attorneybutler.net

PICTURES OF DETROIT--BEEN QUITE A WHILE

It has been quite some time since I ran this feature.  That is too bad, as there are many interesting, beautiful, haunting images in the city of Detroit.

The statue honoring Civil War General Alpheus Starkey Williams, was unveiled in 1921.  I think it is about dead center of Belle Isle.  As far as I know, it is the only statue honoring a specific soldier in the city.  I'd love to find out if there are others.

The inscription reads:

 

 

    Major General Alpheus Starkey Williams. 1810-1878. Hero of two wars. Judge. Editor. Postmaster. Diplomat. Member of Congress. An untiring servant of the people. An honor to the City of Detroit. The Michigan Commandery of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States and citizens of Detroit have erected this tribute to the valor and abilities of Alpheus S. Williams, Lieut-Colonel, First Michigan Infantry Volunteers in the War with Mexico. Brig.-General and Brevet Maj. General United States Volunteers in the Civil War.

 

 

 

 

I love this photo, taken from Detroit Pix, a wonderful site, which, it appears has not been attended to in about three and a half years.  I have tried contacting the owner, Greg Kacir, on several occasions, without success.

The image of a hero, taken in the gray of winter, watching over Detroit, brings to mind many possible  metaphors, which I will leave to the readers. 

 

CHEAP TRICKS-POLITICAL

I am beginning to learn how to use Facebook, an endeavor that had, originally, nothing to do with this blog.  To make a story I still really don't understand short, people can become your friends, if you ask them, or if they ask you.  You can become fans of certain people, though not friends, through fan pages.  You can also join groups representing particular organizations or issues.

In order to broaden my perspective I have joined several groups, Republican and Democrat alike.  I have sent friend requests to several folks on the Michigan political and judicial scene.  Facebook even sends you friend "suggestions" for folks who haven't formally asked you to be their Facebook friends.  Imagine my surprise, about 10 days ago, when one of the first of such requests was none other than Dan Pero, of American Courthouse and American Justice Partnership fame.  Considering all the shots I have taken at him, John Engler (founder of the AJP), and Cliff Taylor, former Michigan Supreme Court Justice (Dan's wife was his campaign manager in the recent election), I was mystified by the suggestion.  I sent Dan a private message as well as a friend request, and he and I are now Facebook "friends", which I think is something of a tribute to his broadmindedness.

Some friend reqests have not been acknowledged.  Interestingly it seems that the staff of the Michigan Association for Justice, a lawyers' organization to which I belong, does not like me very much.  I have some theories on this which I may expand on some time.

My friend request to Saul Anuzis, former Michigan Republican Party Chairman is still "pending", but some of the stuff he posts is still sent to my Facebook "wall". 

This is all prelude to the point of this piece, as set out in the title.  Earlier this week, Mr. Anuzis posted this photo,

 

of President Obama on his vacation.  His caption:  "The world is on the brink.  I hope he enjoys is (typo is Saul's, not mine.) golf.

Now isn't that a political joke worthy of the chairman of the state's Republican Party.  Maybe next week he can find a picture of the President eating, and run this caption:  "People are starving in the Sudan.  Bon Apetit."

Now state Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer (friend request still pending), has not proven much more sophisticated.  On this site I have expressed my opinion regarding a couple of complaints filed by the Democratic Party against Cliff Taylor during the last election for an imagined violation of state  election regulations (putting a required restriction in the wrong place, allegedly, on a piece of solicitation literature).  He also filed a complaint alleging misuse of state property for personal use.  I think it was about sending out a single, arguably personal email on his state email account.  Oh, the Humanities.

Cheap crap like this belongs, if anywhere, in an elementary schoolyard, not coming from some of the highest ranking officials of our state's two major political parties.

C'mon fellas, lets get down to solving the real problems of this state.

By the way, Saul and Mark, how are you guys doing in "Mafia Wars"?

A FEW RANDOM THOUGHTS

Does it say something about how we have come to govern ourselves that the US Constitution, a document that, over 220 years, has guided our Republic from 13 states to 50, has seen us progress from sailing ships to space shuttles and quill pens to Blackberries, is only half as long as that foundational pillar of our democracy, the hilariously named "Federal Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995"?  Certainly gives textualist judges a lot of text to textualize.

