Social Networking Liability

Social networking sites are the latest fad. Occasionally, we read about someone getting fired for blogging from or about work, and recently we all read about the Chicago tenant who is being sued by her former landlord for tweeting about the premises being "moldy". But most people think, "that's a one in a million thing - nobody really gets in trouble for twittering, or facebooking, or even really for blogging."

I guess it depends on what you mean by "nobody". According to "OMG: Why Social Media Can Make A Lawyer Nervous", "a survey this year shows that 8 percent of the 220 companies surveyed had fired an employee for on-the-job activity on social media sites." That's 18 out of 220 companies. Personally, I wouldn't call that a really small number, and that fact that it is growing steadily year after year should also be of concern.

I recommend reading the linked article. And before sending that tweet making that oh-so-amusingly wry observation about your boss, or posting that camera phone pic of you and your buddies abusing the copier or bathing in the sink after hours, you might want to repeat that admonition made famous by the remake of "The Fly": "Be afraid. Be very afraid." Read More......

Tech Support Flow Charg

Have you ever suspected that the tech support drone on the other end of the phone really has no clue about your problem and is just randomly looking up stuff on the Internet?

Wonder no more.

Read More......

How to lose customers

I had a lesson from AT&T today in what really bad marketing looks like, aka "how to drive away a customer". This was somewhat ironic as I had just read "Is AT&T losing its grip on the iPhone?" The article suggests that Apple is likely to ditch AT&T as the exclusive iPhone carrier, and that if they do, AT&T is going to suffer because a whopping huge number of customers don't like them. My own experience with them has been spotty, but this one was ... well, someone in marketing needs to be fired. Really. Maybe it's not marketing, in which case whoever is responsible should be fired. But they should still fire someone in marketing just because.

Here's what happened. On Saturday, I drove up to Whistler, BC for a friend's wedding. I came back on Sunday afternoon. I made only 2 calls and did nothing unusual with my data plan. I checked email, didn't send any, looked at facebook and posted one short update, and looked at Twittelator. That was about it.

Today, I got 2 back to back texts from AT&T. The first puzzling thing was that they claimed I had a "high data usage" while abroad and that I should call AT&T to avoid service interruption.

Huh? Service interruption? WTF?

The messages gave me a phone number in the 916 area code, saying it was a "free" call. That area code is in California, hardly local and not generally free. I suspected a phishing scam, and was concerned that whoever the sender was knew that I'd been out of the US.

I called 611. That's the actual number to call from my cell to get AT&T service. The wait wasn't long and I spoke with a customer service fellow. I told him about the texts. He was a nice enough chap, but not the brightest bulb in the chandelier so he just kept insisting that 916 calls are free because that's where AT&T's service center is.

Now, exactly how is a customer supposed to know this? In the past, I've gotten texts advising to call an 800 number, or even to dial 611, but I've never been asked to call a non-local number "for free". This was obviously not this poor guy's decision, so I let it drop after he had confirmed that yes, that's an AT&T number and they don't charge for it. So, not phishing. Good news.

I told him about the content of the text messages and he "researched" my account. He then said, "Oh, yes, you don't have an international data plan so you have 15MB usage while in Canada."

Okaaaaayyyy ... so?

He paused expectantly, so I had to ask him what that meant. He said that I had a nearly $350.00 charge for that usage. He paused again, as if that explained everything.

Again, WTF? (still in my head, but louder this time).

I told him that was an absurd amount to charge for ordinary data usage. It is multiples more than what I get charged for much greater usage in the US. He said, "Well, they charge more for international usage."

I told him that if AT&T planned to bill me that amount, I would drop them as my carrier. He repeated placidly that I don't have an international data plan and they charge more for international usage.

Yes, I heard that the first time. We beat around that bush about 3 more times. I was ready to hang up, resign myself to the extortion, and start looking for a new carrier. Then he said, as an afterthought, "We could add the plan for you and you would only pay $25.00."

Have I mentioned WTF?

I only said the first word of that. "What..", I said?

He repeated himself without adding any new information. I asked him to explain what he was talking about. I had to ask a careful series of specific questions, but he eventually revealed that he could add the international data plan to my account so that I would only pay $25.00 rather that $350, and that if I don't travel a lot, he could make the international data plan expire on 9/6 - in one week.

So basically, he was saying that they're not going to charge me $350, they're going to charge me $25. But it took him 10 minutes of pissing off the customer to get to that point.

This all begs the question of why he didn't just say up front, "It looks like you've got a $350 charge on here for international data usage. Most customers don't know about that usage increase when they cross the border, so we have this nifty plan that saves you $325. Would you like me to add that to your calling plan?"

Or better yet, they could have teed that up clearly in the text message they sent.

I hope that Apple does ditch AT&T. I'll be part of the exodus if they do. Read More......

Life+20 Explained

The Maryland courts demystify those perplexing "longer than life" sentences. In this case, the court imposed a sentence of life in prison, then suspended 15 years. The prosecutor was baffled. He asked, "How does that work?" The trial judge said, "That's up to the Parole Board, not me."

The court of appeals found that while "mere judges" cannot hope to understand the complexities of advanced early release math, expecting the Parole Board to nail down an individual's life expectancy, and release him 15 years before he dies, just doesn't work.

The court of appeals made the effort to go beyond simply explaining the dry issues of "indefinite sentencing". It is good to have such a clear and succinct case telling us that "life + 20" does not mean that the prison has to keep the body for 20 years after the inmate dies, and that multiple life sentences do not rely on reincarnation.

There is, of course, much validity to the State's observation that the language of sentencing is impressionistic at best and cannot realistically be expected to be otherwise. The abacus of industrial time and good behavior time, manipulated so adroitly by correction and parole authorities, is something largely beyond the ken of mere judges. The special language of life imprisonment, moreover, has unique semantic hazards of its own. Any sentence of more than life is but a symbol by which the judge tries to communicate to the parole authorities, should the parole authorities care to know, that the judge thinks that parole should be used sparingly. A sentence of life plus twenty years does not suggest that the warden may not release the body to the undertaker until twenty years after the prisoner's death. Consecutive life sentences do not contemplate reincarnation. Much of what a judge says about life imprisonment is more the language of poetry than the language of mathematics.

Ball v. State, 470 A.2d 361 (1984) Read More......

Contempt

Attorneys and others who end up in court for one reason or another are always wondering at some level what "contempt of court" means. Some examples are obvious. Yelling invective at the judge will do it for you. Reporters all know that refusing to answer a question when ordered to do so by the judge will land you in jail on a contempt charge. But what about more subtle things, like farting in court?

Will just one gas attack do it? What if it's SAD, the well-known acronym for "Silent And Deadly"?

Thanks to Joe Francis, the producer of the inexplicably successful "Girls Gone Wild" video series, we now know the answer to those burning questions. Or at least, some of them. I can't say it better than this excerpt from a motion urging the court to find him in contempt.

As the court will see from reviewing the video clips of Francis’ deposition, his utter contempt for the judicial system is apparent, including his repeated attempts to disrupt the deposition with flatulence,” the lawyers wrote.

"Disrupt the deposition with flautulence"? Now that's a quote for the ages. You can bet that somehow, somewhere, somewhen, that phrase will leave my mouth in some formal setting. Perhaps a deposition. Or a trial! I can hardly wait!

Francis's contempt for the court and judicial proceedings goes far beyond just flatulent protest. You can read about more of his antics at the Las Vegas Sun. Suffice it to say that his antics will cost him several million dollars at last count - and he is also looking at a stint in the county facilities.

Again. Because this isn't the first time Francis has been in trouble. And it doubtless won't be the last. Read More......

Date My Avatar

This comes to us courtesy of The Guild, the howlingly funny send up of on-line gaming starring Felicia Day.

Read More......

Deflating Judge

Judge Robert Nalley, a Maryland Circuit Court judge, had had enough of budget, planning, personnel and other management responsibilities. He wanted to be back in the trenches, doing something meaningful for the noble cause of Justice.

So when opportunity knocked, he answered. One fine day he saw a scofflaw parked in a no parking zone outside the courthouse. HIS courthouse. Courageously taking matters into his own hands, and without even calling for backup, the judge - or perhaps I should say the erstwhile judge (I try to get "erstwhile" into a post at least once a year) - freed the imprisoned air that was trapped in the scofflaw's tires. I can imagine him wafting it away, muttering "Fly! Fly away and be free!"

It is unknown whether Nalley thought that he was liberating the air unseen, but what we do know is that the air's owner, upon returning to the car, called the police to let them know that SOMEONE had flattened her tires. The Sheriff's office investigated and found witnesses, including one who had a cell phone video.

Judge Nalley submitted his resignation yesterday as chief court administrative judge. Or it could have been today. Hard to tell from the article. His resignation letter doesn't say anything about his annoyance about scofflaws parking in no parking zones. His reason is that he is tired of administration and wants to be back in the trenches.

