“Perdicaris alive, or Raisuli dead!”
A few topics to consider:
- Trump threatens to abandon Puerto Rico recovery efforts — Really? What a petulant child… In the same vein, how about his threat to NBC?… He is just so embarrassing…
- Jeff Duncan worries admitting girls will ‘destroy’ Boy Scouts — Well, I guess they’ll have to change the name, anyway. Meanwhile, the Girl Scouts are steamed. It all seems pretty odd to me. But what do I know? I never made it past Tenderfoot.
- Dueling Confederate flag controversies — First, go read Cindi’s column. Then, consider this: I think her points are mostly sound, but it seems to me the Orangeburg guy might have a case to make that his neighbor’s actions are lowering his property value and possibly even putting him in danger. I’d be particularly interested in what you lawyers would think of that.
- American woman and famly freed in Pakistan after 5-year hostage ordeal — And why didn’t I know about this before now? I guess because nowadays presidents don’t go around saying things like “Perdicaris alive, or Raisuli dead!” Then we would have heard about it!
- Spain asks Catalonia: Did you declare independence or not? — Good question. And from there we should be able to have a good discussion about separatism in general. For my part, I don’t hold with it.
- Trump signs order to eliminate Affordable Care Act insurance rules — Hmmm. Maybe it’s just me, but I have this vague memory of Republicans thinking it was really, really bad for Obama to do things administratively that he couldn’t get done through legislation…
- Happy real Columbus Day! — Never mind the controversies, which to me are neither here nor there. Just enjoy the cartoon. (And yes, I know that everybody knew the world was round, and that Columbus was wrong about how big it was. It’s just the untrue story is funnier.)…
Related Posts
Oh, and in case you don’t understand why the Columbus controversies are “neither here nor there” in my eyes…
I take the long view. I don’t care whether you think he’s a good guy or a bad guy. It’s just that what he achieved (which is FAR more than what the Vikings did, since their thing petered out) is possibly bigger than what anyone else has done in the past millennium.
Doubt me? Read 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created…
RE: #3 “it seems to me the Orangeburg guy might have a case to make that his neighbor’s actions are lowering his property value and possibly even putting him in danger.” -Brad
Eh…I think that’s a weak case. What would the legal theory be? You have to have a cause of action, and the only one I can think of against the flag-property owner is nuisance. Even there, I don’t think he could prevail on a common law nuisance theory. Nuisance law is based on the premise that every citizen holds his property subject to the implied obligation that he will use it in such a way as not to prevent others from enjoying the use of their property.
Here, the alleged nuisance is a flag flying on the adjoining property. There’s no sound, smell, projection, or other actual, real trespass onto the other land from the flag. Typically, you need an actual trespass onto the land in some form or fashion, whether it’s leaking pollutants, noise, water, dust, etc. Here, I don’t see any actual trespass onto the adjoining land owner. So that’s a problem.
Could he argue that the land is diminished in value? Eh. Sure, you can argue anything you want, but I don’t see that being a winning argument and property value can be hard to pin down. I don’t think that’s a viable theory, anyway.
It’s an eyesore, best case scenario, and I think that’s just something that kind of sucks for the neighbor, but I wouldn’t like my chances bringing a suit over something that’s a matter of taste, opinion, or value judgment.
Your neighbor can’t prevail in a lawsuit that your messy front lawn is diminishing his property value. That’s why certain neighborhoods have restrictive covenants to cover issues like that. If the property is subject to restrictive covenants, then it’s a different issue.
Also, it stands in opposition to the flag owner’s right to peaceably enjoy his property. If he’s prevented from flying a flag on his own property, then I think his property rights have been substantially diminished, so it sort of cuts both ways.
The “putting him in danger” thought…I summarily dismiss. Flying a flag isn’t dangerous. If someone murders the adjoining property owner because they see the flag and erroneously assume it belongs to the adjoining property owner, the murderer is the one to blame. He can’t credibly say, “The flag made me do it.”
