North Coast Online

What's Yours Is Theirs

Here's a rather significant victory for private property.

The state's habitual seizure of supposedly unclaimed property in bank and stock brokerage accounts, safety deposit boxes and other repositories of wealth has always been more than a little questionable.

The theory of "escheat," as it's called, is faintly medieval, assuming that idle property can be taken by a king for his personal use by divine right, a distant cousin of the doctrine of "eminent domain" under which property may be taken for public use.

California, however, refined it into a lucrative source of income, even making it easier to seize property when the state's budget was, as it often is, out of balance.

Banks and other holders of property have been required to transfer the assumed unclaimed assets to the State Controller's Office (although they often held onto it as long as possible for their own reasons). The controller would then make a token effort at finding the rightful owner, often nothing more than a fine-print newspaper ad, before depositing the property -- sold if necessary -- into the state treasury. So far, the state has seized $5.1 billion in property from 8.2 million accounts over the last half-century.

Last week, a federal judge ordered the state to stop seizures until it had vastly improved its efforts to find the rightful owners -- rejecting the state's rather unseemly claims that it would lose a lucrative source of income, about $400 million a year currently. His ruling followed a federal appellate court ruling that seizing property and giving faint notice to owners was unconstitutional.

Politicians, almost always Democrats oddly enough, who are beating the bushes to find more revenue to fund their pet projects love this unclaimed property scam.  Recently there have even been efforts in some states to force retailers to turn over the value of unredeemed gift certificates to the government.  And whenever some solon somewhere claims to want to help the environment by expanding the deposit laws to juice and water bottles, but directs that the unredeemed deposits flow quickly to the state capital, well, you know what he's really after.

Proof That Global Warming Really Does Make Gas Prices Go Up

Here it is, the smoking gun if you will.  Warm gas is cheating the American consumer.

Georgia consumers have been getting burned at the pump because of the weather to the tune of $123 million, even before gas prices reached the boiling point, according to statistics released by the federal government.

Even a federal lawsuit filed in Rome has raised the issue of how the temperature of fuel when pumped can cost consumers — especially those in warmer states.

Click to view a PDF of the lawsuit filing.

National Institute of Standards and Technology data shows temperatures of fuel at gas stations around the country average about five degrees warmer than the federal standard temperature of 60 degrees at which gas is priced to sell.

At Georgia gas stations, according to the federal agency that presented the data, that temperature is 12 degrees higher at 72 degrees.

The physics behind the problem is fairly simple.

At 60 degrees, a 231-cubic-inch gallon of fuel delivers a certain amount of energy.

At 90 degrees, however, the same gallon of fuel expands to more than 235 cubic inches.

Because consumers are still paying for 231-cubic-inch gallons they are forced to spend more money — and pay more tax — for the same amount of energy.

In practical terms, this means a Roman [Rome, Georgia] who pumped 10 gallons of gas into his truck at 90 degrees would be able to drive 196.6 miles, if the vehicle is supposed to get 20 miles per gallon.

In Alaska, with 60-degree gas, someone in Juneau with the same truck would be able to drive 200 miles on 10 gallons.

Nationally, consumers paid more than $2 billion more because of the temperature differences, according to NIST.

My tolerance for frivolous lawsuits goes down as the temperature rises, too.

Hat tip to Division of Labor.

Hating Hate-Crime Laws

A week or so ago, in a weak moment, I expressed a willingness to change my mind on hate crime laws.   Some of you may be pleased (or not) to know that I retired to my fainting couch and have since regained my senses.  The Volokh Conspiracy explains why.

Hate Crimes Laws: Dangerous and Divisive: The "Hate Crimes" bill currently moving through Congress involves an unwise, and arguably unconstitutional expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction. But even at the state or local level, hate crimes are a bad idea. The whole debate of whether homosexuals should be included in hate crimes statutes is but one example of how hate crimes statutes undermine the principle of equal protection of the laws, by encouraging fights over whether some groups are or are not deserving of unequal, special protection.

