I haven't read the case, nor will I have time to, but I saw a headline that sparked at least enough interest to read the article. See California Judge: Sprint's Early Termination Fees Illegal. I'm sure this will make for a much more interesting read on appeal (assuming they don't reach some settlement, which is equally likely), but the gist of it is that the contracts that basically put a $150-200 termination fee if you decide to get out of your cell phone contract early violate a California unfair practices law.
I agree with the decision in principle, on the basis that the contract itself is a contract of adhesion and since all cell phone companies basically have the same language, you really have no choice to avoid it absent not buying a cell phone or cell phone service. Of course, it only triggers if you break the contract also. Setting these issues aside, I would have to read the opinion and become admitted in California to be able to speculate about their trade laws. In either case, the ruling has capability (potentially) of becoming persuasive authority in a different case in a different jurisdiction. Time will tell to what extent this will actually happen.
In the meantime, I will continue with my cell phone plan, notwithstanding the fact that it's inherently a ripoff. But then again, nobody really needs a cell phone, right?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Cell Phone Termination Fees Illegal under California Law
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
The Chinese Olympics
I can't say I'm overly excited about the Olympics. I should be, but I'm not. I have noticed, however, that there is much more news about the weather conditions and press access than the athletes themselves. Maybe that's part of it. At least the world will get a peek at the emerging Chinese market and see exactly what all the fuss is about. That may be worth watching more than the actual games.
Ah, the joy of not having to take a bar exam
A great many people across the country are sitting down over the next two or three days and taking the bar exam. I wish them well, and I will temporarily rest on my laurels because thankfully, I am not in the same boat. Read more!
Saturday, July 26, 2008
YouTube Divorce case ends rather abruptly
I followed this only in passing and only to the extent that it emphasizes my disinterest in family law. Nonetheless, I saw that the husband who was vilified by his ex-wife on YouTube was the victor in their divorce proceeding. While her rant became national headlines and entertainment news fodder, in the end, the neutrality of the law and the prenup did her in. See Husband Wins Divorce From Angry Wife in YouTube Video.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Web networking photos and the effect on litigation strategy
This headline jumped out at me the other day. See Eric Tucker, Web Networking Photos Come Back to Bite Defendants. Basically, these pictures are being used as evidence in various trials (likely personal injury cases) and, at least in my take of the article, are invoking from the jury (or better, the judge at sentencing) the opposite of what the defense is trying to portray: antipathy.
At this point, I doubt I'll see anything come up on appeal regarding this issue, and even if I did, it would more likely come in the form of a discretionary call by the judge, in which case it's an uphill sell. If anything, I would question the relevance of some of these pictures, but if it is relevant, then I'm not sure how one could (with a straight face) argue that it's more prejudicial than probative. (Think in Liar Liar: "I object! Why? Because it's devastating to my case!") The pictures don't seem to be used at trial though, and they need not be, they are being used as an aggravating factor at sentencing. It's pretty clever.
This presumably took place in a Rhode Island state trial. For example, the prosecutor in this case used the photos to establish a timeline of events: "Two weeks after Joshua Lipton was charged in a drunken driving crash that seriously injured a woman, the 20-year-old college junior attended a Halloween party dressed as a prisoner." To make the case for an appropriate sentence, the prosecutor then "used the pictures to paint Lipton as an unrepentant partier who lived it up while his victim recovered in the hospital." To the prosecutor's credit, the "judge agreed, calling the pictures depraved when sentencing Lipton to two years in prison." Of course, Lipton's defense attorney notes: "the photos didn't accurately reflect his client's character or level of remorse, and made it more likely he'd get prison over probation." Nevertheless...
The bottom line is that in the age of the internet, everyone should be cognizant of what is going up on you. I know they say you should run a google search once a year on your name, along with your credit reports and what not, but you can preempt this sort of trouble by either making your facebook/myspace profile private; untagging or contacting your friends who put up unflattering photos of yourself, or better, don't allow yourself to be photographed in a compromising situation. As Lipton's attorney wisely observes, you never know when they could come back to bite you: "If it shows up under your name you own it, . . . you better understand that people look for that stuff."
