attorneybutler.net

GREAT INSURANCE COMPANY ADS 8-WISH IT WERE REAL

This ad had everything.  Dubious taste.  Enhanced sound effects to emphasize the severity of the accidents.  Allegedly a marketing tool for an insurance company, promising coverage under circumstances that, in Michigan, would have produced a claim rejection letter so fast your head would swim.  And Carmina Burana, one of my favorite classical choral works as background music.  But, alas, my research leads me to conclude that there is no "Great Bridge" Insurance company.  Just a clever satiric piece.  Pity.  Funny, and fun none the less.

 

INTERESTING, HOPEFUL VIDEO ABOUT DETROIT

I came across this video entitled, Lost in Detroit:  An Influence Against False Perceptions, in my web travels.  Interesting piece with some hard working entrepreneurs finding opportunity in areas many have given up for dead.  I admire their vision.  Bet of luck to them and all of us.

 

MICHIGAN IN PICTURES

One of the sidebar "widgets" on this site is from the blog "Michigan in Pictures".  A good site, especially its "Detroit Category".  As of now there are over 225 entries in the category, featuring great articles and pictures, some from prominent local photographers.

Here are a couple of examples to whet your appetite:

Assignment Detroit. The photo, the Comic is by gatsbyj

And, Detroit Nighthawks:  the Core at Night, photo by g s george

 

JUST FOR FUN-ALBERT BROOKS FAMOUS SCHOOL FOR COMEDIANS

In the previous post,MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ROBERT YOUNG-THE ROLE OF JUDGES, I observed that, as an after dinner speaker, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young might benefit from enrolling in Albert Brooks Famous School For Comedians.  This is a reference to an old comedy bit by one of my all-time favorites, Albert Brooks.  As Justice Young's on stage presentation did not compare favorably with Albert's, I did not include it in the previous post.  It does deserve its own entry here.

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ROBERT YOUNG-THE ROLE OF JUDGES

Earlier this year (2009), Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young spoke to a group regarding his perception of the role of judges in our system of government.  He then went on to say what a bang up job he thinks he and his Republican confreres on the Michigan Supreme Court (including the former Justice Cliff Taylor) did in living up to his image and perception.  Bully.

I had no trouble in hearing Justice Young's remarks, as they were not drowned out by cheers and applause.   I do have concerns about both the style and content of his presentation.  I found the style a bit arrogant and condescending.  I assume the "West Coast  State" that apparently could not be identified by name is California.  As to the content:

• Justice Young states that our law is only the Constitution and the laws our legislators enact.  That tends to minimize if not ignore the judge's responsibility to the common law-that part of our legal system that has never been based on written statutes.  The common law dates back to the Magna Carta of 1215, but Justice Young doesn't think much of the common law.  I guess we need to have a written statute to dictate every aspect of every human endeavor.  Not so sure the framers of the Constitution, federal or state, thought that was a good idea.
• Justice Young and his compatriots have seriously eroded the Constitutionally guaranteed right to trial by jury in civil cases.  Of course, such judicial activism is always described as judicial restraint.
• As to the alleged shenanigans in the "West Coast State", it sounds like a law enacted by ballot initiative was struck down by the state's court as unconstitutional.  Otherwise, why would there be a second ballot initiative for a constitutional amendment to validate the first law.  So....didn't the "West Coast State's" court do what even Justice Young thinks it should have, that is, measure a statute against the ultimate authority of the state Constitution?  Apparently, Justice Young did not agree with the result.  Certainly, as a Michigan resident, he knows better than the "West Coasters".

Finally, revisiting the style issue.  I would normally say that as an after dinner speaker, Justice Young should not give up his day job.  On the other hand, I am thinking he might benefit from enrolling in Albert Brooks Famous School For Comedians, which will be featured in tomorrow's post.  For today's entry, Justice Young's performance is enough.

