.

A New York man has had his fair share of rejection, courtesy of an Match.com, an online dating site where singles (or not) are able to browse countless profiles in the hopes of finding Mr. Wonderful or Miss Perfect.  Sean McGinn has filed a lawsuit against the site and says the company incorporates deceptive business practices.  Apparently, there are many profiles that are considered “free subscriptions” and users are severely limited in what he or she can and can’t do on the site.  One of those limitations includes not being able to respond to an interested party.  McGinn kept choosing potential love interests, unaware they weren’t full members via the paid subscription and he now says this has caused emotional damage.  He says it’s affected his self-esteem and Match.com should have at least let everyone in on the inability of some users to socialize via the site’s messaging program.

But is this any different than life outside virtual parameters?  How many of us have pulled the “fake phone number” play?  How many of us have shown interest and been met with phone calls not returned by our intended?  The truth is, rejection is just a part of life - in all aspects of our lives - professional and private.  You win some, you lose some.  Still, McGinn insists he’s been the victim of way too many rejections and if he’d known that some of those potential matches could have worked out, had the other party opted for a paid subscription, then perhaps his confidence wouldn’t have taken the hit.

He’s now wondering how many matches he’s missed out on.  I don’t know for sure, but I’m guessing this lawsuit probably won’t help his love life either.  A tough skin is required in real life if any of us expect to get through our days and many are turned off by the possibility of having to walk on eggshells in an effort to avoid inflicting “profound personal anguish and suffering” on those around us, which is what his  lawsuit further claims.  The monetary amount he’s suing for hasn’t been released yet, or even if he’s suing for money; since the suit was filed only this week, it’ll be awhile before the outcome is known.

For more information on Canadian Lawyers for any of your legal matters visit http://www.lawyerahead.ca/

This is another one of those stories that has so much wrong with it, I’m not sure where to start.  During a closed session last week, the Orange County, CA Board of Supervisors chose to award an illegal immigrant over $4 million dollars because of a beating he received while in prison.  Oh, and Fernando Ramirez was serving time in prison because he’d been accused of molesting a five year old girl, yet pleaded guilty to non-sexual battery. He sued, they settled.

How does a bankrupt state justify such a decision?  This wasn’t anything that doesn’t happen across this country on a daily basis and it’s no secret child molesters are targets.  To be sure, this beating was brutal.

Fernando Ramirez

Ramirez suffered brain damage, can’t walk without assistance and now has the mental capacity of a four year old.  There’s a tragic irony in his mental capacity since the little girl was only five when she was abused by Ramirez.

Another infuriating aspect is the fact the Board of Supervisors chose to make this decision that will affect its constituents behind closed doors and now refuses to comment on their decision.  Just where exactly where will this four million dollars come from?  Taxpayers, certainly.  One thing’s for sure, we know where it is:  the prisoner’s family who may or may not even reside in this country.  The OC Register reports this is the largest settlement ever paid by Orange County.  The second largest payout was for just over $600,000 to a prisoner’s family.  The prisoner died after a scuffle with prison guards.

Ramirez’s lawyer says the settlement will ensure his client’s medical needs will be covered the rest of his life, says the settlement was fair and credits the Board for doing the right thing.  There are few who agree this was the right thing to do.  The little girl’s family didn’t sue the county, yet she’ll carry this with her as she grows into an adult.  My guess is her family thinks it couldn’t be any further from the right thing to do.

The jury’s come back on the case regarding Arizona rancher Roger Barnett and sixteen illegals who’d sued him, his wife and his brother for violating their civil rights.  Just as I did in the first post, I’m still trying to figure out what the jury used as its justification for awarding these 16 Mexican nationals punitive and actual damages that total $78,000.  Granted, they could have returned a far more costly award.  The original lawsuit was for $32,000,000. 

The jury decided Barnett didn’t falsely imprison them, nor did he subject them to battery; however, they say he inflicted emotional distress.  (Please! How many of us have bathroom scales that inflict emotional distress on a daily basis?)  And by the way, I’m curious about the emotional distress these trespassers inflicted on Barnett and his family.

And of course, this has a twist to it.  Apparently, as our elected leaders are scrappin’ it out in D.C. regarding the lack of money for everything from pollution control to help for troubled homeowners, the jury has decided to add insult to injury and reward illegal behavior.  One of the “winners” in this case has already been deported one time after being convicted on federal drug charges.  Gerardo Gonzalez was deported in 1993 and deported at that time, only to return, once again.  Further, several of those sitting on the plaintiff’s side have already been caught and turned away at least a few times.  For their continued disregard of the American legal system, each will be awarded over $7,000.00 (with two receiving an additional $1,400 for assault).

