What’s in the Beef?

I found a recent article indicating that Taco Bell is being sued for deceiving customers about the products that they put in there beef. I am kind of happy that I found this article, as it combines three things that I find interesting… the law, health and food.

So be careful when you want to “run to the border” to satisfy a craving. That beef burrito, chalupa or crunchy taco you desire may not be filled with the all natural beef that you were hoping for. Rather, according to the plaintiff, Taco Bell’s beef is an un-natural concoction of beef, water, wheat oats, soy lecithin, maltodrextrin, anti-dusting agent and modified corn starch. I must admit maltodrextrin and the anti-dusting agent sure do not sound as tasty as all-natural pure angus beef. What makes things worse, the lawsuit alleges that Taco Bell’s beef contains less than 35% beef. So, when you bite into that satisfying double decker taco, see if you can taste the wheat oats and soy lecithin.

I could go on and on about eating “real” food, but that is not really the point of this blog. Rather, we must ask why is Taco Bell being sued over this beef concoction. Why can’t Taco Bell sell its “beef”? According, to the lawsuit it is more of a false advertising issue. The plaintiff is simply seeking to stop Taco Bell from advertising the beef as “seasoned beef” when in reality, Taco Bell is selling a seasoned beef concoction that contains very little beef. So, the plaintiff is asking the court to stop Taco Bell from selling its “beef” as beef. Nevertheless, I’m sure Taco Bell could resolve this lawsuit by simply changing its “beef” practices and putting a little more beef into its beef.

I must say that seems pretty reasonable to me. If you want to sell beef, actually sell beef. But, if you want to sell a beef concoction, tell everyone that you are selling a beef concoction. But don’t advertise it as something that it is not… beef.

And if you don’t mind putting a bunch of chemicals in your body, go eat the beef concoction… it’s tasty. But before you make a run for fast food, check out Supersize Me. It may make you rethink your fast food craving.

You can read the AP article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110125/ap_on_bi_ge/us_taco_bell_lawsuit

Rad|Kro Out in the Community

We are pleased to announce that several members of our team were selected for positions in the community:

1. Jaclyn Powell was appointed as an Ambassador for the West Sacramento Chamber of Commerce; and

2. C. Jason Smith and Brad McDowell were elected to the Board of Directors for the East Sacramento Chamber of Commerce.

We would like to congratulate Jaclyn, Jason and Brad for their accomplishments. If you have any questions about the West Sacramento Chamber of Commerce or the East Sacromento Chamber of Commerce feel free to contact Jaclyn, Jason or Brad.

Local Crook… I Mean Businessman… Goes to Jail

I am sure many of our clients will be happy to hear that Abe Alizadeh was arrested on Thursday. The California Attorney General arrested Abe on behalf of the California Board of Equalization because Abe failed to pay employment taxes.

Abe owes Kobra Properties and Stonegate Construction as well as a number of Jack-in-the-Box Franchises. Apparently, Abe was using the Jack-in-the-Box franchises to prop up Kobra and Stonegate. But soon Abe’s plan of robbing Peter to pay Paul fell apart and he failed to pay the payroll taxes for the Jack-in-the-Box franchises.

Abe hurt many of our clients and other subcontractors throughout the region by failing to pay his bills. He left many contractors in financial peril and drove others into bankruptcy. Nobody will be made whole from his actions. It is good to see him go to jail.

You can read the Business Journal article here: http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2011/01/21/abe-alizadeh-arrested-for-grand-theft.html

Relief Coming for Small Business

What does every small business owner hate… Taxes. Yes, the government is the silent partner of every small business. Nevertheless, there may be some relief for your 2010 tax return. CNNMoney.com outlined 6 new tax breaks. You can check them out here: http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/17/smallbusiness/small_business_new_tax_credits/index.htm?hpt=C2

Rules of the Courtroom and What Really Happens

Many people ask basic things about the courtroom that attorneys take for granted, such as: (1) where do you sit? (2) when do you talk? (3) are you required to stand. I thought I would talk about some common rules and discuss how they actually occur in the business.

1. Proper seating. If you are observing the proceeding you sit in the gallery where there are many seats for people to observe the proceeding. The jurors will sit in the juror box which is generally to the left or the right of the counsel table depending on the courtroom. As an attorney, you sit at the counsel table. If you are representing the plaintiff in a civil matter (or a criminal defendant) you sit near the juror box. If you represent a defendant in a civil matter (or the prosecution in a criminal matter) you sit at the table furthest away from the counsel table. The judge sits up on “the bench”… usually the highest seat in the room. As a witness, you will sit in the witness box near the judge. Also, in the courtroom will be a clerk, a court reporter, a bailiff and/or a court attendant. They are generally seated around the “well”. If you watched Law & Order or some other lawyer show, you are pretty familiar with the well as this is the area that the attorneys make their persuasive argument at the end of the case.