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Batman Dark Knight movie review
I saw the new Batman movie, and I'll say it was pretty good. Kind of long for me and (notwithstanding the suspension of belief already required), some of the storylines were pretty out there (sneaking an airplane into Hong Kong, for example, to extradite a foreign national). Regardless, I thought it was worth seeing, if not in the theater, definitely on your own HD tv. Will the Joker win an oscar? I highly doubt it. Was Heath Ledger a good villain compared to Jack Nicholson? I found their characters much different in a much different story, so it's hard to compare. They are simply different. Nothing good or bad about it.
What I found more interesting is the preview for a new Terminator movie next summer (Terminator Salvation starring Christian Bale), which takes place in the future. Since I have been talking about this for years (and have alluded to this suggestion once before), I think it has much potential, especially if they leave all the time travel stuff out of it. A trilogy though? It reeks of Matrix-esque nonsense. Hopefully it skips over Terminator 3's storyline all together. And given that Arnold is the governor and retired, it seems doubtful he will be in it. We'll see what happens. The preview can be found here (or through a regular Youtube search for Terminator Salvation).
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
JibJab posts a new ad
As any reader of this blog can figure out after a few entries, I appreciate intelligent humor above most other things that make me laugh (although I freely admit that I find many more things funny now than I did a few years ago). I speculated last year on the growth of user-generated content on the internet and its effect on political campaigns and the public generally. See User Generated Content and its Effect on the Political Hemisphere.
Well, sure enough, those clever cartoonists at JibJab have waded into the water again. Be sure to check out (if you haven't already), the newest spoof: Election 2008: Time For Some Campaignin'. The original Bush-Kerry "This Land" spoof is also available here. (The links take some time, probably due to increased bandwidth from today's release - but be patient).
CNN also has a condensed link in its report about it, which should be active for a few weeks anyway.
Read more!
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Texas Joe Horn's "make my day" killing
I've only paid loose attention to this news story other than to get the gist of it. I see it now as an issue of "good state, bad state" (which varies depending on who you are talking to), but more of an issue of individual state rights. For context of my entry, see Commentary: Was Burglary Worth Killing 2 Men?, Texas Law Helped Clear Man in Prowler Shooting; Discussion from Anderson 360 with Jeff Toobin on the case; Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Suspected Burglars.
I recall seeing on the news that a case with near identical facts is before a jury in New York and the charge is manslaughter. Texas, however, applied their "make my day" law to Horn's actions and the grand jury refused to indict him. I spoke to my friend who lives in Texas about it and he told me that he was all for it and that the law works as a good deterrent. I can't disagree with that logic, and I'm sure the coverage of this case has worked to inform the general criminal population that if you go and rob someone, you may be exposing yourself to a deadly response. Most certainly in Texas; and most likely, in many other states as well.
States very on their approach to handling the results, which is to be expected and part of this state criminal system. Whether the law is right or wrong is a matter for that state's legislature, and to the appropriate degree, the courts. What I find fascinating about this particular story though is how quick the media was to pass judgment on so-called "vigilante justice" down in Texas as opposed to the more "civilized" parts of the country. They have done the same thing with variants of Meghan's Law and other child rape statutes. Hey, if one state wants to pass it and another doesn't, so be it. It makes for good national news though, but for substantive analysis, paltry fuel to the fire of state rights.