David Hardy, Barnett’s attorney, said they would be appealing the decision and said they were on solid ground with the appeal.  He went on to say his client was tired but relieved “worse case scenario” didn’t play out.  That’s subjective since many believe this is worse case scenario.  Anything less than this being tossed should be considered worse case. 

For now, Barnett will return to his ranch and continue to protect his land against trespassers, vandals and thieves.  This opens up many questions, though.  What happens when we’re sitting in our living rooms and find ourselves faced with someone breaking in?  It’s never occurred to me to not protect myself and my property.  We never want to be put to the test, but I sincerely hope I have what it takes to go to any necessary drastic measures should I ever be confronted with someone wishing me harm.  We have to remember that no one was shot or sustained serious injury in this case, and yet, there it is - this man loses although he’s done nothing wrong or illegal.

In 2006, the Arizona Legislature adopted a bill, HB2675 that took away the power of cities to force homeowners to give up their property because of a redevelopment project.  It had gotten to a point that cities within the state were meeting with developers and with a signature, basically took land that didn’t belong to them so that shopping centers and other commercial development projects could move forward.

Just as property owners were beginning to relax a bit, confident their private properties were relatively safe, sixteen Mexican nationals have decided to file a $32 million dollar lawsuit that accuses an Arizona man of infringing on their civil liberties.  Needless to say, it’s difficult to infringe on one’s civil rights in a country they’re illegally in.  In their lawsuit, they say they were held at gunpoint, were threatened with a dog and suffered emotional distress.

So what circumstances would cause a rancher in Arizona to threaten sixteen illegal immigrants?  They were trespassing on his property.  Further, this rancher had spent years picking up after these trespassers.  He picked up the remnants of drug paraphernalia, trash and found himself making repairs to his ranch that was damaged nearly on a weekly basis.  Fences were destroyed, water tanks were pierced and number of other illegal activities - all courtesy of illegal immigrants crossing the border into the United States.

By his own estimation, Roger Barnett, the landowner, says he’s turned over nearly 12,000 illegal immigrants he’s captured to ICE and other border officials.  Further complicating this ridiculous lawsuit is the immigrants’ claims that Barnett’s wife participated with her husband in protecting their property.  That’s generally what property owners do: protect their property.

The immigrants are being represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, or MALDEF.  The suit also names the county sheriff as a conspirator since he did nothing to protect these people.  Keep in mind, none of these sixteen people were injured in any way.

This story has caused a huge uproar, at least on the Washington Post’s website, where the story first broke.  At the time of this writing, there were over 700 comments posted on their site.  Criticism is heavy and after having read some of the comments, it would appear American citizens are beginning to wonder why more aren’t doing whatever necessary, just as the Barnett’s are doing, to protect their property.  There are offers of financial support to this family, including offers to pay legal fees, as well as offers to sign any number of petitions to have this lawsuit tossed before anymore American tax dollars are used in this trial.

This is one of those cases that is dangerous to the country as a whole; the fact it’s even being allowed in a courtroom is disturbing.  This has nothing to do with human rights, since there was no harm done to any of the sixteen in the lawsuits, nor the twelve thousand-plus Barnett has played a role in keeping out of the country.

Not only has he paid large sums of monies on repairs due to the trespassers, but he now has to cover legal fees associated with defending himself.  Clearly, whatever happens in this trial will resonate through the American justice system for a long time to come.

Links to Immigration Lawyer and Lawyers.

As we’ve all heard by now, the big automakers have submitted their plans that would justify the billion dollars in loans, courtesy of American taxpayers. And too, we’ve all heard the latest out of the sports world and how the NFL has suspended six players for failed drug tests, including the “heart of the Minnesota Vikings”, Kevin Williams and Pat Williams (no relation). The official charges say they violated the league’s steroid policies.

As if these stories and what feels like a million others in yesterdays news weren’t disheartening enough, Birmingham, AL mayor Larry Langford was arrested by the FBI for charges that make one’s head spin. Although information regarding the FBI arrest hasn’t been completely revealed, an SEC

Larry Langford

lawsuit (filed earlier this year) says a Montgomery banker, Bill Blount and Al LaPierre, who is one of Langford’s many cronies, didn’t disclose over $150,000 in payments to Mayor Langford. These payments were the price for some sort of business scheme (probably illegal) within the city of Birmingham. Not only that, but the lawsuit goes on to say the mayor hid the fact that after he received these monies, a 6.7 million dollar contract was conveniently handed to the banker and the cronie. The former commissioner for Jefferson County, John Katopodis, has already been indicted over a bogus charity that Langford founded when he was mayor of a smaller city outside Birmingham. The buzzards are circling, no doubt.

