Lowering the Bar

Katrina Victim Sues For Three Quadrillion Dollars

No one would question that New Orleans and thousands of its residents suffered enormous damage as a result of Hurricane Katrina.  Some people lost everything.  One person apparently lost more than everything, since he or she filed a claim against the federal government demanding over three quadrillion dollars -- $3,014,170,389,176,410, to be exact.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said it has received almost half a million claims to date as a result of Katrina, including one by the city of New Orleans that totaled $77 billion.  Two hundred and forty-six other claims (many by individuals) also exceeded $1 billion, but the $3 quadrillion claim appeared to be by far the largest.

That's good, because it's going to be difficult for the government to pay the claim as it is.  A quadrillion (1 followed by 15 zeros) is one thousand trillion.  There are only about 300 million stars in the Milky Way galaxy.  That's not just a lot of money for one person, it's about $10 for every cell in that person's body.  The entire gross domestic product of the United States was $13.2 trillion last year, so the claimant is demanding that the country's entire output of goods and services be turned over to him or her for the next 228 years and four months.  According to the article, a stack of one quadrillion pennies (and I think paying this person's award in pennies is not a bad idea) would reach to Saturn, and you would need 301 of those stacks (plus a little extra) to pay this demand.

It's a big number.  In fact, according to the expert economist contacted by the Associated Press for comment on this story, it's "the mother of all high numbers."  And now, a bulleted list of my thoughts on that comment:

• The saying "the mother of all _____" didn't make any sense to begin with.
• It was coined by noted wit Saddam Hussein, another reason to stop using it.
• It makes even less sense for numbers than it did for battles.  You can always add one to any number, so by definition there is no mother of all high numbers.
• Anyone can get their name in the paper.
• Anyone can be an economist.

"I understand the anger" that would generate such a number, continued this economist, apparently also a qualified psychologist.  "I also understand it's a negotiating tactic: Aim high and negotiate down."  I'm on the phone to the Nobel committee as we speak.  Where will you go from here, doctor?  "My new theory involves buying an item at one price, selling it at some other price, and examining the results.  If conditions are right, the seller may 'profit' from this exchange.  It's an exciting idea."

Daniel Becnel, an attorney who has filed some 60,000 claims for Katrina victims (but apparently none of the ginormous ones), said that measuring the damage Katrina caused is nearly impossible.  "There's no way you can figure it out," he said.  "The trauma these people have undergone is unlike anything that has occurred in the history of our country."  That's true.  I'm just saying that one of them has slightly overvalued his or her claim by asking for more money than has ever been generated in the history of our country.  Although some experts believe this may be just a negotiating tactic.

The Corps is apparently only collecting the claims, not evaluating them -- the federal courts get to do that.  Amanda Jones, the spokesperson for the Corps, said that they weren't passing judgment on any of the claims.  "[Each claim is] important to the person who filed it," she said, "so we're taking every single claim seriously."  Every single one.

The name of the mega-claimant was not released, but based on the zip code the claim was filed in Baker, Louisiana.  Hopefully, they have set aside some storage space for the 301.4 Saturn-high stacks of pennies that may be delivered there after the claims are processed.

Link: CBS5.com

Missouri City Council to Consider Ban on Swearing, Bar Dancing

Saying that legislation is necessary because the historic downtown area "gets a little too lively on some nights," City Councilman Richard Veit of St. Charles, Missouri (a St. Louis suburb) has proposed a measure that would ban swearing and other lively conduct in the city's drinking establishment.

That's the last thing a city needs, especially in Missouri -- a lively downtown.  I remember when Kansas City's downtown used to be just swarming with lively tumbleweeds (actually, I don't remember that, because no one ever went downtown), but I think that situation has changed recently.  As far as I know, swearing is still legal there.

In St. Charles, however, Veit says he proposed Bill 9527 in response to citizen complaints, and that its purpose is only to give police some rules to enforce in rowdy situations.  In addition to the existing prohibitions on certain conduct where alcoholic beverages are sold (hint: there are lots of things that cannot be "exposed to public view"), the bill would make it illegal to "allow any indecent, profane or obscene language, song, entertainment, literature or advertising material upon the premises."  Chapter 115.12(G) (proposed).  That seems significantly less than constitutional, since it would preclude not just swearing but everything from The Onion to Ulysses (I mention that on the off chance anyone might be reading Ulysses in a bar in Missouri).

