Tag Archives: damages

Mel Gibson Tapes: Evidence of Tampering, Editing By Oksana Grigorieva?

His vile rants have forever altered people’s perception of him, but Mel Gibson’s lawyers claim the now-infamous tapes of his outbursts were tampered with. The actor’s legal team says it has hard evidence that the four tapes (and counting) Oksana Grigorieva secretly recorded were tampered with and edited. If true, it’s still Mel ranting like a sexist pig , making death threats and racial slurs, and demanding to be orally serviced before burning down her house. But it may make the tapes inadmissible in a court of law. The L.A. County Sheriff’s Department will have to authenticate the Mel Gibson tapes before handing over the domestic violence case to the D.A.’s Office. That could take some time. Gibson faces investigation by authorities for allegedly attacking Oksana Grigorieva – while she carried their daughter no less. Mel’s lawyers deny he physically attacked Oksana in any way, and will present evidence to the Sheriff’s Department that the tapes have been altered.

Teresa Giudice Laughs Off Danielle Staub Lawsuit

Following his client’s confrontation with Teresa Giudice and other Real Housewives of New Jersey on this week’s explosive episode , the attorney for Danielle Staub says he plans on filing a lawsuit. Along with assault and battery charges , the lawyer says he’ll seek damages for “defamation of character.” To this assertion, Giudice has the following response: HAHA! “Don’t make me laugh. I think she’s defamed her own reputation all by herself,” Giudice told Popeater yesterday, clearly referring to Staub’s history of drug use, prostitution, sex tape production and overall lunacy. Unlike Staub, Giudice is aware that filing a restraining order against a reality TV co-star is more ridiculous than any defense of Mel Gibson. These women are paid to interact with one another in front of the camera. They don’t just choose to do so – they profit from the confrontations! “Believe me, if we could get a restraining order against a cast member, Danielle would have had four against her already,” Teresa said . “I never threatened her. She, however, has been on camera threatening me, stalking me and even practicing doing me harm.” Meanwhile, while viewers may claim to be be disgusted by these women, the ratings say otherwise: Tuesday’s episode set a record for Bravo, becoming the highest-rated non-finale of the series. A total of 3.29 million fans tuned in.

Link:
Teresa Giudice Laughs Off Danielle Staub Lawsuit

Corporatism 101: [1990] Congress artificially limits Oil companies liability to a meager $75 million dollars.

If you took a barrel of oil and dumped it into a stream on your property you would be fully liable for damage to the property and person of anyone down stream. So when BP’s oil well ruptures, dumping millions of gallons of oil into the gulf the company is fully responsible for the damages it caused and those affected should be fully compensated to be made whole again, right? Unfortunately, the 1990 Oil Pollution Act caps an Oil company’s liability for economic damages relating to an oil spill at $75 million. (As of May 3rd the economic Cost of the BP Oil Spill: was $12.5 Billion, so that only leaves $12,425,000,000 of damages unpaid.) source: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/05/03/oil-spill-cost/ Luckily the Act provides that if the courts determine BP was “grossly negligent or engaged in conduct in violation of federal regulations,” the $75 million cap disappears, so BP is not of the hook yet right? Wrong. Unfortunately, a little known government agency, the Minerals Management Service, “approved BP's application to drill under the Deepwater Horizon and …and approved the blowout preventer that failed to stop the Gulf of Mexico oil spill without assurances that its last-ditch mechanism would work on the drill pipe the company was using.” [1] And the rigs strong track record of passing inspections prompted the regulatory agency to “herald the Deepwater Horizon as an industry model for safety.” [2] The chances of a court finding that BP was “grossly negligent” or in violation of federal regulations, are nil when the very agency that oversees BP not only routinely found the well in compliance with the federal regulations but also hailed it as a model for industry safety. So congress has been caught with its pants down, because the special privilege of a liability cap they created for the oil companies, the judiciary or anyone else can't punish -through punitive damages – or even hold BP liable for more than a fraction of the amount of damage they caused. Which raises an important question: absent a congressional created cap on liability of only $75 million, would BP have drilled an unprecedented 5,000 ft well , without knowledge, technology or experience of capping wells at that depth, if they had unlimited liability and had to pay the actual full amount of the potential damages?($12.5 billion as of May 3.) http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/oil_spill_liability_whos_on_th… [1.] http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/updates_from_oil_rig_e… [2.] http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/federal_inspections_on… added by: Dagum