In practice, things are a bit different. First and foremost, in a law and motion hearing, people observing the proceedings will sit just about anywhere, counsel table, juror box and gallery. Frankly, I find it pretty annoying. To me the juror box is for jurors. Not the attorney who wants a little more room to spread out. Second, counsel in law and motion hearings rarely step up to the correct side of the counsel table. I think the attorneys just step to the side of the counsel table that is closer to them.

2. Standing when the judge enters the courtroom. This depends on the judge. In many courtrooms, the judge does not require you to stand. I noticed this to be especially true in Sacramento county. However, in other venues, judges will require everyone in the courtroom to stand when the judge enters. Ultimately, the bailiff will let you know what to do as the judge enters. He, or she, will say either “all rise” or “please remain seated as the courtroom comes to order”.

I will admit that when it comes to this rule I am a little bi-polar. Whenever, I am in a courtroom where you can remain seated, I think that the judge needs to class the joint up a little bit and make us stand. However, when I am in an “all rise” courtroom, I think the judge is a little full of himself/herself. Either way, the judge cannot win with me.

3. Interrupting the Court and/or Opposing Counsel. Probably every court has a rule that prohibits people from interrupting the court and/or opposing counsel. To be honest this is probably one of the least followed rules. And attorneys are the worst violators. Of course the very nature of being an attorney causes you to try to get your point out as loud and as often as possible. Ultimately, attorneys can never admit that they might be wrong… so, if they keep repeating the argument over and over and louder, they believe that the court will ultimately adopt that attorneys’ line of reasoning. As a result, attorneys wind up interrupting everyone during the course of a trial or hearing.

I am not saying that attorneys are intentionally rude. Rather, I think that they cannot help it. Many attorneys are competitive by their very nature and do not want to lose. That is how they became attorneys. Nonetheless, it leads to some rudeness and violation of common court rules.

4. Avoiding Undue Repetition of a Witness’s Answers. One court has a rule that prohibits attorneys from repeating a witnesses answers. I find this rule somewhat comical. I do not find it comical because it is a bad rule. I find it comical because we were taught the opposite in law school. In fact, my trial advocacy professor used to say that if we get a good answer from a witness, try to get the witness to repeat that answer as many times as possible.

5. Scheduling with Opposing Counsel. Generally, you are supposed to consult with opposing counsel before scheduling hearings or depositions. I will be honest, I never follow this rule. I remember early on in my career, I would try to comply with this rule. However, I kept getting the run around from opposing counsel. As a result, now I just set depositions and hearings to benefit my own calendar. Nonetheless, if opposing counsel has a problem with the date, I will generally move the deposition or hearing… provided that they give a firm date that they are available. So, far my practice has worked out well and nobody has complained. So, I don’t feel bad. If I followed this general rule to the letter, I would never get anything done.

6. Conducting Discovery by Agreement. Courts do not want to get involved with discovery disputes. Consequently, lawyers are encouraged to conduct discovery by agreement. In many cases this works fine. However, in other cases, it doesn’t work at all. As a result, you wind up in front of the judge a lot… and unfortunately, the client spends a great deal of money.

Please remember, this is just one attorneys’ take on general courtroom and litigation decorum. I do not mean to mock these general rules as they are put in place for a reason. However, the way they are followed is a bit funny.

Anti-Hacking Statute Used Between Husband and Wife Inspires Use By Small Business

In Michigan, a man named Leon Walker is be prosecuted for checking his (now) ex-wife’s email. Apparently, Mr. Walker either possessed, or guessed, his wife’s e-mail password and read e-mails between his wife and her ex-husband. Now, he is being charged under a Michigan anti-hacking statute. Frankly, it sounds like the prosecution arose out of a nasty divorce, as it appears that the husband and wife are also fighting over their child.

Nevertheless, it got me thinking about whether or not California has a similar statute and whether or not a person could be prosecuted in a similar situation. Ultimately, California has a similar anti-hacking statute that is more detailed and can be considered more broad. The statute provides in pertinent part:

Except as provided…, any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense:

(1) Knowingly accesses and without permission alters, damages, deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B) wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data.

(2) Knowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.

(3) Knowingly and without permission uses or causes to be used computer services.

(4) Knowingly accesses and without permission adds, alters, damages, deletes, or destroys any data, computer software, or computer programs which reside or exist internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.

(5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.