Another new provision would make it illegal to "permit any person to dance, sit or stand upon a bar, tables, or any other raised surface that is used for preparing or serving food or beverages."  Chapter 115.12(F).  If that passes, I am immediately flying to St. Charles where I plan to lay down on every bar I can find.

Local resident Marc Rousseau, who coincidentally owns a bar, said he thinks the bill needs to at least be revised.  "We're dealing with adults here once again [either he's made this argument before or they frequently deal with adults there] and I don't think it's the city's job or the government's job to determine what we can and cannot play [or dance on] in our restaurant," Rousseau said.  Rousseau runs a place called "R.T. Weilers," which is presumably lively.

According to the "Quick Facts" section of the St. Charles website, the city's "rich heritage" includes the fact that Lewis and Clark left from there to explore the Northwest Territory.  Actually, I guess it includes two facts: (1) Lewis and Clark arrived in St. Charles in May 1804, and (2) then they left.  Clark wrote that upon arriving in St. Charles, "a number [of] Spectators flocked to the bank to See the party . . . . Chiefly French, those people appear pore, polite and harmonious."  In view of the current need for an anti-swearing ordinance, it seems that is at most fifty percent true today.

The city council will discuss the proposal at a meeting on January 14.

Link: AP via FindLaw.com
Link: City of St. Charles

Take the Workplace Harassment Quiz

Recently I viewed an online training seminar (as I have pledged to kill the next person who uses the word "webinar," I won't use that word) designed to help attorneys recognize, avoid and/or deal with harassment situations in the workplace.  The seminar discusses the law and then offers some sample scenarios for users to evaluate.  Here are some of the pictures used in those scenarios, along with the caption used for each in the seminar.

See if you can guess which of these pictures depicted potential harassment situations that should be dealt with immediately if they took place at your firm.  Answers are provided below.

______

Workplace Scenario: "The Interview"


______

Workplace Scenario: "Animal House"


______

Workplace Scenario: "Teasing"


______

Workplace Scenario: "Pix on the Cellphone"


______

Workplace Scenario: "The Working Lunch"

Hint: yes, this is the same guy from "Teasing."
______

Workplace Scenario: "The E-Mail"

______

Time's up!

If you did not answer, "all of the above depict potential harassment situations about which I should be very concerned," you are fired.

Appellate Court Agrees that Written Request to "Kiss My Ass" is Contempt of Court

In an entirely unsurprising decision handed down last month, the South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that indeed it does constitute contempt of court for one to send a written document to a trial judge requesting that the judge kiss one's ass.

According to the report, Judith Law, a woman in St. Matthews, South Carolina, was required to sign a judge's order revoking her probation, to which she had been sentenced after pleading guilty to burglary charges in 2003.  She admitted violating her probation and so the five-year sentence was reinstated.  Presented with the order and having to sign to show she had received it, Law did sign but also added her own flourish, namely a request that her buttocks be osculated by its author, Circuit Judge Diane Goodstein.  Although typically such a document would not be returned to the judge personally, Law allegedly asked the probation officer to do so.

Goodstein declined Law's invitation, and instead found her in contempt of court.  Law challenged that ruling, saying the conduct had not occurred in court and took place outside the judge's presence.  Appeal denied.  "No matter where Law signed the revocation order," the court wrote, "her conduct was in the presence of the judge" for purposes of contempt.  The ruling affirms Judge Goodstein's penalty of an extra 90 days in jail for Law.

This is at least the second decision to find the phrase "kiss my ass" inappropriate when directed at a judge.  The 1996 decision of Washington v. Alaimo, finding sanctions appropriate in part because of Mr. Washington's filing of a "Motion to Kiss My Ass" (also denied), is already part of Lowering the Bar's Case Law Hall of Fame.

Link: CBS News