BP Spill Bill Advances in the Senate

Photo via TMC Net This legislation seems like a no-brainer: A bill that takes steps to prevent another such disaster, in the wake of the worst oil spill in the history of both the Gulf and the United States. Thankfully, such a bill — one that requires deep water drilling be better regulated, demands oil companies employ more preventative measures and have thorough response plans, and eliminates the ‘liability cap’ on how much those companies must pay in damages when they cause a spill — is advancing in the Senate. In other words, it may not be long before we see a ‘BP spill bill’. Here are th… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read the original post:
BP Spill Bill Advances in the Senate

Man arrested for taking picture of cop in his own home

A Texas man has sued his local police department, saying he was arrested for taking a picture of a police officer when the officer entered his home without permission. According to the lawsuit (PDF), Sgt. Justin Alderete of the Sealy, Texas, police department arrived at the home of Francisco Olvera in October, 2009, apparently responding to a noise complaint. Olvera had been playing music on his computer speakers while working outside on his patio. The sergeant asked Olvera for identification. When Olvera went inside his home to grab his ID, Sgt. Alderete followed him inside. Believing the officer didn't have a right to enter his home without permission, Olvera picked up his cellphone and took a photo of the officer. At that point, the lawsuit states, Alderete accused Olvera of “illegal photography” and arrested him. Olvera was charged with “loud music” and “public intoxication” — the officer had seen a beer can on the kitchen table, the lawsuit asserts. In January, Olvera was acquitted of all charges. e lawsuit names Alderete, Sealy Police Chief John Tollett, and the city of Sealy. It alleges that Olvera was the victim of “unlawful search and seizure,” “unlawful arrest” and “malicious prosecution.” The lawsuit further alleges that Alderete made a racist remark against Olvera during booking. “Do you know what I tell Mexicans when they get loud?” the lawsuit alleges Alderete asked. “No chinges con migo pinche culero.” (“Don't be f**king with me,” another officer translated,) Olvera's lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for his legal costs in the criminal trial; for “emotional distress” and punitive damages “as allowed by law.” added by: im1mjrpain

Did Ed Schultz’s Construction Company Get Stimulus Money?

While defending the Obama administration as a champion for small business owners, MSNBC host Ed Schultz revealed that his construction company more than doubled its number of employees in the past year – thanks to the stimulus bill. “We’ve gone from eight employees to twenty employees in the past year, because of the stimulus package,” he said of his construction company. “We’ve put some people back to work. There is some growth.” Schultz made that revelation as a guest on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” Wednesday morning. In a segment of the show where he was discussing corporations shipping jobs overseas and skimping on benefits to regular workers and labor union members, Schultz stepped up and defended President Obama. “This President, and this administration, has done more for small business than any other President has in the last thirty years,” he claimed. “There’s more tax incentives on the table right now, there’s more incentives for small businesses to go out and do things, to hire – we never saw this under any other President.” Schultz whined that tax incentives for big corporations hurt the American middle class by providing opportunities for them to send jobs overseas. He credited President Obama with providing opportunities for small businesses to thrive in the United States. However, Schultz also lamented that certain Obama administration policies, such as increasing taxes on foreign earnings, ending secret ballots in union elections, EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses and restrictions on oil are “pro-corporate and anti-worker.” With corporations attacking labor, cutting wages, and going after pensions, Schultz claimed that age discrimination is taking place in the business world, and that “we’ve now developed this culture that it’s not good to pay anybody.”         The transcript of the segment, which aired on June 23 at 9:30 a.m. EDT, is as follows: ED SCHULTZ: Now we’re at a crossroads in this country. We have to make a determination if we believe that having 10 percent unemployment for a long period of time is the direction that we want to go. Do we understand that the social pressure and the economic pressure that that’s going to put on the country? I don’t think that’s where Americans want to go. And I think that we’re going to see a real surge of buy American, a loyalty to American products, because I think the middle class folks in this country have seen exactly what has happened, this attack on labor that has taken place, that all of a sudden it’s okay to reduce wages, or attack people’s pensions. And we’re also seeing in this country right now age discrimination. Because there’s a race to the bottom line. We’ve now developed this culture that it’s not good to pay anybody. And we have to have somewhat of a push for economic patriotism, in reinvestment in people. We have to understand that people make the difference. And if we don’t value that at every level, we’re not going to be the country that we can be. We’re not going to be the country that we were at one time. We still can achieve greatness, but we gotta get the big money out of politics, we’ve gotta get what is destroying the middle class in this country, and reinvigorate this country with breaks for the middle class, and a real focus on job creation. And I think the President’s trying to do that, but — of course the way the Congress is right now, all the bickering that’s going on, and there’s really no bipartisanship to speak of that addresses any of this — I think we’re in for a long struggle here, a real long struggle. (…) HOST: Mr. Schultz, the Wall Street Journal echoes that caller’s sentiment. They have a headline that echoes the caller’s sentiment that business groups say the Obama administration is hostile toward jobs. And they have a list of grievances: Increased taxes on foreign earnings, stalled free trade agreements, shareholder rights to nominate directors, end to secret ballots in union elections, expanded damages for pay discrimination, EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses, and restrictions on oil. ED SCHULTZ: Those were all pro-corporate, and anti-worker. This President, and this administration, has done more for small business than any other President has in the last thirty years. There’s more tax incentives on the table right now, there’s more incentives for small businesses to go out and do things, to hire – we never saw this under any other President. He’s doing anything he possibly can. But the money is tight. The money is very tight. And until we loosen up the lending practices in this country, we’re not going to have – and until small businesses have access to capital, we’re not going to see this turn around. The President is doing everything he possibly can. In fact, the Republicans aren’t even matching him on any of this stuff. They think it’s all about the corporations and all about the top two percent. In the book, I document – and I want this lady to read this book, and come back and tell me if I’m wrong. The number of foreign countries that are operating in this country that don’t pay tax – does she think that’s a good thing? Is it a good thing for corporations not to pay their fair share? Now I’m not here to say that all corporations are bad. They do hire people. But they’ve also shipped a lot of jobs overseas, because we have set the table for them to do that with tax incentives that have come back to hurt the great American middle class which built this country. So when does the little guy get a break? Now I’m a small businessman. I have my own broadcast company, and I also have a construction company. I can tell you about all the things that you have to put together to make a construction company work. We’ve gone from eight employees to twenty employees in the past year, because of the stimulus package. We’ve put some people back to work. There is some growth. There’s incentives on the table for my employees. And so, you know, I don’t have to do this. I could just go fishing at the lake. But we’ve got to have some type of leadership at every level of the economy, and those who have lived the good life, and those who have had the fortune of making a few dollars to put it back into the kids, to put it back into the youth of the country, to care about the infrastructure again. And I don’t see corporations doing that. I see them caring about the foreign countries and getting cheap labor. Well you know what cheap labor’s going to do? Cheap labor’s going to take this country down. And the disposable income is starting to rot away for Americans.   

