The Joel Bieber Firm

Call 1-800-451-6393

Archive for Political

Comcast Bans Gun Advertising

Sunday, March 24th, 2013

I received two items over the weekend that had financial news about Comcast Cable. First, “The Motley Fool” emailed an investment video with the question, “Imagine What Cable Companies Would Do If Everyone Stopped Watching?”. The investment analysis went on to conclude that losing viewership would cause Comcast to lose about 2.2 trillion dollars, and that Apple TV and Google are on a path to cause the “Death of Cable”.

Then, my email inbox brought me an article from USA Today about Comcast. They are choosing to turn down advertising… any advertising about firearms and ammunition. No more gun and ammo commercials on the nation’s largest cable-TV provider.

Comcast made this announcement after their recent purchase of NBC. Chris Ellis of Comcast’s advertising and sales division reasoned that, “Consistent with long-standing NBC policies, Comcast Spotlight has decided it will not accept new advertising for firearms or weapons moving forward”.

Currently, they do apparently distinguish TV advertising from their web advertising. Comcast, Cox and Time Warner do not list any firearms ad restrictions on their websites.

In response to this Comcast announcement, gun sellers have been expressing mixed emotions. Rick Oliver of Haley’s Lodge, which sells guns, knives and ammunition in Indiana said, “Frankly, I’m a little confused. I’ve been running ads for 30 years. But, if they don’t want my money, I’ll take it elsewhere.”

Greg Hasek, manager of Four Guns, counters that he thinks it’s ridiculous to single out one industry like that. He suggested the widespread advertising for alcohol, despite the many “drunken-driving deaths”. Then, he really went for the metaphor punch, “Buffets are so unhealthy, they can lead to death by obesity complications. Are we going to stop advertising buffets?”

While Washington wrestles over gun legislation, this shows one response in the private sector. Private business has the right to turn down such advertising and business has the right to take their money elsewhere. No word on whether other cable channels will stop advertising the success of investing in gold because it just keeps going up, despite it trading down 6% in 2013. (I just threw in one of my pet peeves right there. They will sell you gold coins and then “hold them for you” or let you hold your investment in your own hands…come on)

Of course, the private sector can run gold ads … if they want. For me, just don’t take away those ads for Golden Corral!

And then, we turn to pic o’ day. Mom sent me another one that she knew would tickle my funny bone:

mom's dogs

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

The Finder of Fact

Sunday, February 24th, 2013

In the late 1990′s, Vice President Al Gore was being interviewed on CNN by Wolf Blitzer. In responding to a question about his qualifications in running for office; he replied,

“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system”.

Gore was criticized and even ridiculed for claiming to have “invented” the Internet. He and his supporters quickly defended him by saying that he never claimed to “having invented the Internet”. He was just discussing how supportive he was personally and through legislation in technology advancement.

When I looked at Sunday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch, I saw a link to PolitiFact.com, which analyzes statements by politicians and rates them on being true or false. The most aggregious statements are rated as “pants on fire”. The little graphic even has fake flames.

One of the political statements is a quote from U.S Representative Eric Cantor. In budget discussion he is credited with saying that, “ The National Science Foundation spent $1.2 million paying seniors to play World of Warcraft to study the impact it had on their brain.” Right next to that statement is a big “pants on fire” graphic.

I did not do any research on why or where Representative Cantor said that. Plus, maybe he was given faulty research or simply misstated what he meant to say. Maybe PolitiFact misstated their facts.

In the trial of a civil matter, juries receive instructions from the judge that is considered as the law of the case to be applied to the evidence. In many cases, plaintiff and defendant will call expert witnesses who give completely different opinions on the exact same piece of evidence.

As to expert witnesses, this is the jury instruction that is usually read to the jury,”In considering the weight to be given to the testimony of an expert witness, you should consider the basis for his/her opinion and the manner by which he/she arrived at it and the underlying facts and data upon which he/she relied.”

In law, a jury is known as the trier of fact. In our own lives, it is up to us to determine truth or fiction. We have learned that we have to do our own research before just accepting what we hear or read.

