In 1930, James Dewar, the manager of the Chicago Hostess Bakery plant, was probably tired. He spent most of his days overseeing the tedious production of the company's delicious cakes. Complete with strawberry filling, the variety of pastries produced in Chicago were certainly being enjoyed by people all over the country.
According to history, Mr. Dewar noticed one day that the Hostess shortcake pans were hardly being used during the short strawberry season. Instead of having the pans sit idly in the dust of the factory, Mr. Dewar began to inject smooth banana and vanilla creme filling into the cakes. These non-strawberry filled treats would later be named, "Twinkies." And this beloved snack would later contribute to the increased size of America's belly.
Today, the bankruptcy court judge presiding over the Hostess proceeding approved the winding down and liquidation of the company. The management at Hostess quickly placed blame, even before the judge made a decision. It was those greedy unions and their ridiculous demands for decent wages.
It is true that the union strikes made it difficult for the company to reorganize under Chapter 11, but the death of Hostess was long ago determined because of a number of non-union factors.
Hostess had already filed bankruptcy in 2004 and 2009, employed seven different CEOs in ten years, before private equity began to load the company with debt. Hostess had over $600 million of debt on the books before the unions were able to write on their picket signs. The total amount of debt was two-thirds of the complete asset value of Hostess.
Add the problems of consumer trends favoring healthier snacks, management's refusal to adapt to the market rate of labor, and leadership's failure to retool the business model; and you get the demise of a bakery company that has been around for over 70 years.
It is always easy to blame the workers, the unions, the blue-collar employees who are content in being a small part of the larger process in making a delectable product. But in blaming them, the Hostess executives associate themselves with the "severe" conservative agenda which holds working people in contempt.
The Republican House Majority leader Eric Cantor is a perfect example of an individual who disdains the working class. He issued a statement on Labor day 2012 stating, "we celebrate those who...built a business and earned their own success." I have nothing against business owners, but praising just them on labor day shows great disrespect to the labor class.
There is a wide-held belief that businesses would do better without unions. Let's examine whether this belief is backed by evidence.
Since 1970, union membership has gone from 1/3 of the workforce to less than 14 percent. What is the result of this decline? The top one percent of incomes increased 275% while middle class incomes went up just under 40%. This income inequality has had an effect on the whole economy. Because of the weak purchasing power of consumers, overall aggregate demand declined tremendously. If families cannot afford to purchase Twinkies, how is Hostess or an equivalent company supposed to sell its products?
Companies need to stop playing the blame game and realize that if the middle class does well, so does the whole country.
I am sure that James Dewar, once a delivery boy for a pastries company, would be disgusted with the turn of events regarding the Hostess bankruptcy. He could not have anticipated that the bakers would be the "ones responsible" for the end of Hostess. Although the Twinkies brand will live on, the respect for the people who made the Twinkies, Hostess bakers, will be discarded. Someone give me a sugary treat.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
All on Red: How Wall Street Gambled Big and Lost
Most people go to Las Vegas to gamble. Surrounded by flashing lights and luxurious casinos, there is something alluring about sitting at a blackjack table for hours on end. I am sure that the free drinks might have something to do with it too.
But when I looked at a recent Reuters article, I read facts that reaffirmed my belief that people on Wall Street are different. They are not like most people. Instead of rolling the dice, they would rather "gamble" on complicated financial instruments or presidential elections. And with the results of this election over, it was clear. Wall Street crapped out.
In late July 2010, President Obama signed Dodd-Frank, a financial regulation law, named after the two Democrat legislators who sponsored the bill. It became immediately clear that the banks on Wall Street were not happy. One paper stated that, "within minutes of the bill signing, several Wall Street groups were leveling criticism at the new regulations, reflecting Mr. Obama’s increasingly fractious relations with corporate America."
Their criticism did not end with harsh words. In the presidential election, Wall Street gave over $150 million to Romney, or Super PACs whom supported Romney. Wall Street put it all on red and the ball ended up on blue.
What caused the animosity between the financial services industry and the White House? Was it only because of the monumental financial reform bill?
You may have read that the financial crisis was brought on by the housing bubble. However, you may have missed the fact that the banks on Wall Street were the ones putting the batteries in the bubble machine. In creating collateralized mortgage obligations, or the securities that were later known as "toxic," the banks accomplished what they always do best - make sure that someone else bears the risk.