Read the original here:
Did Ed Schultz’s Construction Company Get Stimulus Money?

MSNBC’s Brewer Annoyed at Barton’s ‘Shakedown’ Reference, But Colleague Ed Schultz Used It With Pride

In a satellite interview with Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) held shortly before 1 p.m. EDT today, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer criticized Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) for denouncing the president pushing BP to agree to a $20-billion escrow account for oil spill damages as a “shakedown”: So, there’s Joe Barton calling the $20 billion in escrow a shakedown, and as you point out, there are people in your district who have lost their livelihoods! They wonder how they can feed their families! But yesterday, Brewer’s MSNBC colleague Ed Schultz used similar language to voice his giddy approval of President Obama’s maneuvering : President Obama! You are the dude! The president takes the heads of BP behind closed doors, shakes them down for $20 billion, and gets an apology.  President Obama went behind closed doors today with Tony Hayward and the other suits from BP and informed them it’s time to pay.  If you go by today’s results, you’d have to say the President of the United States hit it out of the park. In his own way the President of the United States took on a multinational [corporation] shook ’em down for $20 billion for the American people. President Obama got more out of BP than the Congress ever has. The day before that, just two hours before President Obama’s Oval Office address, Schultz told viewers he hoped the president would sound “like a dictator” and would rhetorically speaking, press his “boot on the neck of BP tonight.”

See original here:
MSNBC’s Brewer Annoyed at Barton’s ‘Shakedown’ Reference, But Colleague Ed Schultz Used It With Pride

Rep. Joe Barton Apologizes to BP’s Tony Hayward for White House "Shakedown"

