On a cruise ship, a baby fell from a window to her death. The family sued the cruise line for negligence. The grandfather who was with the baby at the time of her death said he did not know the window was open.
However, after the lawsuit was filed, the cruise line provided CBS News with video footage which shows the grandfather dangling the baby outside the window for 34 seconds, right before she fell to her death.
The family responded to this video by asking that the video be stricken from the record.
It sucks that the baby died. But it also sucks that the grandfather lied. And it sucks that the family is asking for the video to be stricken from the record.
You may remember this video, which I have posted before. It shows an anti-Trump protest near UC San Diego that took place at 1:30 a.m. a few days after Trump was elected President. One of the protestors, a UC San Diego student named Maria Ana Carrola Flores, gets hit by a car:
Maria Ana Carrola Flores chose to stand in the middle of a busy highway at 1:30 a.m.
And after she got hit by a car, she actually sued the driver who hit her.
She also sued the city and county of San Diego, UC San Diego, and the UC Board of Regents.
The Washington Free Beacon explained the reason for her lawsuit with the following: (the bolding is mine)
Flores’s attorney, Jerold Sullivan, argued that while his client accepted her responsibility for the accident, others shared blame as well. Sullivan claimed that according to Flores, campus officials had encouraged the protest, did not control it, and failed to warn students of the danger of walking onto the freeway.
So she sued her college because it didn’t teach her that it was dangerous to stand in the middle of a busy highway at 1:30 a.m.
That’s insane.
Fortunately, a judge dismissed her lawsuit.
And besides, since she did insist on filing a lawsuit because someone didn’t teach her that standing in the middle of a busy highway at 1:30 a.m. was dangerous, then she should have filed the lawsuit against her parents, not her college.
In New York City, the owner of a building gave graffiti artists permission to put graffiti on his building, with the understanding that the owner would eventually tear the building down.
However, after the owner did tear the building down, the artists filed a lawsuit, and a jury actually agreed with the artists.
A judge will be ruling on this in the future. But as it stands right now, the concept of private property has just been eroded by a huge amount.
And this is a federal ruling, so it applies to the entire country.
Ending a trial that explored the question of whether graffiti, despite its transient nature, should be recognized as art, a jury found on Tuesday that a New York City real estate developer broke the law when he tore down the so-called 5Pointz complex in Queens three years ago. Along with the buildings nearly 50 swirling, colorful murals that had been spray-painted on its walls were lost.
The finding by the jury, in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, will serve as a recommendation to the judge who presided over the case and who will render a final verdict.
For the better part of 20 years, 5Pointz, a complex of buildings in Long Island City, was a New York rarity: an aesthetic collaboration between the developer, Jerry Wolkoff, and a scrappy crew of graffiti artists that not only became an offbeat tourist destination, but also helped transform the neighborhood into a thriving residential enclave. Though it eventually became what a lawyer for the artists called the “world’s largest open-air aerosol museum,” its existence was always predicated on Mr. Wolkoff tearing it down and turning the buildings into luxury apartments, which he ultimately did in 2014.
When the artists learned about the demolition, they filed suit against Mr. Wolkoff in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, accusing him of violating the Visual Artists Rights Act, which has been used to protect public art of “recognized stature” created on someone else’s property. During the trial, the artists’ lawyer, Eric Baum, claimed that Mr. Wolkoff had failed to give his clients the proper 90-day notice before he destroyed their work by sending in a team of workers one night to cover it in a coat of white paint.
Mr. Wolkoff’s lawyer, David Ebert, had argued at the trial that V.A.R.A. was irrelevant in the case because it was intended to protect art, not his client’s building. Mr. Ebert also maintained that the 21 artists who had joined the suit had known for years that 5Pointz would eventually come down and contended that they had destroyed more graffiti themselves by constantly changing their paintings than Mr. Wolkoff had in demolishing the structures. In the last decade or so, Mr. Ebert said, about 11,000 murals had come and gone on the walls of the complex.
Even though the jury rendered its decision after hearing three weeks of testimony, near the end of the trial both Mr. Baum and Mr. Ebert agreed that Judge Frederic Block, who presided over the case, should take its verdict only as a recommendation. Judge Block has asked both sides to submit court papers in the coming weeks about the validity of the verdict, at which point he will issue a final decision and, if warranted, force Mr. Wolkoff to pay the artists damages.
Despite this legal quirk, Mr. Baum claimed victory on Tuesday night. “The jury sided strongly with the rights of the artists,” he said. “This is a clear message from the people that the whitewashing of the buildings by its owner was a clear and willful act.”
In the first video shown below, A Whole Foods customer shows what he claims is an “unopened” box for the cake that he bought at Whole Foods, and shows that there is an anti-gay slur on the cake. He points out that the price sticker on the side and bottom of the box proves that the box has not been opened.
In the second video, Whole Foods responds by showing its security footage, which shows that when the customer bought the cake, the price sticker was actually on top of the box, not on the side, thus proving that the customer had indeed opened the box.
Whole Foods is now countersuing the customer for knowingly filing a false lawsuit.
Although this wonderful news happened three months ago, I just found out about it now: the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Obama’s attempt to keep low income black children trapped in horrible government schools.
Some background information…
In August 2013, the Obama administration sued Louisiana to try to bring an end to its school voucher program – a program which had just been passed in 2012.
Under the Louisiana program, both of the following criteria had to be met in order for a student to get a school voucher. First, the student must come from a family whose income is below 250% of the poverty level. And second, the current public school that the student is attending must be rated as “C” or below.