The best argument for hate crimes laws is that a hate crime causes more harm than an ordinary crime, because it causes many other people to fear being victimized. This is true for some hate crimes (e.g., public vandalism of a synagogue), but certainly not all of them (e.g., a dispute between neighbors in which an epithet is used). Moreover, there are plenty of ordinary crimes (such as highly-publicized serial attacks on random victims), which also cause fear in many people besides the immediate victims. I suggest that judicial sentencing discretion allows for appropriate punishment for crimes which have unusually large secondary impacts.

As long as hate crimes statutes stay on the books, every hate crime statute should include a provision providing for extra punishment for hate crime hoaxes. (Above the level of punishment for ordinary hoaxes about non-existent crimes.) Just as a hate crime may cause heightened community fear, so does a hate crime hoax.

Yes, and then there's always that "equal protection under the law" thing, too.   

The Judicial Digital Divide

A British judge is having a hard time of it.

A British judge admitted on Wednesday he was struggling to cope with basic terms like "Web site" in the trial of three men accused of inciting terrorism via the Internet.

Judge Peter Openshaw broke into the questioning of a witness about a Web forum used by alleged Islamist radicals.

"The trouble is I don't understand the language. I don't really understand what a Web site is," he told a London court during the trial of three men charged under anti-terrorism laws.

Prosecutor Mark Ellison briefly set aside his questioning to explain the terms "Web site" and "forum." An exchange followed in which the 59-year-old judge acknowledged: "I haven't quite grasped the concepts."

Violent Islamist material posted on the Internet, including beheadings of Western hostages, is central to the case.

Hate-Crime Laws

I've always been opposed to hate-crime laws.  My opinion was that an assault on a gay person, for example, should be punished no more or no less than an assault on a straight person.  A crime's a crime, after all. Maybe it's the name -- calling them hate crimes always smacked of punishing thought.   

After reading this, though, I'm seriously reconsidering. 

Smackdown

I like this judge.

A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit brought by a doctor who accused KFC of not telling customers that it used trans fats to fry its chicken.

In an occasionally sarcastic opinion, U.S. District Judge James Robertson said Dr. Arthur Hoyte could not show that he was harmed by KFC's use of the artery-clogging fats.

That was enough to doom the lawsuit, but Robertson also noted other flaws in the case.

"While it might be appropriate for this court to find, as a matter of law, that the consumption of fat -- including trans fat -- is indeed within the reasonable expectations of the consumers of fried chicken and french fries prepared in fast food kitchens, it is not necessary for me to reach that question," Robertson wrote.

And in response to Hoyte's claim that customers have a growing understanding of the dangers of trans fats, Robertson wrote: "If consumers are increasingly aware of trans fat, where do they expect to find it if not in fast food restaurants?"

Sensible and sarcastic, too.  If he were a state judge in New York I'd want him to get a raise.

Deranged And Dangerous

Kay Hymowitz writes that we can blame a lot of things for the Virginia Tech shootings but there's one undeniable fact -- laws designed to protect the mentally ill don't do much for the rest of us.

You could blame the Blacksburg, Va., massacre on many things. You could blame it on too many guns, or not enough guns. You could blame it on school security officials who, after two lay dead in a campus dormitory, failed to warn anyone that a murderous killer was on the prowl. You could blame it on the lonely misfit himself, that perennial sociological figure who carries around his heavy heart of darkness until he can't keep it inside any longer.

You could also blame a legal juggernaut that adds up to paralysis in the face of the deranged and dangerous. Consider: Cho Seung-Hui was so clearly mentally disturbed that just about everyone who looked him in the eye all but ran screaming in the other direction. The twisted, blood-soaked essays he wrote for his English class scared the bejesus out of his fellow students — and remember that these are kids suckled on video games like Grand Theft Auto and movies such as "Reservoir Dogs."

Read the whole thing.

[UPDATE:] That Was The Desk I Chose To Die Under -- the most gripping eyewitness account of the shooting I've read yet.