When I think of truth, I am reminded of my grandfather’s quote that I probably have written in a previous blog. Still, when I think about it it brings back a good memory.

Before bedtime, he would always insist on making sure that I brushed my teeth. Plus, he did not want me to shortcut it and miss a tooth. He would look me in the eye and say, “be true to your teeth or they will be false to you”. Good motiviation!

Tomorrow’s blog will be a follow-up on this when I discuss a trial from last week.

For pic o’ day, some truth:

Admit it

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments Comments Off

Protecting Wrongdoers and Punitive Damages

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

     After a good weekend plus a Colts win, I usually stay away from negative. This time, I am getting something off my chest! 

     At the end of October, a group of distinguished lawyers, judges and law professors got together at the Homestead to discuss issues in the law. The group meeting is called the Boyd-Graves Conference.

     The background for the formation of this group is best said on it’s website:   ”The Boyd-Graves Conference was created by the late Thomas V. Monahan, a former VBA president, who believed that civil practice in Virginia would be improved if lawyers with different types of practices, from all regions of the state, would meet and attempt to reach consensus about ways to improve the law.” It was formed in 1978 and has been very helpful in addressing question and needs of law and practice.

     This October meeting did make several significant recommendations. Then, the issue of Virginia’s laws regarding punitive damages immediately ran into a group obstacle.  

     Right now, Virginia has a state cap of punitive damages in the amount of $350,000. That means that if an entity, company or individual is found by a jury to have done or committed an act that is “willful and wanton”, which is worse than negligence. There are several legal terms for it, but basically it is willful and egregious conduct. It basically almost has to be intentional or just a disregard of doing what is right. I probably am not even describing the standard strict enough.

     Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant; deter such future conduct by that defendant as well as others in the future;  and in doing so, protect the citizens of the state where the punitive damages are part of a verdict.

         I know I am getting too much legal stuff… but here comes the meat of my blog.

     The cap of $350,000 was enacted in 1988. If adjusted for inflation, the cap would now be approximately $677,000 without any real increase. Still, Boyd-Graves rejected any proposal to eliminate the cap or even raise it to a mere increase of $500,000.

     When you hear the term a ”business-friendly” state, you assume that it is helpful to attract businesses to Virginia. In fact, it probably does. However, I really wonder if anyone really finds out what the state caps on punitive damages are, before relocating to that state. If they do, I don’t think that is really the kind of business that we should want to open up here. Instead, I would think that they are mainly looking for tax incentives. 

     I could get stirred up more about this. A business that generates billions in revenue can create a product that they know will kill Virginia citizens. Then, they know that they are only going to be punished in an amount of 350K maximum. It can be something added to their projected balance sheet.

     In past lawsuits, there have been many memos uncovered that showed businesses considering the expense of injury versus profit. Profitability… that doesn’t mean protection for Virginia citizens. To me, I don’t think that a business should be able to weigh its conduct against what the margin of expense per violation or lawsuit in punitive might be. Punishment should really be punishment. For most big businesses, 350K has no meaningful message.  I just thought that this is topical, with an election on Tuesday.

     For pic o’ day, I am posting one of my Dad on a recent vacation. It makes me smile. (Sorry Dad!!!!!)

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

An Advertising Genealogy

Sunday, August 19th, 2012

I watched the radio sales representative walk away from my office. I had a nervous “pit” in my stomach because I had just signed a contract to commit to a year of radio advertising.  The firm was now going to spend $700 a month on radio, on an AM station. That commitment was now, in addition to the one-half page yellow page ad that had been placed the year before.

Sometime after that, I tried or settled some cases that led me to commit to TV advertising. It was in the Hampton Roads market. Thereafter, I committed to the Richmond TV market. Of course, this is several years ago. At that time,  I would regularly hear “Hey, I saw you on TV the other day” or “Does that TV advertising work?”.

Soon, I began to see several law firms advertising on television. At that point, I decided that I needed to do more than just ask people to call. I didn’t have an agency to help me. In fact, most agencies had never worked with any lawyers. At this point, some lawyers were just outright disgusted with lawyer advertising and weren’t afraid to say so; Some even said it to my face.

