The Sorsby Situation Legally and Otherwise

Posted on June 9, 2026 by Tom Liberman

There’s an absolutely fascinating story unfolding in the NCAA regarding what I’ll call the Sorsby Situation. A young athlete named Branden Sorsby is a gambling addict by his own admission. He wagered tens of thousands on various games including some on his own team. Athletic organizations in general have long-standing rules against people involved in the games gambling at all, let alone on their teams.

The gambling situation is bordering on out-of-control in the United States and I’ve written about that a number of times before but it’s not really the focus of the Sorsby Situation. The issue here is that he was suspended for his gambling by the NCAA but the courts have now issued an injunction, potentially allowing him to continue his career at Texas Tech.

The Sorsby Situation in a Nutshell

Sorsby admitted to his problem when he entered a gambling rehabilitation center. Unlike the Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe Jackson cases, there is no dispute about his gambling. He fully admits his bets. Like in those other cases, the governing body ruled the player ineligible.

In the Sorsby situation he went to court to argue that while the trial to determine if the NCAA has the power to suspend him is pending, he should be allowed to play. The court agreed and he is now eligible to play this season. The trial isn’t scheduled until after football season, meaning he could play the entire year before judgment is rendered.

Will Sorsby Play if the Injunction Stands

The Sorsby Situation isn’t, in my opinion, really a matter of will he or won’t he. The other teams in the conference are already talking about refusing to play Texas Tech. The Big 12 is talking about their own suspension thus superseding the NCAA. There are any number of ways pressure can be applied to force Sorsby out and I suspect that pressure will be applied.

If I was a betting man, like Sorsby, I’d guess he won’t play a single game this season. The pressure will force him or the team to voluntarily drop out. That, however, isn’t really the issue here.

What’s the Proper Course of Action?

To me, the interesting part of all of this is the nature of the legal case. It is written in the bylaws that the NCAA has the power to suspend a player for conduct detrimental to the league. The question is if Sorsby has the right to play until the matter is formerly adjudicated in court.

Was his conduct detrimental to the NCAA? It is certainly apparent to almost everyone this is, in fact, the case. The NCAA made the correct decision but it hasn’t been proven in a court of law. The matter is still undetermined from a legal point of view. That’s what I find fascinating.

Let’s imagine you were charged with acting morally reprehensibly and your employers suspended you from work before the actual trial. Would that suspension be legal before judgment?

I don’t have any answers today, I find the Sorsby Situation interesting. What do you think?

Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Afroman Wins

Posted on March 19, 2026 by Tom Liberman

An interesting legal case just wrapped up and the title of this article pretty much says it all; Afroman wins. It’s an interesting case involving a couple of topics near and dear to my heart, Constitutional Law and the police power of the state.

The quick summary is law enforcement raided Afroman’s home after which he created three songs and accompanying music videos which used footage of the raid. The officers involved sued for defamation and illegal use of their images without consent.

The Full Situation

Police had a warrant to search Afroman’s house for evidence of criminal activity including kidnapping and drug trafficking. The went into his home when he wasn’t there by damaging his external gate, kicking in his front door, and doing significant damage to his home security system to the tune of $20,000.

After a search they took all the cash they could find, $5,000 or $5,400 depending who you believe, and left without any evidence of a crime. They never filed charges and eventually returned $5,000 dollars.

Afroman is a music artist and the best of such make songs about what is going on in their lives. In this case, that’s exactly what he did. Using footage of the raid he wrote three songs and released three videos showing the officers in action.

Afroman Wins the Trial

Before the actual trial, the judge disallowed the charge of using officers’ images without their consent, presumably because they were the ones who entered his house. The other charges of causing the officers humiliation, embarrassment, ridicule, mental distress, and loss of reputation were allowed to go to trial.

The jury returned a verdict fully in favor of Afroman. Afroman wins!

The Cost

One thing about the case that I find intriguing is the cost. How much money did it cost for Afroman to defend himself from these charges? How much did it cost the Ohio county of Adams to prosecute the case? It didn’t cost the police department anything, the taxpayers will foot that bill most certainly.

Conclusion

Freedom wins. Tyranny loses. Huzzah.

So, Afroman repaired $20,000 in damages to his house, had to spend time and money to defend himself from a ludicrous lawsuit, and the title of this blog is Afroman Wins. Well, I guess. Would have been better if the police apologized and paid for the damages but I won’t hold my breath.

Tom Liberman

Camera Ticket Dismissed in Florida

Posted on March 15, 2026 by Tom Liberman

There’s an interesting case making its way through the legal system involving a camera ticket. A new law in Florida called the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act allows for tickets to be automatically sent out based on camera observations.

Camera Ticket citations are not new although they’ve always been controversial. In this case a twist to the law is what Judge Steven P. DeLuca decided violated the Constitution and gave him the authority to rule as he did.

The Camera Ticket Twist

The situation with this camera ticket law is that if the camera doesn’t get a good view of the person driving, the agency issues the ticket to the owner of the car who must prove they were not behind the wheel. If they cannot do so, then the ticket stands and they must pay the fine.

The problem here is apparent and obvious. The burden of proof is shifted to the accused which is diametrically opposed to the wording of the Constitution and our legal system in general.

This case itself is fairly narrow in application and only covers situation where the system cannot identify who is driving but it does offer up some interesting questions about the limits authority can put on We the People.

Conclusion

With the trend of the judiciary to give more and more trust to law-enforcement, it’s nice to have their authority rightfully challenged now and again. This case is far from over as the Florida Supreme Court has yet to rule, so I’ll be keeping my eyes open.

Tom Liberman

Post Office Immunity Ludicrous

Posted on February 24, 2026 by Tom Liberman

The Supreme Court just ruled that Post Office Immunity extends to mail intentionally withheld by postal employees against orders from the USPS Inspector General. There is a racial element to the case but I don’t think that an important issue in the dispute.