 

MICHIGAN LAW-THE CASE FOR GIVING DRIVER'S LICENSES TO THE BLIND

In the Alice in Wonderland world of Michigan premise liability law, things have become so bizarre lately that I have resorted to arguing the case of Lugo v Ameritech, 464 Mich 512 (2001), in support of my position that certain "Open and Obvious" summary disposition motions should be denied.  I have tried this tactic three times.  It has worked twice and the third attempt has been taken under advisement.  Modesty and time forbids me from going into the details at this point.

For those who may not know the Lugo case, it is the decision by which the Republican majority of the Michigan Supreme Court announced that all cement irregularities were open and obvious hazards as a matter of law, and Michigan landowners/business owners had no duty to warn or protect their customers or visitors therefrom.  In addition, the decision held, again as a matter of law, that it could not be reasonably expected that a person could sustain a serious injury from a slip and fall--reality, apparently, nothwithstanding.

The rulings that have come from Michigan Courts, state and federal, since Lugo, have become progressively more tragic/comic.  For instance, within the last month the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled as a matter of law that a snow covered ice condition was an open and obvious hazard to the invitee who had just arrived at the premises, and amazingly that the owner of the 24-hour operation had no idea that there was snow and/or ice on the premises at the time of the accident.  See Blue v St. John Hospital and Medical Center, Michigan Court of Appeals No. 284769.   Wow.

But, perhaps strangest application of the Michigan "Open and Obvious" doctrine are the cases where conditions like water on the floor have been held to be open and obvious--to blind people.  See Lauff v Walmart, a 2002 case out of the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan, and Sidorowicz v Chicken Shack, 469 Mich 912 (2003).  In both cases, the blind plaintiff's were held to the same standard of observation and conduct as a sighted person.

So, then, if the Michigan common law standard of reasonable conduct holds that the blind person has the same abilities and responsibilities as a sighted person, how can the state then deny a blind person the right to drive a car on the streets and highways of our state?  The standard of reasonable care in driving a car is the same standard of reasonable care a person must exercise in life outside of an automobile.  If no allowances are made for blindness outside of an automobile, how can we impose restrictions on a blind person who might want to drive a car?  Are we denying our blind citizens equal protection of the law?  We impose responsibilities on them but deny them the corresponding rights?  The heavens cry out for justice, etc.

Sound stupid?  It does, and I won't belabor a stupid point as I have more important things to do right now, like raking leaves.  But giving driver's licenses to the blind is about as enlightened as the decisions of Michigan Courts that are now the law of the land.

Does Michigan premises liability law make sense?  Go ask Alice.

ANN COULTER-ALL ASSASSINS ARE LIBERAL

On the October 22, 2209 edition of the Joy Behar Show on the HLN network, Ann Coulter made the statement that all the assassins and attempted assassins of US Presidents were liberals.  However, she defines liberals as:  left-wing loon, communist, anarchist, communitarians, or people with no politics at all.  Using that as a definition, I assume that Ann will consider any potential assassin a liberal--well, until such time as Rush Limbaugh may take a potshot at the Chief Executive.

Now, I wonder how John Wilkes Booth fits Ann's definition of "liberal".  He certainly believed in the right to bear arms, and he was fighting to preserve states' rights in the face of a powerful central government.  And he wanted to preserve the existing right to enslave human beings.  Doesn't sound like a liberal to me. 

I understand that Ann explains her position on Presidential assassins in her book "Guilty".  I suppose I could read it.  However, this past August I read Ann's book "Slander", and that is quite enough of Ann's demonization of the opposition for me for a while.

Ann isn't quite in the mold of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.  She does do research.  But she is very careful to ignore anything that does not support her chosen point of view, which is that conservatives are ever virtuous, and everyone else is a liberal.  And all liberals are evil, traitors--and terrorists and assassins, apparently.

Hard to take her seriously.  But, hey, that's just me.  But a lot of people do, and to the extent they do, real progress to solve real problems gets lost in the extremist ranting.  And people like Ann laugh all the way to the bank.

RANDOM QUESTION

Is it just me, or does it seem that we see and hear more from Dick Cheney now than we ever did when he was Vice-President? 

