New York Injury Attorney Blog

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Michael Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations, Inc. et. al.

The Savage Nation is Dr. Michael Savage. The Bronx-born broadcaster has one of the most popular radio talk shows in the country. His brand of libertarianism and conservatism are dished up in flaming doses of Truth-Gone-Wild. Some would call his advocacy the scorched-earth approach; others would say he wields facts like a bludgeon without regard to consequences or sensibilities. Whatever your view, he is no wallflower and no stranger to controversy. He infuriates, elucidates and inundates all at once.

After railing against Islamic extremism, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and certain aspects of the Koran, efforts were made by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to boycott his show and have him removed from the air. Moreover, CAIR aired excerpts from Savage Nation broadcasts on its website to rally opposition to his program. Savage would have none of it. He filed suit against CARE for racketeering and for copyright infringement.

Unfortunately for the good doctor, “fair use” allows critics to appropriate portions of his speech to make their point. Such use is not copyright infringement. As for Savage’s racketeering claim—that CAIR is not a civil rights group at all, but a political organization and front for terrorist groups—the court found the pleadings insufficient to support the claim and dismissed with leave for Savage to re-plead and try again.

Has CAIR been unfairly maligned? Has Savage? Has a raw nerve been struck? Or is it Truth that’s taking a beating? When it comes to debates involving terrorism, free speech, talk radio, Islam and the right to criticize, Truth is the first victim. Truth is always the first victim in important debates, whether they’re about abortion, global warming or the war on terror. Thankfully, Truth is also the last thing standing when all is said and done and the fog of battle lifts.

Savage battles over Truth are good for the nation. They draw us into the controversy, make us examine the facts and choose sides by reaching our own conclusions. That’s the privilege and responsibility of citizens who live in a free society. That, and serving jury duty.

And that’s the Truth.

11/17/08 Addendum: CAIR sued Savage for nearly $200,000 in legal fees after this action was dismissed. The court determined that while Savage’s claim was initially defective, the allegations he made about CAIR were not frivolous. So for CAIR, "No soup for you!" And no legal fees.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Culture War , Religion , Speech , Terrorism , U.S. District Court , War on Terror

Bookmark:

New York Supreme Court: Smith v. Walsh-Smith

It's a brave new world and YouTube is at the cutting edge. From the same computer you download directions or songs for your iPod, you can upload and stream videos to a worldwide audience. Now that's power! And possible trouble. Tricia Walsh-Smith is a case in point.

Tricia married Philip Smith, a man 25 years her senior. Philip started out as a theater usher and ended up president of the Shubert Organization, "the largest theater owner and operator in the United States." Notwithstanding his success, Mr. Smith is a very private man. Apparently, Mrs. Walsh-Smith had issues about the terms of their prenuptial agreement and about her husband's unwillingness to invest $250,000 in her theatrical production. Without his money, the show would not go on. These issues ripened into heated arguments, flying crockery and threats by the missus to malign Mr. Smith in the New York Post. True to her word, the Post got the dirt on Mr. S. As a result, he filed for divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment.

She sued him back. She also availed herself to some self-help. Not satisfied that she was mustering the necessary leverage to obtain a favorable outcome or an out-of-court settlement to her liking, the angry wife took her beef to the internet. Having come to appreciate the value of a good production, she brought a film crew into the marital apartment, added music and subtitles, and trashed her husband on video. She then posted it on YouTube, which turned out to be her big break. The video was an "overnight sensation" and has been viewed more than three million times.

Fame has its cost, however. It is no easy task to prove cruel and inhuman treatment in divorce court, but Mrs. Walsh-Smith's internet histrionics gave Mr. Smith all the proof he needed. As the court stated, "He has been publically humiliated and embarrassed to an unprecedented extent." Mrs. Walsh-Smith claimed "she had no other option" because of her finances. The judge was not moved, noting that other spouses have been similarly challenged without resorting to the internet, and concluded that "it is hard to say defendant had no other choice when no one else before her had ever exercised that choice." Accordingly, the court granted Mr. Smith his divorce. As for Mrs. Smith, she might have gone where no woman has gone before, but she owes YouTube the credit for the outcome in her divorce.

