Lowering the Bar

Roadkill-Scavenging Soon to Be Legal in Illinois

Good news, Illinoisans Illinoisians Illinoisites people of Illinois - it may soon be legal to retrieve the carcasses of certain unfortunate mammals commonly referred to as "roadkill" and retain them for personal use (presumably eating or skinning). HB 3178, passed unanimously by the state Senate last week and sent to the governor, amends the Wildlife Code to permit this under certain conditions.

I realize things are tough out there, but still.

As you know, it is unlawful in Illinois to hunt gray fox, red fox, raccoon, weasel, mink, muskrat, badger, opossum, coyote, or striped skunk out of season; to "trap beaver with traps" except as permitted; to take bobcat or river otter at any time; or, of course, to pursue any fur-bearing mammal with a dog at night during the 10 days preceding or following raccoon season. The controversy, apparently, was whether it was legal to get these mammals if you didn't "hunt" them, but just found them dead by the side of the road. HB 3178 puts an end to that debate:

Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the taking or possessing of fur-bearing mammals found dead or unintentionally killed by a vehicle along a roadway ... provided [that] the person who possesses such fur-bearing mammals has all appropriate licenses, stamps, or permits; the season for [] the species possessed is open; and that such possession and disposal of such fur-bearing mammals is otherwise subject to the provisions of this section.

Note that the killing must have been unintentional, so you can't go create your own roadkill.

The bill was introduced by Rep. Norine Hammond. According to one report, she got the idea from a constituent who "came to her with the idea to assist the state with both roadkill and financial issues." Hammond said that due to budget issues, the state no longer had the resources to take care of the problem, and so apparently the idea is to outsource roadkill cleanup to private citizens. The law, Hammond said, will "help clean up our state at no extra cost."

At this point the report notes without comment that the state's budget shortfall is approximately $2.4 billion.

It seems entirely possible, though, that higher medical expenses stemming from a roadkill-based diet could outweigh any savings. "Anytime you have an animal product that would be meat or something," one health official said, "you've got the hazard of potential food-borne illness." (Especially with the "something.") The report reminds "roadkill takers" to always cook meat to an internal temperature of 160 degrees, after first checking their prize for "visible signs of bacteria and bugs." It also provides a handy recipe for "Pan Braised Squirrels."

"You Don't Understand Torture," Candidate Tells Torture Victim

You might want to hurry and read this story, because there may not be many more that use the phrase "presidential hopeful Rick Santorum."

In one of the dumber statements in recent memory - and that is really saying something - Santorum insisted in a radio interview that Sen. John McCain was wrong when he spoke out last week against the use of torture. That's how we got bin Laden, Santorum claimed, and for McCain to say it's unjustified or ineffective just shows he doesn't know what he's talking about. "He doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works," Santorum said. "I mean, you break somebody, and after they're broken, they become cooperative."

Listen up, McCain. Just because you were repeatedly tortured for five and a half years while you were a prisoner in North Vietnam, don't think you can lecture Rick Santorum on torture.

McCain, who has a history of taking strong, principled stands on controversial issues when he's not running for office, took this one last week in a Senate speech. "I opposed waterboarding and similar so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques' before Osama bin Laden was brought to justice, and I oppose them now," he said. "I do not believe they are necessary to our success .... Even more importantly, I believe that if America uses torture, it could someday result in the torture of American combatants" in future conventional wars, McCain argued. And "it is difficult to overstate the damage that any practice of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by Americans does to our national character and historical reputation ...."

As for whether it works, McCain not only rejected that but also said that insiders who claim torture helped get bin Laden are lying. According to the CIA - which you'd think would have a motive to argue otherwise - we got nothing we didn't already know, and not only did it "not provide us with key leads," McCain said, "it actually produced false and misleading information." That's how it worked in McCain's case, too, at least according to his memoir, evidently one of the many books Santorum hasn't read.

Or maybe he had somebody read it to him, but thinks McCain isn't telling the truth. I think it's generally agreed, though, that the prisoners were being ironic when they called it the "Hanoi Hilton," and anybody who thinks McCain wasn't mistreated should ask why he can't raise his arms over his head (hint: was denied treatment for broken arms and repeatedly beaten).

Maybe Santorum once asked everybody who opposes torture to raise their hands and thought nobody objected.

 No! Get back, Orwell!
 You're dead! Dead!

Not only does McCain know something about the topic, his speech was excellent and is worth reading, not least because for once a politician has been honest enough to use the word "torture" rather than the horrible vomit-inducing euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques." Sooner or later that phrase is going to summon George Orwell back from the grave to deal with its users, and you don't want to be standing near Rick Santorum when Zombie George Orwell shows up.