My rant today isn’t just against Post Office immunity to lawsuits but the general tendency in the courts to uphold laws granting such immunity. I’ve discussed this issue from a wider point of view so I’ll stick with the specifics this time.

Post Office Immunity Examined

The Post Office is granted immunity from lawsuits involving missing, lost, and undeliverable mail. This is not unreasonable although I’m always skeptical of immunity protections. The basic principle is that if the immunity did not exist, the Post Office would be inundated with lawsuits over lost mail and have to prove such a general mistake without malicious intent.

Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, argues that this protection extends to the intentional nondelivery of mail and four of his colleagues agree.

The Case in Question

Lebene Konan owns several rental properties. One day she found her mailbox key changed so that she could no longer access the mail and deliver it to her tenants. The stated reason being that she was required to prove that she actually owned the property. She then provided the appropriate information but the situation was not resolved.

The USPS Inspector General intervened and ordered mail to be delivered. It was still withheld. Important mail including medication, bills, and other vital information was not delivered. Tenants, weary of the situation, moved out. Konan filed dozens of complaints and eventually resorted to a lawsuit which has been making its way through the courts for two years now.

Konan claims there is a racial element to the situation, she is black. That is unimportant to me but it does factor into the ramifications of the ruling.

Post Office Immunity Apparently Absolute

This case clearly means that Post Office Immunity to lawsuits is now absolute. Now, at any Post Office, if the manager doesn’t like you for whatever reason, that person can withhold your mail. They risk being fired, I suppose, but if they have the general support of their superiors, there can be no ramifications.

Conclusion

The Post Office is now legally able to stop delivering you mail because of your religion or lack thereof; your skin color, the fact that your children have a beef at school, because someone finds your spouse attractive and thinks you are undeserving of their love. Any reason whatsoever.

If anyone, outside of five Supreme Court Justices finds this reasonable, well, I don’t even know what to say. The law is now a tool of suppression, plain and simple.

Tom Liberman

Gambling Machines in Missouri

Posted on February 18, 2026 by Tom Liberman

A recent court case in Missouri brought gambling machines under scrutiny and I thought it was a good chance to look at this issue from a Libertarian perspective.

The gambling machines, often called video lottery terminals, operate in gas stations, bars, and stores throughout the state. I’ve written on several occasions about the Libertarian perspective on legalized gambling and the harm it causes so I don’t want to rehash those arguments. What I’d like to examine today is the government’s interest in supposedly banning these devices.

The Gambling Machines

These gambling machines are essentially slot machines. Put in some money, spin the wheel, hope for a good outcome. They try to skirt the law against such devices located outside casinos by adding a small element of skill. This, they argue, makes them a skill game rather than a gambling game of pure chance. The courts have ruled and they disagree with this argument.

There are a pair of these gambling machines in the local market where I purchase delicious, house-made sandwiches every Saturday on my way back from the gym. They don’t always have somebody standing in front of them, feeding them money, but I’d say they are in use the majority of the time I’m there.

People like these gambling machines and the places that have them like them because they get a cut of the revenue generated.

What the State says about Gambling Machines

I’m going to give you a couple of quotes from those who argue these devices must be removed following the court decision.

County Executive Sam Page

When these unregulated machines bypass taxing and licensing, they divert revenue from infrastructure from public education and important government services like public safety and public health.

Governor Mike Kehoe

Certainly, as we’re trying to figure out problems with our budget where we’re … trying to not cut programs that are essential, we have to make some very hard decisions. We want to look at things that are out there right now that aren’t operating legally, that could provide a revenue stream through some sort of regulation.

Why the State is Involved

If you read those quotes I doubt I have to tell you why the state is involved in removing these gambling machines. It’s not for the well-being of those who are adversely affected by such devices. It’s not about helping those with gambling addictions. It’s not about human decency.

It’s about revenue, plain and simple. You know it, I know it, the politicians know it. Money is the deciding factor in almost everything these days. What will help us make more money? What will help rich people get richer? How can we squeeze more money from tax-payers?

Conclusion

It’s interesting how in Missouri the argument has shifted away from the moral objections associated with gambling. Anyway, I find it interesting. Do you?

Tom Liberman

Chuck Redd Christmas Eve Jam Cancellation

Posted on December 27, 2025 by Tom Liberman

A potential legal situation arose when Chuck Redd cancelled his annual Christmas Eve Jam concert at the venue either called the Kennedy Center or the Trump/Kennedy Center. Redd canceled the Christmas Eve Jam concert with the stated reason being the name change.

The new director of the center, Richard Grenell, sent a letter expressing an intent to sue Redd for the cancellation. I think it’s an interesting legal question that I will explore in this blog. I give my usual disclaimer about my legal ramblings, I am not a lawyer, not do I play one on television.

Contract

This seems to me to be a Contract Law situation. Redd presumably signed some sort of contract to play and Grenell wants to hold him to that.

There are several legal questions to examine. The contract presumably listed the name of the venue as its original name, not its new name. Is the contract void immediately upon the name change? There is also the complete overhaul of the governing board. Presumably Redd signed the contract along with the previous head of the organization. Does this void the contract?

Name Change

Let’s get into the name change first as that seems to be the main factor for cancelling the Christmas Eve Jam. Venues change their names all the time. Sports stadiums in particular sell the naming right to the highest bidder year after year. I would think there is some legal precedent for a case of this nature but so far, I haven’t read anything about such a previous case.

Another angle is simply if the new name is offensive to the artist. Would you expect Redd to honor the contract if the name change was to the Osama bin Laden Center? Or a Jewish artist to play at the newly named Adolph Hitler Center? Or Cambodian artist at the Pol Pot Center?

I think these are legitimate questions. It’s not my job to determine if Redd doesn’t like the new name. If he says he doesn’t like it, then I presume he does not.

