Monday, December 5, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Ms. Piccolo allowed the insurer to come to her home in 2008 and take photographs of her face. She also gave the defense 20 photos of her face from the week following the accident as well as five photos from the months just before the accident. She allowed the defense to take more pictures at the September 2010 deposition.
"Defendant Paterson has not made a prima facie showing of need for access to the non- public pages of [Piccolo's] Facebook account," Mr. Lipman said in his motion.
"She has all the photographs she can reasonably use from every different period before and after the accident and she has not asserted that there is likely to be any text in the non- public postings that is material or will likely lead to the discovery of material evidence."The judge agreed, adding, "'the materiality and importance of the evidence ... is outweighed by the annoyance, embarrassment, oppression and burden to which it exposes' Ms. Piccolo."
Being reasonable prevails!
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
According to this News Tribune article, social media is becoming increasingly popular among debt collectors, not just to get the debtor's attention, but to shame him:
"In one Chicago case, a man was friended on Facebook by a young woman in a bikini. The account turned out to be a debt collector's, something the man realized only when the 'friend' posted a message on his wall: 'Pay your debts, you deadbeat.'"
Friday, March 4, 2011
A $12.5 million dollar verdict was overturned by the Illinois Court of Appeals based on the repeated and supposedly prejudicial use of the term "willful and wanton" to describe the officer's conduct, according to Fox News Chicago. This is puzzling given that excessive force cases typically involve intentional conduct or willful and wanton disregard for safety. In any event, subsequent to the Appeals decision, Chicago has agreed to settle the suit, brought by the victim's family, for $3 million.
The entire incident was caught on video [graphic]:
Friday, January 28, 2011
The Seattle Times recently reported that, in response to a Public Disclosure Act request, the Seattle Police Department withheld correspondence from Seattle City Councilman Tim Burgess to Chief of Police John Diaz. Mr. Burgess emailed Chief Diaz urging him to allow an outside agency to investigate the John T. Williams slaying. Of course, that never happened. Instead, the internal SPD investigation was peer reviewed.
The Seattle Times now reports that SPD received "high marks" for its internal review of the John T. Williams shooting, from peer reviewer, the San Diego Police Department. Another peer review investigation is still pending.
The review was not all glowing, however. The Times explains, "the four-page review faulted the department for doing too many telephone interviews that produced confusing information, and for initially putting out "factually inaccurate" information about the shooting, forcing a retraction of its statement that Williams advanced on Birk before the shooting."
Factually inaccurate information about whether Williams was a threat to the officer when the officer shot him multiple times? This is the central issue of the entire investigation. The SPD either knowingly misrepresented the facts of the case to the public or failed to investigate evidence in its own possession. If a lawyer did this, he would be punished for ethics violations. When a police department does it, it gets "high marks" on peer review.
Every specialized profession has some kind of internal and/or peer review system, some more effective than others. Only the profession of policing, however, entails the authority to take away life and liberty. Peer review of an internal review is not enough, especially when it looks like this.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
We are about to have a press conference at our office. More to come.