YouTube is power: Become famous (or infamous) overnight. Jump start a career. Or attack your enemies (or your spouse) on a global scale from the convenience of your home. It might seem like a handy tool to advance your interests, but we are learning it comes with responsibilities. You can't use the internet as a weapon to humiliate or embarrass people with impunity. (In an unrelated but similar case, a Florida judge required two teens who had thrown a large drink at the drive-thru cashier—an activity its purveyors call "fire in the hole"—to post a groveling apology on YouTube after they first posted their own home-made video of their mean-spirited carbonated assault.) We'll see what new and inspiring or insipid ways the internet will be used tomorrow, and just how creative the courts will have to become to deal with it.

Until then, post at your own risk.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brave New World , Damages , New York State Courts , Speech , The Internet

Bookmark:

Wisconsin Supreme Court: State of Wisconsin v. Grunke et. al.

We live in strange times. Really strange times.

These are the undisputed facts: “Nicholas Grunke sought and received the consent of his twin brother, Alexander Grunke, and his friend, Dustin Radke, to help him disinter a female corpse located in a Cassville, Wisconsin cemetery so that the three of them could transfer the corpse to another location where Nicholas planned to have sexual intercourse with it. Apparently, Nicholas conceived this plan after seeing the obituary of the victim in a newspaper.” The defendants went to the cemetery “with shovels, a crowbar, a tarpaulin, and a box of condoms,” dug a hole deep and long enough to uncover the top of the victim's concrete vault but ran into technical problems gaining access. They were subsequently discovered, arrested and charged with Attempted Sexual Assault before any act could be consummated.

In Wisconsin, a person is guilty of Third Degree Sexual Assault when he “has sexual intercourse with a person without the consent of that person...” What about attempted sex with a dead person? Do you have to prove lack of consent? Or is the silence of the dead presumed to be lack of consent, as one might think—if one wasn’t a lawyer.

At the trial level, the circuit court did not permit the charge of Attempted Third Degree Sexual Assault to go forward. It concluded that the sexual assault statute did not apply to circumstances in which the victim is deceased due to no act of the accused (the implications of this reasoning are too frightening to contemplate).

Wisconsin’s Court of Appeals affirmed. It also explored the sexual assault statute and its ambiguity with respect to the issue of consent.

In a moment of moral conviction and clarity of purpose, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that lack of consent is a matter of simple proof when the victim is a corpse, no matter who was responsible for the death. Moreover, as most of us already know, the court found that “A reasonably well-informed person would understand the statute to prohibit sexual intercourse with a dead person.” One would hope.

What’s truly remarkable is that it took three courts entertaining all sorts of arguments to arrive at this conclusion. Just goes to show that judges and lawyers can debate anything to death. But for the moment, it’s good to know the Wisconsin Supreme Court has drawn a line in the dirt when it comes to sex with the dead.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Crime and Punishment , Other State Courts , Strange but True

Bookmark:

Texas Supreme Court: Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert

If you believe in Jesus, you’ve come to understand him from the New Testament. Well, the same scriptures that teach about Jesus also teach about demons and the laying on of hands by church elders. If you accept Jesus, then consistency demands that you accept the other things the Bible teaches. Or does it?

17 year old Laura Shubert attended the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God Church. In fact, her own father was an Assembly of God pastor and missionary. The Assemblies of God is a Pentecostal denomination. It “believes in the literal teachings of the Bible with respect to spirits, demons, demon possession and the ‘casting out’ of demons.” It also believes that people can be “slain in the spirit,” which, according to the church, “is a positive experience in which the holy spirit comes over a person and influences them.” The Bible refers to this as being “filled with the spirit” and believers are encouraged to be filled with the spirit again and again.

Laura Shubert had such an experience. In fact, she had it twice in a matter of days. While slain in the spirit the second time, however, Laura’s physical reaction was so significant that the senior pastor was summoned. He laid hands on Laura and prayed for her. Because of the animated way Laura was reacting, she suffered carpet burns, a scrape on her back and minor bruises.

Laura’s experience led to a meeting between her father, Pastor Shubert, and Pastor McCutchen, the one who had laid hands on Laura. A theological discussion ensued and both agreed that Christians cannot be demon possessed (there was apparently a question whether Laura was manifesting the Holy Spirit or was being tormented by an evil spirit). As a result of that meeting, the church agreed to teach more on the subject so its young members would better understand what the Bible says about being filled with the spirit and what it says about demons.

Notwithstanding the theological explanations given, Laura subsequently became depressed, dropped out of school and abandoned her plan to attend Bible College. She was finally diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and she and her parents blamed the church and sued Pleasant Glade for the injuries and emotional distress she suffered. (There apparently was not much debate about the Bible’s proscription about believers suing fellow believers.)

