Send Better Lawyers

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Duke Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, a Constitutional authority expert representing Joe Wilson in his civil suit; Clarice Feldman rolls the tape and has some thoughts.

I will offer one bit of defense for the prof, and one criticism.  Defense first - I think Hugh Hewitt ("HH") and Professor John Eastman ("JE") confused him here:

HH: … But has Joe Wilson contradicted himself as to his public accounts of what happened?

JE: He has, and it’s pretty well documented, both before the 9/11 Commission and in House representatives’ investigation into this, that his official report was distinctly different from what he published in the New York Times. [snip]

EC: I do not agree with that at all. I think his official report was he found no evidence that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa. HH: Did the 9/11 Commission find differently? JE: It did. HH: Erwin? EC: I don’t…I would have to go back, to be honest, and look at what the 9/11 Commission found. HH: You haven’t looked at that yet???

EC: I read it, but I sure didn’t look at this aspect of it, since…

HH: And you took the case???

The 9/11 Commission did not examine the Niger-uranium story and the Wilson trip; presumably Professor Eastman was referring to the report of the Senate Sub-Committee on Intelligence.  In addressing this Professor EC may have simply been thinking, gee, I thought I read the 9/11 report, but I don't have a clue as to what these guys are talking about.

That said, Professor EC has a substantial problem here:

EC: …. I thought that John was done. John, if you’re going to use strong languages like liar, you should be sure what you’re saying is accurate. And in this instance, the CIA verified that Joseph Wilson was not sent because of any suggestion, or even with the knowledge of Valerie Plame Wilson. She had absolutely nothing to do with why Joseph Wilson was sent to Africa and to Iraq to see whether or not there was the purchasing of uranium.

The CIA may or may not have "verified that Joseph Wilson was not sent because of any suggestion, or even with the knowledge of Valerie Plame Wilson" - I would love to see a cite for that.  But I don't see how the Wilson civil suit can skate past this, from Special Counsel Fitzgerald's indictment of I. Lewis Libby (emphasis added):

7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

That "senior officer" has since been identified as Robert Grenier (Wikipedia), who became head of the newly formed Iraq Issue Group in the summer of 2002 (after the Wilson trip), and might reasonably have been viewed as an authoritative source by Libby in June of 2003.

Now, maybe Grenier simply passed along an early report about Ms. Plame's involvement that was inaccurate (per both George Tenet and Andrea Mitchell's anonymous CIA source, the top level of the CIA was as in-the dark about the Wilson trip as everyone else).

Or maybe Grenier lied to Libby.  Or maybe the lower levels of the CIA changed their story to one that was more politically convenient.  Who knows?  But it seems to have been clear to Fitzgerald that Libby had a good faith reason to believe, as of June 2003, that Ms. Plame had been involved with arranging her husband's trip.

In which case, the notion that this was some invented smear becomes a lot harder to sustain.

Comments

[clarice]

It does look as though he was so unprepared respecting his suit that he never read the indictment, doesn't it?

I think despite Eastman's misstatement, Chemerinsky also seemed unaware of the SSCI report as well. (I suggest that if it was Eastman's misstatement that threw him off he might have responded,"Are you talking about the SSCI report?" or something to that effect.)
But never let it be said that TM is not scrupulously fair and a hawk eyed reader.

[Rick Ballard]

I don't think it takes much to confuse Chemerinsky. I do wish that either Hugh or Professor Eastman would have picked up on

"They did so by telling journalists like Robert Novak this, and was reported by Robert Novak in a column published three weeks ago Friday."

and asked the FAIR dunce to elaborate on the chain of causation.

I'm reasonably certain that Chemerinsky never lets facts get in the way of a pretty theory but I would be entertained immensely to hear how "You heard that, too?" was a triggering event.

[Other Tom]

And of course they all three ignored the fact that the initial disclosure of Plame's employment was not made by one of the defendants, but instead by UGO (read: Armitage), who has never been shown even to be in communication with any of the "conspirators" on this subject.

Just as a refresher, here is some language from the SSCI Report:

“The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’”

[vnjagvet]

As we discussed just after the Complaint was filed, it appeared that with the exception of some technical paragraphs to get around some immunity issues, the factual paragraphs were unenlightening on some of the critical factual issues.

Commenters here found that curious given the information available in the public record.

Chemerinsky's lack of comfort with that public record shows at minimum that he should have postponed appearances on the talk show cicuit. Normally even attorneys appearing "of counsel" on a Complaint have a better grasp of the factual basis of a Complaint than even knowledgeable public commentators.

