Search

Professional Troublemaker

 Jonathan Corbett, Civil Rights Advocate

Category

Uncategorized

How the California Bar Actually Grades the First Year Law Students’ Exam

fylsx-real-gradingI’ve made a few posts discussing California’s First Year Law Students’ Exam (the “FYLSX”), noting that I failed my first attempt by a fraction of a percent when the Bar applied a grading formula different from that which was advertised, and then, using the knowledge gained of their altered grading scheme, passed on my second try so spectacularly that the Bar published one of my essays as an example of how to write their exam.  I also briefly mentioned that I — as I’m known to do — filed suit to ask a judge to effectively require them to grade like they say they will and be more transparent about the exam and how they grade it.

The particular dispute was that they advertised that the multiple-choice section and the essay section of the exam would be “converted to the same 400-point scale” in order to “give[] these sections equal weight.”  When I received my score report from the first exam, I noticed that the scaling formula used by the bar resulted in it being impossible to score more than about 362 points even if every question was answered correctly, and likewise, it was possible to score far more than 400 points on the essays.

The attorney for the Bar assigned to the case disclosed additional documents, formerly considered to be secret and until now never disclosed to law students, to me yesterday that all but flatly admit that not only were the sections not weighted equally, but they also didn’t use a 400-point scale!  See if you can follow this tortured grading system they describe, because it took me several reads to figure it out:

Multiple-choice raw scores (i.e., number of items answered correctly) were equated to the June 1998, 2011, and October 2013 exams using 21 items that were common to each of these exams.  The equating formula was as follows:

Multiple Choice Scale = (3.4092 x raw multiple-choice score) + 21.6267

The candidates’ raw total essay scores were scaled to a score distribution that had the same mean and standard deviation as their multiple choice scores using the following formula:

Essay Scale = (2.3536 x raw essay total score) + -442.389

A candidate’s total score was the sum of that candidates’ multiple choice and essay scores.

What I gather from this is that 21 of the 100 multiple choice questions were repeats of previous years, and based on how well students did on those 21 questions, their grade on the entire 100 questions was curved.  Then, they calculated the average multiple choice score and the standard deviation, and curved the essay scores such that the average student gets the same score on that section as the multiple choice, and the score distribution was normalized to the same standard deviation.

From this it is clear:

  1. This has nothing to do with a 400-point scale per section.  The number 400 does not even appear in this internal document regarding their grading scheme.  The scale is created simply by comparing this group’s scores to previous scores and trying to curve it accordingly.  You’ll notice that if you plug in “100” as your raw multiple-choice score (a perfect 100 out of 100 questions) into the formula provided, the maximum score attainable is 362.5467.  Not 400.
  2. The sections do not have “equal weight.”  Saying that the average test taker got the same score on both their multiple-choice and their essay questions is not the same thing as saying “half your grade comes from multiple-choice, and half from the essays.”  Whether the essays count more or less than the multiple-choice section depends entirely on how well the other students do on their exams.  This is not equality, it is normalization.

So, for those taking the June 2017 exam, know this: on both exams I sat for, the essays counted far more than the multiple-choice.  You should therefore be spending far more time studying how to write a good essay than how to select A, B, C, or D correctly, unless your multiple-choice practice exams are turning out abysmally (for more study tips, see my previous post).  Hopefully by the October 2017 exam, a judge will have “persuaded” them to abandon this system.

United Airlines Reports Man For Suspected Child Trafficking Because His Skin is Darker Than Daughter’s

Osvaldo Maciel
Obviously, Osvaldo Maciel might be a child trafficker, as he’s male, Mexican, and with a child, muses United Airlines flight attendants.

It was a tough choice between the title above and, “United Airlines Hits Bottom, Digs.”  A week after losing close to a billion dollars in share value after forcing a ticketed, seated passenger to get off a plane such that one of their own staff could take his seat, via police who caused enough injury to require hospitalization in the process, and 2 weeks after they denied 2 middle school girls boarding under a sexist dress code policy they apply to family members of United employees, you might think that United would be on their best behavior.

“Hold my beer,” United CEO Oscar Munoz can metaphorically (if not literally) be heard shouting across the terminal.