Then there’s the issue of who was there first, which sort of dovetails into Cindi’s idea:
“But if he wants to sue, he probably ought to start with his real estate closing attorney and possibly the former property owner, if in fact his deed does not reflect the fact that the Sons of Confederate Veterans own that tiny patch of ground where the flag flies, or if it does and no one pointed that out to him before he made his purchase.” -Cindi
Again, you need a viable legal theory. Suing your own attorney pretty much limits you to a malpractice cause of action. If I understand the facts correctly, the SCV acquired their patch of land in 2008, and then the adjoining land owner purchased his parcel in 2015. I don’t see a malpractice action succeeding against a closing attorney because the purchaser is now unhappy about his neighbor.
If you bought a house, it’s not your lawyer’s job to interview your neighbors and find out if they’re jerks or nice folks. That’s your job, as the buyer. Figure out what you want to buy, and the lawyer’s job is to make sure you get marketable title with no encumbrances or title defects. Having an eyesore next door isn’t a title defect.
I haven’t seen the deed into Mr. Daras, but if the 2008 conveyance carved out a patch and made the two properties sort of like a donut and a hole, then I would guess that Mr. Daras’ legal description describes the entire area, then has a “Less and except…[description of donut hole] for the 2008 conveyance. Is he going to claim that he didn’t read the deed? Is he going to claim he never went and visited the property before he bought it?
And sue the guy who sold him the land? I summarily dismiss that, also. The seller sold him the land that he owned. What’s the legal theory behind suing the seller? That he shouldn’t have sold him the land that he wanted to buy? They entered into a contract and then the seller performed.
It’s all public record, and the whole world is on notice of who owns what via the public records at the Orangeburg County ROD.
Just my two cents, as a local litigator with a real estate background.
That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
Overruled.
Seriously, I agree that the putting him in danger (based on threats he’s received) is weak.
But you didn’t address what I think would be the main issue — the damage to his business, which in turn lowers the value of property.
This is a unique sort of case. This guy really got screwed. Maurice gave the Fergit Hell crowd a tiny piece of land just big enough for a flagpole.
There is no question that a reasonable person driving past this place would assume, with little fear of contradiction, that the person exercising his 1st Amendment rights is the guy who owns the ice cream shop. No one has any reason to suspect that it’s not on his land. See the photo.
I saw this place a couple of times before it was in the news, and each time I saw it, I thought, “Who’s the jerk who own that ice cream shop?”
So… we have a situation in which the actual owners of that postage stamp of land are making it appear to the whole world that the guy exercising his freedom of expression is the ice cream shop guy. A case can’t be made that reasonable people would think otherwise.
This presents a situation I don’t think I’ve ever seen in this particular form: The SCV folks are making it look like this other guy is flying this socially unacceptable flag. It’s not quite the same as writing a book or an op-ed and putting his name on it, but it’s a lot like that. It’s something that would cause people to negatively judge this guy before they ever meet him.
There may be no legal recourse for that, but there should be… File this in the There Oughta Be a Law department…
It reminds me of letters and opeds we would refuse to run at the paper because they misrepresented our position.
We WANTED people to write in arguing with us and our positions, and gave such submissions priority in the competition for precious column inches.
But there are a LOT of people out there with serious reading-comprehension challenges — and a lot of others who are just lying jerks. People in those two categories would write in claiming that we had said X, and just ripping us a new one for having said X, when we never said X or anything close to it.
We would tell them no dice; we weren’t running something that misrepresented what we said. (And of course, they’d run around badmouthing us, saying we refused to run something that disagreed with us, which of course was a lie.)
Fortunately, we owned that real estate, so we had control.
This guy doesn’t. But he’s in the same fix — people making it look like he is taking a position he would never take. Having been there many times, he has my sympathy…
Lawyers have a saying: “Bad facts make bad law”. This is one of those situations.
Personally, I think Daras should fly a huge American flag on his property (something that dwarfs the existing Confederate flag) and put up a big sign that essentially says “This stupid Confederate flag isn’t mine.”
Exactly, Bryan. Or the business owner (and others) could band together to collect enough money to buy the other party’s property. There is probably a number that would cause even a flag flyin’ redneck to give up the land.
I doubt if the SCV would allow the site to be bought. It draws attention which is waht they want more than money. And I doubt surrounding businesses would be willing to front the outrageous amount of money it’d take to buy. Sure the SCV would sell it for a million dollars, would surrounding businesses be willing to fork over a million?
Yeah, they LIKE that they’re able to force this on this guy. They’re not going to give this up…
Everyone has a price.
Well, Yankees do.
These are neoConfederates… they have in their genes a perverse streak that keeps them from backing down even when it’s in their interest to do so.
I should know, being three-fourths South Carolinian myself…
And these are certainly some bad facts.
But shouldn’t there be a legal recourse for making the world think something wrong, and even libelous, about you?
If the SCV put up a sign that said, “This business loves the Confederacy,” the businessman would have a case. But since the communication is nonverbal, and therefore imprecise, he has no recourse (I’m guessing).
Is that right?
It’s something we need to wrestle with as society becomes less verbal — with everyone predicting that the future of smartphones doesn’t involve typing, for instance.
As a word guy, I do NOT like people communicating with me with emojis. If you’ve got something to tell me, SAY it. Use your words. We’ve spent a million years or more evolving the language faculty, and you want to show me freaking PICTURES, like on cave wall?
Harrumph…
I think the place where the law ran off the rails here is that this was a subdivision which did not follow Orangeburg County (or City?) requirements as to lot size and other requirements. Sometimes it is correct to approve odd little lots (highway ROW takings, etc.) but generally they are nothing but trouble for everyone. Like this, or with billboard signs and family burial plots, etc. These things are always a mess. I don’t believe this subdivision ever should have been approved in the first place. That’s where the “injustice” was done.
The only thing for the ice cream shop owner to do now is to put up a big fence. And paint an American flag on it.
1. What has Puerto Rico done for themselves since the hurricane? The island isn’t that big. Supplies are piling up, but the San Juan mayor is still whining about not getting door to door deliveries for her citizens. It’s been a month, they should have power run to at minimum half of the island, but that’d require doing something more than living the entitled lifestyle for many.
2. So can boys now join the Girl Scouts? Either way it should make those weekend camping trips more interesting. I guess that will mean a slew of new badges… condom badge, transitioning to transgender badge, pretend your listening badge…
3. I don’t agree with the SCV’s actions… but they and the flag pole were their before this guy bought his ice cream shop. It’s like buying a house at the end of an airport runway then complaining about the noise.
4. Just another reason why I don’t vacation or travel to 3rd world countries.
7. The Scandinavians were here long before the Spaniards got lost and ran aground.
1. This may have something to do with it: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/12/fbi-in-puerto-rico-investigating-mishandling-fema-supplies.html
I’ll only respond to No. 7.
The Vikings came and went, having no lasting effect on America or the world. Columbus began the permanent European colonization of America, and more than that, started the process of globalization that continues today. That book I referred to explains it beautifully. Before Columbus, the world was one way. After him, it was wildly different, because of the global exchange of people, trade, animals, plants, languages, ideas, diseases and many other things that were isolated before.
As I said, the Vikings were a blip. So were the Africans and Polynesians who sort of “discovered America.” None of them had any lasting effect….
And Columbus thought he was in the West Indies.
No, he thought he was in the EAST Indies. He WAS in the West Indies.
That was the beauty of it. Columbus sailed over here because he was WRONG about the size of the world. He’d have never attempted it otherwise. All the SMART people knew how big the globe was and how far you’ve have to go to reach China or the East Indies, and therefore saw his voyage as impossible. So THEY didn’t attempt it, assuming you’d die at sea long before you got that.
They didn’t know there was a whole New World about a third of the way there.
Since he was wrong about the distance, Columbus made the attempt others were too smart to make…
I’ll take that as you agreeing with me on 1-4.
Nope. I just felt like addressing the one I addressed.
If I argued with everything people say that I disagree with, I’d never stop typing. My good friend Doug alone would keep me busy 24/7…
“My good friend Doug”
You are half-way to becoming a career politician using what accounts to a meaningless phrases like that they use at the drop of a hat.
Here’s something to boost your moral this afternoon.
http://eeuutoday.com/2017/10/10/antifa-plans-to-forcibly-remove-trump-from-office-on-nov-4th/
#2 Not sure if it’s officially sanctioned, but I had a former co-worker who was a brownie when he was younger. He was in scouts for a brief time, but he was openly (and obviously) gay, very feminine, and his parents didn’t feel comfortable with him being in the scouts.
There were 4 American service killed in Niger a few days ago and that is getting very little press. Why is that? How many hours did we spend on the 4 people killed in Benghazi? The fact that we (secretly?) have 800 soldiers stationed in a backwater country like that is important and should be discussed openly and debated in congress. What is their mission? Who are we protecting? Who are they fighting? By what authority are they there? How many other military contingents do we have that are serving on missions without congressional authority? Time to shed a little light on these endless military incursions.
Mr. Bud, what you outlined here became a major disappointment to me about Obama. Not only did he back off getting out of Afghanistan, but he also started military actions in about five other places in the world without much fanfare, just as you said. including Yemen and Niger and others. I actually thought he would be the man to make Congress act on war, instead of proceeding on his own. He did most of this without being widely discredited. But as sort of a bring-Americans-home guy, I was dismayed.
Senator Courson’s lawyer was in court yesterday trying to get his case dropped on a technicality — whether Pascoe had the authority to go after Courson while investigating Merrill and Quinn. It’s pretty sad when you can’t defend your actions in funneling money thru the Quinn’s into your own pocket and instead go this route. An innocent man wouldn’t need to do this.
Courson was an unethical crook. He doesn’t want that to be his legacy. So he fights on…
She’ll never win, the nexus is Richard Quinn. But she has found a neat way to convert a big pile of tainted funds to clean attorney fees… it’s just that that won’t benefit Courson.
I’d like to feel sorry for him; he seems like a decent guy. But I can’t because either i) this sort of thing was common, underhanded practice in the Legislature, or ii) Courson saw a bunch of other people close to him unethically profiting to far greater degrees and he thought “I’ll just take a couple of swigs of that moonshine, no harm can come of that, right?”
I’m guessing you have it right on both counts. Courson also took advantage of very favorable grandfather clause put into the pension laws several years ago that allowed him to receive a larger pension while serving than the legislator salary.
As do they all, if they’re in a position to do so.
People who hate government like to say, “They all do it!” This is one of those cases where that’s true.
We should do away with that legislative pension program (it’s been reformed, but I forget the particulars, and it’s probably still too much — although I stand ready to be corrected). But I think we should also raise legislators’ pay, so that more people could afford to serve….
I don’t see how they can win, there’s a clear funneling of money from Quinn into Courson’s bank account… he was too dumb to even try to hide it.
Yes, he’s in the “pebble in my shoe” phase of his defense… that’s how one legslator tried to get out of a DUI. Which is another whole topic in itself – how legislators get much better treatment by the judicial system when DUI’s are involved.
Actually, a LOT of people get treated better than they should when charged with DUI.
That’s because we have lawmakers who represent people charged with DUI for a living….
A clear-headed take on Trump’s executive order regarding Obamacare. Note that this one came about through Trump working with Rand Paul. So in the same week we have Lindsey golfing with his new buddy and Paul cooperating with a guy he fought tooth-and-nail with during the primaries.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/12/trumps-new-executive-order-makes-it-easi
“There is something clever, almost cunning, about Obamacare’s policy scheme: It requires unequivocal political support from an administration in order to avoid accusations that the law is being undermined. It is a kind of joint political-policy trap, in which the only solution to the law’s failings is to bail it out.
This is evident in the reaction to the executive order on health care President Trump signed today. Trump’s order is light on specifics, but it is intended to facilitate the expansion of association health plans, which would let trade groups and small businesses band together to purchase health insurance like large employers. These plans would be exempt from some of Obamacare’s rules.
This idea has been floating around Congress for decades. The House passed legislation aimed at expanding association health plans in March of this year, though it was never taken up in the Senate. Over the last several years, it has been championed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who spent months working with Trump on the plan. In addition, the order eases restrictions on short-term health plans, which are exempt from many of Obamacare’s mandates.
Trump’s order is intended to create less regulated, less expensive alternatives to Obamacare. It is not an attempt to unwind the law so much as to work around it, providing options that do not exist under the current scheme, which has resulted in steady and significant increases in health insurance premiums and limited health insurance choices in many parts of the country. The order is less a direct attack on Obamacare and more of an attempt to escape its failings.
Yet the reaction from defenders of Obamacare has been to accuse the president of undermining the health law. By creating a parallel insurance scheme, with less expensive plans that offer less robust coverage, they warn, it will lure healthy people away from Obamacare’s insurance markets, and in the process will cause the insurance pool to become smaller and sicker, which inevitably means more expensive. It will exacerbate Obamacare’s problems.”
And that’s what’s happening. Trump prophesies that Obamacare will fail, and sets about doing everything he can think of to MAKE it fail.
The ACA will be fine — nowhere near as good as single-payer, but OK — as long as the government doesn’t go out of its way to undermine it. Which is what is happening…
But the only way ACA stays afloat is to keep increasing the subsidies and restricting competition. What incentive does the insurance industry have to control costs if they know the government will continue to increase subsidies?
Obamacare SHOULD fail. It was poorly designed and poorly implemented – and everything that is happening now was predicted to happen long before Trump got into office. Democrats made sure to push out the hard stuff to beyond Obama’s second term.
Don’t call it ObamaCare anymore.
From here on out the turmoil Trump’s actions will cause make this new death spiral TrumpCare. We should refer to it properly; give the President full credit for his actions.
Ok with me. If Trumpcare is the death of Obamacare, that’s fine. Start all over again and try to do it right this time. Lots of easy small steps could be taken right away. Drop Medicare age to 60 and bump up the tax. Democrats don’t have any fixes for the disaster they created.
I think everyone knows what would improve the ACA. No one has the political will to actually try to improve it – ’cause it’s so much easier to be negative and rail against something than it is to stand up for something.
Amen.
That includes Democrats AND Republicans. At least Trump’s executive order attempted to do something to help those people in the gap where Obamacare is broken.
By making it worse for everyone else? That’s a “solution,” you think?
It’s indefensible, Doug. That is the bottom line. Trump is a nihilist. All he wants to do is to undo whatever “Obama” did. Trump doesn’t have a coherent vision on any policy topic. Period.
Yep. This is the worst action taken against Obamacare yet. Worse even than what Lindsey tried to do, maybe…
No, he’s not trying to HELP anybody. He’s just trying to destroy the ACA, and make sure a lot of people lose their coverage.
Read this.
I meant to say earlier: Rand Paul AND Reason magazine like it?
Then it’s GOT to be a bad idea…
That really does show how you study an issue before deciding. Did you read the article? Makes total sense.
That pathetic article tries to explain that Trump isn’t tying to undermine the ACA.
“Yet the reaction from defenders of Obamacare has been to accuse the president of undermining the health law.”
Just as Trump assuredly wasn’t playing racist games and calling Obama’s citizenship into question for years ..
“He doesn’t have a birth certificate, or if he does, there’s something on that certificate that is very bad for him”.
“”I have people that have been studying [Obama’s birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they’re finding ”
Trump, and those that do his bidding,, are pathological liars.
If Trump did nothing, Obamacare would fail anyway. It’s not up to him to save it anyway. It’s up to Congress. Where have the Democrats been for the past few years when this death spiral began? It was only Obama’s illegal executive order that kept ACA afloat as long as it has. Trump’s order IS helping some people who want insurance but not all the mandatory components in ACA.
Democrats are in a tough position. Since day one when they alone implemented Obamacare, they kept telling us how it was going to solve the problems with cost and access to insurance in the healthcare system. Now the only way they can save it is to admit it didn’t work… and that’s not something they want to do heading into the 2018 elections. Most of them can’t support single payer now without explaining what went wrong with Obamacare. Elections mean never having to say your sorry.
Nevermind, Trump’s already looking into welfare reform.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/16/politics/president-donald-trump-welfare-reform/index.html
Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich already did welfare reform…
Lindsey Graham joined Trump for another round of golf on Saturday. Twice in a week. How do you explain that without making Trump look better than many try to portray him to be?
http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article178935881.html
I’ll try an explanation – Graham wants something that Trump can do (support for military action is one possibility), and is willing to play golf to get it. I don’t see how that makes Trump look any better, or worse for that matter.
Obviously, Graham wants SOMETHING (but for him SOMETHING could just be feeling relevant so he can look connected when he appears on the Sunday morning TV shows).
Does it make you think LESS of Graham for being so subservient to a guy who mocked him during the primaries? AND mocked his best friend McCain?
My guess is that in person Trump’s larger than life personality has some sort of appeal to people like Lindsey. If you kiss his ring, he’ll shower you with platitudes. Some people eat that up.
I’d say it’s about the ACA…
Not that Lindsey has anything productive to add to that conversation.
So, it reflects on Graham – but doesn’t make Trump look better or worse.