Last active
1 year, 2 months ago
  • I’d be shocked if a magazine didn’t have insurance to cover losses from a libel suit. I suppose it’s possible that a $100,000 deductible might require some KochKash, but its unlikely to put them under.

  • CapnDunsel commented on the diary post So Who Did Bomb The Boston Marathon? by E. F. Beall.

    2013-11-07 09:16:23View | Delete

    Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant.

  • Those who say “it wouldn’t have stopped Sandy Hook” may be right. But “fighting the last attack” is why TSA scours my anus for any sharp pieces of undigested food. Better background checks might prevent some as yet unplanned *next* attack.

    The NRA is only getting on board so they can limit the scope of the actual checks that get done.

  • CapnDunsel commented on the blog post This Is What You Wanted, This Is What You Get

    2012-12-21 08:12:44View | Delete

    An insurer’s duty to defend (pay for the defense lawyers) is much broader than its duty to indemnify (pay any judgment or settlement). It’s pretty hard for an insurer to get out from under defending unless the lawsuit is for something that’s obviously not covered. So its quite possible (but reallllly hard to tell from here) that NRO’s insurer is defending the suit, but has indicated that that they might fight indemnity, and thus the begging. Or, as Occam’s Razor might suggest, they’re begging for money just because they want money.

  • CapnDunsel commented on the blog post This Is What You Wanted, This Is What You Get

    2012-12-20 14:08:55View | Delete

    Been there. Lawyer gets a call from the insurance comapny. “This is our insured; here’s a copy of the complaint.” Lawyer meets/talks to insured. “You did what?!”

    Lawyer’s next step is usually a phone call to tell an adjuster to get the checkbook ready. One thing, though, NRO could have a fairly serious deductible. $10,000 on a $500,000 policy wouldn’t be unusual. At a minimum, NRO is on the hook for that, even if there is coverage. One other thing, some policies have “client consent clauses,” which, as the name implies, does NOT allow the insurer to settle the claim without the client’s consent. Usually those are in the area of professional malpractice, though. If there’s no such consent clause, then the policy usually dictates that the insurance co. has the full right to settle. The shitstorm usually develops when the insurer *refuses* to settle, and a verdict comes in for more than the policy limit, the excess, of course, being the policy-holder’s problem.[/class dismissed]

  • CapnDunsel commented on the blog post This Is What You Wanted, This Is What You Get

    2012-12-20 14:00:52View | Delete

    Mann’s legal fees might be minimal up front, unless and until he wins. His lawyer might be working on a contingency fee, taking a percentage of any verdict or settlement & charging Mann only expenses (copying, postage, filing fees, etc.) but not legal fees if there’s no recovery.

  • CapnDunsel commented on the blog post This Is What You Wanted, This Is What You Get

    2012-12-20 13:58:02View | Delete

    That NRO was ultimately going to get killed in the suit would not be a valid basis for denying coverage. Only if NRO did something like intentionally libel Mann (much insurance won’t cover intentional acts), or fail to notify the insurance company in a timely manner after having knowledge of the possible claim against them could they really be denied coverage. Then again, the insurance industry’s slogan has always been “Hey, we don’t make money by actually paying claims” so they could be trying to deny coverage for any number of possible reasons.
    [/lawyer that does this kind of stuff]

  • While this is obviously good news, I think this overlooks the secondary (sometimes the primary) raison d’etre for hate organizations like this — to enrich their principals.

    NOM may indeed be “flushing money down the drain,” but that is of no matter to people like Brian Brown and other NOM board members who are most assuredly getting rich despite the substantive electoral beatings they are taking.

  • The SCOTUS isn’t really there as a “higher” court for purely state matters.

    But here in NH, when too many of the 5 state SC justices recuse, a statute calls for either the SC Chief or (if the Chief is recused) the Chief Judge of the Superior Court to appoint either retired SC justices or sitting Superior Court justices to sit temporarily. Surprised Wisc. doesn’t have something similar.

    Imagine if liberal judges did this in a criminal case to somehow make imposition of the death penalty impossible. The caterwauling would be deafening.

  • CapnDunsel commented on the diary post CNN: Wrong on Healthcare Ruling, but First! by Teddy Partridge.

    2012-06-28 12:05:02View | Delete

    CNN: The Most Rusted Name in News

  • CapnDunsel commented on the diary post Saturday Art: Thomas Kinkade “Painter of Light,” Kitsch, Dead at 54 by Lisa Derrick.

    2012-04-08 06:04:59View | Delete

    As someone once said about Kenny G’s version of jazz, “Thomas Kinkade is for people who like the idea of art, but not art itself.” Its very safe.

  • I wonder who came in second in the Watch Captain election?

  • The issue isn’t “self-defense,” as that term is commonly understood. The issue is FL law.
    Assuming that the FL law is written in such a way to allow as many shootings as possible to be considered legal, I see the following question as dispositive: It seems clear that Zimmerman would have a hard time saying he “felt threatened” once he “lost” Martin (or Martin lost him). BUT, once he “finds” him again, can Zimmerman argue that he felt threatened (re-threatened?) at that point? I suppose the other issue is did he still have a “legal right to be where he was” once he was told not to pursue. So while he may not have been threatened when the kid was running away, is he “allowed” (under the law) to feel threatened later? Can you (if we assume legally here)put yourself into harm’s way and then seek refuge under “feeling threatened”?

    The emotional component of this will overwhelm the egg-headed legal stuff. But the egg-heads will determine the outcome.

  • [stereotype alert]
    To the voters there, Mitt is the slick Yankee who talks you out of your money. Newt is affable southerner who sleeps with your wife, but that’s her fault, not Newt’s, and you can beat her for it later. [/stereotype]

    Newt gets it by an eyelash.

  • In strict terms most every candidate is wealthy. But one thing the Kennedys, Rockefellers and even the Kerrys (Heinzes) pounded home was their commitment to the common good. Yes, yes, yes, I know that Rockefellers have a legacy of robber-baroning etc., and certainly Joe Kennedy was no saint. But at the same time, John D. Rockefeller was almost singlehandedly responsible for the creation of many of America’s great National Parks. And the later Kennedys managed to frame their political ambitions as “public service.” Romney seems entirely unable to do that. As a result, there is lots of focus on his wealth. Is he doing anything with it besides accumulating it for his offspring?

    While I think that any idiot could just read the words, maybe Romney can’t say them because he truly doesn’t think that anyone but the wealthy should have anything. jesus, few men were more wealthy than W, but even he was able to come off as somthing of a commoner. Was it just the accent?

    The Rockefellers and Kennedys at least understood that if you were going to make millions on the backs of others or thorugh inheritances, at least balance the karmic scales a bit by paying it forward. It seems that the Republican wealthy of today don’t get that. Maybe its because they fear losing the “mean & heartless” wing that now controls the party. I dont think Mitt sees himself in Messianic terms like W. And I dont think he believes the eliminationist rhetoric. I just think he sees his job as a CEO to keep the major shareholders happy. And in his mind the only major shareholders are the wealthy. If its possible, I think he’s just ignorant of stuff beyond boardrooms, as opposed to scornful like so many GOPers of today.

  • CapnDunsel commented on the diary post Why Is Mainstream Press Blindly Attacking a Montana Blogger? by RogerShuler.

    2012-01-19 06:25:02View | Delete

    You have correctly quoted the law (although misspelled Cronkite’s name:) ). The bigger issue, though, is that the judge declared her a Non-journalist so that the shield law didn’t even apply. It’s hard to tell from this post or anything else out there whether she tried to “protect her sources.” If that’s the case, then [...]

  • CapnDunsel commented on the diary post Why Is Mainstream Press Blindly Attacking a Montana Blogger? by RogerShuler.

    2012-01-18 10:50:33View | Delete

    The irony here is that Kahsmir Hill piles on about who is and isn’t a journalist, when she cut her teeth at the on-line only legal-gossip site “Above the Law.” I wonder what she would say about “who is a journalist” if some of her salacious work at ATL had resulted in a defamation suit. [...]

  • Nobody expects to have to answer specifics:

    Biggles: Here they are, lord.

    Ximinez: Now, old lady — you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly — *two* last chances. And you shall be free — *three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.

    Wilde: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Ximinez: Right! If that’s the way you want it — Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions

  • CapnDunsel commented on the blog post The circle of wank

    2011-11-10 06:13:22View | Delete

    Let them eat their cake (of custom).

  • CapnDunsel commented on the blog post I’m The One I Want To Be

    2011-10-21 05:48:38View | Delete

    1. Koch v. Prostep, Inc.,
    Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL 31360404, N.D.Tex., October 17, 2002 (NO. CIV.A. 3:01CV1377AH, CIV.A. 3:01CV1378AH)

  • Load More