The main idea behind these securities was that it would be less risky. The banks would bundle up a bunch of mortgages, label them as high-risk or low-risk, and put them in their respective tranches. Investors would buy them according to how risk-averse they were. It was the perfect way to lend to prospective home buyers because it was supposed to spread the risk among a number of parties. Or so they thought.
With the help of rating agencies listing most of the securities as triple-A, the prices of these "toxic" instruments went up as demand increased. The banks sold them faster than a casino sells drinks. Instead of having the borrowers pay the banks directly, the banks sold the complex securities to investors, whom were to be paid from the borrowers. The banks shifted the risk of default and foreclosure to the investors.
It didn't end there. Before the fall of Lehman Brothers, some banks began to purchase credit default swaps. These instruments acted as insurance. The banks would pay a premium, and in the event of a mortgage default, the issuer of the swap would have to pay the bank. They were betting against the very securities that they were selling.
The bubble eventually burst when people realized that the values of homes across the country were inflated. More homeowners began to default on their loans and the securities bought by investors lost their face value. The consequence of these events led to the Great Recession, in which millions of Americans would become unemployed or underemployed.
When things began to settle, laissez-faire "fiscal conservatives" already had their fingers pointed to the ones responsible - the government and the indigent. Their main theory, the one you've probably heard from your conservative friend, is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ("GSEs") encouraged subprime lending to people who couldn't afford it. It's these irresponsible borrowers and government enablers who shoulder the blame.
The problem with this conservative theory is that it doesn't have evidence or facts to support it. The primary holders of the "toxic" assets were the private banks. Moreover, many economists and authors pointed out that, "the GSEs’ overall purchases and guarantees were much less risky than Wall Street’s... their default rates were one fourth to one fifth those of Wall Street and other private financial firms." So, in effect, the banks ran wild, but somehow still found a way to persuade some Americans that it was the fault of poor people.
President Obama didn't buy it and he explained his position on financial services and the need for regulation. At times, he even called the Wall Street bankers "fat cats." The bankers must have had some self-image issues because they were deeply hurt. One Wall Street exec said it wasn't so much what the President did, but the "vibe they get."
Dodd-Frank was historic in its ambition and scope. It created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the "Volcker rule," which will limit proprietary trading by the banks, credit default swaps regulations, and a number of other safeguards to protect financial stability. The legislation put Main Street back as America's number one priority, much to the dismay of Wall Street.
The gamble to oust President Obama may not have gone in Wall Street's favor. But I know they aren't done. They can spend just as much on challenging the law in the courts. I bet money that they'll try.
But when I looked at a recent Reuters article, I read facts that reaffirmed my belief that people on Wall Street are different. They are not like most people. Instead of rolling the dice, they would rather "gamble" on complicated financial instruments or presidential elections. And with the results of this election over, it was clear. Wall Street crapped out.
In late July 2010, President Obama signed Dodd-Frank, a financial regulation law, named after the two Democrat legislators who sponsored the bill. It became immediately clear that the banks on Wall Street were not happy. One paper stated that, "within minutes of the bill signing, several Wall Street groups were leveling criticism at the new regulations, reflecting Mr. Obama’s increasingly fractious relations with corporate America."
Their criticism did not end with harsh words. In the presidential election, Wall Street gave over $150 million to Romney, or Super PACs whom supported Romney. Wall Street put it all on red and the ball ended up on blue.
What caused the animosity between the financial services industry and the White House? Was it only because of the monumental financial reform bill?
You may have read that the financial crisis was brought on by the housing bubble. However, you may have missed the fact that the banks on Wall Street were the ones putting the batteries in the bubble machine. In creating collateralized mortgage obligations, or the securities that were later known as "toxic," the banks accomplished what they always do best - make sure that someone else bears the risk.
The main idea behind these securities was that it would be less risky. The banks would bundle up a bunch of mortgages, label them as high-risk or low-risk, and put them in their respective tranches. Investors would buy them according to how risk-averse they were. It was the perfect way to lend to prospective home buyers because it was supposed to spread the risk among a number of parties. Or so they thought.