Not particularly impressive for a man with his distinguished academic credentials.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Chemerinsky is getting paid what's worth for this:

'I think we have an extremely strong case. Here's what we all know at this point. Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, in which he showed that there were falsehoods in President Bush's State of the Union address. As a result of that, the Vice President, his top aide, Lewis Libby, and the President's key political advisor, Karl Rove, decided to reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret CIA operative. They did so by telling journalists like Robert Novak this, and was reported by Robert Novak in a column published three weeks ago Friday.'

1. Wilson had to admit to the SSCI that he hadn't 'debunked' the sixteen words in the SOTU. In fact, he claimed he never even tried.

2. It was someone else who decided to tell Robert Novak, not any of the three defendants.

Anyway, how does a Duke Law School professor get away with describing as 'an extremely strong case' one where he's got exactly zero evidence for the claim that there was some sort of plot to extract revenge?

The whole charge is made up by Joe Wilson, and everyone who received the leak--Novak, Woodward, Judy Judy Judy, even Fat Matt--say it was not offered as any big deal. Just background info that showed Wilson's story wasn't as he was promoting it.

[Rick Ballard]

Vnjagvet,

Where is it written that one has to know how to practice law in order to obtain those "distinguished academic credentials"? And how many UNSC awarded dunce caps does it take before "Constitutional authority expert" is to be construed as "mediocre Constitutional theorist"?

[verner]

Just one question. If it was a conspiracy to hurt the Wilsons, and Libby knew on June 11, why did it only appear in print on July 14, in a piece written by Novak, who Libby never spoke to? As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that Libby or Rove outed her to anyone. Both just confirmed (in 4-5 words, "I heard that too" and without elaboration) what reporters already knew. Where's the case?

And according to Fitz, that wasn't illegal. Libby was indicted because his testimony contradicted evidence that Fitz held over when he knew, and who told him. And as we've seen in the Libby trial, that same evidence also points to the fact that Miller and Cooper knew who Plame was before they ever talked to Libby.

And we have not even added Woodward to the mix.

Hugh Hewitt needs to have him back on for a good cross examination.

[Jane]

Anyway, how does a Duke Law School professor get away with describing as 'an extremely strong case' one where he's got exactly zero evidence for the claim that there was some sort of plot to extract revenge?

Sort of makes you think that this is all a big PR campaign.

Lots of cases have been won and lost on PR. Think breast implants, and to a certain degree tobacco litigation. The insurance industry has been a pro at this for decades, with phenominal results. (Do you think your insurance premiums are higher as a result of big tort verdicts? If so, that's a clue).

Wilson has the media on his side. And perhaps he thinks that's a big enough surrogate lawyer to win his case for him.

You read in the NY Times that a big time "respected" constitutional expert says Plame's case is slam dunk. What else do you need to know?

[maryrose]

If a case has no merit it can't be won. This is part and parcel of the Plames publicity tour. The book itself will sink like a stone. All accused persons are immunized by their fulfillment of job duties. Val should take her pension and run with it.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

I hope he's just an advisor.

[richard mcenroe]

If this is the same Chemerinsky who was a regular quote whore on the local TV here in LA, he's spent a lot more time talking about cases than trying them lately. I suspect he wasn't really prepped to talk to someone who wouldn't ask morning-news questions like "But how do we know OJ is really, truly, absolutely guilty?"

But then as Greenwald shows, the left has a low taste in shysters...

[vnjagvet]

IIRC, Chemerensky's performance as a talking head during the OJ trial was underwhelming.

Commenting on trial tactics was not his long suit.

Rick, "distinguished academic credentials" depend on solely academic performance based almost entirely on examinations at "elite" institutions, not on actual performance in the somewhat less "elite" but nonetheless challenging testing ground of real life civil and criminal courtrooms. Many academics have found dificulty testing their pet theories in the nations' courtrooms.

[Jane]

Many academics have found dificulty testing their pet theories in the nations' courtrooms

Ain't that the truth.

[clarice]

jane, all those "public inteest" outfits Nader started were funed by plaintiffs' counsel. The pattern is they highlight a big "safety" problem, the media runs unritically with it, the big suit on that is brought after the PR campaign is in full swing, the trial lawyers kick back part of their pelf to Nader.

[clarice]

**funDed**unCritically**(sorry..)

[Other Tom]

R. McEnroe: This is indeed the same Chemerinsky. He used to be a prof at USC, and he regularly made me gag when I watched him locally in L.A.

[Robin Roberts]

Chermerinsky has been a reliable partisan hack and mediocre constitutional scholar for some time.

[Lesley]

I suspect Professor Chemerinsky has some novel legal theory with which he'd like to "experiment" and the Wilson's situation presented him such an opportunity.

That said, I was reminded of a wonderful Peter Arno cartoon from the New Yorker, 1941. The cartoon shows various military men and ground crew racing toward a crashed plane, and a designer, with a roll of plans under his arm, walking away saying, "Well, back to the old drawing board."