If you ask me, I'm siding with Texas on this one. I think there are ways to strike a proper balance, and perhaps Texas has since amended the statute to account for when shooting is appropriate. But in a quick second decision, however, I think the law is better served and justice equalized on a reasonable person standard. Obviously the reasonable people in that particular Texas grand jury thought he was in the right. Those in New York did not, and now it will come down to whether twelve of that defendant's fellow citizens feel the same way. As a lawyer, I have presume that the system will perform its function correctly and justice will be served, even if it's at sentencing. I'm sure that part won't make the news though, unless something goes haywire.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Hancock movie review: Worth seeing, not only for its originality, but for its entertainment value
I saw the movie Hancock this weekend and since I am taking it easy tonight, I thought I would give a quick review as to why I think it's one of the better movies I have seen in a while. Credit to Will Smith for picking another great movie.
Admittedly, the reviews I had read made this movie out to be sort of a let down. They are wrong, and I can explain why. It's not like a "normal superhero movie." There isn't a traditional villain, nor is there a traditional back story. You know why? They have invented a new superhero. And for that originality, they had to use an original approach to developing the character and plot.
You know why these comic book nerds don't like it? Because they are idiots and think that if Stan Lee didn't have a hand in it, it must not be good. These are the same people who prevented Batman Begins from cutting the best line, and what should have been Bruce Wayne's response for when he and those two chicks jumped into the pool and the hotel guy told him that the pool was only there for show: "So are these." For these comic book movies, especially today, to succeed - you need to capture the non-comic book audience in a way the movie is worth watching and can somehow relate, even if they haven't read the comic book. Hancock is one of the few to successfully do this. Spoilers follow my explanation as to why.
Hancock is divided into two parts. The first is a drama which basically has to introduce this superhero. Unlike Spiderman or Batman, there is no explanation of where he came from, he just is. And like the previews explain, nobody really likes him. He saves the day, but on his terms and at whatever risk and cost, mainly because he is invulnerable, like Superman. Then he saves Jason Bateman's character, Ray, (who is much like his character from Arrested Development), who decides to devote his lackluster career to improving Hancock's personal image. We also meet his wife, who is played by an almost unrecognizable, but still hot, Charlize Theron. With Bateman's help, and a little jail time, Hancock begins to win over the public. Nancy Grace even makes an appearance, which supports my suggestion that she serves no newsworthy purpose, but provides ratings for her target market.
Around the time it seems that everything is coming up Hancock, the second half of the movie begins (this is the action part). It turns out that Ray's wife is a superhero just like Hancock. They also set up most of the back story, and enough for what needs to be told to get this movie to its credits. Both are heroes, and have been around for at least 3000 years, but they are the last of their kind. So long as they are apart, they remain immortal; when they come together, they become mortal. The female superhero forgets to tell Hancock this aspect though, and he gets shot.
The final battle scene takes place in a hospital, where the mortal villain (who may or may not have figured out that they were mortal when they were together), tries to kill both of them, and nearly gets away with it. In the end, heroes separate and regain their immortality, and Hancock decides to fight crime on the other side of the country.
I think the movie sets itself up perfectly for a sequel, since a movie had to be created to both invent the characters and begin to develop them. Once this movie hits the DVD world and percolates through the general public for a couple years, I fully expect a sequel, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this sequel will necessarily be better than the original because it's possibilities are endless. They aren't constrained by the fallacies of comic book nerdom where critics can say "it's not like the comic book" or whatever other excuse they give for when something is different. I think the critics are mad because they are so used to adaptations from comic books that they don't know a novel concept when it hits them. Good for Will Smith for seeing the potential gold mine in this one.
The movie was good, certainly not a train wreck, and was entertaining and action packed enough to forget that it was only rated PG-13. And Will Smith dropped the f-bomb, which was surprising for an under R movie, but what do I know. I would recommend seeing it, if not in the theater, at some time on DVD or HBO. At least see it before the sequel comes out, because otherwise you'll be lost.
I took a look at some other reviews (here, here, and here) and they were generally the same. I would put this above the second and third X-Men movie, and certainly above Indiana Jones 4. I liked I am Legend (sort of), but it's a different type of movie, and while it's tough to compare, this is better. If you liked Men in Black, you should like this movie.
