It’s a pity they don’t show it actually going 0 – 60.
It’s a pity they don’t show it actually going 0 – 60.
At least Mr. Gorman recovered his money and his attorney fees. But I doubt they paid him interest for the 2½ years they’ve held his money.
A federal judge has just ordered the government to return $167,000 it took from a man passing through Nevada on his way to visit his girlfriend in California. The officers really wanted that money, too. They used two consecutive stops to jerry-rig some probable cause… even though at that point they thought they were only dealing with $2000. From the original stop forward, the entire situation was deplorable, indisputably showing that everyone involved was more interested in taking (and keeping) a bunch of cash than enforcing laws or pursuing justice.
The order is a jaw-dropping read. It begins with the flimsiest of “reasonable suspicion” and heads downhill after that. […]
This order shows law enforcement at its ugliest: willing to lie and cheat to maintain control of what it stole.
Make it a rule: never carry more than petty cash when you travel in the US. There are just too many legally-sanctioned robberies.
Taking someone’s assets is robbery even if those assets were gained illicitly. You’ve got laws: try the people and punish those convicted. If there’s a fine involved then you can seize their assets.
Peter Suderman writes at Reason’s blog (my emphasis below).
In Upholding Obamacare’s Subsidies, Justice Roberts Rewrites the Law—Again
Time to start calling the Affordable Care Act SCOTUScare.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has rewritten the law to save Obamacare—again. […]
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” he writes. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”
And so Roberts decided that a law which explicitly and repeatedly states that subsidies are limited to exchanges “established by a State,” and which defines “State” as one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia, actually allows subsidies in exchanges established by a State or the federal government. Roberts’ decision does not interpret Obamacare; it adds to it and reworks it, and in the process transforms it into something that it is not. […]
As Justice Antonin Scalia writes in a scathing dissent, Roberts presumes, with no definitive evidence, that his interpretation is the one that Congress intended. “What makes the Court so sure that Congress ‘meant’ tax credits to be available everywhere?” Scalia asks. “Our only evidence of what Congress meant comes from the terms of the law, and those terms show beyond all question that tax credits are available only on state Exchanges.” […]
As even Roberts admits in his opinion, the law “contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting” and generally “does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.” It is a shoddy, messy piece of legislation, held together, barely, by Supreme Court duct tape.
It looks like we’ll be saddled with the PPACA indefinitely, despite passing it and finding out what’s in it.
This struck me for a couple of reasons. First is the heavy-duty geekery going on to build a 500-ton vehicle.
How an enormous Caterpillar mining truck is built
Forget a factory assembly line. The Cat 797 mining truck is so gigantic, it’s assembled on-site. Watch how it’s done.
Everything about the Cat 797 mining truck is huge. It has 4,000 horsepower, the engine displacement is nearly 6,500 cubic inches, it weighs more than a million pounds, and it has a payload capacity of 400 tons. “Big” barely does it justice.
What does it take to build such a monster? Caterpillar shows us in the Cat 797 assembly video. It starts at the plant in Decatur, IL, but the pieces aren’t assembled into a mammoth machine until they get out to the job site.
The second reason is memories: my dad spent all his working life at Caterpillar and my sister works there now. In fact, I think sis has been up inside one of these monsters (though they didn’t let her drive, as I recall).
I recall stories from the 60s about the Scottish woodcarvers Caterpillar had "imported" whose job it was to carve the masters for sand casting. Imagine carving a full-scale wooden crankshaft or cylinder head for a large diesel engine. (Not the engines used in the 797, I should add.)
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal (behind its paywall).
June 23 marks the 10th anniversary of Kelo v. City of New London, when the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 ruling that government could use eminent domain to take private property for “economic development.” At issue in the case were 15 homes, including a little pink house owned by Susette Kelo, in the city of New London, Conn., which wanted to transfer the properties to a private nonprofit with plans to revitalize the area. But after the court ruled and the houses were razed (with the exception of Ms. Kelo’s, which was moved at private expense), those plans fell through.
The condemned land remains empty, housing only a few feral cats. After Hurricane Irene in 2011, the city used it as a dumping ground for debris. Yet the first real development since the Supreme Court’s controversial decision might now be on its way: New London Mayor Daryl Finizio, who was elected in 2011 as a critic of the government taking, recently announced a plan to turn the former site of Ms. Kelo’s house into a park that will “serve as a memorial to all those adversely affected by the city’s use of eminent domain.”
It would be a fitting tribute. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo was consistent with precedent, it was nonetheless a serious error.
How touching that the mayor of New London wants to make a park as a "memorial to all those adversely affected by the city’s use of eminent domain."
If I were one of the victims, I think I’d prefer to have my house and land back.
Via CoyoteBlog I ran across some news recently that left me thinking worse of my fellow citizens. Some people just can’t leave well-enough alone.
First, here’s a report about Deborah Vollmer in Chevy Chase, MD. She seems to be conducting some type of social justice warfare over property zoning. (My emphasis below.)
Deborah Vollmer wants to make one thing very clear. Under no circumstances can you park on the driveway. This is not a drill. This is not a joke. Please park on the street.