Lawyers against advertising seemed to fall into two camps. Either they felt that the profession was too dignified for it; or they felt that anyone that advertised must not be much of a lawyer. That school of thought basically felt that any lawyer who had to advertise, was obviously not a lawyer that anyone was already calling. Why would lawyers with known skills need to advertise?

If you could see me typing my blog right now, you would see a slight smile on my face. This makes me travel a bit down memory lane. Sometimes, I wasn’t sure about the advertising, but felt I had to just push out.

As it began to circulate through the legal community that people did respond to advertising, then I would hear a whisper campaign that “advertising lawyers don’t try cases” or “Even if advertising does bring in business, I’d never stoop to doing such a thing”,

Some of those thoughts came back to me as I read the “Richmond Times-Dispatch” article on current political TV advertising. Apparently, we are in for a lot of political advertising in the coming months, and it feels like we have already been bombarded.

This year alone in the Richmond market, 13.4 million dollars have been placed and we are still more than 75 days away from the Presidential election. That doesn’t even count any state or local elections. Karl Rove’s Crossroads PAC has placed over 15 million in advertising across the state, with about 2.3 million of that in Richmond, so far.

Separately from those amounts listed, Obama and Romney have their own PACs. There are Federal law limits on how much you can give to any one candidate, but there is no limit to the amount that can be given to PACs. Plus, those amounts don’t have to be identified and reported.

Political advertising impacts lawyer advertising because political advertising overrides all other advertising. Plus, political advertising is guaranteed by law, to pay the lowest per point rate on all stations. No one can pay any lower. So, even if I want to pay more for an ad; it doesn’t matter. If a political candidate or PAC wants that spot in that time period they are going to get it.

Today, lawyer advertising is changing. Firms that have decided that they “want to try TV advertising” soon are very disappointed. It is now hard to bust through the clutter. It means that law firms have to look to other areas. Now, lawyers don’t ask me if TV works. Instead, I hear questions like “Do you know anything about Internet advertising” or “Who writes your blog?”. As to that blog question, I am still looking for volunteers!

For pic 0′ day, I have thought of many different advertising ideas. Here’s one that I haven’t tried:

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Governor Haley’s Endorsement or Conspiracy?

Sunday, June 10th, 2012

     Some have studied the Zapruder film, frame by frame, to conclude that the government is still hiding something about the Kennedy assassination. Others have concluded that there is a connection to Communism, the mob and organized crime, or even Lyndon Johnson.

     The majority now believes that there was no gunman on the grassy knoll. They accept the government’s full investigation. I suspect that others have tired of the topic and may just think that Zapruder is a new meatball sandwich at Subway. If you obsess over something, you can convince yourself into belief.

     Anyone can combine beliefs with events, and come up with their own reason for an occurrence. Soon, logic is thrown out the window and conclusions are made to fit that belief system. It’s as simple as coming to the conclusion that, since you might know that Canadians play hockey, then all Canadians are good at Hockey. Or, since you’ve seen fast marathon runners from Kenya; then everyone must be a runner from Kenya.

     Politicians know that we all believe that the United States needs more jobs. So, they take that information and apply it for a political belief system. Or, support agendas when large donors “financially suggest” their beliefs.

     If Oil companies are supporting a candidate, then we might hear that candidate say that more drilling is needed to create jobs. Have you heard this one? “We need lawsuit caps, or a removal of regulations on businesses; because those are hurting job creation”. It’s easy to say a big, hearty amen, because who doesn’t want more jobs? It’s also easy to forget the consequences of those political agendas. 

    Pharmaceutical companies are still pushing to have caps or restrictions on lawsuits brought against them. Then, politicians get up and announce that we need to curb or eliminate liability on Drug companies; or else they will not have an incentive to experiment and invent more medications to get us better. Don’t we all want to get better?

     I was reminded of this logic when I read the Sunday paper (well, Internet) from Spartanburg, South Carolina. GoUpstate.com had an article titled “Gov. Haley endorses Bright in state Senate race“.

     Governor Nikki Haley has taken the unusual step of endorsing one Republican candidate over another, for their upcoming primary; to determine the Republican candidate for that Spartanburg Senate seat. Usually, office-holders stay out of inter-party races. In fact, many Republicans employ the old adage of Ronald Reagan who always said, “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican”.

     The background to this race is that Senator Bright is the State Senator incumbent. His current opponent, John Hawkins, held the seat from 2000-2008. In 2004, Hawkins was challenged by Bright, but won the primary against him, by a mere 31 votes. In 2008, Hawkins stepped down and Bright beat the other candidate(Hawkin’s friend) by 198 votes. Good old fashioned politics.

     I’ve given you some tedious detail to get to the point of Haley’s endorsement. She says that she is endorsing Bright because “John Hawkins was an incumbent we were lucky to get rid of the first time. We don’t need any more trial lawyers who are going to feed off the system”. She said that Hawkins “feeds off the worker’s comp system” because he represents injured workers. 

     Here’s where my earlier logic discussion applies. Very few people would disagree with the concept that we have too many lawyers. Then, politicians, The Chamber of Commerce, and Big Business have done a great promotion of the message that, lawsuits and lawyers hurt job creation. They even say that lawsuits keep businesses from coming to (insert state name) where the election is occurring. 

     I’ve attached the article for full reading of  the background on this election. Those who accept Governor Haley at face-value on these statements woud not be impacted by any other reasoning. Some might say that the real reason that she endorsed Bright is because Hawkins supported her opponent in the 2010 Governor’s race. Also, Hawkins claims that Bright has held fundraisers with trial lawyers and received thousands of dollars in lawyer campaign contributions. But… those are just mere details.

          One final note, I do smile when I read Haley and Hawkins going at it. Not long ago, I was reminded that I first met Nikki Haley, when she was a receptionist/office manager for a chiropractor in South Carolina. I don’t recall her dislike for lawyers back then.

     A while back, I was informed that John Hawkins was quoted by the newspaper,  by complaining about my South Carolina advertising. He later went on to introduce legislation in an attempt to regulate lawyer advertising. Isn’t life funny!  For blog purposes, I just blog… you decide!

      I first thought about a “no advertising” sign for pic o’ day

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     Then, I got distracted like Clyde

 

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Retaliatory Arrest Case

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

My grandfather was a minister, who was famous for sermons that lasted on the long side. It makes me smile when I think back.  I can still hear his voice in my mind.  As a kid, I would always ask, “why does grandpa preach so long”. Of course, the Sunday roast never did burn, so I guess it wasn’t too long.

Sometime near the “end” of the sermon, he would say those famous words of “in conclusion”. What that really meant, was that the sermon was going to last about 20 more minutes.   I guess heredity might explain why my blogs sometimes get carried away on the long side.

With that as a backdrop, I am going to “quickly” discuss a Court case that is being heard by the Supreme Court. It involves a claim for retaliatory arrest and the question of free speech.

I am surprised that I don’t remember this case. Only now that the Supremes are hearing it, has it come to my attention. I hope you’ll click on the link for great details, but here is a summary:

Environmental consultant Steven Howards, saw Vice President Dick Cheney in a shopping mall near a ski lift. It was Beaver Creek, Colorado, 2008.

Howards walked up to Cheney, with the Secret Service standing around, and told the Vice President that his “policies in Iraq are disgusting”. While saying this, he apparently touched Cheney’s shoulder. Nothing occurred right then that would result in a Supreme Court appeal.

Ten minutes later, Howards walked through again, looking for his son. He was described as looking anxious. At that point, Secret Service agent, Virgil Reichle, walked over and asked Howards if he would answer some questions about his conversation with the Vice President. Howards said no and told Reichie that if he didn’t want people talking to the Vice President, then he should “keep Cheney out of public places”.

In Conclusion…. I’m just kidding.

The agent got angry and soon handcuffed Howards for allegedly having patted Cheney with an open palm, when he spoke to him earlier. Ultimately, the charges were dropped. During initial deposition discovery, it was determined that this Secret Service agent also tried to get a report changed about Howards’ conduct, to support his arrest.