Laura won at trial. A jury awarded her damages of $300,000 for pain and suffering and other losses. The Court of Appeals in Texas affirmed most of the decision, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed it all.

Laura’s experience, good, bad or otherwise, was not a matter for the courts. As the Supreme Court explained, “Whether the defendants had intentionally or negligently misapplied church doctrine to Laura during these events was not a justiciable controversy...because the ‘First Amendment [gave] Pleasant Glade the right to engage in driving out demons.’”

The court also found that “The ‘laying of hands’ and the presence of demons are part of the church’s belief system and accepted as such by its adherents. These practices are not normally dangerous or unusual and apparently arise in the church with some regularity. They are thus to be expected and are accepted by those in the church. That a particular member may find the practice emotionally disturbing and non-consensual when applied to her does not transform the dispute into a secular matter.”

Laura’s case was dismissed.

The courts have always struggled to balance religious expression and individual rights. In this case, whatever happened “in the spirit” was clearly not the court’s business. But this sort of controversy is not going away. The Bible does more than explore spiritual matters, it judges certain matters of the flesh, including lust, homosexuality, pride and adultery; it is only a matter of time before the words of the Bible are challenged as so offensive they must be silenced. Another, less constrained court, may agree and choose to step into the fray.

God help us.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Damages , Injuries , Other State Courts , Religion , Strange but True

Bookmark:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: Stamp v. Metroplitan Life Ins. Co.

If you get so drunk—3 times the legal limit—that you crash your car into a tree and die as a result, does your family collect from your accidental death and dismemberment life insurance policy? Affirming the Rhode Island District Court, the First Circuit Court of Appeals says your family does not collect anything. The policy in question did not clearly define what an “accident” was, so the court had to: It concluded that Mr. Stamp was “so highly intoxicated that his death was not an ‘accident.’” It went on to find that when you are behind the wheel this drunk, you should “objectively and reasonably” expect to die or be seriously injured.

The dissent saw it differently, finding that Mr. Stamp did not set out to kill himself and that the circumstances of his death were no more than a “fatal mistake.” Under the circumstances, his wife should have collected from the insurance policy.

Fatal mistakes cannot be undone. Think twice before you get behind the wheel drunk. You may kill yourself and your family’s chances of surviving without you.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accidents , Drunk Driving , Injuries , U.S. Court of Appeals , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York: Fowler v. Zondervan;
Fowler v. Thomas Nelson

In the King James Bible, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says this:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

The New International Version (NIV) translates the same verse this way:

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Bradley LaShawn Fowler, who is gay, does not appreciate the translations which identify homosexuals among the sinners who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. So he did what any offended individual has a right to do: He sued the publishers of the Bible. Referring to this translation as a “malicious conspiracy” Fowler claims it has destroyed relationships with his family and caused him all sorts of mental anguish including loss of self esteem and bewilderment. He is seeking $70 million dollars in damages in the two lawsuits.

It used to be that if you didn’t like what the Bible said, you either ignored it or disparaged it. But times have changed. There seems to be a movement to silence those with whom we disagree and the courts are often the vehicle used to accomplish the task. If, as Mr. Fowler hopes, one man can censor the Bible’s reference to homosexuality (one wonders if Mr. Fowler will be filing separate actions over Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 20:13), then liars, adulterers, thieves, drunks and other aggrieved readers may well follow suit. Who knows, if Fowler’s lawsuits are permitted to proceed, he may cause a revival as other potential litigants search the scriptures for verses that offend their sensibilities, only to find their salvation.

We used to cherish the market place of ideas where we battled each other with thoughts and words and trusted that the most worthy and profound ideas would rise to the top, persuade us of their value and elevate our society. That is what made America great. We let every one have his say, no matter how absurd, no matter how silly, no matter how divisive. Juxtaposed against the profound, the wise and the loving, the former ideas just couldn’t withstand scrutiny or analysis and in the end were rejected. Now, it seems, we have lost some of our confidence in our fellow citizen's ability to choose wisely, and instead look to the courts to shut the mouths of the other side and to claim that our right to be free of offense is greater than the freedom to speak we claim to cherish.

There’s something offensive about all this that can make you want to scream. Which is, after all, our right.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Culture War , Homosexuality , Religion , Speech , Strange but True , U.S. District Court

Bookmark: