Tongue-In-Cheek Department: ‘Americans for Inequality’ endorse Romney for president

I have the bad fortune of working for a company with an IT Department that has equipped our computer network with an excellent email spam filter, so I miss out on all the swell opportunities to date or marry women from exotic foreign countries, buy Viagra®, check my credit score, get unbelievable deals on high-end brand-name products, collect sweepstakes winnings, borrow money, dodge taxes or help yet another unfortunate person from Nigeria transfer some money.

When something out of the ordinary hits my inbox, I tend to treat it with healthy suspicion.

I was in a quandary this morning when “Sender: Warren Bancroft, Americans for Inequality – Subject: Americans for Inequality to Endorse Mitt Romney for President” slipped past the spam filter and popped up on my email program.

“I have no idea who Warren Bancroft is,” I thought.

“Americans for Inequality; well, at least he’s being upfront about where his head’s at.”

What I didn’t think about is how often misdirection is the name of the game for political advocacy groups. An oil company might form a front organization called “Citizens for Protecting the Environment” to make the case for drilling in a pristine wilderness area. “Fair Access to Government” might advocate for making the process of getting an initiative on the ballot more difficult than it already is.

My curiosity was sufficiently aroused. I clicked and prepared myself for reading an extremist’s diatribe.

Here’s the press release I got instead:

[Manchester, New Hampshire] The Board of Directors of Americans for Inequality, a citizens’ advocacy group which promotes the benefits of inequality, voted to endorse former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) for President. “The Board of Directors voted to emphatically endorse Governor Romney’s candidacy for President” said Warren Bancroft, interim Chair of Americans for Inequality. “Americans for Inequality is prepared to commit considerable resources to help make Mitt Romney the next President of the United States. …

In the 2012 Presidential campaign, Americans for Inequality has been the first organization to educate voters about the benefits of vast inequalities.  Americans for Inequality has been a pioneer in changing the narrative away from the costs and perils of inequality—and toward a new appreciation of how inequality plays an important and beneficial role in our economy.

“For far too long the poor, unemployed, and elderly have been coddled by America’s generous welfare system and exempted from contributing their fair share in taxes, while banks and companies have suffered under an oppressive regime. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s budget plan will mostly rely on ending the era of entitlement and providing tax relief for upper-income households. That’s the beauty of the Romney/Ryan plan: the higher the income, the higher the tax break. Their budget plan will ensure that inequality will remain with us, as it should, for many years,” said Bancroft.

The Americans for Inequality endorsement was not, however, a unanimous one.  One member of the Americans for Inequality Board voted against the Romney endorsement.

Chester Prattfield noted how inequality has accelerated under President Obama, and that it could continue for another four years. “The current recovery has been the weakest and most unequal recovery since WWII, both in terms of income and wealth. The financial industry is back on its feet and corporations are making record profits.  Class mobility and opportunity are declining as inequality becomes entrenched, and that’s what we want to see. But there is room for improvement. Job creators do 100% of the work, but from 2009-2011, they only received 88% of the national income.  And companies such as Exxon Mobil pay as high as 2% in federal taxes—they need relief.”

“While I voted to endorse President Obama, and will continue to personally support his campaign, I understand and respect the decision of the Americans for Inequality Board,” said Prattfield, Americans for Inequality co-founder.  “I appreciate the thoughtfulness the Board of Directors has put into this decision.”

Now, you may agree or disagree, strongly or otherwise, with the political statements being made, but it’s tough to deny that straight-faced satire is one of the most entertaining, and powerful, forms of communication available.

COA finds teacher contribution requirement unconstitutional

Last year, as part of its many faceted effort to reform educational legacy costs, the Michigan Legislature passed a  law requiring teachers to contribute 3 percent of their pay to their own health care benefits, regardless of what their labor agreements said. Naturally, teachers were apoplectic and sued, claiming the Legislature essentially rewrote their collectively bargained employment terms.

In AFT Michigan et al. v. State of Michigan, The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed, finding the statute, MCL 38.1343e unconstitutional. Specifically, the majority, in an opinion written by Judge Douglas Shapiro, found that the statute violated the Contracts clause of the U.S and state constitutions, constituted an unlawful governmental taking of private property and a substantial impairment of  employment contracts between the districts and unions.

The state argued that they weren’t taking from the teachers, but that they were borrowing the money to fund retiree benefits, which the teachers will receive back when they retire.

This, however, is an overly-general characterization that gives the false impression that the plaintiff employees are being required to contribute toward the funding of their own retirement benefits. The mandatory contributions imposed on current public school employees, do not go to fund their own retirement benefits, but instead to pay for retiree healthcare for already-retired public school employees. While present employees and retired employees share a common employer, that does not mean that their interests as individuals (or even as groups of employees) are identical.

Defendants have offered no legal basis for the conclusion that it comports with due process to require present school employees to transfer three percent of their incomes in order to fund retirement benefits of others. Rather, it is a mandatory direct transfer of funds from one discrete group, present school employees, for the benefit of another, retired school employees. The fact that these groups share employers does not render the scheme outside the constitutional protection of substantive due process.

*                                  *                                   *

We cannot envision a court constitutionally approving a statute that requires certain individuals to turn a portion of their wages over to the government in return for a “promise” that the government will return the monies with interest in twenty years where the government retains the unilateral right to “cancel” the “promise” at any time and will not even agree that if they do so, the monies taken will be returned. School employees cannot constitutionally be required to “loan” money to their employer school districts, with no enforceable right to receive anything in exchange and without even a legal guarantee assurance that the “loan” will be repaid.

The majority also shot down the state’s “fairness” argument, i.e. that it’s only fair that the teachers contribute to their own health care.

Judge Henry William Saad dissented, stating that the statute doesn’t violate the respective Contracts clauses.

Indeed, MCL 38.1343e cannot possibly implicate these constitutional provisions because it does not affect, much less impair, any contract. Simply put, to constitute an impairment of contract, there must first be a contract that is impaired. Thus, to state a claim, MCL 38.1343e must have altered either (1) a contract between the state itself and the public school employees, or, (2) the public school employees’ contracts with some third party. MCL 38.1343e does neither. And, because no contract has been impaired, this claim must fail.

Saad also argued that the statute doesn’t affect any “constitutionally protected property interest.”

In related news, on Wednesday, the Legislature passed more changes to the way public school employee pensions are funded, including “pre-funding” retiree health benefits, the type of contributions the Court found unconstitutional. According to a press release from Gov. Rick Snyder’s office, Snyder is expected to sign the bill. A message left for Snyder’s spokesperson asking whether this decision changes his plan to sign the bill was not immediately returned.

 

Jury: Shirvell must pay $4.5 million for defamation

Former University of Michigan student government president Chris Armstrong prevailed Aug. 16 in his federal defamation suit against former Michigan assistant attorney general Andrew Shirvell, as the jury awarded Armstrong $4.5 million in damages.

Armstrong, who was represented by Bloomfield Hills civil attorney Deborah Gordon, claimed Shirvell inflicted intentional emotional harm on his blog in 2010, while Armstrong was in his senior year.

Shirvell attacked Armstrong for his “radical homosexual agenda,” calling Armstrong “Satan’s representative on the student assembly” and a “privileged pervert.” He also accused Armstrong of getting minors to drink alcohol and trying to recruit others to become homosexuals. [For a complete rundown of Shirvell’s acts, click here.]

The day before the verdict was reached, the Detroit Free Press reported that “Shirvell questioned himself on the witness stand for more than an hour Wednesday [Aug. 15], trying to convince the jury he was upset by Armstrong’s push for gender-neutral housing at U-M. Shirvell graduated in 2002.

“‘My blog was political speech,’ Shirvell testified. ‘I viewed my blog as a movement to get Mr. Armstrong to resign. I personally felt Mr. Armstrong was too radical for the position.’”

Gordon told The Michigan Daily that she doubts Shirvell’s plans to appeal the verdict will be realized.

“He’s not going to win his appeal. It’s just another waste of time just like this trial was. This should never have occurred, because he just should have retracted these statements a long time” ago, she said.

Nominations open for Daniel J. Wright Lifetime Achievement Award

Nominations are now being accepted for the Daniel J. Wright Lifetime Achievement Award, which recognizes outstanding work for Michigan’s children.

The award is a joint effort of the Michigan Supreme Court and the Department of Human Services, according to the MSC’s Office of Public Information.

The award was established in honor of the late Daniel J. Wright, an attorney and longtime leader in child support and child welfare reform.

He was credited with the “Michigan Miracle” in 2002 when, as special assistant to then-Chief Justice Maura D. Corrigan, he led the state’s efforts to upgrade Michigan’s child support enforcement system by federally mandated deadlines. By meeting the deadlines, Wright saved the state $142 million in federal fines and earned the state a $36 million refund for fines it had already paid. Later, as director of the Friend of the Court Bureau and Child Welfare Services divisions of the State Court Administrative Office, Wright helped create the state’s “Adoption Forums” to deal with adoption barriers that were stranding children in foster care. He worked on legislation to give foster children a greater voice in decisions about their lives; among other things, the law now requires courts to consult the child’s wishes when holding a hearing about placing the child in a permanent home.

According to Marcia McBrien, the MSC’s Public Information Officer, the selection committee includes Dan’s wife, Lynne Wright, who will also present the award on Adoption Day. Also on the panel: DHS Director and former Chief Justice Maura Corrigan; Steven D. Capps, director of SCAO’s Friend of the Court Bureau division; and Kelly Howard, director of SCAO’s Child Welfare Services division.

Information about nominee qualifications and how to submit a nominee for consideration is available here.

Richard Bernstein injured in NYC

Southfield public interest lawyer Richard Bernstein suffered a broken hip when he was hit by a bicyclist in New York City’s Central Park. [Crain’s Detroit Business] 

Bernstein, a personal injury lawyer with Sam Bernstein Law Firm PLLC, is being treated at Mt. Sinai Hispital in New York for a broken hip and other injuries.

Police told Bernstein the biker who hit him was traveling about 35 mph, Bernstein said by phone on Tuesday. Bernstein said he was on the pedestrian pathway, and was wearing bright colors.

“I’m not going to sue – it doesn’t help me at all,” he said. “But it was a ridiculous and unnecessary accident, and I hope city council members in Michigan and around the country will look at this and pass ordinances to start implementing bicycle safety issues.”

Bernstein told Crain’s that he also suffered facial and dental injuries that will require surgery.

East Lansing nixes court consolidation plan

The Lansing State Journal reports this morning that officials of the 54B District Court in East Lansing have stonewalled negotiations that could have led to consolidation of Ingham County’s three district courts: East Lansing, the 54A District Court in Lansing and the 55th District Court in Mason.

Overall, the move would have saved an estimated $1.6 million annually, according to the LSJ’s story.

East Lansing City Manager George Lahanas told the LSJ that the city was concerning about retaining local control. He questioned whether the city would actually save any money under the proposed consolidation.

Click through here to read the LSJ’s report, including a fascinating explanation from an Ingham County commissioner at the end of the story about other reasons why East Lansing wasn’t interested in the plan.

CLE credits are offered at annual Veterans’ Summit

Attorneys are invited to receive updated information about VA benefits at the Canton Community Foundation’s third annual Veterans’ Summit. It takes place Sept. 12 at Laurel Manor Banquet & Conference Center in Livonia.

During the 1-4:30 p.m. session, attorneys and advocates will learn about the benefits claim process, including types of claims, ways to prove a claim, veteran status and discharge status. Also on tap is discussion about the appeal process, followed by an ethics review.

Attendance at the program provides attorneys and advocates with the required three credit hours of continuing education, including a half-credit for ethics training. The foundation is the only organization in Michigan that provides training.

The training is part of the annual two-day Veterans’ Summit, which includes a Sept. 13 seminar for veterans and their families to learn about potential VA benefits.

Fee for the event and CLE is $150. Learn more at www.cantonfoundation.org or (734) 495-1200.

MSC media coverage ‘unsophisticated’ says columnist

Matthew Davis, a Lansing-based attorney and political columnist for Mlive.com, has an interesting take on media coverage of the Michigan Supreme Court.

His well-founded gripe is the tendency to view the Court’s decisions through a political lens only when reporting for a general audience.  Matthew Davis: Media’s analysis of Michigan Supreme Court decisions should rise above 8th grade level

But at the bottom, says Davis, there are cases in which the end result doesn’t fit the notion that the Court’s justices are only looking to hand victories to the political party that backed them.

In one-high profile case after another, the court has sought to serve its only constituent — the law.

It’s a thoughtful piece. Check it out.

Report has fresh details about bomb incident at Detroit federal building

You may recall reports of a bomb incident in March 2011 at the Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building in Detroit, which houses the FBI and other federal agencies.

New details have emerged in a recent report the Department of Homeland Security has issued about the incident.

The bottom line: Someone left a canvas bag containing a small locked safe outside the federal building. A security guard brought the bag inside, where it sat under a security checkpoint desk for three weeks before someone figured out there was a bomb inside the safe.

Several guards who saw the bag under the desk assumed it was either found property or personal property of another guard.

Over the three weeks, the bag and its contents were looked at, X-rayed and shaken by guards and their supervisors, who were trying to figure out what was inside.

Update: Video of rampant speculation about the contents of the canvas bag.

Eventually two guards did the right thing. When they used screening equipment and could not identify the bag’s contents, they notified a Federal Protective Service (FPS) inspector, who determined that the bag might contain a bomb and took appropriate actions.