Governing Board Change

The entire governing board of the center was changed and this is another potential issue. Again, perhaps Redd has a personal grudge with Grenell. Would you hold an artist to the contract if the new director murdered their child?

It’s basically the same issue as the name change but a different situation.

The underlying question is if someone, in this case Redd and the Christmas Eve Jam, should be held to a contract they signed before a major change took place.

Conclusion

I certainly don’t know the legal answer to this question but I am inclined to give the artist the ability to cancel under such circumstances without being sued for breech of contract. I’m not sure the case will ever see a courtroom but if it does, I’ll be quite interested in the outcome.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman

Boneless Chicken Wings with Bones

Posted on December 15, 2024 by Tom Liberman

It’s hard to believe I’m just now hearing about the Ohio Supreme Court case involving boneless chicken wings with bones which was decided back in July, but here we are.

What is this boneless chicken wings with bones case all about? It’s not quite as straight-forward as you might imagine. Michael Berkheimer had some boneless chicken wings at a restaurant named Wings. He ordered his usual boneless chicken wings. He ate them. A small bone got lodged in his esophagus and ended up causing extensive damage requiring multiple surgeries.

He sued and that’s where it all gets legal.

Is it a violation to have boneless chicken wings with bones?

The case went through several courts before arriving at the Ohio Supreme Court. The court decided that boneless is a term meaning cooking style, not an absence of bones. They dismissed the case with the author of the opinion writing the following: A diner reading ‘boneless wings’ on a menu would no more believe that the restaurant was warranting the absence of bones in the items than believe that the items were made from chicken wings, just as a person eating ‘chicken fingers’ would know that he had not been served fingers.

I think it can be argued that it’s possible a bone might accidently slip into a boneless chicken wing and therefore Mr. Berkheimer is not entitled to sue Wings or their supplier. I disagree, but I do think it’s an argument.

Can a Jury Decide if Boneless Chicken Wings with Bones is actionable?

Here’s where things get incredibly dubious, at least in my opinion. The Ohio Supreme Court argues that Mr. Berkheimer cannot even bring the case to a jury. They dismissed the case as unwinnable. No reasonable person might think the boneless chicken wings with bones is actionable.

It’s clear to me, and virtually everyone else who’s been writing about this case since July when it first appeared, a reasonable person might well find Wings and their suppliers liable. Of course, it’s possible they might not find them so. But to suggest the case is unwinnable, that no reasonable person would find for Mr. Berkheimer, smells deeply of corruption. Of judges bowing the will of their moneyed masters.

Conclusion

The system is rigged against people without the financial resources to influence court cases. That’s the facts.

Tom Liberman

Dark Chocolate with Cadmium and Lead is not Premium

Posted on November 14, 2024 by Tom Liberman

I just read about an interesting false advertising legal case making its way through the U.S. Court system involving dark chocolate with cadmium and lead. In this particular case it’s Lindt Chocolate made in Switzerland.

I’ve written about false advertising in the past and I do think manufactures should give a fairly reasonable description of the product. In this case, Lindt advertises its chocolates as expertly crafted with the finest ingredients. They do not write dark chocolate laden with cadmium and lead on the label, for obvious reasons.

Study Reveals Dark Chocolate with Heavy Metals

The reality is that dark chocolate is usually laden with at least some heavy metals. The Cadmium generally arrives from the cocoa plant itself while lead gets there during the processing phase. The study that led to the lawsuit examined a number of dark chocolate brands including Lindt.

The result from Consumer Reports showed Lindt dark chocolate contained high-levels of Cadmium. Cadmium is generally considered a dangerous heavy metal that can lead to a variety of negative healthy effects.

Of the dark chocolate tested, Lindt wasn’t the highest for cadmium and lead nor was it the lowest.

The Lawsuit over Dark Chocolate with Cadmium and Lead

At issue is the advertising statement of expertly crafted with the finest ingredients. The argument goes that this statement might lead a consumer to pay for Lindt with the expectation that it did not have some of the problems associated with dark chocolate of a lower quality.

Lindt lawyers call the advertising statement puffery. Puffery is a legal term indicating that a reasonable consumer knows it’s merely exaggeration, boasting, and blustering. That it isn’t a real indication of the product quality. Anyone who has ever seen any advertisement knows all about puffery.

Lindt Dark Chocolate Conforms with Regulations

There are regulations about how much cadmium and lead is allowed to be in various food products and there is no question that Lindt chocolate comes in under this level. The Food and Drug Administration considers it safe for consumers in the United States.

The Fate of the Lawsuit

I strongly suspect the suit will result in no damages for the plaintiffs but that, perhaps, is not the point. The lawsuit, in my opinion, aims to educate the average buyer as to what they are consuming when they eat dark chocolate. Which is often advertised as healthier than milk or white chocolate.

We’ve seen quite a few lawsuits of this nature. Tuna in Subway sandwiches. Strawberries in Pop-Tarts. Various ingredients in supplements. It’s an interesting way to illustrate, Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware.

While I suspect the lawsuit is going nowhere, I do applaud the effort. In this modern age it pays to be aware of what you are consuming. The origin of the product, the quality of the product, the way labor is treated by the manufacturer, the environmental impacts of production.

Whether it be dark chocolate with cadmium and lead or any other product, I think most people want to make the world a better place. The government can’t save us and neither can the courts. Your purchasing power is the last line of defense. Use it wisely.

Tom Liberman

Taxes and Perrier a Study in Law

Posted on May 1, 2024 by Tom Liberman

Do you think of Perrier as water? I do. I’d imagine the vast majority of people reading this do. Do you consider it soda? I don’t and I’d think the vast majority of people agree with me, including Perrier itself.

Sparkling Natural Mineral Water is what it says on the bottle. It is naturally carbonated, whatever that means and sourced and bottled at the site it emerges from the ground. I don’t drink a lot of Perrier, nor do I drink much soda but then again, as the saying goes, I don’t know art, but I know what I like. Perrier is water.

Why am I asking you about the nature of Perrier? Because the United States legal system decided Perrier is soda. Why you ask? Money. Taxes.

The Perrier is Water Lawsuit

Jennifer Montgomery filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania when she paid a tax of twenty-four cents on a 16-ounce bottle of Perrier. She wants a refund because it is illegal to tax water in the United States. It being considered essential to life and all.

Let me pause for a moment to praise Montogomery. Filing this lawsuit required time and money. When the original case was decided against her, she appealed. You go, girl! Sadly, the Pennsylvania Department Board of Revenue Appeals court decided that revenue is the most important factor. We need those tax dollars and nothing is going to stop us from getting them.

Nix v. Hedden

I haven’t put on my Time Travel hat in a while and there was a case back in 1883 involving a similar tax situation and tomatoes. Something about fruits and vegetables. Let’s go back and see what happened then. Now, where is the cap, we did a bit of Spring Cleaning involving the We Got Junk people recently and I hope it didn’t get tossed out along with that hideous lamp.

Hmm, not in the closet. In the fridge? Nope. Here it is, in the Gloomhaven Box, what’s it doing there? Well, never mind, let’s plop it on, spin three times, focus on 1883 and kapow! Here we are. Wowzer, am I poorly dressed, look at all those suits and dresses. I’ll just observe here in back, that constable with the baton looks like he’s ready to use it.

“A tomato is a fruit,” says the lawyer holding the delicious red object in one hand and a large book with the other. “Right here, your Honor, it’s science!”

Bang, down comes the gavel. “It seems obvious, any counter-argument?” says the judge looking at the other lawyer.

“If a tomato is a fruit it’s exempt from the vegetable tariff.”

Bang, down comes the gavel again. “I declare a tomato is legally a vegetable in the United States forevermore.”

“Your Honor …,” says the first lawyer.

“Shut yer yap, contempt of court. Ten days.”

Oops, that constable is giving me the side-eye, spin three times, poof, back home! Remember where I put the hat, I say to myself as I toss it on a shelf.

Well, I guess it’s good to know some things haven’t change. Tax revenue is more important than reality. Yay!

Conclusion

Perrier is soda, the courts have spoken and the courts can’t be wrong.

Tom Liberman

Tribal Regalia in Oklahoma

Posted on May 26, 2023 by Tom Liberman

I just read an interesting story about Native Americans being allowed to wear traditional garb during school graduations. The Oklahoma legislature handily overrode Governor Kevin Stitt’s veto on the matter.

The reason I think it’s an interesting topic is the facts of the legislation and veto are largely misrepresented in the article and in public discourse. The legislature is largely being hailed for allowing the wearing of tribal regalia while Governor Stitt is being attacked for wanting to forbid such displays at graduation. This is largely false.

Neither Allowed or Forbidden

It’s important to understand the Oklahoma legislature didn’t simply allow students to wear tribal regalia, they made it illegal for schools to prevent them from doing so. Likewise, it’s useful to understand Governor Stitt isn’t forbidding students from wearing tribal regalia, his veto simply allows local schools to decide for themselves if such adornments to the traditional cap and gown are forbidden.

Libertarian View

It is my opinion Governor Stitt has the right of it. It’s not in the purview of the state of Oklahoma to dictate graduation garb. It’s not a problem for state government and by intruding on this local decision they extend an authoritarian control to the state which it should not have.

As I often say, if you agree with the state unilaterally giving something then you tacitly condone the state taking the same thing away. If the state of Oklahoma can tell a school district they must allow people to wear native regalia at graduation you are granting the state the authority to command students cannot wear such native regalia. This is the problem with government overreach in general.

The Slippery Slope

There is also the slippery slope argument if the state commands Native Americans cannot be stopped from wearing tribal regalia, other organizations will demand the same right. Can a Christian student carry a giant cross as they receive their diploma? Can a Satanist student wear a huge pentagram? Can a devotee of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wear a colander on her or his head? Can a student from France wear the French flag and sing La Marseillaise as they walk?

I’m not a believer in the slippery slope argument. If students of particular organizations want the right to wear such regalia, then each school district should decide on their own if it is allowed. This is the entire point of Governor Stitt in regards to tribal regalia. It must be up to the local school district or college to make that decision, not the state.

Conclusion

States’ Rights should not trump local rights although the judicial system in the United States seems to have taken another view on that subject. We have swung too much toward States’ Rights in this country. States now seem to have an almost totalitarian right to dictate to communities about anything they want, including whether or not a community is allowed to ban declawing cats. The state should not have the right to dictate to local communities any more than the Federal Government has the right to dictate to the states.

Tom Liberman

California Pork Supreme Court Ruling is good for Small Farmers

Posted on May 12, 2023 by Tom Liberman

The Supreme Court recently ruled California pork rules for items sold within the state are constitutional. The ruling itself came from an unusual 5-4 split decision but that’s not really what I want to discuss today.

The ruling is roiling politicians from pork producing states like Iowa and the leaders of factory farm proponents. Scott Hays of the National Pork Producers Council and Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst of Iowa all lambaste the ruling as working against small farmers. They are lying. Those three and others like them are not the friend of small farmers. Let’s get into it.

The Rise of the CAFO

Small farmers are being decimated by Concentrated Animal Feed Organizations. I wrote about them recently in a ruling that went in their favor in Missouri. The rule upheld by the Supreme Court for California hurts not the small farmer but the CAFOs.

Small farmers are under tremendous pressure from CAFOs. We’re losing small farmers at a tremendous rate to these enormous operations. Bankruptcy, suicide, and the selling of the family farm to bankers. That’s the reality of being a small farmer today.

Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst aren’t on your Side

Small farmers are largely not affected by the California rule or, at the worst, can fairly easily comply. That’s why a number of organizations that support small farmers filed briefs in favor of the California rule. The organizations that are badly hurt are CAFOs. They cannot easily change their operations to treat animals in a more humane fashion.

When Grassley, Ernst, and Clark begin their wailing and weeping they show their true colors. They are all for the destruction of the traditional family farm. They hate the family farm. They want the big CAFO and the big campaign contribution. This is largely the state of the Republican Party. People in rural communities are voting for politicians that actively work to destroy the family farm all the while lying and telling the farmers the exact opposite. It’s vile.

Your Vote Matters

If the rural community continue to support politicians like Grassley and Ernst then it gets exactly what it wants and exactly what it deserves.

Conclusion

I’m not telling you for whom to vote but I am saying there are alternatives. It’s easy to get into a mindset where one party is the cause of all your ills and you vote the opposite. Remember, there are third- and fourth-party choices who offer a different vision.

Tom Liberman

Buy Marijuana in Missouri

Posted on April 13, 2023 by Tom Liberman

Everyone once in a while I need a reminder as to why I’m a Libertarian and my recent attempt to buy marijuana in Missouri gave me such. You see, I wasn’t trying to buy marijuana in Missouri for myself, that’s what the whiskey is for, I was trying to buy marijuana in Missouri for an 84-year-old woman with degenerative arthritis in her hip which causes chronic pain. Hint, it’s my mom.

Turned away. Why? Because I was buying for someone else. I can purchase recreational marijuana for myself. No problem. Credit card please. It’s for my mother who is in chronic pain, can’t walk, and can’t really get into the store without causing herself agony. Out you go, Tom. No demon gummies for you.

The Purpose of a Law

What is the purpose of this law? All I need do is go in and tell the clerk I’m buying it for myself. It’s not an impediment. This is the sort of thing that gets my Libertarian blood in a huff. A huff, I tell you. I rolled my eyes and left. I suppose I could have stayed and purchased the marijuana for myself but I figured I didn’t want to get the clerk in trouble. I’ll go back later.

Who Wrote this?

Someone wrote this law. A group of legislators voted to pass it. The governor signed it. I understand some people don’t like the fact marijuana is legal in the Missouri. That’s fine, at least that’s a defendable position, one I disagree with categorically, but at least an opinion.

Even if you oppose the sale of legal marijuana in Missouri you can’t possibly defend this nonsense. It’s totally useless. It does nothing. It stops nothing.

What could you do?

The simple solution is to limit the amount of marijuana I can buy. If I’m buying for ten people then this precludes me from purchasing so much. It’s still pretty stupid even then as the ten people can just come in themselves and buy it on their own, they don’t need me.

The Problem with the Law

My mother does need me to purchase because she isn’t particularly mobile. The only effect of this law is presumably to prevent me from buying marijuana for my mother, although, it obviously does not do that. Useless law.

Conclusion

Stupid laws are stupid. Legislators that pass stupid laws are stupid. Vote Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

Special Rules for Puerto Rico to enter the Union?

Posted on December 15, 2022 by Tom Liberman

I just read an interesting article about legislation passed in order for Puerto Rico to vote to enter the United States or separate from it. The reason it’s interesting to me is because the process of admitting a new state to the Union is spelled out directly in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

Why is any special authorization needed in order for Puerto Rico to apply for admission? It makes no sense to me at all, but maybe someone can explain it.

It’s all there Already

The entire process of joining the Union is completely laid out in the Constitution. Anyone territory or region that wants to join has a referendum and, if successful, can apply. Generally speaking, there is a waiting period while the territory or region puts together their state constitution and then Congress votes on whether or not to accept it into the Union.

It’s not rocket science. Are special rules required for Puerto Rico to apply for entry into the United States as a new state? It’s ludicrous. There is nothing to prevent any region or territory from applying. If some far-off country decided they wanted to apply, so be it. Congress is under no obligation to admit any territory or region.

Who is the United States to tell Puerto Rico they can or cannot Apply?

Since when do we make the rules for application for admission. It’s not up to us to determine if you want to apply or not, it absolutely is up to us to decide if we accept the application. Nothing else even begins to make any sense to me.

Why can’t anyone apply? It’s insane that Puerto Rico can’t apply. They’ve had a number of referendums ever since the United States took over from Spain in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. Puerto Rico has been a territory ever since with the people being United States citizens but without voting rights, no Congressmembers, and no federal income tax on earnings made in Puerto Rico.

Good Idea or Bad?

I’m not saying it’s a great thing for Puerto Rico to join the United States nor am I saying it’s a good thing for them end territorial status and become an independent nation. I’m saying it’s up to them and always should have been. Why would they need a special law to leave or join? It’s a baffling mystery to me.

Add States to the United States

I will say that I think it’s a terrible shame we’ve admitted no new states since Hawaii in 1959. The United States should never have let partisanship prevent the entry of states. I won’t get too deeply into this topic or the sham that is West Virginia but I do think we should be growing and incorporating more of the world in the grand experiment, not cutting ourselves off.

Conclusion

If the people of Puerto Rico want to join the Union, so be it. They can apply. It’s as simple as that.

Tom Liberman

Gambling is a Problem for a Libertarian

Posted on November 30, 2022 by Tom Liberman

I’ve written on the topic of gambling numerous times over the years and generally from the perspective of a Libertarian. That is to say, it’s your money and how you choose to spend it is up to you.

That being said, I’ve seen the destructive potential inherent in gambling from when I worked in the golf industry. Even then I thought the problem so wide-spread and influential on young golfers that I made a point not to gamble just to be a possible role-model.

Gambling in the United States is now easily accessible to just about everyone. Casinos are everywhere. Video games have Loot Boxes. Smart phones give access to betting games at all times of the day and night. Problem Gambling is an incredibly destructive addiction and, with greater access to gambling, more people are affected.

What’s a Libertarian to say about Gambling?

In various blogs on the subject my position is fairly clear. The government should not be in the business of enforcing gambling bans and putting people in prison for gambling. If people want to gamble, they will find a way and the prohibitions only create black markets and misery.

I also think government shouldn’t be facilitating gambling. Government should tax gambling houses in the same way it collects revenue from any other store. The rational being the government provides roads, utilities, and other things necessary for the operation of the store. The only special tax on gambling should be used to fund treatment facilities.

State run lotteries are antithetical to my understanding of how government should operate. They should not exist.

Problem Gambling

The reason I’m writing this article is the increase in problem gambling. It’s a serious problem. Gambling addiction is real and it destroys lives. The greater access we have to gambling, the more lives are destroyed.

Prior to 1979, gambling was largely in the hands of the states and quite restricted. With the advent of Native American Gaming, that all changed. Soon lotteries followed, video poker, sports gambling, and more.

As a child, I remember reading the raffle games rules on the back of cereal boxes. Not valid in Missouri was often in the footer text. Such games were illegal in my state. Not anymore, not by a long-shot.

I’m not going to try to pretend because I’m a Libertarian and support legal gambling that it’s all wine and roses. It’s not. It’s a big problem and growing fast. It’s likely you know a problem gambler, I’ve known a few over the years.

What’s a Libertarian to do?

Where does that leave me? Should I change my mind and support prohibitions on gambling? Can I just pretend the people who suffer terribly in part because I advocated for gambling don’t exist? That their problems are not my fault, not my business?

My position is not simple or easy. As I’ve mentioned before, I think Critical Thinking skills must be taught to children starting at the earliest levels of education and reinforced every year thereafter. These lessons must include the basic principles of gambling. How it affects the human mind, the methods used to entice gamblers.

Biology classes should discuss the release of Serotonin and Dopamine into the human brain and why some people are much more likely to become addicts.

Treatment

Facilities for treating gambling addiction are on the rise, as can be expected, and that’s a good thing. As I mentioned above, I don’t think it unreasonable to have added taxes on gambling to fund these places.

Conclusion

I don’t think banning gambling works and I’m strongly opposed to the government funding itself from gambling. Banning gambling means those who are capable of doing it responsibly cannot do something they enjoy.

The only real solution is not a complete solution at all. It relies on educating people to the potential dangers, giving them the information they need, and then trusting those individuals to make good decisions.

Will this solve problem gambling? No. People will still make bad decisions. Brain chemistry will still bring on addictions. People will suffer and partially because I advocate legal gambling. I bear some responsibility for this enormous problem and that’s why I say gambling is a problem for a Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

Full Movies on Twitter and Section 230

Posted on November 20, 2022 by Tom Liberman

There’s an interesting situation in regard to Full Movies on Twitter being posted without repercussion. I can’t pass an opportunity to discuss any situation at Twitter but, in full honesty, I absolutely find this a fascinating from a legal perspective. It’s not just a matter of me piling on.

Twitter and other Social Media websites are generally immune to being sued for the content posted on their platforms under Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code. What I find interesting is the number of people who think this section makes Twitter immune to fines in this situation.

I’m a bit of a legal buff but not a lawyer. Therefore, if any actual lawyers out there wish to correct me, please have at it!

Is Posting Full Movies on Twitter Illegal?

Absolutely. Those movies are owned by entities with copyrights. Anyone who posts something like that on Twitter is subject to prosecution. This usually ends up with users banned from the social media platform rather than fines but repeated offenses will land the offender in the courts.

Is Twitter in Legal Trouble for what Others Post?

Reading the first few stories on this developing situation there are a number of people citing Section 230 as a reason Twitter and Elon Musk as the owner are under no legal peril. I disagree. Now, Twitter is absolutely not responsible for what other people post, that’s true.

The Motion Picture Industry and others actively monitor Twitter and other social media platforms for copyright violations. These entities and their agents then make copyright strikes against the person posting the movie, song, or other copyrighted media.

Once the automated system sees a copyright strike, the content is generally removed until a full review can be managed. There are problems with this system as well; people can and do use copyright strikes as weapons against social media users they dislike rather than as legitimate complaints. Let’s not get into that today.

The problem here is the copyright strike system seems to be broken. So, the industry is fulfilling their legal obligation but Twitter is failing to remove the movies after the strike. I think this is a serious violation and could end in enormous fines. Copyright infringement has stiff penalties pushed through the legal system by the entertainment industry. Stiff. Real stiff. Large fines for each violation. Every violation. Tens of thousands of them, potentially millions. As long as the copyright strike system remains broken more and more violations are piling up every minute.

Conclusion

Posting full movies on Twitter is a violation by the user and not Twitter under Section 230. Failing to promptly act on copyright strikes is outside the scope of Section 230. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Twitter shut down at least temporarily.

Naturally, I could be wrong and invite those with actual legal expertise to correct my mistakes.

Tom Liberman

Who is your Daddy Identical Twin Child Support

Posted on November 16, 2022 by Tom Liberman

I just read a fascinating legal case recently adjudicated in Brazil and it brings up some interesting questions, for me at least. It involves identical twin child support payments. It seems a pair of brothers have long used their identical twin status to impersonate one another, particularly in regards to swapping sexual partners without the knowledge of the woman.

In any case, a girl was impregnated by one of them and a DNA test proves this but not which one. The judge ordered both the men to pay child support in lieu of a second, more refined test that only sometimes differentiates between identical twins.

The Legal Ramification of Identical Twin Child Support

The case is salacious and thus getting headlines in the news but what interests me is the more esoteric legal questions. If it is sometimes impossible to use DNA to differentiate between identical twins, then who is the criminal, or in this case, the father?