Despite the local district attorney dropping the charges, Howards filed suit for being taken into custody.  The Court of Appeals in Denver, ruled that the agent had sufficient basis to take Howards into custody. The Supreme Court is going to rule on whether Howards had a protected right under his constitutional freedom of speech, to do and say  that to the Vice President. Should he be allowed to pursue a claim for retaliatory discharge? The Supreme Court will tell us by their opinion in this term.

For pic o’ day, I am posting two unusual arrest pictures. I am surprised by the amount of mascot or costume “arrest picture” that are available.

 

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Saved By the Bell

Thursday, July 21st, 2011

     Apparently, in medieval times, burying people before they were truly dead was a known problem. That’s why, a pre-burial system was developed and was known as “being saved by the bell“.

     At the time of burial, a string was tied to the “dead” person’s hand, and then the other end of the string was tied to a bell and then tied to a nearby tree branch.  On occasion, someone who was only unconscious who then revive, would obviously ring the bell in a panic; and their family would rush out and dig them up.  Truly…… “saved by the bell”.

     A recent political donation prosecution can fall under that kind of category. Two executives had been charged in an alleged scheme of recruiting political donors for Hilary Clinton’s 2006 and 2008 Senate campaigns.

     On February 16, 2011, a grand jury that was convened in an Alexandria courtroom, charged the executives with illegally soliciting campaign contributions and then reimbursing those donors for the money that they had given to the campaign. It was an illegal way around the campaign donation federal limits.

     In 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled in Citizen United  v.  FEC that corporations should be treated as individuals. Now, in the eyes of the law, corporations are entitled to equal political speech and are able to contribute politically, like an individual.

     As a result of that Court holding, the Judge in the potential criminal case against these two executives, dismissed the charges against them. In interpreting that Supreme Court case from last year, the Judge held that it created a loophole and that the charges were really now considered a corporation donation. 

     It didn’t matter that those donors were reimbursed by those two executives because, it could legally come from the corporation anyway. With that recent case, these executives were basically saved by that legal bell.   (US v. Danielczyk May 26, 2011)

         

    

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Categories : Uncategorized
Comments (2)

TSA Mobile Security

Tuesday, June 21st, 2011

An old Saturday Night Live skit used to tout a product called “Toast on a stick”. It was funny because it was so basic. A stick pushed through a piece of toast.

That came to mind when I read the “Mother Jones ” article on what the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) has requested, as part of its government 2012 budget request.

Currently, TSA advises that it conducts over 8,000 unannounced screenings each year. They report that they have 25 teams that conduct screens in conjunction with Customs and Border Patrol. They don’t just do their “pat downs” at airport security,

On one hand, TSA makes a good point it needs more funding to prevent incidents like the Madrid train bombings. Plus, if you’ve ridden on a train recently, you’ve probably noticed that the security does seem a bit relaxed. Maybe that’s why Hollywood has train bombings in many of their movies.

In short, I basically am postulating (I finally got to use that word!) the concept of safety, versus how far do we allow the government to do mobile searches?

It’s clear that TSA wants the ability and funding to walk up to people at train stations, ferries, subways and other public transportation and perform searches or “pat downs”. Is it worth granting this funding and power for safety, or is this going to far in the encroachement on personal liberties?

One final thought might be to consider what Ben Franklin might have said to my blog. “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

You still might be trying to figure out the “toast on a stick analogy” because I did get a little distracted. Well, I just kinda imagined all the TSA uniformed government workers running around, doing their mobile scans with their wands. Seems to me that this is taking a simple idea of safety too far. What else? Are they going to push a mobile bucket in my face, for my shoes and keys?

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

The DeLay Delay is Over

Monday, January 10th, 2011

     After all this time, the DeLay Delay to a guilty verdict and sentence is over. I just saw that former House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, was sentenced to 3 years in jail, with 10 years probation. Before this conviction, DeLay’s greatest public humiliation had come when he had appeared on “Dancing with the Stars”  and had shaken his “hip replacement” hips. Plus, he really knows how to make a pair of jeans look bad on national TV. 

     Normally, this conviction of itself, would not warrant a blog mention.  However, I saw what the judge said after DeLay had addressed the Court with his speech, right before sentencing. It was DeLay’s assertion that all of the events that led up to the prosecution had been completely motivated by politics. It is now expected that the appeal process will drag on for some time, as he remains free on bond.

     The Judge’s response to the “”it’s all politics” should serve as a good reminder for all in the Judicial system.

Before there were Republicans and Democrats, there was America, and what America is about is the rule of law,” the judge said just before pronouncing the sentence.

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Categories : Current Affairs
Comments (1)

Supreme Court Robe Room

Sunday, December 5th, 2010

     A few winters back, a friend asked me to meet with someone to discuss a business and possible investment. I showed up for breakfast and waited. Soon, I was face to face with the man “and his business opportunity”.

     His face was a tanning bed combination of burn/tan. He had a smile that would shock and awe any dental office, both in color and tooth arrangement.

     His suit didn’t have a natural fiber in it. As he reached to shake my hand, his gold-plated bracelet jangled. His appearance was not going to fool anyone, despite his amazing story of expected success.  (It reminded me of the person who was explaining his importance to me and told me he knew Mr Ups, and why that might help. Later, I realized he was talking about UPS. I’m serious.  That story could be a whole blog.)

     Mr Business Proposition told me, “I already have a few million committed to this project”,  I just need a little bit more so we don’t have any limitations”. Then, he went on to describe that I would double my investment money, in about a year. Of course,  in response to me questioning  as to why he just didn’t borrow from the bank, he responded that, “banks don’t understand this kind of business”.

     I suspect that his business did not get off the ground. I have given you the short version. When I saw his appearance, his story of investment only continued to crease my brow into more confusion.

     This “business introdution’ came to mind, as I was thinking about the 60 Minutes  (TV and print version here) story that was recently done on Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and the inner workings of the Court.

     He has just retired at age 90. While a Justice serves, he is not to do interviews about Court dealings and opinions. Because he was retiring, he let reporter Scott Pelley follow him around during the last session, and also tape places for the TV story that had never been seen before, on camera.

     On the surface, the Supreme Court looks pretty intimidating, I think. A story book view of the Court is that they read past caselaw and apply it. They sit in those black robes and reason among themselves, as they arrive at an opinion that is then published as the law of the land.

      However, if you watch the story, you might find initial appearances to be a bit deceiving. His discussion of the Court, including  a view of where the Justices put their robes on; as well as a look into what happens behind the scenes, was fascinating. I think that if you read or watch the 60 Minutes piece, it might give you a different insight into what you think of the Supreme  Court’s activities, beyond that solemn appearance.

     Justice Stevens also discusses three recent Court decisions that gave him problem in the result.  First, when the  Court decided the 2000 Presidential election. If you recall, the Court told Florida to stop the re-counting of the votes. The basis for the 5-4 decision was that the Court ruled that the count could not have been completed by the deadline. Justice Stevens dissented, with the belief that nothing should have been done by the Court, until the time for counting had expired. His view was that the Court was too proactive.

     Another decision he discussed was the Padilla appeal, where an American citizen was declared a terrorist by the President and imprisoned, without any trial. It is a precedent where those who are considered  a danger, can be imprisoned by order of the President, without Constitutional due process. Some feel that religious liberty will be attacked under this same reasoning, in the future.

     One other decision of note that was discussed in the story, involved the Court’s recent ruling in allowing Corporations to be recognized as individuals, for political contribution purposes. Never before has this been the law.  Congress could have enacted such a determination; Instead, the Court  created new law  without precedent regarding Corporations having rights as a person.

     If someone shakes your hand with crooked teeth and looks a bit homeless, you probably know that it’s not a good idea to hand over your money for investment. When a Justice of the Supreme Court  gave a rare glimpse into the robe room and the inner workings of the Court, it seemed a bit surprising to see some unexpected things in the judicial system.

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!