Arno Cartoon

Should this case crash and burn for the Wilsons, Professor Chemerinsky will simply return to his Ivory Tower and *back to the old drawing board.*

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

OT but posting here because it is the active thread ...

For your reading pleasure, Squiggler's GAG of the Day!:

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result, he said.

"The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East," Kerry said. "We're going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it."

Kerry

[verner]

Clarice, Fenton has a history of inventing, and supporting simular schemes.

Case in point, Alar apples.

Silicone Breast implants as well. If you'll notice, many of those suits were supported and promoted heavily by feminist orgs.(and Fenton clients) like NOW. And these same orgs. lobbied heavily to keep the implants off the market, even though the evidence was inconclusive that they caused the health problems that were claimed.

I'll have to pull out the ole client list, but if I'm not mistaken, the American Trial Lawyers are/were a Fenton client.

[jerry]

Better lawyers, better guns, better money... hmmm, some prominent "non-Lefties" would say that the US government is the absolute worst at managing all these three thingies... maybe it's time to place a big bet on the Plame-Wilsons? Windy'sea?

I thought Verner's was a ginger ale, BTW.

May this week be less interesting than last week, and the future - mildly entertaining.

[Rick Ballard]

Verner,

Milberg Weiss is definitely a Fenton client. The scum all floats together.

[Other Tom]

Jerry: If you're betting on the Wilsons, name your amount.

[richard mcenroe]

"Anyway, how does a Duke Law School professor get away with describing as 'an extremely strong case' one where he's got exactly zero evidence for the claim ..."

Gee, where have we heard THAT around Duke University lately?

[Other Tom]

Jerry: How are you handicapping the government lawyer Fitzgerald vs. the private lawyer, Ted Wells, in the Libby case?

[ordi]

I found this part interesting too.

EC: I apologize for interrupting. I thought that John was done. John, if you're going to use strong languages like liar, you should be sure what you're saying is accurate. And in this instance, the CIA verified that Joseph Wilson was not sent because of any suggestion, or even with the knowledge of Valerie Plame Wilson. She had absolutely nothing to do with why Joseph Wilson was sent to Africa and to Iraq to see whether or not there was the purchasing of uranium. And the allegation of the complaint is that her status as a secret CIA operative was private, that here what you had was public disclosure of private facts. You had it as retaliation for free speech, and I think that states many claims under the Constitution under tort law.

Notice the word IRAQ? He included Iraq. WHY??? Did he misspeak or did he make news here? Did Joe go to Iraq too? I have the audio, there is NO mistake he said Iraq.

Hmmmmm

Any thoughts?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

The breast implants case and the other examples are class action lawsuits, a whole different thing entirely. This is a single plaintiff against individual defendants. So, there's no need for dubious 'expert' testimony about harm.

It'll be the specifics only, and the specifics says Wilson intruded himself in a political controversy. That his wife had at least a peripheral role, and that inevitably came out. End of story.

Except that, I well remember almost coming to fisticuffs with MY LAWYER when I was being sued in Federal Court by a guy who was about as honest as Joe Wilson.

My problem was that my lawyer just couldn't conceive that anyone would file a frivolous lawsuit in Federal Court. He himself was petrified that he might say something to offend the judge and his career would be over. It was really amazing how timid he was, even to the point of opening himself to a malpractice suit from me for his not representing me properly.

Finally, I got him to work through document disclosure. I knew enough about my opponent's business that I requested specific things that shouldn't have existed--I'd written some of them and sent them to him--if the lawsuit had any merit.

Eventually his lawyer caught on, and I'm guessing told his client that he'd have to come up with a retainer large enough to cover anticipated litigation costs. Because they withdrew the lawsuit rather than comply with my requests.

If Chemerinsky ever acquaints himself with the facts of the case, I'm guessing he's going to feel very queasy about what a Federal judge will do TO HIM.

[Other Tom]

I wish Rule 11 were used more aggressively by the courts than it is, but the fact is that it rarely results in sanctions against the plaintiff's lawyer. Nevertheless, Chemerinsky has put his reputation at grave risk by putting his signature on this complaint.

[Sue]

Other Tom,

No he hasn't. The left will just excuse away any failings he might have with Rovian talk. Nothing ruins the reputation of a lefty, but standing with Bush in the WOT.

[Gary Maxwell]

Two facts that come into play here. First EC said he was working "pro bono" that's without pay. He is to this case what the model is to a new car at the auto show, and since he is drawing nothing he did not agree to be up on the stage long. You wont likely hear from him again.

The other to know is that HH and EC have a long and cordial relationship. It likely goes back to Ec's Souther Cal days, and HH has him on his radio show on numerous occasions as a counterbalancing force. Its not odd that he went on HH show, and once on the air started answering HH questions and revealed himself to be less than up to speed with the facts surrounding the case.

[richard mcenroe]

"Nothing ruins the reputation of a lefty, but standing with Bush in the WOT."

Shoot, they're proving that with Glenn Greenwald over at Obsidian Wings as we type...

[Jane]

>The breast implants case and the other examples are class action lawsuits, a whole different thing entirely.

Fair enough. Think McDonald's and hot coffee.

A 65 year old woman gets a cup of hot coffee which is brewed at a temp about 25 degrees hotter than any other coffee you get at a fast food place (because coffee is often poured and waits before it is served at McDonalds, thus cooling down. So the policy is to make it much much hotter than anyone can bear.)

65 year old woman is a passenger in a car driven by her son. She struggles with the lid so he stops the car so she can open the cup. She wedges the cup between her legs, opens it, and is scalded with 3rd degree burns in her genital area. She requires emergency treatment, hospitalization and long term care.

McDonald's which has an entire university devoted to the care and feeding of hamburgers, has no safety program. Not one class is offered in risk management. Employees are not schooled in the fact that their coffee is much hotter than any other served. This, despite the fact that people have filed thousands of burn claims as a result of McDonald's coffee in the past. (which brings us back to the silly little warning which would have resulted in summary judgment being awarded to Mc'y D's.)"Warning, coffee is hot".

65 year old woman file a claim against McDonalds with an offer to settle the matter for her medical bills: $26,000. Ronald McDonald laughs in her face.

The jury awards millions. She might as well have collected trillions given the PR value to McDonalds. Who today doesn't mock the jury in the burning coffee case? In truth the jury acted on the evidence and came to a proper decision based on McDonald's utter neglect of safety after repeated warnings.

But all anyone knows is the PR that McDonald's put out after the fact.

All it takes is money and sentiment, and Wilson has both. Who doesn't think that if this case is properly bounced out of Court the moonbats won't be yelling "cover up"? It's win/win for Wilson.

Unless.....

[windansea]

maybe it's time to place a big bet on the Plame-Wilsons? Windy'sea?

you're the "arbitrage" expert right Jerry?

lay some odds and set up a paypal account :)

[Other Tom]

Actually, whether EC plays any further part in this litigation, it is his reputation as a scholar that is at risk, and his name is permanently etched on that complaint. Granted most of his fellow legal scholars are to the left, but they'll associate him with this fiasco for a long time.

[Gary Maxwell]

Who doesn't think that if this case is properly bounced out of Court the moonbats won't be yelling "cover up"?

Well given a number of them are yelling that 911 was a conspriracy by the government, it hard to argue with your point that some folks will say almost anything.

[noah]

Obsidian Wings is another kind of fraud. They have a fake conservative to provide the illusion of balance.

[Gary Maxwell]

Kinda like the the fake moderate that Greenwald has been promoting himself as. And if he is a libertarian then Mao was a Republican.

[JorgXMckie]

Jane, it's been a while, but I remember that the jury award in the coffee case was *significantly* reduced by the appeals court. I mean, way, way down.

Anyway, were I a juror in any such case, I'd want to hear evidence of 'client stupidity' and Joe Wilson seems to have an abundance.

[Protagonist]

IIRC, Chemerensky's performance as a talking head during the OJ trial was underwhelming.

"Underwhelming"? Try sitting through four hours of his ConLaw bar review lectures!

Admittedly, I got a good schooling on the subject, but listening to the man speak was grueling. I swear, everytime he told a pun, it took a month off the span of my life.

[Jane]

>Jane, it's been a while, but I remember that the jury award in the coffee case was *significantly* reduced by the appeals court. I mean, way, way down.

I recall that it was, but that wasn't because the case was anything like McDonald's tried to spin, but rather because the amount awarded was excessive. The point is that with all MCDonald's spin no one ever learned about their horrid safety record, the reasonableness of the Plaintiff, and the policy of making your coffee so hot that it causes 3rd degree burns on touch.

What they heard is that juries are out of control, that everyone knows coffee is hot and there was no case here. McDonald's spin.

And in the Wilson case, if the Judge dismisses it, or the Jury finds for the defendants, the Wilson spin will be that a Rovian conspiracy got to the Judge who should be removed, because we no longer have a democracy but a facist state. As I said, it will be a win/win for the Wilsons.

[Rick Ballard]

Gary,

So you think maintenace of a Brazilian cabana boy sock puppet choir is evidence of lack of moderation? How narrow minded of you. Just read libertine for libertarian. It's like license and liberty, they all start with the same letter so they must be almost alike in meaning.