In the United States the standard for conviction is proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defendant has an identical twin and neither of them has alibis for the time of the crime, how am I to convict one or the other?

In the case of the identical twin child support, we know for a fact that a man who is not the father is now legally required to pay for the upbringing of the child. In the case of a murder or other crime, the punishment might well be years in prison.

What’s a juror to decide? What’s a judge to decide on appeal? Certainly, an appeal of any conviction is perfectly reasonable, I didn’t do it, it was my identical twin.

Wrongly Convicted

There are all sorts of expert witnesses who end up sending the wrong person to jail. I wrote years ago about how Blood Spatter Analysis is largely a bogus science and yet it still results in convictions.

In the case of DNA analysis, the chance for an unjust conviction is greatly reduced, which is a great thing. It’s not perfect and this case illustrates one of the problems.

I recognize the situation of the identical twin child support is quite rare in the annals of criminal law but I still find it fascinating.

Conclusion

If a case like this went to trial and you found yourself as a juror, what do you think is the correct resolution?

Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Depp and Heard are a Billion Dollar Industry

Posted on May 18, 2022 by Tom Liberman

Depp and Heard are in the middle of contentious legal battle and it’s a billion dollar industry. I’m conflicted. I’m talking about Amber Heard and Johnny Depp but I don’t think anyone needs that clarification. Who isn’t cashing in on the Depp and Heard drama?

I’m conflicted about this blog. Writing it means I’m part of the legion of Depp and Heard opportunists. Am I expressing genuine thoughts here or do I just want clicks and eyes on my blog? Maybe this post will go viral and indirectly result in the sale of millions of my novels.

On the other hand, the sheer volume of people trying to cash in on this terrible and tragic story is nauseating. I suppose it’s all moot in the end, you’re reading this and that means I wrote it. Let’s get on with it.

Depp and Heard Trial

The trail is all over the news and I’m not going to expend any time talking about the awfulness of one party versus the other. It’s a terrible tragedy. A marriage gone horribly wrong. Two people whose love turned into an international tragedy and lawsuits.

Cashing In

Who is the big winner in all of this? Not Depp and Heard. It’s mainstream news channels. Alternate news channels. Misogynists, social justice warriors. It’s social media personalities, all the influencers. Even morally bankrupt politicians are trying to garner a few votes by picking sides. Scalpers! Yuck.

Twitch watch parties with some of the biggest streamers. YouTube personalities with millions of subscribers releasing daily videos with sensationalistic titles. Depp this! Heard that! The Big Moment! Twitter is trending Depp and Heard. TikTok. Name a social media outlet and I’ll show you opportunists trying to take advantage of the situation to make some money.

Sick to my Stomach

I’m honestly feeling nauseas just writing this. I’m regretting it. I’m thinking I shouldn’t be doing it just because it means I’m part of the problem. Still, I think it’s important to call out everyone profiting off this situation.

I know this lurid story is interesting and people are genuinely picking sides. That being said, there is no doubt that a YouTube video that suddenly generates millions of watches is a strong motivator to make more such content. A Twitch streamer watching the legal case live with thousands of viewers is cash in the bank. It’s money and its gross money, at least I think so.

Human Nature

People love a train wreck. It’s undeniable. People cheer at the hockey game as much during a fight as they do for a goal. Many people enjoy the lurid, the sensational, the exciting. Depp and Heard is all that. Everyone has an opinion and if they can make some money expressing it, all the better.

I suppose I’m tilting against windmills here, just the same as when I rail against drafting in professional sports.

Conclusion

I think I’ll wrap this up quickly and then go wash my hands. Gross. It’s all so gross.

Tom Liberman

Cremated and Unable to Rapture Lawsuit

Posted on March 24, 2022 by Tom Liberman

There’s an interesting lawsuit making its way through the courts in Arkansas against a funeral home that cremated the remains of man against his and his family’s wishes. The man believed that if cremated his body could not ascend to heaven during the rapture. The lawsuit indicates the cremation caused significant emotional distress on the family.

It’s been a while since I wrote a legal blog as I’ve been preoccupied with entertainment and I thought I’d chime in on this one, particularly after reading the comments. The comment thread on the story seems focused on the idea that god can do anything and the man’s beliefs and that of his family are wrong.

I’m happy to say your beliefs are not on trial, whatever they might be.

The Rapture Lawsuit

It seems pretty clear to me that when the Roller-McNutt Funeral Home cremated the remains of Harold D. Lee they violated a contract. They certainly acknowledge as much, waived all fees and returned the deposit to the family.

The family members believe Lee’s cremation means he cannot ascend to heaven. Thus, the rapture lawsuit. I’m not going to get deeply into religion in this blog as we’re talking law, but we must consider it to some degree. Here in the United States, we have something called Freedom of Religion. People can have whatever religious beliefs they want without fear of legal ramifications.

Anguish

If the Lee family believes Harold can’t get into heaven, then that’s what they believe. It doesn’t matter the vast majority of comments involved the idea an all-powerful deity isn’t restricted by a cremation. The comments largely ridiculed the family for this belief. The Lee family believes it so, and that is their right. That’s all that matters. Not your opinion nor my opinion of their grief.

It’s important to understand mental anguish in regards to the rapture lawsuit is not debatable. If they claim to be anguished, they are anguished. You cannot prove someone is or is not suffering mental anguish. As nonsensical as this atheist finds their beliefs, I cannot argue against their anguish.

Damages

The thing the court must decide in this rapture lawsuit is what actual damages the family suffered. Seeing as the funeral home refunded all fees there are no immediate financial damages. However, if the family can prove the anguish of the event caused them to miss days of work, firing from work, suffering financially, then the rapture lawsuit has merit.

It’s clear the funeral home made a terrible mistake. Personally, I want to be chucked, wearing only my beloved St. Louis Cardinals jacket, into a hole and left to the worms. Sorry for any damage that image burned into your brain. If the funeral home did something else, it’s possible my family members might be anguished. No matter her or his anguish, they have to prove damages in the lawsuit.

Getting into Heaven

The court cannot offer damages for the ascension, or lack thereof, of Harold into heaven. You cannot assign a price that. Nor could my family sue religious organization if they performed some rites that supposedly sent my non-existent spirit to heaven.

I won’t mince words here. I don’t want to go to your imaginary heaven. I’m morally and ethically disgusted by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god as depicted in your holy books. I want no part of it. But my family can no more sue for damages for you believing I ascended than the Lee family can sue for their belief in the lack of his ascension.

Conclusion

If the Lee family can prove their emotional distress caused them damages, the funeral home will have to pay. They made a terrible mistake and the family member’s anguish cannot be debated.

Tom Liberman

Texas Gun Law if there is no Crime why do Time?

Posted on June 29, 2021 by Tom Liberman

Crimes that No Longer Exist

A new Texas gun law overrides previous illegal activities, particularly in regards to rules for carrying a firearm. Yet there are many people in prison for violating those laws in the past. Should we release those prisoners immediately?

The same goes for prisoners serving time for drug behaviors no longer considered criminal. I find it an intriguing question worth exploring and that is my aim today.

It was a Crime Then

Some will say the prisoners committed crimes at that time. Or at least a jury found them guilty of doing so. Just because carrying a weapon without a permit or training is now legal thanks to the new Texas gun law doesn’t mean people doing so didn’t break the law in the past.

I understand the argument although I disagree with it. Now, if you argue someone who drove fifty miles per hour down a thoroughfare with a speed limit of thirty but where the limit is now sixty should be released, I don’t agree. Driving over the speed limit is still a crime. Just because the limit changed on that particular street doesn’t absolve someone of breaking the existing rule.

I think a crime like carrying a weapon without a permit is different than running a red light at an intersection that no longer exists. If the state decides it’s perfectly legal to carry a firearm without a permit or training, then immediately release anyone incarcerated for doing so in the past.

What is a Crime?

To a large degree my argument comes down to defining a crime. It is my opinion, if we decide a certain activity is not criminal any more, then it behooves us, in the name of justice, to release anyone who committed that supposed crime during the period it was considered against the law.

What is the point in declaring something a crime in the first place? It’s largely designed to protect the people of region from some negative outcome. One of the biggest problems we have in the United States, in my opinion, is that we use the legal system to punish people we don’t like.

If the state legislators of Texas declare people can carry a gun without a permit, then no one should be in jail for doing so. Who exactly are we serving when we keep such offenders in prison? They did something now considered perfectly legal.

If you want to keep people in jail for committing that particular crime, then you should be against changing the law now. Freedom is not something to take away lightly.

Tom Liberman

Apple Buy or Rent Lawsuit

Posted on April 23, 2021 by Tom Liberman

What is the Difference between Buy or Rent?

A federal judge allowed a class-action lawsuit against Apple involving the difference between the options buy or rent to continue. At question is the option at offer in selling music, should customers of Apple Buy or Rent their music, movies, and television shows? I love the law so let’s examine the issue.

As it stands in the Apple Buy or Rent conundrum the company offers people the option to buy but in reality, if the owners of that content ever decide Apple no longer has rights to it, the customer also loses the ability to consume the media.

When you buy something from Apple you are not really buying it. Apple gives you the opportunity to consume that media on your device at the time of your choosing but nothing more. People seem to think the store should use the word rent instead of buy because you never actually own the content.

I have a couple of problems with the lawsuit; primarily I ask what end result the litigants hope to get. I also see no damages resultant of the difference and therefore I’m not sure if compensation is in order.

Compensation for Apple Buy or Rent

I don’t want to, and am not capable of, getting into an in-depth discussion of Tort and Contract law but one of the principles involved is damages. In order to receive compensation, the plaintiff must show damages. If Apple does not lose rights to the media in question and revoke it; there are no damages. Therefore, the entire lawsuit seems aimed at making a point. What is that point?

What Result do Litigants Want?

Change it to Rent

If the Apple Buy or Rent wording changes, what difference does it make? I rent something rather than buy it but that doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the business. It’s exactly the same either way. The consumer is not helped in any way.

If the content creator revokes the license from Apple the customer loses rights, exactly as things currently stand.

Rent the Content from the Creator

If the litigants want to force Apple to allow us to purchase the content outright it essentially drives Apple out of the business entirely. Customers must buy directly from the content creators who do not have convenient stores available to the consumers.

Essentially, every content creator will make their own store front and buyers will navigate a myriad of avenues in order to purchase their content, and, in reality, things don’t even change. When we purchase the media from the content creator, we still merely rent it. If they revoke the license, we’re exactly where we started.

Buy the Content Outright

The final intended goal is possibly that we simply purchase the content outright from the creator. In this case we have to store the content and that costs money. After years of purchasing, we have enormous volumes of media stored on the cloud by Apple. That’s really what our payment is all about. Apple holds all our content on enormous servers and grants us access to that content when and where we desire.

If we want to own the content outright, just like any physical product, we must take care of it ourselves. Ford doesn’t make a garage for our car and keep it shiny and clean and away from thieves. We do that, or we don’t, but it’s up to us in the end.

If I decide to store the media on a home server and there is a fire, it’s gone. If I rent a server from some company and they go out of business, likewise, all my content is gone. I prefer the current model and I think the vast majority of people agree with me.

Conclusion

The convenience Apple offers us through Cloud Storage is the reality of the Apple Buy or Rent question. The remedies to the lawsuit seem to be either pointless or actually an enormous inconvenience. They only make things worse for everyone.

What difference do the words Buy or Rent really make? Nothing. Yet, if this lawsuit somehow persists and proves triumphant in the courts; we lose. Great.

Tom Liberman