You might think that after Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3, Volume 4, Volume 5, Volume 6, Volume 7, Volume 8, Volume 9, Volume 10, Volume 11, Volume 12, Volume 13, Volume 14, Volume 15, Volume 16, Volume 17 and Volume 18 of Things You Can't Do on a Plane, that we'd have exhausted the list of things you can't do on a plane. Nope! The list grows daily.
Here are three more things I've recently learned that you cannot do on a plane:
- Attempt to bring four yak skulls from Tibet back to the U.S. Passengers may not try to sneak yak skulls into the U.S. in a duffle bag, particularly when the yak skulls still have dried flesh attached. CONSEQUENCE: The yak skulls will be seized and destroyed under high-pressure steam.
- Fly while wearing a T-shirt that reads, "If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd f*ck a senator!" Passengers may not wear a T-shirt with the above "offensive" language on it. CONSEQUENCE: Passenger will be told mid-flight that she will need to buy a new shirt if she wants to board her connecting flight, and pilot will alert gate crew on connecting flight to be on watch for the offensive shirt.
- Attempt to board a plane while carrying a gun (pilot edition). Airline pilots may not attempt to board their plane with a gun in their bag unless they are members of a federal Flight Deck Officer Program. CONSEQUENCE: Pilot will be arrested and charged with possessing a concealed firearm.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 25, 2012 at 04:17 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: I'm a land developer. Do I need to tell the buyers of homes in a subdivision that I'm selling that it sits right next to a former World War II bombing range that is laden with unexploded bombs, ammunition, ordnance and related chemicals?
Answer: Heck no. (Courthouse News Service, Court Lets Developers Slide Over Explosive Deal)
2) Question: I was trying to start my own methamphetamine lab but I got the recipe wrong and didn't have the key ingredient I needed to make meth. The cops discovered my ill-fated effort -- will I get in trouble for this?
Answer: No, because your mistake with the recipe made it impossible for you to make meth. (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Suspected meth lab missing key ingredients)
3) Question: The cops have set up a radar trap in my neighborhood. Can I flash my lights at approaching motorists to warn them?
Answer: Yes, those light flashes are First Amendment-protected speech! (The Legal Satyricon, Flashing your headlights to warn other motorists of a speed trap = free speech)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 25, 2012 at 11:00 AM | Permalink
| Comments (1)
I have four boys, two under the age of 8. Through the years, our family has accumulated many iPods, iTouches and iPhones, and sometimes the older iTouches become the property of the younger boys. This never lasts for very long, however, as the younger boys consistently find a way to destroy the iTouches by introducing them to the mortal enemy of the iTouch: water.
My 7-year-old killed his iTouch by dropping it in the toilet. My 5-year-old ended the life of his hand-me-down iTouch when he decided to "clean" it by scrubbing it with a soaking wet towel.
Having witnessed the sad demise of these iTouches, I am acutely aware of the risk of taking my own iPhone to the beach or to the pool this summer, as I do not want to accidentally douse it and kill it off. According to a post today on iPhone J.D., some new products have come out that can protect your iPhone from water, even if it is submerged for hours. Jeff Richardson, the author of iPhone J.D., writes that he tried out two such products at a wireless convention this month and both worked very well.
The first product Richardson tried out was the driSuit ($60), which is designed for the iPhone 4 and 4s. Quite simply, he says, "you place your iPhone inside the case, close two locks to seal it, and then the iPhone is waterproof." Here is a video of the driSuit in action, from the company's website:
Richardson also tried out the DryCASE ($39.99), which is actually a bag that can hold a variety of devices, including the iPhone and the iPad. According to Richardson,
To use the DryCASE you place your iPhone or other item inside of it, plug in the included headphone jack, seal the top, and then use the included one-way pump to remove the air. This creates a vacuum. You can then plug a pair of headphones into the port on the outside of the bag (or use waterproof headphones sold by the company). You can use the iPhone touchscreen or camera through the bag, and the company has tested it to depths of 100 feet.
The iPhone on display in a DryCASE at the wireless convention Richardson attended had been submerged in an aquarium for 2 hours and 41 minutes when he checked it out (approximately 2 hours and 40 minutes longer than my son's iTouch was submerged in the toilet), and was still working perfectly.
So as you lawyers head to the beach and pool this summer, consider whether you should invest in one of these cases to protect your iPhone from drowning while you are there.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 24, 2012 at 04:13 PM | Permalink
| Comments (4)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: I got drunk and was pulled over for diving my car 143 mph in a 55 mph zone. Will this cost me my job as a police officer?
Answer: Nope. (The Denver Post, Denver appeals reinstatement of drunk, off-duty cop on 143-mph joy ride)
2) Question: I have a "shy bladder" and cannot urinate in the presence of other people. This is a big problem on drug-test day, when the test is conducted in a public restroom and I cannot perform. My employer is threatening to fire me. Can they do that?