Earlier this week, a New York mom reported that she was required to go to the U.S. Customs & Border Patrol office at Newark Airport to pick up her husband and young daughter, on vacation in Mexico for a week, because a passenger presenting no reason other than the daughter’s skin color was lighter than the father’s told a United flight attendant that she found the pair to be suspicious, and United, apparently agreeing, had federal law enforcement meet the plane.  Mom is of Irish descent, and dad, Mexican, and this by itself is enough to get dragged off the flight upon arrival, assuming you were allowed to fly in your own seat in the first place:

After our 3-year-old snoozed on her father’s lap for most of the flight, the plane landed. He texted me to tell me they had arrived. When the plane taxied to the gate, however, a number of officers from the Port Authority and Customs and Border Patrol boarded the plane, approached my husband and instructed him to grab his carry-ons and follow them. He and our daughter were escorted out of the plane before anyone else could get off.

The passenger who shared her “concern” with the flight attendants had been sitting next to my husband. According to him, she had been friendly throughout the flight, but my husband noticed her strange obsession with our daughter, sometimes throwing her body over his to try to engage my daughter.

As compensation for this “re-accommodation,” as surely Mr. Munoz would call it, United offered the family a $100 travel voucher.

I think what is even more surprising to me is that the commentary on even the strongly left-leaning Huffington Post, who appears to have broke the story, contained a plethora of comments defending the actions of the passenger, flight attendants, and CBP, because it’s always “better to be safe than sorry” (just as they would assuredly dismiss the TSA touching your genitals with “anything to keep us safer”).  (Click the little thought bubble on the left to read)

Alexis Nola, for example, is a fan of “see something, say something…”

alexis-nola-lookscount

…and pay no mind to the fact that she was sitting peacefully with her father for the whole flight, because she may have been too drugged to express her situation, even though she could walk on and off the plane…

alexis-nola-drugged

Kimberly Ziegelheafer wants us to know that child trafficking is “running rampant” and, apparently, stopping every adult/child pair who does not look alike (er, let’s be real here, it’s only a father/child pair who would encounter this form of discrimination), dragging them into the back room of a CBP office, and not releasing them until someone female alleges that she is the mother and all is well…

kimberly-zeigelheafer-allthetime

Carolyn Sue Greig alleges she would have baked cookies for these assholes, had it been her husband and child…

carolyn-sue-greig-howwouldyoufeel

But I assume the white woman from Texas with 2 first names has probably never experienced discrimination in her life and does not understand that yes, this is a big deal.  There are millions of children in this country with step-parents who look nothing like their child, and they don’t deserve to be dragged off of flights.  It’s traumatizing to the child and, frankly, to the adult as well.  It also doesn’t take more than a cursory search of the Internet to find that fathers alone with child are regularly given extra scrutiny, whether it’s at the playground or, apparently, simply traveling home.

United Airlines had no business reporting this incident to the police absent the suspecting passenger being able to articulate some reason for her suspicion beyond the color of their skin (the same goes for Muslim-looking men who are dragged off of planes after purely imagined suspicious behavior).  This family is owed much more than a $100 voucher, and I, for one, hope to see Mr. Munoz given the boot after another billion gets wiped off their market cap.

NYPD Finally Ditches Mobile Body Scanner Plans

NYPD T-Ray ScannerLike the TSA, the NYPD enjoys collecting high-tech toys, and announced in 2012 that they too would be joining the body scanner game. In 2013 they published their recent acquisition of a van-mounted body scanner that can penetrate your clothing from across the street to see what you’ve got.  Upon hearing of this, I immediately sued the NYPD, seeking an injunction against their use.  A federal judge ruled that my suit was too early because I couldn’t yet show they were going to use it illegally.

So, I’ve been patiently waiting for the NYPD to go and use one of their vans in public to file a motion to re-open the case.  But, it appears the NYPD got the message: the scanners have been “collecting dust” and the NYPD announced that they have abandoned all plans to ever use it.  Why?

But civil libertarians raised privacy concerns and worried whether other items might be mistaken for a gun, leading to bad arrests.

The NYPD said that after an internal review, it was decided the machine would cause more problems than it was worth.

The Daily News was nice enough to call me for a quote, and I’ll definitely be considering this announcement a victory!

Is An Event Producer Liable for Event Security?

bouncerIt seems to be quite common for large nightclubs and events to hire third-party security companies in an attempt to reduce their liability in the event that things go wrong and security injures a patron.  New York nightclub Flash Factory, who I sued with a co-plaintiff last month for battery stemming from a “security search” that apparently involves gratuitous touching the breasts and genitals of their patrons, denies in their answer that they are liable for the torts (civil wrongs) of their contractors.