86% of students who received vouchers had used those vouchers to flee from public schools which had been rated as “D” or “F.”
Only the most vulnerable children were eligible for the vouchers – the poorest students attending the worst schools.
Obama’s reason for filing the lawsuit was that “many of those vouchers impeded the desegregation process.”
However, in response to Obama’s claim that the vouchers discriminated against blacks, Louisiana Education Superintendent John White pointed out that almost all of the students using the vouchers were black, and said that “it’s a little ridiculous” for Obama to claim that these vouchers caused discrimination against blacks. The Washington Post reported that 90% of the students who received the vouchers were black.
It’s also worth noting that only students whose parents requested such vouchers were eligible to participate in the voucher program. Obama was therefore claiming that parents wanted their own children to be discriminated against. Obama was extremely wrong on this. These parents did not want their children to be discriminated against. In reality, what these parents wanted was for their children to have a chance at a better education.
This also makes Obama a hypocrite, because while he was living in both Chicago and Washington D.C., he always sent his own children to private schools. Does Obama really want us to believe that he subjected his own children to racial discrimination by sending them to private schools?
Furthermore, two different studies, one by Ph.D. students at the University of Arkansas, and the other sponsored by the state of Louisiana, both found that this voucher program made racial integration better, not worse. This further proves that Obama is a liar, and that his entire claim against these vouchers is bogus.
In September 2013, the Washington Post editorial board criticized Obama in this editorial, which is titled, “The Justice Department bids to trap poor, black children in ineffective schools.”
In April 2014, the Daily Signal published this article, which is titled, “Meet one of the students Eric Holder is blocking by standing in the schoolhouse door.”
Fortunately, in November 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Obama’s attempt to keep low income black children trapped in horrible government schools. The court’s ruling can be read here.
While working as a “community organizer,” Barack Obama filed lawsuits which forced banks to give mortgages to people with bad credit and low incomes. As a result, many of these people ended up defaulting on their mortgages. As their attorney, Obama collected $23,000 in legal fees for himself.
Then in April 2013, during Obama’s second term as President, the Washington Post reported that President Obama was still pressuring banks “to make home loans to people with weaker credit.”
However, in August 2014, it was reported that the Obama administration had sued Bank of America for giving mortgages to people who could not afford to pay them back, and the bank had agreed to pay $16.6 billion in order to avoid further prosecution from the federal government.
In August 2014, it was reported that Obama had given some of the settlement money from Bank of America to left wing organizations including the National Council of La Raza, Operation Hope, and National Community Reinvestment Coalition. These groups used to be known, collectively, as ACORN. In the past, these organizations had pressured banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford to pay them back.
In addition, Obama had worked with ACORN in the past. Obama had represented them in a lawsuit where they tried to get Illinois to adopt a “motor-voter” law. On top of that, Obama had taught leadership training sessions for ACORN. Also, Obama had worked as an organizer for Project Vote, an ACORN offshoot. Furthermore, Obama had been on the board of directors of the Woods Fund when it gave ACORN $75,000 in 2001, and $70,000 in 2002. Finally, during the 2008 primary campaign, Obama’s campaign had given Citizens Services Inc., an ACORN affiliate, more than $800,000 for “get out the vote” efforts.
The Obama administration has accused the New York City Fire Department of “racial discrimination” because it required potential firefighters to take a written test.
Obama wants to force the New York City Fire Department to hire black and Hispanic applicants who failed this so-called “racist” written test.
Here are ten real examples of these so-called “racist” questions from the New York City Fire Department test:
1. While operating at the scene of a car fire on a street, a firefighter was told to inform the officer of any dangerous conditions at the scene. Which one of the following conditions would be considered most dangerous to the firefighter operating at the scene of the car fire?
A) The car is leaking gasoline.
B) The car has four flat tires.
C) Vehicle traffic has come to a complete stop at the scene.
In August 2013, the Obama administration sued Louisiana to try to bring an end to its school voucher program – a program which had just been passed in 2012.
Under the Louisiana program, both of the following criteria had to be met in order for a student to get a school voucher. First, the student must come from a family whose income is below 250% of the poverty level. And second, the current public school that the student is attending must be rated as “C” or below.
86% of students who received vouchers had used those vouchers to flee from public schools which had been rated as “D” or “F.”
Only the most vulnerable children were eligible for the vouchers – the poorest students attending the worst schools.
Obama’s reason for filing the lawsuit was that “many of those vouchers impeded the desegregation process.”
However, in response to Obama’s claim that the vouchers discriminated against blacks, Louisiana Education Superintendent John White pointed out that almost all of the students using the vouchers were black, and said that “it’s a little ridiculous” for Obama to claim that these vouchers caused discrimination against blacks. The Washington Post reported that 90% of the students who receive the vouchers are black.
It’s also worth noting that only students whose parents request such vouchers are eligible to participate in the voucher program. Obama is therefore claiming that parents want their own children to be discriminated against. Obama is extremely wrong on this. These parents do not want their children to be discriminated against. In reality, what these parents want is for their children to have a chance at a better education.
This also makes Obama a hypocrite, because while he was living in both Chicago and Washington D.C., he always sent his own children to private schools. Does Obama really want us to believe that he subjected his own children to racial discrimination by sending them to private schools?
This casino is suing the card manufacturer, and the players who won lots of money, because the casino’s employees didn’t shuffle the cards, which allowed the players to win 41 times in a row.
This has got to be about the most ridiculous lawsuit that I have ever heard about. Yes, I realize there are quite a few contenders in that contest, but this one is even dumber than the other dumb ones… I think. (more…)
Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog 