smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe, and blowing circles that resembled wreaths in blatant violation of local ordinances and health regulations.

The party of the first part observed that Claus's eyes would not have passed a field sobriety test in that they twinkled. Moreover, Claus's facial expressions (i.e. "dimples") appeared overly joyful. As further evidence of his state of being, Claus's cheeks were very red, almost like roses, his nose was likewise red like a cherry. Claus's mouth could have been said to look like a bow, and the extended hair growth under his chin could likewise be said to be as white as the snow.

Although Claus did not speak, he did laugh, which caused his rotund stomach area to move about in a manner similar to, but not quite like, a bowl full of jelly. Claus thereafter immediately began to fill the stocking of the minor children, which hung adjacent to the chimney, with toys and other small gifts. (Said items did not, however, constitute "gifts" to said minor pursuant to the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code.)

Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew, rose and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the Vehicle and Deer waited and/or served as "lookouts." Claus immediately departed for an unknown destination.

However, prior to the departure of the Vehicle, Deer and Claus from said House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim: "Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!"

Or words to that effect.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Thursday, December 25, 2003 at 12:37 Comments (0) |

Cleaner Motorcycles for a Small Cost

Two of my favorite subjects are in the news today: motorcycles and the environment. The USEPA issued a final rule for motorcycle emissions.

The USEPA placed limits on motorcycle emissions, which produce more harmful exhaust per mile than cars or large SUVs. The plan is to cut about 54,000 tons of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides per year from motorcycle emissions. Hydrocarbons react with nitrogen oxides and sunlight to form ground-level ozone, a key component of smog.

These regulations were first proposed last year, and starting in 2008, the rules should save about 12 million gallons a year of gasoline escaping from fuel hoses and fuel tanks.

The rules also implement improved technologies such as secondary air injection, electronic fuel injection systems and catalytic converters in 2006. Manufacturers of motorcycles, small scooters and mopeds will be required to reduce emissions 60 percent.

When fully implemented in 2010, the rules are expected to add $75.00 to the cost of an average bike.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 at 09:18 Comments (1) |

No Net Loss Program Intact

In a surprising move, President Bush, the USEPA and the US Army Corps Of Engineers yesterday committed the federal government to "no net loss" of wetlands in the United States. USEPA and the USACOE announced that they would not issue a new rule on federal regulatory jurisdiction over isolated wetlands.

According to a USEPA press release, "Across the Federal Government, the Bush Administration has reaffirmed and bolstered protections for wetlands, which are vital for water quality, the health of our streams and wildlife habitat," said USEPA Administrator Mike Leavitt. Assistant Secretary of the Army John Paul Woodley Jr. added, "We will continue our efforts to ensure that the Corps' regulatory program is as effective, efficient and responsive as it can be."

The Supreme Court's 2001 decision in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (commonly referred to as to "SWANCC," and pronounced like it looks) overturned the USACOE's assertion of federal jurisdiction over certain isolated wetlands based on the presence of migratory birds.

Of course, USEPA and the USACOE responded by issuing revised guidance to their field offices. At the same time, the two agencies reaffirmed federal jurisdiction over the majority of wetlands not impacted by the decision.

The Bush Administration has 30 programs in place to protect and restore millions of acres of wetlands. These include the Food Security Act's "Swampbuster" requirements and the Wetlands Reserve Program, both under the authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USEPA programs include its "Five Star Restoration program" grant program, the EPA wetlands grants programs and the National Estuary Program.

Other federal programs include the Fish and Wildlife Service's "Partners for Fish & Wildlife Program" program, the National Marine Fisheries Service's Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Who woulda thunk it?

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 at 09:19 Comments (0) |

Page:  << Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  151  152  153  154  155  156  157  158  159  160  161  162  163  164  165  166  167  168  169  170  171  172  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  186  187  188  189  190  191  192  193  194  195  196  197  198  199  200  201  202  203  204  205  206  207  208  209  210  211  212  213  214  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234 235  236  237  238  239  240  241  242  243  244  245  246  247  248  249  250  251  252  253  254  255  Next >>