Will Flash Factory’s argument get them off the hook?

Not a chance.

Let’s look at 3 kinds of liability that could be alleged against one who throws parties secured by abusive security, using general principles of agency law common among the 50 states.  Agency law, by the way, determines when one party (the “principal”) is liable for the acts of another acting on his or her behalf (the “agent”).

Direct Liability

Direct liability is imposed on the person who actually commits a tort.  Obviously the bouncer herself whose hands were actually on my body is directly liable, so the nightclub is therefore not directly liable, right?  Well…

“A principal is subject to liability to a third party harmed by an agent’s conduct when the agent’s conduct is within the scope of the agent’s actual authority or ratified by the principal; and (1) the agent’s conduct is tortious, or (2) the agent’s conduct, if that of the principal, would subject the principal to tort liability.”  Restatement (Third) of Agency, § 7.04.  (The “Restatements” are documents put out by the American Law Institute that reflect the general policies found in the United States regarding specific areas of law.)

The problem for Flash Factory and other event producers comes when they direct security to perform a specific kind of search (give them “actual authority”), or knowingly allow it to continue (“ratification”).  Given that complaints about Flash Factory’s search methods have persisted for at least a year — and even after they had notice of my lawsuit — Flash Factory will have an uphill battle to show that that they didn’t direct their security to behave in this way, or at least ratify it.

Vicarious Liability

“An employer is subject to vicarious liability for a tort committed by its employee acting within the scope of employment.”  Restatement (Third) of Agency, § 7.07(1).  Further, an employer is not generally liable for the intentional torts of his employees, because the scope of their employment generally does not include intentionally harming others.  Since independent contractors are not “employees,” and since battery is an intentional tort, I guess Flash Factory’s off the hook on this one, right?

Nope.  While, in general, an employer is not liable for the torts — especially intentional torts — of his or her independent contractors, it is often stated that this rule is merely the “preamble to a list of exceptions.”

Before we get to the true exceptions, we should note that under agency law, “employee” doesn’t mean the exact same thing it means to the IRS.  Rather, “an employee is an agent whose principal controls or has the right to control the manner and means of the agent’s performance of work.”  Restatement (Third) of Agency, § 7.07(3)(a).  Can Flash Factory seriously argue that they had no right to direct the bouncers of their nightclub as to how they want a security search to be conducted?  Good luck convincing a judge and jury of that.  But, it should be noted that for an event producer who does not control the venue — that is, one who throws parties at a premises owned and secured by someone else — they would likely not have vicarious liability under this rule, because a nightclub does not generally concede control of security to the third-party producer or promoter (but, read on).

Now, the classic exceptions to non-liability for torts of independent contractors that any law student will be familiar with: (1) the conduct was authorized by the principal, (2) the conduct was a natural incident to carrying out the employer’s directions, or (3) the conduct was motivated by a desire to serve the principal.

We discussed the first above under direct liability. Regarding the second and third, which very much go hand-in-hand, the quintessential example in law school textbooks is the bouncer.  One who is employed for a job under which their duties include physical and hostile contact with others naturally may cause injury to the others, and that physical and hostile contact is in service to the employer.  Think of it this way: if a bartender sees an unruly customer and uses excessive force to eject that customer, we would not be able to apply this exception because battery is not naturally incident to serving drinks.  But a bouncer’s job is literally to do the same, and if he or she does so with excessive force, it will be considered incident to the service of the employer.  Again, the third-party producer or promoter will likely escape liability (it’s less a service to the third-party than to the venue owner), but a venue owner such as Flash Factory will find themselves on the receiving end of a judgment, regardless of whether the offending bouncer was an employee or a contractor.

Negligence

The third way the party thrower may find themselves liable for the acts of their bouncer is in negligence.  Under negligence law, the employer is not liable for the battery, either directly or vicariously, but is liable because they had a duty to provide a safe environment and failed to do so.

A simply-put formula for negligence is: (1) the existence of a duty, (2) which was breached, (3) which caused, (4) injury to the plaintiff.  Duty, breach, causation, injury/damages.  “Injury” doesn’t necessarily mean physical injury, but rather injury to any legal right (including the right to be free from non-consensual contact).