[Slartibartfast]

because coffee is often poured and waits before it is served at McDonalds, thus cooling down

Once upon a time I worked at McDonald's, and coffee was NEVER poured prior to its being served. Even back then (and this was coming up on thirty years ago) the heat of McDonald's coffee was legendary. I theorized that McDonald's was actually adding something to the coffee (more accurately known as "coffee") to enable it to be raised to a temperature higher than the boiling point of water, but, being a high school kid, I had no idea.

[Jane]

Well that just makes it all the worse. I wonder if they still do it.

Closer to the verdict my memory was a lot clearer about all the spin v the facts. I marveled at how McDonald's spun it, and public went along like slathering dogs.

[clarice]

ordi, I assume from the interview and from the nature of his role in the litigation , the Professor has not bothered to nail down the facts in the case and he used "Iraq" out of ignorance. Had Wilson gone to Iraq on the Mission to Niger, I'd be astonished if that fact didn't become public by now.

[Gary Maxwell]

So you think maintenace of a Brazilian cabana boy sock puppet choir is evidence of lack of moderation?

No Rick I dont. The sock puppet thing was funny as hell that he was exposed, but it does not impact my views on who he is ( well other than maybe dishonest ). The harangues about anything conservative in the most strident tones, highlighted by his Authoritarian Cult drivel, leads me to say he aint a moderate. In fact if he is a moderate so is Cindy Sheehan for god sake.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Just read libertine for libertarian.

That's certainly been one of my life ambitions.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I'm still trying to figure out how you can get a 3rd degree burn from hot coffee.

[topsecretk9]

--Notice the word IRAQ? He included Iraq. WHY??? Did he misspeak or did he make news here? Did Joe go to Iraq too? I have the audio, there is NO mistake he said Iraq.--

I would point out that there is a hanky time issue concerning his trip and the details in the SSCI...left for Niger Feb, 21 arrived in Niger Feb. 26th, and according to his book he took the first plane from France to Niger...he also spent 8 days in Niger and says he layovered in France on the return. I can't make sense of it (with the material available at least). I left the excerpt from his bool in the Wilson Civil suit thread.

[clarice]

Polyester pants,Charlie.

(Rocco--More problems on the other end. I'm hoping ofr a Tue publish date.)

[Slartibartfast]

I believe McDonald's has cooled its coffee down since the lawsuit. That plus the signs warning of HOT COFFEE (as if there's any other kind to be warned about) have staved off other, similar lawsuits.

Or at least I think they have.

[Jane]

Well they would be idiots not to. I've never had McDonald's coffee. It's Dunkin Donuts or nothing for me.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I had to warm my McDonald's coffee in the office microwave this morning, it was so cold.

Anyway, the lady in the McDonald's suit had been harmed. She had medical bills to prove it. Where's the comparable evidence of harm for the Wilson's?

[sad]

**Anyway, the lady in the McDonald's suit had been harmed. She had medical bills to prove it. Where's the comparable evidence of harm for the Wilson's?**

Do you know how expensive Armani is???? Where is your compassion?????

[Jane]

>Anyway, the lady in the McDonald's suit had been harmed. She had medical bills to prove it. Where's the comparable evidence of harm for the Wilson's?

Twasn't my point - which clearly I'm not very skilled at making. My point was that win or lose PR often carries the day.

If the Plame case is tossed or lost, I don't expect a big AHAH! moment from the left. It will be spun as another Rovian miscarriage of justice.

[clarice]

Of course, Jane. 25% or so of the voters are undeterred by facts. As for the others, the media has so consistently misreported the facts of this case only those who pay close attention or get their news from the internet have a clue.

[ex-democrat]

Jane: I must say, I'm having trouble reconciling

1. "...She wedges the cup between her legs, opens it,..."

with:
2. "..the reasonableness of the Plaintiff,.."

that's the problem with the decision, IMO.

[Barney Frank]

The exemplary damages were reduced to $480,000 or three times the actual damages. Apparently they then settled out of court for a considerably smaller sum.

[maryrose]

Jane:
Agreed Dunkin Donut's coffee is better. However I can get a senior coffee for 50 cents at McDonald's. I just wait 15 minutes and then start to drink it. Logical solutions guarantee lack of burned lips.

[Jane]

>that's the problem with the decision, IMO.

Ex-dem,

That's reasonable, but the jury disagreed. The case is legendary in my mind for any number of reasons including McDonald's own lack of risk management, but mostly for the spin that went on after the fact.

I think what happened is that the jury was enraged by the complete callousness of McDonalds. The history of burn claims came in I think - as well as the lack of emphasis on safety.

The thing is, how else are you gonna open your coffee when the top won't come off and you are in your car. Is that not forseeable?