The report concluded that DECO, Inc., the contractor that supplies security services to the FPS, “committed multiple breaches of its contract” but those breaches “were the result of poor judgment by the guard [who brought the bag inside], not systemic problems with DECO.

“FPS also bears some responsibility for the bag that contained the IED [improvised explosive device] remaining in the building for 21 days.”

As a result of the incident, the guard who brought the bag inside was fired, along with two other guards. Another resigned before being fired. Written warnings or suspensions were issued to 16 other DECO employees.

Since shortly after the incident, the FPS has been renewing its contract with DECO in three-month increments. The FPS intends to solicit a new contract for guard services in Michigan. DECO will be allowed to bid on the new contract, according to the report.

 

No good deed goes unpunished

Earlier this week, a Court of Appeals panel handed back a multi-million dollar headache to Judge Timothy Connors of the Washtenaw Circuit Court and politely told him we’re sorry, pal, but you did this to yourself.

At issue is a settlement the Michigan Department of Corrections made with a class of female inmates who claimed prison personnel sexually abused them for years.

MDOC agreed to pay $100 million dollars in installments over a six-year period paid into an escrow account and then distributed to the attorneys and class members according to an allocation plan. MDOC also agreed to waive the prohibition on prisoners maintaining accounts at financial institutions outside their MDOC institutional account.

For the record, MDOC has already paid some of those installments.

Here’s where the headache began.

The trial court … entered a protective order which prohibited the disclosure of the names of class members other than to necessary MDOC and Attorney General employees. The purpose of the protective order was to prevent retaliation against the class members.

The retaliation issue is important. Many of the class members are still behind bars. Paybacks can be rough, doubly so when made prison-style. Connors’ protective order rightfully addressed that concern.

But whenever big money is involved, there are always folks looking for a piece of the action – and, in this case, rightly so.

Some class members may owe child support, said the Department of Human Services. What about unpaid victim restitution, court costs, fines and fees, asked prosecutors and court administrators.

The government officials intervened. They collectively argued that any such obligations owed by individual class members have first priority in any settlement distribution.

So, said the intervenors, give us the names.

Judge Connors took a stab at it.

The trial court attempted to resolve the matter by having Intervenors submit a list of names of any female prisoner with an outstanding obligation who might have been a member of the class. Plaintiffs’ counsel was then to compare those lists against the names of class members and determine if any class member had an outstanding obligation.

This failed to resolve the dispute, however, because Intervenors determined that it was logistically impossible for them to generate a comprehensive list of all potential claimants. They continued to maintain that they needed the list of names of the class members to check that list against their own records. Ultimately, the trial court declined to order the parties to disclose to Intervenors the identities of the class members and this appeal followed.

Having plaintiffs’ counsel determine which class members owe an obligation and giving the intervenors those names is a bad idea, said COA Judge David Sawyer. There’s a big conflict of interest between protecting clients’ rights and the intervenors’ collection efforts.

The applicable statutes provide that MDOC can’t disburse settlement funds to class members until they have satisfied the obligations at issue in this case, Sawyer ruled. But there’s nothing in the statutes that give the intervenors a particular right to know the class members’ identities.

The intervenors’ interest in statutory compliance “does not equate with the right to receive the names of the class members,” Sawyer said.

So, Judge Connors, here comes your headache.

If the trial court is able to fashion a method to ensure that the MDOC is meeting its statutory obligations with respect to the proper disbursement of the proceeds of the settlement without the necessity of disclosing the names of the class members, it is certainly free do so. …

Our only directions are these: (1) the MDOC must comply with the statutory provisions to ensure that the restitution, fees and costs required to be paid by a class member are, in fact, paid before any disbursement to that class member, (2) plaintiffs’ counsel is not to be the gatekeeper to determine compliance or otherwise to identify which class members have such an obligation, and (3) there must be some oversight mechanism to confirm that the MDOC does, in fact, discharge its obligations. We also direct that any future disbursement of funds is to be suspended until a satisfactory method is in place to ensure compliance with the statute.

Sawyer offered some suggestions on how to accomplish all of this and acknowledged that Connors was being saddled with a difficult task.

But the trial court in essence took this burden upon itself when it entered the protective order. We do not disparage the actions of the trial court in doing so as we recognize the reasons for the protective order. But just as the unique circumstances of this case necessitated the protective order, it also necessitates greater involvement by the trial court in ensuring that the order does not impede the MDOC and DHS from meeting their statutory duties nor does it shield plaintiffs from meeting their financial obligations.

The case is Neal, et al. v. Dep’t of Corrections, et al.