A full examination of the duties of a club owner would be lengthy, but they include maintaining a reasonably safe premises and using reasonable hiring practices.  If the nightclub was unsafe or a person was injured by someone hired by the club that should not have been (or, e.g., because the club failed to hire enough security), this duty was breached.  And, as long as the injury was traceable to the breach (i.e., wouldn’t have happened anyway), we have causation.

It will be interesting to see Flash Factory’s argument as to which of these elements is missing to avoid liability in negligence.  I certainly wouldn’t want to be the lawyer arguing it, but I suspect they will try to attack breach.  That is, they will say that any injury that happened to me happened despite the fact that they acted reasonably.  Will they be able to show evidence of specific things they have done that were sufficient to reasonably ensure that the harm that happened would not happen?  I think it is unlikely.

They may also try to attack breach by saying that their search was reasonable because they need to stop drugs from entering the venue.  This ignores the fact that they have a duty to both avoid battering their customers and not be a drug den.  This will be problematic for Flash Factory given that drug use is obviously rampant within the venue despite their door search.  You can’t claim that it’s “reasonable” to inspect my crotch when you allow people to wander around inside that are clearly obliterated, and even if a groin search of every customer were somehow “necessary,” failing to obtain the consent of those entering, and instead just grabbing at their breasts and genitals without warning, is negligent.

But what of the third-party event producer?  Well, they didn’t hire security, nor do they have control over the safety of the premises, so they are unlikely to be subjected to negligence liability for the same duties as the venue owner.  But, they do have a choice over where to host their events, and if they do so at a venue that is well-known for injuring its customers, they may face liability for negligently selecting the venue. So, for example, if you host an event at Flash Factory now, knowing that they regularly molest their customers in the security line, you may be running a risk of being liable for their wandering hands.

The Bottom Line

The key to determining liability is right to control.  If you have the ability to mitigate a harm that may arise in the course of running your business, but fail to do so, you’re probably liable.  Likewise, if you pay a contractor to do a task and they screw it up on their own, without your knowledge or reason to have knowledge, you’re probably not liable.  But hiring an outside company to do your dirty work for you is not an automatic free pass.

This means if you’re a venue owner, choose your security wisely and monitor them carefully.  It’s not only good for avoiding liability, but also customer frustration.  Why not choose a security team that deescalates situations, treats customers with respect, and makes your venue a place that is both comfortable and safe?

If you’re a third-party event producer — a role I’ve indeed played — having the right venue is key, and it’s important to remember that everything is negotiable, including security.  There’s no reason not to discuss the details of how your customers will be interacted with when they first arrive at the venue.  And if a venue is well-known for assholery at the door, find a new venue.  Regardless of whether you’re taking a legal risk, you don’t want to be associated with that.

Five Years After “How to Get ANYTHING Through TSA Nude Body Scanners,” Still Can Get Anything Through TSA Nude Body Scanners

5yeartsavideoanniversaryToday is the 5 year anniversary of the release of my viral video, “How to Get ANYTHING Through TSA Nude Body Scanners,” which was covered by the media in over 100 countries and moved me to #1 on the TSA’s list of “people they don’t like,” probably just above Osama bin Laden and the members of Nickelback.  After its release, the video was presented to state legislatures and U.S. Congress, the science confirmed by university researches, and the TSA has worked hard to ignore my findings and silence the media.

Does the problem I found in 2012 still exist in 2017?  In the words of Sarah Palin, “You betcha!”

The TSA would love for the public to believe that their latest-gen scanners made my work obsolete, but the fact of the matter is that fixing the problem would require a visible hardware or process change, not a stealthy software change (watch me beat a L3 ProVision with ATD, the model currently in use at most airports).  They haven’t done this because every fix has a drawback.  On the hardware side, the TSA could implement add transmission x-rays to the backscatter x-rays (dangerous) or could make the booth completely enclosed for a 360° scan (making the process a claustrophobia-inducing nightmare).  On the process side, they could scan passengers twice, requiring them to turn 90° between scans (doubling the processing time and crippling our nation’s air transportation system, and exposing us to twice the radiation).  Having done none of the above, I have every reason to believe that the same exploit would work today.

At least the TSA has started to take some of my advice.  For example, at MSP, JFK T4, and a few other airports, they have bomb-sniffing dogs (but they get ornery when you try to take their pictures), and all passengers who walk by a dog are given PreCheck treatment (no body scanner).  They could also do an explosive trace swab on passengers as they wait in line at a fairly minimal cost (at least an order of magnitude less than the cost of the body scanner program), and then direct all of those passengers to PreCheck-style treatment.