Speaking of textualism, I'd find the doctrine a little more appealing if, among the list of dictionaries consulted in trying to define words in a way to match their desired result, textualist judges included Cab Calloway's Hepster's Dictionary.  Cab is the greatest.  Here is a link to a very poor resolution clip of a number called Hepster's Dictionary from the movie Sensations of 1945.  Hi-De-Ho.

It is interesting to note that how the remaining members of the former textualist majority of the Michigan Supreme Court now seek to worship at the altar of stare decisis, in an effort to preserve the results of its alteration, desecration and annihilation of the right to civil jury trial embodied in our Constitution and Michigan decisions over many generations.  Over the past 15 years the only phrases appearing in Michigan Supreme Court opinions more often than "wrongly decided", were "open and obvious", and "no serious impairment".  Judicial activism, it seems, is always what is perpetrated by the other fellow (judge).

While partisan zealotry seems to divide us and prevent us from solving our many real problems, there does seem to be one common trait that unites all politicians.  Over the past two years they have all been called Nazis.  I am not a fan of Rep. Barney Frank, by any means, but I found this clip very entertaining.  When I heard the young lady at the podium mention LaRouche, I did wonder if, after leaving the Town Hall meeting, she was going somewhere to await the arrival of the Hale-Bopp Comet.

 

KAYE TERTZAG MEMORIAL PARK DEDICATION

On Saturday, August 22, 2009, family and friends of the late Judge Kaye Tertzag, along with local dignitaries gathered at the former Panhandle Park in Allen Park, Michigan  for its re-dedication and renaming as the Kaye Tertzag Memorial Park.

A long time resident of Allen Park, Judge Tertzag served as city attorney for the cities of Melvindale and River Rouge, before his appointment to the Wayne County Circuit bench.  More about Judge Tertzag can be found here .

Plans are underway for the first annual Kaye Tertzag "Purple Sportcoat Award" banquet to be held in early 2010.  Anyone interested in further details can contact me through this site.  Further details will appear here, as well as in other local media.

 Members of Judge Tertzag's family, including his wife Kathy, son Kyle and daughter Kara at the park dedication.

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ROBERT YOUNG: DOING GOOD IS NOT JUDGES' ROLE

Back in May of 2009, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young appeared at the Muskegon County Bar Association's annual Law Day luncheon.  The theme of the program was:  "A Legacy of Liberty: Celebrating Lincoln's Bicentennial."

Justice Young spoke about the US Supreme Court's decision in the 1857 case of Scott v Sanford, what has since become known as the Dred Scott Decision.  Justice Young referred to the decision, not in a complimentary manner as declaring  "that an entire race of people was not entitled to citizenship."  He called the case a "thoroughly rogue" decision, that established a Constitutional right to own slaves.

A May 2, 2009 Muskegon Chronicle article by John S. Hausman included these quotes from Justice Young: 

"It is so obviously aimed at creating a right that is not mentioned in the Constitution," Young said. "The Dred Scott majority acted as a partisan for its own team, the slaveholders."

Not content with taking the easy shot at a 150 year old pro-slavery case, Justice Young would draw comparisons, based on the Scott decision,with all the alleged "judicial activists" he detests.  To quote from the Hausman article:

"Too often, Young said, courts today do the same thing in the interest of what they believe to be 'good': setting government policy by finding previously undiscovered rights in the Constitution.

"Courts have no constitutional authority to make up rules as they go along ... substituting their own judgment for that of the general public," Young said.  'The role of judges is not to 'do good.' It is to do justice under law.'"

I don't think Justice Young, the textualist, the advocate of judicial restraint, was being totally honest with his Muskegon audience.  He wants us to believe that the US Supreme Court, if it had followed his judicial philosophy, would have struck down slavery before 1865, as not being a right specified in the US Constitution. Would have saved a lot of bloodshed between 1861 and 1865.  The ghosts of all those antebellum US Supreme Court Justices must just be kicking themselves in the hereafter.

"GENUINELY FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS ARE RARE"--MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE STEPHEN MARKMAN

While I endure one of the most hectic litigation weeks in recent memory, what better way to pass my extremely limited free time than to complete a two-plus hour slog through the Michigan Supreme Court's opinion in the case of Peterson v Magna Corp, issued July 31, 2009.  I even read all the footnotes of all the opinions.  This is an extremely important opinion for what is says about statutory interpretation, stare decisis, textualism and other such light reading topics.  God knows how many pages the opinion will take up in the hard cover copy of the the Michigan Supreme Court Reports when it does come out.  I am guessing triple digits, easy.

I will get into some of the highlights in later posts, but just for fun, I'd like to pull out the quote from Justice Markman's dissent for all you folks out there in the ether.

The exact quote is, "...other than genuinely frivolous lawsuits, which are both rare and sanctionable."

Tort reformers take note.  Heresy on two counts.  Frivolous lawsuits are both low in number, and the bringers thereof can be punished, apparently, with weaponry currently on the books.

Accurate quote--yes.  Little to do with the main point of the opinion-certainly.  Fun for me--unquestionably.

Pulling this quote out might be doing a bit of a disservice to Justice Markman, who obviously put in a lot of effort on his dissent.  However, after three attempts trying to ascertain the plain meaning of Section D of the dissent:  Logic of Ambiguity Rule, I would say I am entitled to poke a little fun.  Certainly my failure to fully understand that passage is due solely to my shortcomings in reading comprehension.  Or in my failure to appreciate what may be an attempt at droll humor.

Reading Justice Markman's dissent I was reminded of the writing style of Ann Coulter, whose 2002 book, Slander, I listened to in my car while doing the tour of most of the state's Circuit Courts this week.  I somehow think that Justice Markman would not feel insulted by the comparison.

More of Peterson in the near future.

A COUPLE OF ARTICLES ON THE MICHIGAN INSURANCE REFORM BILLS

Following up on the two posts already done on the subject of the package of insurance reform bills now pending in the Michigan Legislature (here, and here), I thought I'd provide links to a couple of articles, one pro, on con, that have recently been run in the Detroit Free Press.

The first one, pro, was written by Rep. Sarah Roberts, one of the bill package sponsors, appeared in the July 30, 2009 Commentary page.  The piece is called:  "Fighting unfair insurance denials".  She refers again to claims by former adjuster Jo Anne Katzman that, "employees who regularly delayed or denied claims were awarded with promotions and rewards – creating a culture more concerned with boosting profits then honoring contract with policy holders."

That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I am persuaded that the insurance industry, like most, if not all others, looks kindly on, and rewards, employees who increase the company's profits.  And I am sure, insurance companies, like all others, look for ways to increase profits and reduce costs.  Cost, in this instance, though, is not the price of steel--it is the payment of the benefits the customer has paid the company to provide.  It is natural, then, that, insurance companies would seek legitimate methods to reduce benefit payouts.  And perhaps some not quite so legitimate, like the "Evaluation" clinics to which the insurance companies send their customers, fairly secure in the knowledge that the "independent" doctors they choose to do the evaluations will return a report to the insurance company with the opinion that the insured's benefits should be terminated.  If such opinions are not forthcoming with the required opinions, that doctor will soon find that he/she is not asked to perform any more "independent" evaluations by that insurance company.

The insurance industry has never, in my memory, acknowledged the unique, and often adversarial relationship insurance companies have with their own customers.  They sell a product that the customers hope they never need, and the insurance companies hope they never use.  It is in the insurance company's financial interest that its customers don't use the products they buy.  Purchase a new barbecue grill, and the company hopes you cook out every night.  Buy an insurance policy, and the seller hopes never to see you again--except when the renewal check is due.

MICHIGAN LAWYERS WEEKLY ARTICLE ON MICHIGAN INSURANCE REFORM BILL

I had previously written a piece about the package of insurance reform bills now being considered by the Michigan House.

On August 10, 2009, an article about the 12 Bill package, written by Carol Lundberg appeared in Michigan Lawyers Weekly.  Ms. Lundberg is a staff writer for the paper.

While the article is entitled:  Gone too far? Industry lawyers cry foul, say Michigan bills penalize insurers,  Ms. Lundberg talked to a lot of folks on all sides of the issue, including two plaintiff lawyers, two defense lawyers, one of the bill's sponsors and a rep. of the Insurance Institute of Michigan.  A quote from the article:

"Pete Kuhnmuench, executive director of Insurance Institute of Michigan, admits that the insurance industry should talk seriously about increasing fines for insurers who violate the current laws. He said the range of fines -- $500 to $5,000 -- is not sufficient. But the bills go too far in penalizing insurers."

Personally, I felt the article was a fairly straightforward, even-handed attempt to show both sides of the issue.  The wording of the first sentence might have been a little better, but that is a small criticism.

I did not see the article when it first came out.  My attention was drawn to it by a message I received describing the article as "biased" and "skewed", and "agenda driven advocacy", rather than journalism.  The bias referred to was not a pro-reform bias.

I read the article and could not agree.  The Kuhnmuench reference above, for instance, does not sound like pro-insurance advocacy to me. 

I would suggest taking a look at Ms. Lundberg's article.  I think it let's both sides have their innings.  I wonder if there were folks on the insurance side who thought her article was too pro-reform.  Maybe that would be the best tribute to the article's fairness; attacks from all sides.

I don't necessarily believe that those who may disagree with me politically on a particular issue devour their young and conduct human sacrifices by the light of the full moon.  Not all of them, anyway.  Being fair does not require that you agree with me, genius though I may be.  Coherent debate is encouraged.  Partisan zealotry not required.   So much for a career in politics for Attorneybutler, I am afraid.

NOT IN MY BACKYARD-HYPOCRITES OF TORT REFORM

Not in My Backyard-Hypocrites of Tort Reform is the title of a December, 2000 White Paper written by Emily Gottlieb, Deputy Director for the Center for Justice and Democracy.

An excellent piece of some 16 pages, it has a pretty extensive list of examples (there have been lots more since--Robert Bork, Rudy Giuliani's son, etc.) of leading tort reform advocates who have run to court when they have felt aggrieved.

These folks are happy to push legislation that closes the courthouse doors to everyone--else.  There is to be a set of rules that applies to the peasants, and a different set that applies to the select few that want to make the rules for everyone else.  The Chamber of Commerce never points out these folks and their claims in their news releases about frivolous lawsuits.  Robert Bork will not get a Stella Award for his suit against the Yale Club, which asked for punitive damages in a state that didn't allow them.

You see, rules only are to apply to the little guy, the guy who can't fight for himself most times, and doesn't have access to the power and influence to make the rules, break the rules, and more often than not, make the little guy pay if the big guys screw up.

Here are a few examples of tort reformers hypocrisy:

Florida State Representative Art Argenio

Republican Representative Art Argenio in Florida has been one of the state’s most outspoken supporters of restricting the rights of injured Floridians to go to court, calling himself “a leader” in this movement. But in 1993, when Argenio was injured by a driver who hit him as he jogged along the street, what did he do? He sued the driver, of course. Moreover, campaign literature distributed by Argenio’s opponent noted that he filed suit even though his insurance company had paid all his medical bills. Argenio, it seems, wanted more money to compensate him for what he said were “severe and permanent injuries” — i.e., non economic damages, the kind of injuries “tort reform” proponents continuously rail against. The case ultimately settled. The compensation he received must have helped him recover. Three years after the accident, Argenio ran in a marathon.

Interesting to wonder what would have happened to Rep. Argenio's case in Michigan under Kreiner v Fischer.

POINT/COUNTERPOINT-TORT REFORM

I recently read the book,Point/Counterpoint-Tort Reform by Michigan lawyer Paul Ruschmann. 

Mr. Ruschman has written 13 books in the Point/Counterpoint series.  In addition to Tort Reform, topics include legalizing marijuana, mandatory military service, the war on terror, regulating indecency, media bias, private property rights, and global warming.

These books are directed at an audience consisting primarily of high school and college debating classes/teams, where the student's position on any of these issues will probably be determined by the flip of a coin.  It is necessary, therefore, that Mr. Ruschmann set out the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of every issue covered in a Point/Counterpoint book.

It is a pity that an impartial analysis of the tort reform issue is to be found only in a book of this kind.  Throw in partisan zealotry, demonization of the opposition, and a fair amount of greed, and reasoned debate and progress towards the resolution of the genuine issues of tort law will be reserved exclusively to classroom competitions.

The book was informative, even to an old warhorse like me.  I did note however, that Michigan citizens already enjoy many of the tort reforms discussed in the book:  damage caps, loser pays sanctions, abolition of joint liability, to name but a few.  Of course, no amount of tort reform is ever enough for some, so the cries for ever more restrictions, if not the abolition of the right to civil trial by jury continues.

Mr. Ruschmann has his own website, http://www.paulruschmann.com/.