(6) Knowingly and without permission provides or assists in providing a means of accessing a computer, computer system, or computer network in violation of this section.

(7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network.

(8) Knowingly introduces any computer contaminant into any computer, computer system, or computer network.

(9) Knowingly and without permission uses the Internet domain name of another individual, corporation, or entity in connection with the sending of one or more electronic mail messages, and thereby damages or causes damage to a computer, computer system, or computer network.

[See Cal. Pen. Code § 502]

Thus, as you can see from these provisions, you can be committing a crime for simply using a friend’s computer without permission, using your neighbor’s wi-fi without permission, or altering documents on another person’s computer. What’s more, if you violate this statute, you can be fined up to $10,000.00 and/or serve time in jail, depending on which provision you violate. Ultimately, the penalties vary for severity of the violation.

When reviewing this statute, I could not help but think that it can be a powerful tool for small business owners. Ultimately, our office sees its fair share of business owners who were embezzled by their employees. Usually, the employee/embezzler is a person who is trusted and begins taking money because they feel they are entitled to it. However, the employee/embezzler forgets that the business owner still needs to pay other employees, vendors as well as taxes.

Now that computers are so prevalent in the workplace, this statute could be used to help track down employee/embezzlers. Business owners should be crafting employee policies that specifically dictate how employees may use the business’ computers. If employees violate the computer policy, they can be fired. If the employee is suspected of embezzlement, they can be prosecuted under the computer hacking statute, as they were likely using the computer without proper authorization. This may help gain evidence for an embezzlement trial as well as a civil lawsuit. Ultimately, the anti-hacking statute provides small businesses with additional protections… the question is… Are small businesses taking advantage of these protections?

Radlaw Announcement... Or Should I Say Rad | Kro Announcement

We are proud to announce that we changed our firm name and are now known as Radoslovich | Krogh, PC. This is a big step in our firm as we have grown from a sole proprietorship to having nine attorneys. We still help the little guy, but are fully capable of handling complex multi-party litigation.

Also, we moved our offices to 701 University Avenue, Sacramento, California. We simply outgrew our old space. Now we have a large beautiful offices that we cannot wait to show off.

Judge Rules Inmate Bitten On Penis By Rodent May Sue

When one is confined to jail, they have many things taken from them. For Peter Solomon, dignity was not one of those things. The Nassau County, New York inmate is a Vietnam veteran who says he has been treated for post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr. Solomon was jailed in the Nassau County Correction Center near New York City pending trial on charges he had menaced his wife. After being confined Mr. Solomon was transferred to the medical observation unit to assess his mental condition.

Mr. Solomon claims that at night a rat “or similar rodent” emerged from a hole in his mattress and bit him on the penis and hand, drawing blood. County officials noted the wound did not require stitching, and claimed his injuries were merely psychological. Mr. Solomon was later treated to a round of rabies injections.

The novel legal issue raised by Mr. Solomon is whether an inmate who has been bitten by a rat in the penis may sue the county for his injuries. The county officials claimed they were shielded from lawsuit because they had acted in an official capacity, they were unaware of a substantial risk, and they disputed that there was a rodent problem in the jail.

Mr. Solomon claims the jailers knew the prison was infested with rats, and failed to protect Mr. Solomon from these frisky critters. He further claims that they failed to take his injury seriously and provide prompt and proper care. The court ruled on Thursday that Mr. Solomon has raised enough issues for a federal civil rights lawsuit to proceed.

The chief issues in dispute are whether the rowdy rodent was a rat or a mouse, whether Mr. Solomon was bitten or scratched, and the nature and extent of his injuries. Mr. Solomon claims he suffered emotional distress from the experience and now has “complete sexual dysfunction.” Whether his injuries were physical or psychological, it’s good to see that Mr. Solomon has not let his time in jail take away his dignity.


Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12187409

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/01/13/us_rodent_bite_lawsuit/index.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10699648&ref=rss

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41065374/ns/us_news-weird_news/

BIG ANNOUNCEMENT COMING

We are planning on making a big announcement in 5 days. Be sure to pay attention on Monday, January 17, 2011.

The Story of Two Scum Sucking Loser Lawyers

Lawyers sometimes get a bad reputation for acting inappropriately. Well, the ABA Journal website recently posted an article about the insults passed through e-mail… only compounding that bad reputation that lawyers have.

Frankly, we think that some of the insults are pretty funny. However, we have enough class not to write them in an e-mail and send them to our opposing counsels. In any event, the article is below:


Lawyers Sanctioned for E-Mail Insults, Including ‘Scum Sucking Loser’
Comment
Posted Jan 3, 2011 6:00 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Two Florida lawyers who called each other a “retard” and “scum sucking loser” in escalating e-mail insults have been sanctioned by the state supreme court.