But alas, that’s not as cool, as the TSA doesn’t get to spend billions on shiny new toys, so like a passive-aggressive child told to eat his peas who then eats them one at a time, we can expect any change with the TSA to come in small increments, and generally attached to additional stupidity.


“Jon Corbett is a civil rights advocate known for filing the first lawsuit against the deployment of TSA nude body scanners, as well as defeating the body scanners live in ‘How to Get ANYTHING Through TSA Nude Body Scanners.’  Presently a law student, he continues to advocate for travel and privacy rights.  Twitter: @_JonCorbett, Web:https://professional-troublemaker.com/

Fighting for civil rights in court is expensive!  Want to contribute to the fight against government assholery? Donate via PayPal, Venmo, Chace QuickPay, Bitcoin, or check

Flash Factory Attorney Greg Garber: Sexual Assault Plaintiffs “Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves”

Two weeks ago, I jointly sued NYC nightclub Flash Factory for molesting myself and a female friend as a part of their standard security practice, which apparently involves open-hand grabbing of the genitals of male attendees and reaching under the bra to feel the breasts beneath for female attendees.  Their response to our complaint, filed in New York County Supreme Court, is due next week.

I got my first contact from Flash Factory’s attorney today, New York attorney Greg Garber, who asked me to call him.

greg-garber-nyc-attorney
Greg Garber, Esq., apparently thinks that sex assault victims who file civil complaints should feel ashamed.

After we connected, he told me I “should be ashamed of myself” for filing the lawsuit and that they’d file a reply shortly.  I asked him point-blank if I should be ashamed of complaining of security molesting their patrons and making my friend cry as a result of being shocked and violated by their unprecedentedly invasive security search, and he replied yes.  His only purpose of the call, apparently, was to tell me off.  He also refused to identify the legal name of the security firm.

Greg, 40 years ago called, and they want their victim blaming back.  Here in 2017, no victim of a sexual assault should feel that they are at fault if they report it.  You, sir, are a part of the problem, and it is you, sir, who should be ashamed of himself.

DHS Quietly Testing Mandatory Facial Recognition of Passengers *Exiting* U.S.

facescanWe’re all used to having to identify ourselves as we enter a country.  It is the only way we can hope to have any attempt at a secure border.  But, so-called “exit controls,” where documents are checked as travelers are leaving the country, were popularized last century by Nazi Germany as a great way to ensure that they could control, round up, and exterminate the Jews and other “undesirables.”  It can obviously serve no purpose of keeping terrorists out, because it only affects those who are already in.  The U.S. has never had exit controls, although they remain popular in Europe, Russia, and China.

Last week, privacy advocate and blogger Jeffrey Tucker posted his experience before a flight from Atlanta to Mexico:

Halfway down the jetbridge, there was a new layer of security. Two US Marshals, heavily armed and dressed in dystopian-style black regalia, stood next to an upright machine with a glowing green eye. Every passenger, one by one, was told to step on a mat and look into the green scanner. It was scanning our eyes and matching that scan with the passport, which was also scanned (yet again).

Welcome Aboard, But First U.S. Marshals Will Scan Your Retina,” published 2/25/2017.

A bit of research uncovered that CBP announced a 2-month pilot program last year for flights between Atlanta and Japan in which they would be doing facial scans as passengers were about to board their flights:.

As part of the testing, travelers will present their boarding pass while their digital photo is taken. The process will take less than three seconds before travelers proceed to the passenger loading bridge to board their flight. Travelers over the age of 14 and under 79 will be required to participate in the test. The test will evaluate CBP’s ability to successfully compare the image of a traveler taken during departure against an image the traveler previously provided, in an automated fashion and without impacting airport operations.

This was, apparently, announced sufficiently quietly that I had not before heard of the program.  The 2 month window has expired, and there is no mention on their Web site, that I can find, of a new program between Atlanta and Mexico.  But, it seems to me that the likely scenario is that CBP has re-started this program and Mr. Tucker confused U.S. Marshals with CBP officers, and retinal scanning with face recognition scanners (not that it makes a difference in terms of our privacy).

What exactly is the point of this?  Are we hoping to catch someone who has overstayed their visa so that we can stop them from leaving, then take them into custody so that the taxpayer can fund their leaving?  It may simply be a dumb idea, or it may be a far more sinister plan to further control the movements of everyone in the country, citizen or otherwise.