[Jane]

Here's a link which corrects all the facts that I misremembered.

http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

[Gabriel Sutherland]

This civil case doesn't appear to have any end in sight short of an out of court settlement. The witnesses required to testify here would be astronomical. Defense lawyers could simply call everyone in the government as a witness and make National security Council minutes part of the public record.

I'm holding out for a discovery bonanza.

The Plame's aren't seeking justice. If that were the case then they'd be pressing the criminal case in public. However, they've moved on to the civil suit sweepstakes hoping to cash in.

Didn't Mr. Plame - Joe wears the panties - just ink a multimillion dollar book deal? A movie? A cartoon? Their own television network? You never know what kind of placement the DNC has in store for you until you're officially out of the politics game for good.

[kazinski]

The most glaring fatal flaw in the Wilson- Chemerinsky case is that Armitage isn't named in the suit. How can you sue Rove when he isn't the one that made the initial leak? While the actual leaker is given a pass. And as protective as Fitzgerald has been of Armitage, I don't think Rove's lawyers will allow him to stay on the sidelines. And Chemerinsky will have to explain why Rove's confirmation of the leak is more damaging than the leak itself was.

[Lowell Brown]

Erwin seems like an honorable guy, but like many law professors he is a true academic with surprisingly little real-world experience in litigation and the need to pay attention to factual details. Maybe that caught up with him here.

[Gringo]

Hot tap water, at about 160F, can cause 3rd degree burns. I know this from personal experience.

At 180F it only takes 9 seconds of exposure to result in 3rd deg. burns, and 20 seconds at 160F.

Most coffee is served at 180.

Apparently in the Liebeck vs. Ronald M. case the coffee was allegedly 190 (3 seconds for a 3d deg. burn).

Did they lose the case over the 10F/6sec diff??

IMO no "spin" is required to make a suit over a coffee-induced burn sound frivolous on its face.

[Neo]

The interesting point here is that Libby, now a private citizen, is uniquely positioned to countersue, especially if he has valid reason to believe that Wilson/Flame are running a publicity stunt.
If he does it quickly, he might be able to introduce into evident, in the court of public opinion, all the facts that seem to have been tossed in the criminal trial.
As Cheney and Rove are still in the government, this would be a more difficult task, and since they aren't facing criminal charges.

[Orion]

which brings us back to the silly little warning which would have resulted in summary judgment being awarded to Mc'y D's.)"Warning, coffee is hot".

The sky is blue, cats purr, dogs bark, so what? A 65 year old woman should be smart enough not to jam a styrofoam cup full of hot coffee between her legs and try to wrestle the lid off. Nothing in your version of events mitigates that. The suit and the jury's award were based solely on the fact that McDonalds is a Big Corporation and could afford it; nothing else. Had this happened 43 years ago, in San Bernadino CA at Dick and Mac's orginal hamburger stand that jury would have laughed her out of court. Of course, back then "personal responsibility" still meant something.

[cathyf]

Not only does Dunkin Donuts coffee taste better, but their serving procedure is safer AND makes the coffee taste better. They put the milk and/or sugar into the cup first, then pour the coffee in, stir it, put the lid on, and then hand it to the customer. The coffee tastes better because the sugar dissolves better the hotter the coffee is. And it's safer because you don't have to ever take the lid off at all -- you can simply break off the spout opening and drink when it cools down. And, furthermore, remember McD's huge advertising scheme to convince you that they were so environmentally concious? Well how many trees died to make the bazillions of paper sugar packets that you wouldn't need if McD did it DD's way? What about the barrels of oil that go into the plastic creamers that you wouldn't need either? Not to mention the whole concept of SERVICE to the customers!

They still don't get it. They should at least OFFER to make up your coffee for you, at least at the drive-thru. But if they did, they'd have to admit that the people who got burned had some reasonable case.

cathy :-)

[Sue]

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2006/07/good_luck_mr_le_1.html#comments>Check out Seixon's latest on Leopold

[windansea]

personally I like IN n Out burgers best

oops....this is a coffee thread???

[sad]

Seixon's post was fascinating!!! It also justifies the warnings I give my children about being very careful of what they put on the internet--it is all traceable!!!

[reliapundit]

following the pre-lims in this lawsuit is like watching a match between two semi-final losers to see who gets third place.

WHO CARES! it's all a waste of time.

why?

the judge will throw this case out.

why?

novak has sworn that he was not first told by rove or libby and that there was no vendetta.

defense lawyers wil introduce this testimony in their pre-trial motion to dismiss the case and the case will be dismissed.

[Jane]

>The suit and the jury's award were based solely on the fact that McDonalds is a Big Corporation and could afford it

Oh you are so wrong about that!