Based on the public utterances of such VPs as Dan Quayle and Joe Biden, maybe it is wise for a President to limit his Veep's public speaking opportunities. 

Even if we didn't hear too much from Dick while he was in office, I believe he did keep himself quite busy behind the scenes.

RESPONSES TO DETROIT FREE PRESS OCTOBER 11 EDITIORIAL

On October 22, 2009, the Detroit Free Press published two letters to the editor, responding to its October 11, 2009 editorial entitled:   "Restoring Judicial Restraint-Running roughshod over GOP precedents would only diminish court's moral authority".

The first is written by US District Court Judge Avern Cohn:

"Your editorial comment on the faults of the pre-January 2009 majority of the Michigan Supreme Court is on the mark. Your concern that the new majority, in an effort to reverse faulty precedents, will act with inappropriate haste, and that the solution lies with the Legislature, is to say the least, fatuous. Given the divisions in the Legislature, asking it to enact new laws reversing the harshness of the pre-January 2009 decisions is like exploring a black hole: It will never happen.

The decisions of the former majority rest on a bed of sand. The sooner they are no longer the law, the better off all of us will be. A bad decision is just that, a bad decision. And the way to correct a bad decision is by a good decision."

 The second is by attorney Jose' Brown, Chairman of the Negligence Section of the State Bar of Michigan:

"Your Oct. 11 editorial, "Restoring Judicial Restraint," hits the mark, then misses the point. You rightly reveal how destructive the previous state Supreme Court was to the rights of citizens and families. But then you advise the present court to accept the legal system that the previous activist court left.

THE FIRST ANNUAL KAYE TERTZAG TRIBUTE DINNER-FEBRUARY 25, 2010

INAUGURAL PURPLE SPORTCOAT AWARD PRESENTATION

On Thursday, February 25, 2010, the friends and family of the Honorable Kaye Tertzag will be sponsoring the first annual Tribute Dinner in his honor.  Judge Tertzag passed away on February 4, 2009, having established a great legacy of integrity and service to the state of Michigan, as well as a great example of love and devotion to his family and legion of friends.

To preserve and honor his memory, the first Tribute Dinner will be take place this February at the Park Place Banquet Hall in Dearborn.  Park Place is located at the corner of Park and Outer Drive, just south of Michigan Avenue.

At that time the inaugural Kaye Tertzag "Purple Sportcoat" Award will be presented.  Judge Tertzag was well known for his collection of sportcoats, of which the purple exhibit, pictured below, is the most famous.  The award will be presented to a recipient who best exemplifies Judge Tertzag's simple motto:  Be Prompt.  Be Prepared.  Be Polite.  And his signature parting wish:  Be Well.

The event was planned with an eye to what was important to Kaye, and so, the social aspect of this evening will be extremely important.  People enjoying each other's company was important to the Judge, and the committee believes that he would want any event held in his memory to be one where people would have a good time.  People are encouraged to bring spouses and significant others.

So, the program will be short, and in addition to a fabulous dinner, there will be entertainment during the cocktail and  dinner hour,provided by Kevin Sands, a Premier Frank Sinatra Tribute artist.  Frank Sinatra was one of Chach's favorite singers.

We will also end the evening by continuing the tradition started by Kaye's daughter Kara at the Memorial, the Sambuca toast.

Right now, save the date, and watch for further notices.

Any questions at this time can be directed to Mike Butler at 734-776-0231.

Be Well and Be There on February 25.

DETROIT FREE PRESS EDITORIAL ON JUDICIAL RESTRAINT

On October 11, 2009 the Detroit Free Press ran an editorial entitled:  "Restoring Judicial Restraint-Running roughshod over GOP precedents would only diminish court's moral authority".

It is an extremely interesting piece.  It starts right out by acknowledging the current state of Michigan law, as created by the Michigan Supreme Court:

"In the decade between 1998 and 2008, a Republican Michigan Supreme Court majority installed by Gov. John Engler dramatically recast the rules by which criminal and civil litigants are obliged to play.

