May It Please The Court |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote of the Day - All happiness depends on a leisurely breakfast.
Twas the Night Before Christmas - Legally SpeakingWhereas, 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. Cleaner Motorcycles for a Small CostTwo 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. No Net Loss Program IntactIn 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. Wear a Vest or Dodge Bullets? Maybe Both.Bulletproof may not mean exactly that anymore. A company known as Second Chance Body Armor has been making bulletproof vests since the company's founder got shot while delivering a pizza.Inspiration comes from the oddest circumstances. The company has constantly been searching for newer, more lightweight fabrics to use in its vests. Second Chance thought they found it with Zylon, a new polymer material. Until Oceanside, California Police Office Tony Zeppetella was killed while wearing a Second Chance vest. Second Chance is now being sued by Officer Zeppetella's wife. More troubles are on the way for Second Chance, as well. Six other lawsuits are pending over the allegedly defective vests. Claims have been made that Zylon breaks down under heat and humidity more quickly than originally thought. Second Chance offered a 5-year warranty on the vests, but has now withdrawn them from the market, and posted news of investigations and other warnings on its site. The AP article notes that 200,000 officers use vests with Zylon out of the 700,000 police officers who wear vests. Gives a whole new meaning to the term "dodging a bullet." Corporate Successor Liability Depends on State LawOn Friday, the Second Circuit admitted that one of the Supreme Court's decisions overruled the reasoning in one of its cases, and tucked tail.In New York v. National Service Industries, the Second Circuit admitted that it can no longer use the "substantial continuity" test to determine whether successor corporations are liable for CERCLA cleanups. The Second Circuit had earlier used this test when one corporation bought the assets of another corporation, and held that the successor corporation could be liable. But no more. Once the Supremes decided U.S. v. Bestfoods, the Second Circuit learned that it couldn't apply federal common law to decide what is essentially a state common law issue, even though the decision would create liability under a solely federal law. Huh? Yeah, it sounds confusing to me, too. CERCLA is the federal law that, among other things, determines liability for toxic contamination. But, the question of whether a corporation that bought out another corporation is liable for the first corporation's wrongdoings is a question of state law, not federal law. It's easy to get mixed up. You would think that federal law should apply to a federal statute. But, it's all in the call of the question (scroll down and read Rule No. 1). So, did the Second Circuit decide the ultimate issue? Nope. They sent the case back to the minors for a decision. Kind of like dodging the bullet on both ends. Sure, Search My Car. I Want to Go to Jail.Given this decision, I'm glad my kids aren't teenagers any more. If you have teenagers, read on. You'll want to know who your kids travel with now more than ever. Nicked Pics and Judicial PicksThis year's judicial award for "Judicial Wisdom of the Year" won by Justice William W. Bedsworth. David Pannick, QC (Queens Counsel, which means a British barrister) picked our very own Justice in the Times Online.In his article, the "Silk" nominated several judges in various categories, including a story about nicked (stolen) pictures. The whole article is a hoot. He had this to say about Beds: "When considering a charge of smuggling animals into the country, he stated: “There is no non-culpable explanation for monkeys in your underpants.” The runner-up was Lord Hoffmann, who recognised, in dismissing a privacy claim in the House of Lords, that “having to take off your clothes in front of a couple of prison officers is not to everyone’s taste”. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, wondered whether complex and defective regulations governing those who dig up the roads were “the product of a demented computer”. And a special mention for the ruling by the Ohio Court of Appeals that the Constitution confers on a person a right to bark at a police dog — so long as the animal started it." X for Snowmobiles in YellowstoneAs a follow-up to an earlier post about snowmobiles in Yellowstone, the Judge issued a 49-page decision yesterday.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