BP CEO Tony Hayward is in the midst of a harsh grilling today on Capitol Hill, where he is testifying House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing on “The Role of BP in the Deepwater Horizon Explosion and Oil Spill.” But not long after the hearing began, Hayward got something not many expected from lawmakers: An apology. Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, apologized to Hayward for what he described as a “shakedown” at the White House yesterday. He was referring to the deal worked out between the Obama administration and BP to set up a $20 billion fund administered by a third party to pay for damages from the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday,” Barton said. “I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a $20 billion shakedown.” He complained that “the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people, [is] participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, that's got no legal standing, and which sets, I think, a terrible precedent for the future.” “I apologize,” Barton added. “I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is — again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.” “I'm speaking now totally for myself,” he noted. “I'm not speaking for the Republican Party.” Not long after Barton spoke, the White House released a statement calling his comments “shameful.” “What is shameful is that Joe Barton seems to have more concern for big corporations that caused this disaster than the fishermen, small business owners and communities whose lives have been devastated by the destruction,” said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. “Congressman Barton may think that a fund to compensate these Americans is a 'tragedy', but most Americans know that the real tragedy is what the men and women of the Gulf Coast are going through right now. Members from both parties should repudiate his comments.” According to the Associated Press, Barton has taken more than $100,000 in political contributions from oil and gas interests since the beginning of 2009, more than all but one other member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. At the hearing, Rep. Ed Markey (D – MA) said he “could not disagree more strongly” with Barton's comments. “Not only is the compensation fund that was created yesterday at the White House in an agreement reached between BP and President Obama not a slush fund and not a shakedown, rather it was the government of the United States worked to protect the most vulnerable citizens that we have in this country right now – the residents of the Gulf,” he said. “American citizens are being harmed,” Markey added. “We cannot wait, as unfortunately so many victims of the Exxon Valdez had to wait years to see those families compensated. We can't lose sight of fact that the 1984 Bhophal disaster and lawsuits related to it, were only settled last week. We have to make sure American citizens are protected.” “The families of the Gulf will be crushed financially unless this compensation fund is put in place,” said Markey, arguing that the history of Gulf families will be “permanently altered” without action. Markey added that the creation of the slush fund reflected “American government working at its best” to ensure that families do not become “roadkill” as a result of corporate practices. As Markey spoke, Barton leaned back in his chair reading what appeared to be the newspaper Investor's Business Daily. added by: TimALoftis

See the original post:
Rep. Joe Barton Apologizes to BP’s Tony Hayward for White House "Shakedown"

Three Things That Will Change Radically With Climate: Drug & Alcohol Use, & FEMA’s Budget

Image credit: FloodDamage.Data.org I probably could have listed other things that will increase commensurate with climate change: like doomsday cults, prohibitionist movements and radical political groups, for example. But I wanted to focus on investment and budget control opportunities people are overlooking. Let’s start by analyzing the latter. In their 2002 paper, The Political Economy of FEMA Disaster Payments, (pdf file) Garrett & Sobel examined whether congressional and presidential influences affect … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read more:
Three Things That Will Change Radically With Climate: Drug & Alcohol Use, & FEMA’s Budget

Rep. Joe Barton Apologizes to BP’s Tony Hayward for White House "Shakedown"

BP CEO Tony Hayward is in the midst of a harsh grilling today on Capitol Hill, where he is testifying House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing on “The Role of BP in the Deepwater Horizon Explosion and Oil Spill.” But not long after the hearing began, Hayward got something not many expected from lawmakers: An apology. Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, apologized to Hayward for what he described as a “shakedown” at the White House yesterday. He was referring to the deal worked out between the Obama administration and BP to set up a $20 billion fund administered by a third party to pay for damages from the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday,” Barton said. “I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a $20 billion shakedown.” He complained that “the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people, [is] participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, that's got no legal standing, and which sets, I think, a terrible precedent for the future.” “I apologize,” Barton added. “I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is — again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.” “I'm speaking now totally for myself,” he noted. “I'm not speaking for the Republican Party.” Not long after Barton spoke, the White House released a statement calling his comments “shameful.” “What is shameful is that Joe Barton seems to have more concern for big corporations that caused this disaster than the fishermen, small business owners and communities whose lives have been devastated by the destruction,” said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. “Congressman Barton may think that a fund to compensate these Americans is a 'tragedy', but most Americans know that the real tragedy is what the men and women of the Gulf Coast are going through right now. Members from both parties should repudiate his comments.” According to the Associated Press, Barton has taken more than $100,000 in political contributions from oil and gas interests since the beginning of 2009, more than all but one other member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. At the hearing, Rep. Ed Markey (D – MA) said he “could not disagree more strongly” with Barton's comments. “Not only is the compensation fund that was created yesterday at the White House in an agreement reached between BP and President Obama not a slush fund and not a shakedown, rather it was the government of the United States worked to protect the most vulnerable citizens that we have in this country right now – the residents of the Gulf,” he said. “American citizens are being harmed,” Markey added. “We cannot wait, as unfortunately so many victims of the Exxon Valdez had to wait years to see those families compensated. We can't lose sight of fact that the 1984 Bhophal disaster and lawsuits related to it, were only settled last week. We have to make sure American citizens are protected.” “The families of the Gulf will be crushed financially unless this compensation fund is put in place,” said Markey, arguing that the history of Gulf families will be “permanently altered” without action. Markey added that the creation of the slush fund reflected “American government working at its best” to ensure that families do not become “roadkill” as a result of corporate practices. As Markey spoke, Barton leaned back in his chair reading what appeared to be the newspaper Investor's Business Daily. added by: TimALoftis