...The chief beneficiaries(of the 1998-2008 Supreme Court's decisions,ed.) were the same interests -- insurance companies, health care providers and other large corporations -- whose campaign donations bankrolled the GOP justices' ascendancy."

The editorial points out that the Engler Court overturned prior precedent at a rate over three times that of prior Supreme Court. 

With the defeat of former Chief Justice Clifford Taylor last November, there is a bit of a change in the Court's composition.  What now, the Freep asks.  To quote:

"This newspaper spent much of the last decade criticizing the Engler Court for its obsequious deference to insurance companies and other deep-pocket defendants. We were particularly dismayed by rulings that dramatically enhanced insurers' power to deny legitimate claims, sanctioned contracting practices that bordered on fraud, and stripped Michigan residents of their longstanding right to sue polluters.

And Free Press readers might expect that we would be in the vanguard of those demanding that the new majority hasten to reverse those destructive rulings, which have effectively barred the courthouse door to many citizens with legitimate legal grievances."

But here is the paper's concern:  "In the long run, any majority determined to "correct" all its predecessors' mistakes was a threat to the rule of law."

CAVEAT TWITS AND FACEBOOKERS

I love technology.  I love the internet.  I love the immediate access to information.  I love email  I love the immediacy of communication.  However, I must admit that I spend more time on the computer than is good for my social and aerobic health.  That said, I am not on the cutting edge of current information technology.  I don't have internet/email access on my cell phone.  I do not use Twitter.   

In imposing some controls on any desire I might have to broadcast any and all my most mundane thoughts and emotions into the ether, I like to refer to Jesse Green's article entitled, "Web 2.0.  All the Cool Lawyers Are Doing It" , especially this quote:

"You don’t need the intimacy and immediacy of social networking. Clients and the public do not want or need to know that you are a ‘fan’ of sunsets or to get ‘tweets’ from you between deps. No one cares to get daily updates about the status of your Board Room remodeling project."

Excellent point.  I do use Facebook.  I have established and re-established contact with many people through the site.  I have learned a great many things I have used on this site.  But---I don't post that I feel happy, or that I feel sad, that I like Project Runway, or that I hate raking leaves, that Kanye West is an idiot, etc.  Many of my Facebook friends do, and many of those people might benefit from taking Jesse Green's advice.  For, many of those friends are elected officials, and/or elected official wannabes, and other such highly placed folks.The ability of these people to post to social networks, often from hand-held communication devices have produced these actual messages.  The identity of the author is omitted to protect them from themselves:

From a current statewide elected official with bigger plans for the future:

"Great way to start the day - fighting w/ a plugged toilet at 530.....and thinking which kid did this? :). Plunging skills still work"

 

From an elected city official in Southeast Michigan:

 

"(Name) just iced Melanie Rivera, bringing their total body count to 110 in Mafia Wars. (Name) is offering you a special bonus to make you as fierce as they are!"

 

And these from a recently appointed Athletic Director of a big Michigan High School:

 

"(Name) is STILL SKIRT of CHUCK MANSON....

(Name) is A BEAST....

(Name) isFRESH2DEF....."

 

I am not impressed by any of these, and I assume most adults and voters would not be, either.  Let's  try inserting some names into these quotes, and see how they sound.  These are not the names of the actual authors, but people who have been in similar positions of power and authority.

 

"Great way to start the day -John Engler is fighting w/ a plugged toilet at 530.....and thinking which kid did this? :). Plunging skills still work"

 

(Imagine what the fans of John Engler might do with that.  "Hey big John, always blaming others for the problems you created.  Everyone knows you're full......--well, you get the idea.  Try putting in Bill Milliken's name instead, and you still say "Bill, I really don't care about your plumbing problems, and it concerns me that you think I should.)

 

"Kwame Kilpatrick just iced Melanie Rivera, bringing their total body count to 110 in Mafia Wars. Kwame is offering you a special bonus to make you as fierce as they are!"

 

(Okay.  Bad example.)

 

 

"Bo Schembechler is STILL SKIRT of CHUCK MANSON....

Bo Schembechler is A BEAST....