Either way, count me out, and I encourage you to refuse as well.

DHS Detains Entire Domestic Flight, Demands ID From All

On Wednesday, law enforcement from Customs & Border Patrol, a sister agency of the TSA living under the DHS umbrella, stood in a JFK jetway and prevented an entire 757 (capacity: 180 + crew) full of passengers from deplaning until they show ID.  If the flight just came from overseas, it would be unusual but not too surprising.  But Delta Flight 1583 came from San Francisco.

cbp-detains-plane
“Your papers, please!”  Source: Twitter – @annediego

Who were they looking for?  One of Trump’s illegal immigrants, of course.  “According to CBP, the person agents sought had been issued an order of removal based on convictions for domestic assault, driving while impaired, and violation of an order of protection.” (Gothamist).  After checking every ID, they determined that the person they were seeking was not on the flight.

Let’s be clear about a few things here:

  1. Every person on that plane was “seized” as it is defined in Fourth Amendment law.  That is, a reasonable person would not believe they were free to go, and thus, they were detained.  United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980).
  2. The minimum standard for seizing an individual is “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity is afoot.  Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
  3. There was not reasonable suspicion that the 180 passengers on that flight were involved in a crime.  In fact, there was not even reasonable suspicion that the person they were seeking was committing a crime.
  4. There was no “public safety” or “exigent circumstances” exception here.  This was not a hunt for a terrorist with a bomb — his most serious charge was assault.
  5. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment’s command that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons … against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” was indeed violated.
  6. Additionally, the elements of civil “false imprisonment” in New York are: (1) intentional confinement, (2) consciousness of the confinement by the victim, (3) lack of consent, and (4) lack of privilege.  Broughton v. New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451 (N.Y. 1975).  Given that they were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, there is no privilege, and everyone on this plane has a case for false imprisonment.

It’s times like these when I can’t wait to have my law license, because this would be a perfect class-action.

For future reference, you may be wondering what are your rights in this situation.  Given that the seizure was unconstitutional, you have the right to refuse to participate at all.  You may refuse to show ID, you may refuse an order to stop, and if it were me, I would refuse to retract my middle finger.  Would I have been arrested anyway?  Possibly, although being a white American, I have a feeling they would have just told me to go.

Welcome to Trump’s America.

Insomniac Lawsuit Dismissed on Technicality, Policy Changed (For Now), Open Offer for Help

For those following my lawsuit against music festival producer and Live Nation subsidiary Insomniac, filed last year against their policy banning all OTC medicine and requiring a “consultation” to bring in prescriptions, some updates…

First, the lawsuit was tossed by U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez because, he says, I didn’t provide evidence that I asked Insomniac to change their policy before suing, which he reads as a prerequisite to a federal ADA suit.  There were also state discrimination law claims, but the law allows a federal judge to decline to hear a state claim after the related federal claim is dismissed, so he tossed that too.  No ruling was made on the true merits of the case: whether the medicine policy was legal.

I think Judge G misread the law regarding notice, and he certainly misread my filings alleging that I *did* give notice.  As I wrote about before, this judge is famous among federal judges for seeking ways to get cases out of his courtroom.  I could appeal, or I could re-file the state law claims in state court, but I won’t (in favor of a better plan… keep reading!) for 2 reasons:

  1. Insomniac ran up a fucking massive legal bill.  If the appeal failed, the attorneys have some likelihood of asking me to pay at least a part of that — plus whatever additional amounts they spend defending the appeal.  Insomniac agreed to pay their own bill in exchange for not appealing or re-filing.
  2. Insomniac removed the offending medicine policy from their Web site… for now.  This may be a sign that they are changing their ways, which would be mission accomplished.  But, even if it’s not, it makes it harder to sue them because they are no longer advertising discrimination.

So here’s the new, better plan: an open call for anyone who is ever refused entry over medicine or has their medicine thrown out at the gates of EDC to contact me.  If I think you have a good case, I will find and fund an attorney to fight the case, and offer my assistance to your attorney as his paralegal without cost to you.  If Insomniac did indeed decide to fix their policy, then this won’t be necessary, and if they didn’t, I’ll be able to get a second fight against it, with the benefit of the knowledge I gained the first time, with a different judge, without the “you didn’t give them notice” issue, and without the attorney’s fees and costs from this case able to be threatened.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