Law Blogger to Defamation Plaintiff: "Go Sh*t in a Hat" [Updated]

Eric Turkewitz at the New York Personal Injury Law Blog has come up with a new affirmative defense he says he's planning to use when he answers the complaint that another lawyer recently filed against him, and other bloggers, and the Washington Post, and the ABA Journal, and pretty much anybody else who mentioned that lawyer's conduct in a recent murder trial. (I hadn't gotten to that item yet, but maybe this will be enough to get me named in a Fourth Amended Complaint, if any.)

Eric's post is a must-read. As he also notes, someone has taken a crack at translating his new legal principle into Latin. That phrase, vade et caca in pilleum et ipse traheatur super aures tuos, is actually more precise than the English version, because it makes clear that the hat in which one's opponent is to take a dump is his own.

------------

See also Simple Justice (and a follow-up here) for more background, Defending People for a list of links to the many other posts on this issue over the last week, and Big Legal Brain for the movie version.

Man Who Stabbed His Lawyer With a Pencil Stabs His New Lawyer With a Pencil

Apparently thinking that the nation's appointed (and often heroic) defense counsel don't have enough to put up with already, a Washington man recently decided to become a literal pain in the neck for two of his attorneys. (I really couldn't improve much on the original headline of this item, to be honest.)

Last Friday, 27-year-old Joshua Monson poked his lawyer in the neck with a pencil, marking the second time that week he had poked a lawyer in the neck with a pencil. Monson, who is facing drug charges in that case (and second-degree murder charges in another one), was participating in a hearing by video when he decided to stab his own attorney with what was described as a "golf pencil." To my knowledge, inmates are not normally allowed to golf, and so I assume this was just a short, stubby, and relatively blunt pencil of the kind that you might give somebody who needed a pencil but who you are concerned might stab you with it.

There would have been good reason for concern, since Monson had stabbed his first attorney with a pencil the previous Tuesday. The report didn't say what kind of pencil that was, although thankfully neither attorney was injured to any degree. Nor did it say for sure why Monson might have taken up this habit, although the fact that a competency hearing had been scheduled for last Thursday makes that a pretty good bet. On the other hand, "[s]ome people react differently to stress," said the lawyer stabbed on Tuesday. "I think that may have been an issue with Mr. Monson." Could be.

Despite the assault, that lawyer said he would stand by his client. "I'm just going to continue with his representation," he said. "That's what I do." He didn't, though, not because he was unwilling or afraid but because of concerns that Monson would use the incident to argue "ineffective assistance" due to an "adversarial relationship" (caused by him via pencil-stabbings). The second stabbee also found other employment, possibly for the same reason. On Monday, Monson's third attorney said he would also ask for a competency examination.

Monson attended that hearing strapped to a chair.

Is America Ready for a President With a Mustache?

With Trump out of the way, maybe former Bush official John Bolton has a better shot at the presidency, should he decide to run (maybe, but almost certainly not). But is America ready yet for another presidential mustache? That's what a hilariously deadpan David Frost asked Bolton last week:

Some of that pause might be explained by the satellite delay, but not all of it. Seems fair to say he wasn't expecting that question, but it didn't take him too long to bring up Teddy Roosevelt. Well played, sir.

Trump Says He Won't Run; Nation's Comedians Mourn

Saying that "business is [his] greatest passion" and that he is "not ready to leave the private sector," Donald Trump announced today that he would not run for president in 2012.

Most likely, what he's not ready to leave is "The Apprentice," which NBC is paying him millions to host. Sources said that Trump was running out of time to decide whether he would host the show for another season, and that in recent days he has been involved in frequent phone calls with NBC executives trying to convince him to return. Supposedly, the network has sponsors lined up for the next three years provided that The Donald is there to fire people.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the whole Trump for President thing was a negotiating tactic, part of a plan to make NBC think he might just be crazy enough to leave the show and run for office. If so, this was the right time to make a decision, given that Trump's poll numbers have been plummeting recently to as little as eight percent in some polls.

But you wouldn't know that from Trump's official statement, in which he claimed it was a difficult decision "especially when my potential candidacy continues to be validated by ranking at the top of the Republican contenders in polls across the country." Even if that were true, given the current state of that field, saying you are ranked at the top of it is a little like saying Moe is the smartest Stooge. True, as far as it goes. (Trump himself appeared to diss the current group of contenders, saying that he looks forward to supporting the best-qualified candidate, "when this person emerges.")

Moe, at least, didn't seem to care where people were born, which was Trump's signature issue but which is strangely absent from today's statement. He did say that "[i]ssues, including getting tough on China ... were seldom mentioned before I brought them to the forefront of the country's conversation," which could be an allusion to the birth-certificate "issue" except that he says these issues "are now being debated vigorously," and that one isn't. The only other issue he references is "job creation," which he probably does know something about but is still an odd thing to emphasize for someone best known for firing people.

Comedians and legal-humor bloggers across the country were saddened by the announcement, but took some comfort in Trump's comments on his future plans: "I make you this promise," he said, "that I will continue to voice my opinions loudly ...." That, at least, is something we should never have doubted.

Man Gets Workers' Comp for Injury Sustained When Punching Customer

My understanding is that in the field of workers' compensation law, one must frequently determine whether an injury arose "in the course of employment." This case presented the question whether that could be true of a broken wrist suffered when punching a customer in the face, and according to a magistrate in Melbourne, Australia, the answer is yes.

Matthew Styles was the manager of a Red Rooster restaurant in Melbourne until the fateful night in 2008 when three workers failed to show up, resulting in long waits for customers. One of those customers got belligerent - alcohol was reportedly involved - and asked whether his order was going to be ready sometime "today." Mr. Styles, probably under a lot of stress, said no, it would be "tomorrow." Insults were then exchanged, and according to the report, "a struggle then ensued with a flurry of arms and both being seen to grab each other."

Styles was fired, and Red Rooster then denied his workers' comp claim. It contended he had violated its employee-behavior standards, which according to the company include some sort of rule against fighting customers. Many courts would hold that even an injury sustained while on the job may not arise "in the course of employment" if the worker was doing something outside the scope of his normal duties, and that would seem to have been the case here. But, apparently because he found the customer had been the primary aggressor in the fight, the magistrate ruled otherwise, entitling Styles to thousands in workers' comp payments.

It wasn't entirely clear who won the fight, but Styles was said to have "broke[n] his wrist after repeatedly thumping [the] customer," so I'm guessing it was him.

Trump Files $100 Million Counterclaim in "Trump University" Lawsuit

Via Overlawyered: Donald Trump has filed a $100 million counterclaim against the "Trump University" graduate who sued him over allegedly disappointing results, and this is another one of those lawsuits that you hope nobody wins.

I'm guessing that there is a one-year statute of limitations on defamation claims in that state, because this new filing comes almost exactly a year after my report on the lawsuit itself. See "Paying $60K to Attend Trump University Was a 'Big Mistake,' Plaintiff Now Realizes," Lowering the Bar (May 7, 2010). As I suggested then, while the program does not seem to have provided much value even to "Trump Gold Elite" members - who paid $34,995 for that coveted title - it is also hard to imagine what reasonable people could have expected from "Trump University."

Plaintiff concedes she was provided with free lunch during her three-day "workshop," so it wasn't a total loss, but apparently she contends that for $1,495 she should have gotten more than a sandwich. On the other side of the equation, would it really be possible to do $100 million worth of damage to Donald Trump's reputation, especially now? I guess we'll find out.

The HAZCOM Song

Those of you who work with the rules governing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's "Hazard Communication Standard" (not to be confused with the Department of Homeland Security's color-coded "Homeland Security Advisory System," which has at long last been ditched) will probably really enjoy the following music video.

Others ... still might.

Any man with the bravery to put a skull-and-crossbones sign anywhere near his wife's tuna casserole I think should at least get a hearing.

TSA Says Baby-Frisking Justified

"TSA defends frisking of baby at KC airport," reads the headline of this item, and really they had me at "TSA" but I'm glad I kept reading.

I don't know how I missed this picture, since it has apparently been tweeted thousands of times since Saturday, but as you can see it shows a TSA officer patting down a suspected terrorist baby at the airport in Kansas City. According to a TSA spokesman, who I assume drew the short straw and so had to come out and defend a baby-frisking, the screeners were just following standard procedure after the baby's stroller set off the explosives detector. And because this is the TSA and we are a nation of lunatics, standard procedure in that situation is apparently to check the baby and not the explosives detector.

Once the screener was satisfied he wasn't dealing with an IED (Infant-shaped Explosive Device), he allowed the baby and mother to travel. But a nearby citizen had already taken the picture and posted it on Twitter, thereby getting 15 minutes of fame and probably also a move right to the top of the no-fly list. 

Seriously. One of the many TSA criticisms I hadn't gotten to yet is based on the report last month that one of the "behavioral indicators" TSA uses to identify "high-risk passengers" is whether a person complains about airport security procedures. According to CNN, it obtained a list of 70 such indicators, and one of them was "Very arrogant and expresses contempt against airport passenger procedures." First of all, they aren't our procedures, they're yours. If they were ours, they wouldn't include baby-groping. More importantly, and I realize this is probably not in the training manual, we have a right to express contempt for whatever we want. So suck it.

The report describes the "hubbub" over the search of an 8-month-old as similar to that surrounding last month's story about the pat-down of a 6-year-old in New Orleans. To me a "hubbub" is what you'd get if somebody claimed they saw a Jonas Brother at the mall, but I looked it up and the definition does include a "noisy turmoil," "tumultuous assembly" or even a "riot." I'd like to see some actual tumultuous assemblies protesting the continued security nonsense, but three hundred thousand tweets is at least a step in the right direction.