Bo Schembechler isFRESH2DEF....."

 

(I am sure Woody Hayes would be quaking in his boots.)

 

So, all you Twits and Facebookers, use a little judgment, and trying thinking a little farther in advance than the end of your IPhone's touchscreen.  The world little cares about the trivia of your private lives and entertainments, and voters hope that you have your mind occupied with bigger issues than where the family plunger is located, or whether Charles Manson makes parole.

 

The ease with which a communication is sent may be inversely proportional to that communication's value.

 

INSURANCE COMPANY'S INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

Peggy Robertson was denied insurance coverage by Golden Rule Insurance Company because she had a c-section. She was later told that if she was sterilized, she would be able to obtain coverage.

And they say that insurance companies can't come up with innovative ways to deal with the rising costs of health care.

Of course, this approach does have its downside.  For instance, a secretary in our office just had arthroscopic knee surgery.  I hope she never needs to change insurance companies.  They may require her to have the leg amputated before writing her a policy.

HOW TO DO IT-LAST MONTY PYTHON REFERENCE

Over the years, I have often heard people say how easy it would be to solve one of society's more complex issues, if only those idiots in power would heed the speakers' highly intelligent, but highly simple advice.  Whenever this happens, I am reminded of this classic Monty Python skit about a fictional TV show  called "How To Do It".

I think of this more and more these days when I hear partisans of all types preach how they have all the answers, how they monopolize the moral high ground, and how their opponents are idiots at best and traitors and fascists at worst.  And how all the country's problems would be easily solved if only they were in power.  This until, of course they attain power, and they are saddled with the undoing of all the harm done by their evil predecessors.

Well, problem solving is hard.  No single person or single party has all the answers.  There is really a lot of hard work and cooperation necessary if we really want to learn:  "How To Do It."

WIKTIONARY-THE ULTIMATE TEXTUALIST DICTIONARY HAS ARRIVED

As anyone who has accidentally stumbled onto the site in error (this accounts for most of my readers) may have learned, I am not a big fan of the doctrine of textualism, by which activist judges allege they are engaging in judicial restraint by deciding cases, not according to precedent, but according the "plain meaning of words" contained in a particular statute before them.  Setting aside the fact that all cases do not involve the interpretation of statutes (apparently to Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young's chagrin), the doctrine has often been applied in an intellectually (at least) dishonest fashion. 

The problem is that, in looking first to a dictionary, rather than to a law book, or worse yet, judicial acumen, as the source of the correct, just and allegedly, self-evident decision in a case, textualist judges hook wink the public into thinking that they are not imposing result oriented approach to the job of judge.  You see, there are a lot of dictionaries and a word can have a lot of definitions, without but especially with regard to context.

Textualist judges profess they are not activist, but they actively look for the definition that suits a pre-determined and desired results.  They want people to forget that in, looking for definitions, they choose the dictionaries.  Thus, in the case of Sington v Chrysler Corp. 467 Mich 144 (2002), a worker's compensation case, the Michigan Supreme Court's desired definition of "capacity" as in "earning capacity"  was found in a freight shipping glossary, and a supply chain management guide.  (See "Sington the Blues", this site).

Today, however, I learned that the Textualist's often tedious search through potentially tens of thousands of dictionaries for a desired definition in a specific case is at an end.  (Sounds like the intro. to a Billy Mays commercial, doesn't it?)  Enter the Wiktionary.org site.  Finally, if you can't find the definition you want for a word, you can make up your own.  After all the word "Wiki" (I finally looked it up), means, "A collaborative website which can be directly edited by anyone with access to it."

Eureka!  Whoopee!  Odds Bodkins! and so forth.  Textualists now have a "one stop shopping" location for all their judicial activist needs.  They can now make up the plain meaning of any word they want, while maintaining the facade of judicial restraint.

Thank You, Wiktionary.  On the other hand, to paraphrase the old Scottish saying,

"From ghoulies and ghosties
And long-leggedy beasties
And Textualists that write opinions in the night,
Good Lord, deliver us!"