[Jane]

Orion,

I owe you a better explaination of my proclaimation that this was not just a deep pocket verdict. As I'm sure you know every large corporation has a risk management division. It is the risk manager's job to assess the risks facing the company and guard against them appropriately. McDonald's had 700 burn claims under its belt when this claim emerged. 100% of them had been denied by the company, and they had paid out no money.

One of the things the risk manager (and a good lawyer) evaluates is the climate for risk. Clearly the climate was on the side of McDOnalds as no awards had been made to any of the other victims. And since they could have settled the case for $20k they were pretty confident that the climate was not the threat you suggest.

What carried the day in this case was the data that McDonalds had coffee that was significantly hotter than the industry standard, that they had no emphasis on safety, and there was no warning of the aberation in temperature.

And don't discount the lawyer, who tried a brilliant case.

IMX A punative verdict like that emerges not because cash is available, but rather because a jury is angry. After all, a verdict like that could happen whether there were assets or not, a jury is not privy to that information although they can assume McDonald's has money. Of course since McDonalds is a franchise operation, no one can know if they had enough assets to cover the loss.

IMX the deeper the pocket the more resources spent on PR, assessment of risk and fighting the plaintiff where it hurts, specifically in the pocketbook.

[Neo]

Sorry to intrude ..
was the jury award against McDonalds based on ?

1) paying off the lawyer so he wouldn't bother McDonalds again
2) raise the plaintiff up economically so she could instead buy her coffee at Starbucks
3) take money away from McDonalds so they are forced to hire even cheaper labor that will be more likely to pour the hot coffee directly onto the customers.
4) to help the stupid plaintiff to procure some common sense.

[Jane]

None of the above.

But I guess I can rest my case about the value of PR.

[SunnyDay]

If anyone would like to be able to post with a different IP address, let me know. ;)

It could be fun, on sites where they recognize you and you want to hide.

[cathyf]

Hey, could you tech me how to post disparaging remarks about GiGi and make it look like it came from his IP?

;-)

[SunnyDay]

Tee hee!! well, you don't get to pick what IP addy it is, it just isn't yours. ;) I have a little program that changes your IP address every few minutes.

[Slartibartfast]

McDonalds had coffee that was significantly hotter than the industry standard

Wait...let me see if I've got this straight: there's an industry standard for coffee temperature?

Pull the other one.

[Jane]

There is an industry standard for everything.

[sbw]

Sunnyday, it might be fun, but not a sound practice. While something short of spoofing, because you have ownership of the legitimate IP addresses, it misrepresents the author.

GIGI's problem is GIGI. He's not worth misrepresenting yourself to get around his games. His games just aren't worth playing.

People act according to what one represents to them. One lie and the world can never trust anything that person presents again.

On of the strengths of JOM is the importance of representing oneself squarely -- which is the signal flaw of Larry, Joe, and Curley [Which one was Curley?]. Let's keep that in the forefront of our collective mind.

[Slartibartfast]

There is an industry standard for everything.

Truly? I'd like to see the documentation on that.

[SunnyDay]

sbw, ITA - it's a really joke.

But - in some situations, it pays to be aware that someone else may be using such a program. If so, they become impossible to trace.

[cathyf]

There is an industry standard for everything.

Truly? I'd like to see the documentation on that.

Sure, just look in their ISO 9000 paperwork. :-0

cathy :-)

[Other Tom]

"This civil case doesn't appear to have any end in sight short of an out of court settlement." My belief is that the case will be dismissed at the pleading stage, on any of a variety of grounds. No discovery will ever be taken by either side.

[sbw]

SunnyDay: it's a really joke Thanks. I'm glad.

[Jane]

>Truly? I'd like to see the documentation on that.

Then do a google search. I did one this morning and I can verify that it is there.

[Slartibartfast]

Unsuccessful, but I did find this.

[Slartibartfast]

So, could you perhaps post a link that you found on your successful Google search? That'd probably be a lot quicker than serial protestations, sans evidence, that there is in fact an industry standard for this sort of thing.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Other Tom: Haha. Let's exit the land of make believe for just a moment. We're talking about the Plame family. Valjoe is still writing their novel. The story isn't over so the case continues despite any rebuke from the people's court.

[isisis]

Clarice Feldman, new at American Thinker:
...

The African Connection: Rep. Jefferson and Joe Wilson
July 25th, 2006

[...]

Joe Wilson, it turns out, left the State Department and became a business promoter with some rather intriguing connections before he went on his infamous mission to Niger.
In 1998 [Wilson left the State Department and began putting his diplomatic contacts to business use. He formed J.C. Wilson International Ventures Corporation, a business development and management company which ventured in gold, oil, and telecommunications and served clients in Africa, Western Europe, and Turkey. At this time new African markets were emerging due to the recent passage of an African trade bill Wilson had helped President Clinton promote. Wilson’s African investment interests included oil markets in several parts of Africa and the gold market in Niger. Wilson also kept abreast of the gold market in Iraq, where the price of gold was exceptionally cheap, as Wilson observed in one of his lectures.10

[...]

Wilson ran his company out of the offices of an investment company called Rock Creek Corporation. Rock Creek was controlled by Mohammed Alamoudi, whom Wilson had met in 1997 at a reception organized for the World Bank by Westar Group. Alamoudi was a member of the Saudi-Ethiopian Alamoudi dynasty, which was heavily invested in the segments of the African economy Wilson was seeking to penetrate.

The Alamoudi-affiliated company Delta Services-a Swiss subsidiary of the Saudi company Delta Oil-handled Iraqi oil export contracts in 2000 and 2001 and was revealed in 2003 as a recipient of Iraqi Oil-for-Food vouchers channeled through Abu Abbas, a Palestinian terrorist with Iraqi connections. Delta Services also cooperated with Afghanistan’s Taliban regime in a project to build an oil pipeline from Afghanistan to Pakistan, prior to this project’s suspension in 1998. In 1999, Alamoudi was accused by USA Today reporter Jack Kelley of heading a bank which was being investigated for financing Al Qaeda.

USA Today printed retractions of several details in Kelley’s article in 2004, after another member of the Alamoudi family-Abdurahman Alamoudi, a prominent American Muslim lobbyist-was indicted on terror-related charges involving a Libyan-backed conspiracy to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah. Abdurahman was ultimately convicted in October 2004 and sentenced to 23 years in prison.12 Under Mohammed Alamoudi’s direction, Rock Creek was chaired by Elias Aburdene, an Arab-American international banking advisor and lobbyist who had previously advised banks linked to organized crime and intelligence community figures involved in the S&L Scam. In 2003 and 2004 Aburdene donated to the Sandhills Political Action Committee, which was affiliated with Senator Chuck Hagel, 13 a leading Republican critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.14

Clinton, Lewisnski, and Africa

Recall the trip to Africa conducted by Bill Clinton in the wake of the embarrassing Monica Lewinski affair, playing to his most reliable voting base, and bringing with him a very large number of African-American business figures, politicians, and other influential individuals.

The trip cost almost $50 million and was tagged as the most expensive foreign trip by a US President. Much of this expense was for transportation for the Clinton’s took a large delegation with them. The delegation included Jesse Jackson, prominent Black businessmen such as Bob Johnson and the following Congressional delegation: Congressmen Payne ,William Jefferson and Rangel and Congresswoman Maxine Waters, as well as Secretary Slater. (Source)

What is less well known is that the man who orchestrated this trip was Joseph C. Wilson IV co-star of the long-running Plame comedy hour.

More: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5702

[Jane]

Clarice,

Assuming the Jefferson docs are going to render some dirt on Wilson, how does his decision to file the civil suit fit in?

Surely he would have an inkling of the risk if one were there. What do you think garnering more attention through the civil suit get him, if anything?

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Elias Aburdene, from where do I know that name?

Anyway, this is an interesting site.

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=2496&name=Elias-Aburdene

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Elias Aburdene is an alumnus of Georgetown's School of Foreign Service. I wonder how he met fellow alum JC Wilson and his adventures company.

[clarice]

isisis, Thanks for posting that.

I think the Wilsons have absolutely no intention of proceeding with this civil case, Jane.

The underlying subtheme of this article, is what Reynolds calls the Army of Davids. Fedora, Rocco, all of you every day bring to bear your investigative skills , experience and intelligence to crack these mysteries.

I read today that we learned of Pakistan's expansion of its nuclear weapons program by non-government observers studying overhead shots of the facility.

Beats anything you can imagine coming out of Plame's shop, I'd say.

[maryrose]

Newsweek has a down arrow for President Bush in the CW section essentially blaming him for the Palestinian /Israeli conflict surprisingly just like John Kerry. They also have an up arrow for Val Plame for her lawsuit against Rove Cheney. and Libby. Bias anyone?

[clarice]

Here is a list of the delegation to Africa.

http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/Africa/delegation.html

[Gabriel Sutherland]

???

Ron Burkle, Managing Partner, Yucaipa Companies

[Jane]

I think the Wilsons have absolutely no intention of proceeding with this civil case, Jane.

Any thoughts on how they will abort it? And that still doesn't reconcile a grab for publicity just before more dirt hits the fan.

I dunno, there are a few things in all this I can't reconcile. It could be that Wilson et al are just nuts I guess, but something is not adding up for me.

[clarice]

Yup, Gabriel, that caught my eye, too.