It is important to note that he isn't resigning as judge, just as the chief administrative judge. He will remain a judge, presumably so that he can take the occasional foray into the those trenches he loves so much, and free more air from the nasty people imprisoning it those hot, musty tires. It is comforting to know that even when the police won't ticket parking scofflaws, the intrepid judge is out there, prowling along on his rounds, keeping a wary eye out.

No word yet on whether criminal charges are pending, or whether the air's original owner, a court house staffer, is planning to sue him. The other shoe is on its way down, to be sure. Where will it drop? Stay tuned!

Source: Washington Post Read More......

Kitty Porn

The mind boggles.

Cat Blamed For Pornography Read More......

Angelus vs. Cullen

Okay vampire fans, who wins the bout of the epoch, Angelus vs. Cullen? Joss Whedon weighs in and I gotta say I agree with him. That fight wouldn't last a single round and it wouldn't be a TKO, either. Read More......

When is a cow a car?

According to the Ohio Court of Appeals, the answer is never. It seems that one fine day, Bill and Wendy Mayor were driving along I-76 in Ohio when they hit a cow. The cow was owned by Tom Wedding, who had evidently failed to take out a liability insurance policy on it. So naturally, the Mayors made an uninsured motorist (aka "UIM") claim, which their insurance company declined.

The reason? A cow is not a motor vehicle and the policy only applies to motor vehicles. The Mayors appealed this, arguing that the cow is, in fact, a car. It would be amusing to see the briefing on that point, but alas, I don't have access to that.

The Court of Appeals decision is mostly several pages of statements about the rules to be applied to analyzing thorny issues of this sort. After all, we wouldn't want anyone to think that the court had made any logical missteps in reaching the conclusion that cow is not a car.

For the court, the key point was that the cow doesn't have wheels. It is worth noting that the court was careful not to overgeneralize the point with any broader statement, such as "cows don't have wheels". It cautiously said, "there is no indication in the record that this particular cow had wheels." Clearly, if the record showed that someone had affixed wheels to the cow, the court might have reached a different result. Fortunately, there was precedent where another court had previously that a horse was not a "motor vehicle". I haven't read that case, but I wonder whether it discussed the important point that horses emit methane, a dangerous greenhouse gas, just as cars do. Possibly, the court also noticed the lack of wheels.

The case can be found as a PDF here. After the court finishes setting out the applicable rules for analysis, the actual analysis takes only two paragraphs:

{¶34} There appears to be no dispute that there was a collision; the cow was not insured at the time of the collision; and that the cow caused the collision. The dispute in this case is whether the cow was a "land motor vehicle" as defined in the policy. While a cow is designed for operation on land, we do not believe a cow is a "motor vehicle." The policy at issue does not separately define "motor vehicle;" therefore we must look to the common, ordinary meaning of this term.

{¶35} The American Heritage Dictionary defines "motor vehicle" as, "a self-propelled, wheeled conveyance that does not run on rails." (citation omitted). A cow is self-propelled, does not run on rails, and could be used as a conveyance; however, there is no indication in the record that this particular cow had wheels. Therefore, it was not a motor vehicle and thus was not a "land motor vehicle" as defined in the policy. The trial court properly found that appellants were not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage. See State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cleveland Carriage Co. (1984), 98 Ohio App.3d 361 (finding that a horse was not a motor vehicle for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage;) Wilbur v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Nov. 29, 1991), 11th Dist. No. 90-G-1600, 1991 WL 252851 (finding that a horse and buggy was not a motor vehicle for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage.) To hold otherwise would be a manifestly absurd result. King, supra at 213.

Read More......

Obama Indicted!

Yes, it's true. On June 24th President Obama was indicted by a Super American Grand Jury and charged with treason. (Or was it Super Anti-American Treason? It's hard to keep track.) The indictment was dutifully filed in the nearest US District Court, which just happened to be US District Court for the District of Columbia, where it was promptly dismissed. Yes, yes, I know it's redundant to have a District Court for the District, but after all, we are talking about the nation's capitol, home of the Department of Redundancy Department.

But back to the presidential indictment. The treason charge was based on the claim that Obama is not a US citizen - a requirement for his current job. Turns out that the Super American Grand Jury was a bunch of good ol' boys who apparently were not aware that the courts have already dismissed similar complaints as bogus.

It's too hot hereabouts for me to mock this, which is a shame because it's howlingly funny and distinctly mock-worthy. I refer you all to the entertaining AND accurate treatment offered this topic over at Lowering the Bar.

The conspiracy theorists will no doubt be having a grand old time with this one: "Hawaii Officially Confirms Obama Citizenship". Read More......