This isn’t just a driveway, Vollmer explained, stepping across it on a soggy Thursday morning. It is the fault line dividing two titanic forces, a battlefield between past and present, between the haves and the have-nots, between environmental conservation and environmental degradation.
Put another way, the driveway separates her million-dollar house from her neighbor’s million-dollar house.
Suddenly, a figure materialized at the window in the neighbor’s house. It was Vollmer’s next-door neighbor and nemesis — an elegantly dressed, blond-haired woman named Linda Schwartz, who at this precise moment looked very unhappy. Seconds later, a garage door screeched open and Schwartz backed her Mercedes-Benz onto the driveway.
Vollmer, eyes widening in alarm, darted out of sight. “I got to get out of here!” she yelled as she vamoosed. “There’s a no-contact order against me!” […]
Thus passed another tense moment in what local officials say has become the town of Chevy Chase’s lengthiest, costliest, and most litigious neighborhood spat in recent memory. What began as a contested building permit six years ago has spiraled into a clash of wills, spawning five lawsuits, two misdemeanor convictions, arrests, anger-management classes, and a court order that Vollmer steer clear of the Schwartzes — or risk spending 18 months in the slammer.
“It is so sad that this has happened,” said Arthur Schwartz. “She is independently wealthy, has not had to work and has little else to do but continue to sue us and her own town, without regard to the law or what any court has told her.” […]
Read the whole thing to get the flavor of Ms Vollmer’s state of mind. Thank goodness she doesn’t live in my neighborhood.
If you’re a freelance writer who occasionally sells articles to a website, are you actually an employee? If you live in California, I think the answer might be — yes?
The California labor commissioner has ruled that Uber drivers are employees, not contractors, because they can’t be Uber drivers without the application, because the company pulls DMV records and does background checks, and because the company specifies various rules about how the work may be performed and cuts off access to the application if you get persistently low ratings or are inactive for 180 days (presumably since they no longer have good data on your driving ability).
On the face of it, this ruling seems ludicrous. Raise your hand if you’ve ever had an employer who said: “Hey, as long as you don’t actively alienate the customers, you can just show up and work whenever you feel like. No need to let me know when you’re coming, just show up and I’ll pay you for any work you do. Just put in a couple of hours every six months, m’kay?” Yeah, I never had that job either, and neither did anyone else who wasn’t blackmailing the boss or working for a family member. […]
But wait… there’s more! Here’s an article by Lauren Smiley about Ms Berwick and her legal actions against Uber and others.
The Many, Many Cases of the Woman Who Just Beat Uber
“I’m enjoying my five minutes of fame.”
As Barbara Ann Berwick tells it, she came to San Francisco in 1969 “to be a hippie” — but ended up as an online funds trader, a defeated political candidate, and a repeat litigant, who has pressed legal claims against everyone from a hospital to a media company for leaving newspapers at her doorstep. (She lost.)
Now, though, Berwick has won an important blow against one of the most powerful companies in today’s San Francisco. The California Labor Commissioner’s Office determined her to be an employee of Uber — not just a contractor — and awarded her approximately $4,000 in expenses, according to court documents. […]
Berwick waved off naysayers who will accuse her of cruising for another legal settlement by taking the wheel of her car for Uber. This is, after all, a time when the behemoth ridesharing company faces battles across the country about classifying its drivers as contractors, meaning that they are not eligible for benefits or other perks. She wasn’t cynical, says Berwick. She said she’d been homeless in the past. But now in general, “I’m doing quite well.”
“I want social change,” Berwick says. Before she took the Uber gig, she says, she didn’t realize that she’d be driving as a contractor. “I didn’t actually read the box I checked, so I assumed I’d be an employee, because it makes no sense to be an independent contractor. I found out real fast.” She says she was regularly driving more than 40 hours a week.
She says she stopped driving in September and filed her claim. […]
I think Berwick got her "social change" – for herself and for all the other Uber drivers in California. Be sure to tell Barabara "Thanks," folks.
Ms Berwick’s claim that she didn’t understand that she’d be treated as a contractor strikes me as pretty disingenuous. A person who’s been an online trader and a repeat litigant (a) doesn’t read agreements and (b) doesn’t know how Uber works? What?
Perhaps there’s more behind her suit against Uber than has been reported. Who benefits from the labor commissioner’s decision? Not Uber, certainly. Not most other Uber drivers, probably. Berwick’s benefits were the small windfalls of $4,000 and "five minutes of fame," so no clear winners so far.
So who will benefit from this?
Or did Berwick have her eye on more than recovering her expenses?
From the Post-Dispatch this week; readers can draw their own inferences.
Nixon gets $50K from UAW days after veto on right to work
June 13, 2015 11:20
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Democratic Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has received a $50,000 campaign contribution from the United Automobile Workers.
The donation posted in campaign finance documents this week came on June 10, less than a week after Nixon vetoed a contentious right-to-work measure. […]
And, no, I don’t know how much money was contributed (or to whom) by people & organizations who were supporting the Right-to-Work law in Missouri.