Answer: No, "shy bladder syndrome" is now protected as a disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act." (The Daily Caller, Americans with Disabilities Act covers 'bashful bladder syndrome,' could cost employers billions)
3) Question: I just had a baby at a Greek hospital. I don't have all the money to pay the hospital bill right now. Can I set up some kind of payment plan?
Answer: If you want with your new baby to go home with you when you leave the hospital, you're going to need to pay that bill in full first. (BBC, Greek hospitals tighten payment rules)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
I've been following the government's ongoing battle against "distracted driving" for a while here at LBW, including the growing number of states that have imposed an outright ban on text messaging for all drivers. Indeed, 38 states, the District of Columbia and Guam all now have such a ban against text messaging by drivers. No state, however, has gone so far as to enact laws that would reach the sender of texts to a driver.
The theory that the sender of texts to a driver may be liable for a crash that the driver then gets in is set to be tested this week in a state court in New Jersey. On Sept. 21st, 2009, David and Linda Kubert were riding their motorcycle when a Chevy truck crossed the center line and hit them head-on. According to CBS News, the Kuberts actually saw the driver "in the truck steering with his elbows, with his head down. And I could tell he was text messaging." Both David and Linda Kubert lost a leg in the accident. The driver of the car, an 18-year-old male, pleaded guilty to charges including using a handheld device while driving.
In the New Jersey lawsuit, the Kuberts are now suing the driver who hit them as well as his girlfriend, who had been sending him text messages while he was driving. The Kuberts' lawyer argues that the girlfriend was "electronically present" in the crash and "may have known" he was driving. Linda Kubert says that she believes that if the girlfriend "knew he was driving and answering her back with texts, that she's partially responsible too."
Lawyers representing the girlfriend reportedly argued in their briefs that the lawsuit against her is a "leap of logic" that must be dismissed. On Friday of this week, a New Jersey judge will determine if the case against the girlfriend can go forward.
I must agree with the girlfriend's lawyers here -- a case against the sender is too much of a "leap of logic." The sender of the text should be entitled to send a text and assume that the recipient will not reply until they can do so safely -- after they park their car, finish the open heart surgery they are performing on a patient, or whatever.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 23, 2012 at 04:22 PM | Permalink
| Comments (2)
I have been following some interesting tracking developments in Texas affecting court reporters for about a year now. As I noted in June 2011, an article in the Austin Statesman took a look at the subject and wondered if the job of court reporter was starting to resemble a "system of medieval scribes" that might not be long for this world. Earlier in 2011, the Texas Conference of State Court Administrators had issued a report on the state's "inefficient" and "baffling" reliance on human court reporters to create transcripts.
In August 2011, a Texas organization called the Court Reporters Certification Board wrote a letter asking the state attorney general to opine on whether an oral deposition meant for use in litigation in the courts of Texas can be recorded solely by non-stenographic means (e.g., by video camera or an audio recording), or whether doing so would violate Texas Government Code ยง52.021(f), which requires that an oral deposition be recorded by a certified shorthand reporter.
The Tex Parte blog now reports that the AG has issued a response to the CRCB's question -- and it is not what the court reporters wanted to hear. In the May 14 opinion, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott concludes that "a party to litigation, the attorney of the party, or a full-time employee of a party or a party's attorney may record a deposition solely by non-stenographic means," such as audio or video recordings.
Abbott explained that while Subsection 52.021(f) does generally requires that "all depositions conducted in this state must be recorded by a certified shorthand reporter," an exception to this rule is carved out in section 52.033 for (1) a party to the litigation involved; (2) the attorney of the party; and (3) a full-time employee of a party or a party's attorney. Such individuals may therefore "record a deposition solely by non-stenographic means without violating Government Code section 52.021(f)," he stated.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 22, 2012 at 04:31 PM | Permalink
| Comments (4)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: My mother was watching my kids for the day. They went to McDonald's and for unknown reasons my mom agreed to let my 10-year-old daughter park her car. Of course, my daughter then proceeded to run into three other cars in the process. Will my daughter get in any trouble for this?
Answer: No, but grandma will likely be cited for allowing an unlicensed person to operate her motor vehicle. (Boston.com, South Boston grandmother let 10-year-old drive her car, police say)
2) Question: I am awaiting trial on federal charges. The judge ruled that I can be released on bail but only if I read at least one hour every day, and write reports on certain books for at least 30 minutes every day. Can he do this? I hate to read!!
Answer: It would not be the first time a judge has issued a "read or jail" ultimatum. Of course you can always choose jail if the reading and writing is too hard for you. (New York Daily News, Write a book report, avoid jail: Judge orders man freed if he commits to literature) (via PrawfsBlawg)
3) Question: My husband is having trouble breathing but when I dial 911 all I hear is the sound of someone snoring. What is going on here?
Answer: Sometimes 911 operators get tired, too. (WTOP.com, Md. dispatcher snores through emergency call)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 22, 2012 at 04:24 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
I feel like I'm on my computer constantly, poring through hundreds of feeds and stories daily, spanning the globe to bring you the constant variety of legal blogs and information you deserve. But I definitely miss a lot of things that everyone else seems to know about -- the type of things where I can only scratch my head and say, "Really?!? They have that? Never heard of it."
Today's thing I never knew existed: Lawyer ads on Craigslist
While reading the Simple Justice blog today (it must have been an old post as I know I wrote a fond "Farewell to 'Simple Justice' and Scott Greenfield" post back in February 2012 when Simple Justice shut down), I saw two references to young lawyers who tried placing free ads on Craigslist but ultimately rejected this business development tactic as undignified. "I don't care if it resulted in a client or two," said Jordan Rushie on his Philly Law Blog. "It's where people go to find hookers and meet people with weird fetishes. Do you really want to advertise professional services there?"
Matt Brown adds on his Tempe Criminal Defense blog that he, too, has rejected using Craiglist ads
mostly because I'd rather not be the kind of lawyer who posts between an old guy seeking a topless female roommate and a stewardess hoping to fornicate with a golden shepherd in front of her husband, but it's also because I know the odds of a good outcome are terrible and I stand to lose a lot more than five dollars.
There is probably some other lawyer out there who will soon post that he is now retired and sitting on the beach lighting cigars with $100 bills because of his wildly successful free Craigslist ads, but I haven't seen that yet.
I headed over to the Craigslist "Legal Services" page for my area to see this for myself, and found that as of 3 p.m. today, there were 97 separate ads for every kind of low-end legal service you can think of. And those are just the ads for today! These include ads such as:
- Is your home in foreclosure? We can help! $200 off your first visit
- Unlimited Legal Advice Starting at $17/month
- $299 UNCONTESTED DIVORCE, Reasonable Fees For Other Matters
And 94 others a lot like those. So for those of you like me who never knew about free lawyer ads on Craigslist ... now you know.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 21, 2012 at 04:22 PM | Permalink
| Comments (5)
Florida's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opined back in 2009 that it was not permissible for a judge to approve a lawyer who may appear before the judge as a "friend" on a social networking site such as Facebook. Nearly three years later, another judge asked the committee a related question: What about LinkedIn?
The specific question before the committee -- and its unequivocal answer in an opinion (via Legal Profession Blog) this week -- was as follows:
Whether a judge may add lawyers who may appear before the judge as "connections" on the professional networking site, Linked In, or permit such lawyers to add the judge as their "connection" on that site?
ANSWER: No.
The Inquiring Judge argued that there should be a distinction between Facebook, "where family and other personal relationships are fostered," and LinkedIn, which the judge said was "for the purpose of conducting professional networking." The Inquiring Judge submitted that unlike Facebook, "a judge's connection on LinkedIn with lawyers who may appear before the judge does not reasonably convey the impression to the public that a personal relationship of any kind necessarily exists between them."
The committee disagreed, stating that Florida Judicial Canon 2B prohibits a judge from conveying or permitting others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. The committee stated that, as it had found with Facebook in 2009, LinkedIn's processes for selecting "connections," and the fact that a judge's list of connections are visible to others who the judge has approved, convey that impression and therefore violate Canon 2B.
The committee also observed that in California, a judge may accept a lawyer as a Facebook friend or LinkedIn connection if that lawyer "may" appear before the judge, but not if the lawyer actually has a case pending before the judge. The committee deemed that approach to be too difficult to administer, as it "contemplates a judge constantly approving, deleting, and reapproving lawyers as 'friends' or 'connections' as their cases are assigned to, and thereafter concluded or removed from, a judge."
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 18, 2012 at 04:25 PM | Permalink
| Comments (1)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: So what, we get drunk ... and have sex in the back of Dubai taxis. We're livin' young, and wild and free! What are they going to do, throw me in jail?
Answer: Yes. (Daily Mail, British woman faces jail for 'sex in backseat of Dubai taxi after all-day drinking binge')
2) Question: I am a candidate for a judgeship. Can I still wear my awesome donkey lapel pin?
Answer: If a reasonable person objectively viewing the jewelry or apparel would conclude that you are commenting on your affiliation with a political party, then no. (Legal Profession Blog, Elephants, Donkeys And Judges)
3) Question: We want to sell a beverage called "Pomegranate Blueberry," but it contains only 0.3 percent pomegranate juice and 0.2 percent blueberry juice. Is this going to be a problem?
Answer: No problem. (The National Law Journal, Ninth Circuit mostly sides with Coke in pomegranate juice wars)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 18, 2012 at 04:18 PM | Permalink
| Comments (1)