Tort Lawyers, Grrrrr

Some of my least favorite people are tort lawyers.  Now, it's probably unfair to tar them all with the same brush (is that a racist statement?) but what may have at one time been an honorable profession has devolved into an expensive pest.  It is, by the way, the primary reason I could never vote for John Edwards (apart from his loser "two Americas" campaign theme.)  He made his $50 million (and undoubtedly growing) fortune using junk science to extort money from the medical industry.

Patterico tells us about another beaut -- a tort lawyer who makes his living suing businesses under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

For example, in Molski v. El 7 Mares Restaurant, Case No. C04-1882 (N.D. Cal. 2004), Molski claims that, on May 20, 2003, he and significant other, Brygida Molski, attended the El 7 Mares Restaurant for the purposes of dining out. Molski alleges that the restaurant lacked adequate handicapped parking, and that the food counter was too high. After the meal, Molski attempted to use the restroom, but because the toilet’s grab bars were improperly installed, he injured his shoulders in the process of transferring himself from his wheelchair to the toilet. Thereafter, he was unable to wash his hands because of the lavatory’s design.

Although this complaint appears credible standing alone, its validity is undermined when viewed alongside Molski’s other complaints. In Molski v. Casa De Fruta, L.P., Case No. C04-1981 (N.D. Cal. 2004), Molski alleges that he sustained nearly identical injuries on the exact same day, May 20, 2003. In Casa de Fruta, Molski alleges that he and significant other, Brygida Molski, patronized Casa de Fruta for the purpose of wine tasting. On arrival, Molski was again unable to locate van accessible parking. Once inside, Molski again found the counter to be too high. After wine tasting, Molski again decided to use the restroom, and again, injured his upper extremities while in the process of transferring himself to the toilet. Thereafter, he was once again unable to wash his hands due to the design of the lavatory.

This was, apparently, not the end of Molski’s day. In Molski v. Rapazzini Winery, Case No. C04-1881 (N.D. Cal. 2004), Molski once again alleges that he sustained nearly identical injuries on the exact same day, May 20, 2003. Molski, again accompanied by Brygida Molski, claims he visited the Rapazzini Winery for the purpose of wine tasting. Again, Molski complains that the parking lot lacked adequate handicapped van accessible parking. Upon entering the establishment, he discovered that the counter was too high. After tasting wine, he again needed to use the restroom. In the course of transferring himself from his wheelchair to the toilet, he injured himself yet again. Thereafter, he was again unable to wash his hands due to the lavatory’s design.

"The decision is Molski v. Mandarin Touch Rest., 347 F. Supp. 2d 860." 

He lost this one thankfully, but having once worked in the exciting supermarket industry, I'm all too well aware of the army of shoppers suing for having slipped on a grape (always a popular subject for lawsuits,) sliding and falling on ice in Buffalo in February and for having become ill from mysteriously-contaminated foodstuffs.   Grrr.

 

Pets Are People, Too

Lawsuits are beginning to fly over that contaminated pet food.

Dawn Majerczyk, 43, said her orange tabby, Phoenix, fell sick last week just two days after he ate a single package of Special Kitty. It is one of 95 cat and dog food brands recalled by Menu Foods of Canada. Friday's recall came two weeks after nine cats died during routine company taste tests of its products, the Food and Drug Administration said.

Majerczyk said she took the 9-year-old cat to its first-ever veterinarian visit the day of the recall.

She'd never taken her precious Phoenix to the vet in nine years -- not once?  What kind of irresponsible animal-abuser is she?  That will no doubt figure in the defense argument.  Of course, Dawn is probably too poor to afford spiraling U.S. pet health care costs (fell through the cracks you know) which may ultimately sway the jury in her favor.

That Disease That Used To Have A Name That Described What It Really Was

I think it's unconscionable that bars can be held liable for serving drinks to someone who then leaves and causes an accident.  But if this woman wins her lawsuit, we're all truly sunk.