Nicholas Mooney of Tampa, a lawyer representing Volkswagen of America, received a public reprimand and must take a class on professionalism, according to the St. Petersburg Times. He is identified as a former partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson and a lawyer for Bromagen & Rathet on the law firm’s website. Kurt Mitchell of Palmetto, an accident lawyer identified as “an experienced litigator and biker” on his website, was suspended for 10 days and must attend an anger management class, the story says.

The St. Petersburg Times cites e-mails quoted in the bar complaints against the men. At one point, Mooney called Mitchell a jerk; at another, Mitchell call Mooney an "old hack." Later e-mails went so far as to insult wives and children. They story cites these exchanges:

• From Mooney to Mitchell, written after an accusation that he couldn’t handle the pressures of litigation: Mooney said he was handling more than 200 cases, "many of which were more important/ significant than these little Mag[nuson] Moss [warranty] claims that are handled by bottom feeding/scum sucking/loser lawyers like yourself."

• From Mitchell: Mooney displays symptoms of a disability marked by "closely spaced eyes, dull blank stare, bulbous head, lying.”

• From Mooney: Mitchell should look in the mirror to see signs of a disability. "Then check your children (if they are even yours. … Better check the garbage man that comes by your trailer to make sure they don't look like him)."

• From Mitchell, after learning Mooney's son suffers from a birth defect: “While I am sorry to hear about your disabled child, that sort of thing is to be expected when a retard reproduces.”

You can check out the article at: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_sanctioned_for_e-mail_insults_including_scum_sucking_loser_comment?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_email

Expedited Jury Trials in Civil Matters

As of January 1, 2011, a new law went into effect in the State of California allowing for expedited jury trials in civil matters. This new law is known as the Expedited Jury Trials Act. The purpose of this new law is to reduce the number of civil cases by allowing for a civil jury trial to be completed in one day. Participation in the Expedited Jury Trial process is completely voluntarily and must be agreed to be the parties. Highlights of the new law are as follows:

1. Both parties voluntarily agree to a trial where each side gets three hours to put on evidence. Although the goal is to conclude the case in one day, there is no restriction on the time needed by the jury to deliberate.

2. The jury shall consist of no more than eight people (only three peremptory challenges per side for jury selection).

3. The rules of evidence will apply but the parties may stipulate to the use of relaxed rules of evidence.

4. The parties waives the right to appeal most issues.

5. Post-trial motions are eliminated for the most part (with the exception motions relating to costs and attorney's fees, motions to correct a judgment for clerical error, and motions to enforce a judgment).

6. A vote of six out of eight jurors is required for a verdict, and the verdict will be binding, subject to a "high-low" agreement.

7. The parties may enter into a written "high-low agreement" where each side specifies a minimum and maximum amount of damages for which the defendant will be liable, regardless of the jury's verdict.

The new Expedited Jury Trials Act is modeled after similar systems in New York and South Carolina. It will be interesting to see if this reduces the number of civil cases in the court system, especially in Sacramento County. This system seems advantageous to cases with fewer contested issues as opposed to large multi-party actions. Nevertheless, if it moves cases toward resolution, it will be considered a success.

The text of the new law can be found by “googling” AB 2284.

Corporate Board Meetings

I hope everyone had a safe and happy New Year. Now that the new year rolled around it is time to think corporate planning. As such, we are recommending that all of our corporate clients hold their annual meetings. There are many issues that every corporation faces and should be discussed at an annual meeting. First and foremost, I suspect corporate taxes are on everyone’s mind as they are due March 15. A corporate meeting is a good place to start planning how to handle your taxes. Also, principals of a closely held corporation should always be thinking about business succession planning. The corporate board meeting is the place to begin this process. Further, business owners should be planning for growth (or potential downturn), collections and expanding the business practice. All these items should be discussed at the corporate board meeting.

We suggest that our corporate clients conduct corporate board meetings, at least on an annual basis. We found that our most successful clients frequently hold corporate meetings among the principals. Ultimately, the meeting focuses the principals on attaining certain goals that are set by the principals.

In addition, we often host corporate board meetings at the request of our clients. We invite our client’s other advisors (e.g. accountants, financial planners, insurance agents) to the meeting as well as this helps the client speak with all advisors at one time. This allows the client to put together a plan at one meeting rather than having separate meetings with each different advisor.

If you are interested in having us host a corporate board meeting, please do not hesitate to contact us. We will prepare an agenda, provide a conference room and help focus the meeting to achieve your goals.