After he was arrested yesterday, his chief of staff in City Hall released a statement that said the arrest was anticipated but suggested the entire “error” was due to bad blood between Langford and a U.S. Attorney, Alice Martin, saying she knows her “days are numbered” as she prepares to exit her current post. Ah, but her hands aren’t necessarily clean either. Her office was ordered to pay $360,000 in June for “misguided prosecution” of an Alabama contractor. Read this story here. It doesn’t stop there. Her less than stellar image has been hit by several controversies, including criticism for her uninvited input during a lawsuit regarding Alabama’s former governor, Don Siegelman. And too, the story with the misguided prosecution of the Alabama contractor has triggered an investigation by the Justice Department into possible misconduct during this trial. There is a fascinating piece that was featured in Harper’s Magazine. Fair warning - it doesn’t put the state of Alabama in a flattering light. In fact, the author, Scott Horton, calls Alabama “home to the nation’s highest profile and most abusive political prosecution”. My guess is Mississippi’s favorite lawyer, John Grisham, will be penning a best-seller regarding these scandals (if he’s not already doing so).

It’s rare that those of us living in the south experience brutally cold temperatures, but it’s heating up fast here, even if it is December. In the meantime, everyone’s waiting to hear the details from Langdon’s arrest yesterday. If you’re interested, he made bail in time yesterday to ensure he’d be present during a City Hall meeting. Those in the know insist this is the tip of the iceberg and promises many heads will roll by the time this scandal wraps up.

'

I think everyone can relate to the well-scented co-worker, yes? Similar to the loudly vocal co-worker you can hear coming down the hall, the well-scented cohort’s impending arrival is announced by strong perfume or cologne before they ever appear in your doorway. Usually just an annoyance, extreme examples include those whose lack of scent etiquette can send us gracefully running from any enclosed area we’re forced to endure with these people. There are those, though, who are prone to migraines and are extremely sensitive to scents; myself included. It’s then the annoyance turns into nothing less than torture. Fortunately for me, I’d always had positions that allowed me to bail early and complete my workday from the house. But for those who aren’t s lucky, they must endure the sometimes nauseating smells from way too much perfume. For some reason, I always become passive when dealing with situations like these. Strangely enough, a person can say something that makes no sense and borders on ridiculous and I’m on it - with no mercy and the one who’s had the misfortune of speaking before thinking, they’re game for me to point it out. The same person can bathe in his or her favorite cologne and I’m mum. I haven’t figured that one out, but I’m working on it. And now there’s the lawsuit that’s making the headlines. In my passive-aggressive way, I’m sitting on the sofa silently cheering, “Yay! You go, girl!”

In Detroit, a city planner had endured the overwhelming scent of a co-worker’s cologne for as long as she could. After politely requesting on numerous occasions for her to tone it down, she finally grew weary of the ignored requests and vicious headaches that resulted from these ignored requests and she filed a lawsuit. In part, the lawsuit says the strong perfume makes it difficult for her to not only do her job, but to breathe as well. I can absolutely relate to that. Her lawsuit was filed using guidelines in the American’s with Disabilities Act and a U.S. District Judge has allowed her to proceed with it by rejecting the city’s opposition. The court says her case has merit and it offers substantial proof of her claim. The city plans to continue to fight the lawsuit and says they’ll use the absence of a medical diagnosis to further their claim. What I can’t understand is why they don’t politely request the offending employee to invest her money elsewhere instead of the local perfume counter. Employers have dress codes, ethics codes as well as other guidelines for their employees’ personal tastes and other aspects of their personal lives (Akon blaring from computer speakers or using the office as a daycare center), so why not extend that to address an employees grooming habits? You can bet it’d be mentioned if someone chose not to bathe daily, right? It’s important to note that the city planner has no interest in a monetary award; she just wants to be able to do her work without being assaulted by a too strong scent emanating from her co-worker and to encourage “voluntary compliance”. Her attorney wraps up by saying, “perfume sensitivities are very real and I can’t tell you how many lives they are ruining. Maybe there’s beginning to be recognition that these things are serious.” Still, the city has said it will continue to fight the suit and it’s expected to go to trial sometime next year. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out because at some point, the one who’s refusing to tone it down will be put on the hot seat and questioned as to why a simple request couldn’t be fulfilled without it having to come to these extremes. And too, the employer could’ve saved a lot of time and trouble as well simply by taking measures to ensure no one is offended by overwhelming scents.