With the help of rating agencies listing most of the securities as triple-A, the prices of these "toxic" instruments went up as demand increased. The banks sold them faster than a casino sells drinks. Instead of having the borrowers pay the banks directly, the banks sold the complex securities to investors, whom were to be paid from the borrowers. The banks shifted the risk of default and foreclosure to the investors.
It didn't end there. Before the fall of Lehman Brothers, some banks began to purchase credit default swaps. These instruments acted as insurance. The banks would pay a premium, and in the event of a mortgage default, the issuer of the swap would have to pay the bank. They were betting against the very securities that they were selling.
The bubble eventually burst when people realized that the values of homes across the country were inflated. More homeowners began to default on their loans and the securities bought by investors lost their face value. The consequence of these events led to the Great Recession, in which millions of Americans would become unemployed or underemployed.
When things began to settle, laissez-faire "fiscal conservatives" already had their fingers pointed to the ones responsible - the government and the indigent. Their main theory, the one you've probably heard from your conservative friend, is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ("GSEs") encouraged subprime lending to people who couldn't afford it. It's these irresponsible borrowers and government enablers who shoulder the blame.
The problem with this conservative theory is that it doesn't have evidence or facts to support it. The primary holders of the "toxic" assets were the private banks. Moreover, many economists and authors pointed out that, "the GSEs’ overall purchases and guarantees were much less risky than Wall Street’s... their default rates were one fourth to one fifth those of Wall Street and other private financial firms." So, in effect, the banks ran wild, but somehow still found a way to persuade some Americans that it was the fault of poor people.
President Obama didn't buy it and he explained his position on financial services and the need for regulation. At times, he even called the Wall Street bankers "fat cats." The bankers must have had some self-image issues because they were deeply hurt. One Wall Street exec said it wasn't so much what the President did, but the "vibe they get."
Dodd-Frank was historic in its ambition and scope. It created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the "Volcker rule," which will limit proprietary trading by the banks, credit default swaps regulations, and a number of other safeguards to protect financial stability. The legislation put Main Street back as America's number one priority, much to the dismay of Wall Street.
The gamble to oust President Obama may not have gone in Wall Street's favor. But I know they aren't done. They can spend just as much on challenging the law in the courts. I bet money that they'll try.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Binders Full of Lawsuits, with Women!
Shortly after Justice O'Connor retired, Justice Ginsburg said that she was "lonely" on the bench. She had just become the sole woman on the Supreme Court. Ginsburg expressed her belief that she and O'Connor had brought certain sensitivities to the court, a quality that the other justices could not because they did not grow up as women.
Fast forward to the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. case, were Ginsburg displayed a passionate dissent. Not only would she read the dissent but she called the 5-4 majority "acrimonious" and called for Congress to change the law. Congress listened to the "lonely" woman.
Justice Ginsburg must have been sensitive to Lilly Ledbetter's case because in a way, they shared similar roles. Both of them had experienced the solace of being the only woman in a profession full of men. Lilly Ledbetter, a district manager for Goodyear for a number of years, was the only woman out of 28 managers. That is somewhat different than having only eight male colleagues on the bench. And Lilly Ledbetter also had to face extremely disproportionate pay in relation to her male counterparts.
After the Supreme Court reversed a three million jury verdict for Ledbetter, Democrat lawmakers sprung into action. Ginsburg's statement that the "ball was in Congress' court," sent a message. You better have your glove and bat ready because it is time to run onto the field of legislation.
But what was the effect of the Ledbetter v. Goodyear case? How would Congress shape the new legislation?
The Supreme Court held in Ledbetter v. Goodyear that the statute of limitations had barred her claim because she brought the action 180 days after the discriminatory act. The majority, five men, determined that the alleged discrimination occurred when they decided to set her pay far below her male counterparts. In strictly applying the statute, the court stated that the discrimination did not occur when she was actually paid. This precluded her from being able to recover under Title VII.
Lawmakers from both the House and the Senate began to craft new language extending the statute of limitations and defining the discrimination in a more liberal way. The new legislation agreed upon, by mostly democrats, would allow women to bring a discrimination suit after they had learned of the pay discrimination, and would not time bar the suit in relation to the discriminatory act. Although it was passed before President Obama was elected, it would be the first piece of legislation signed by him.
Reactions from both sides were predictable. Democrats hit a home run, expanding the role of women in the workplace and Republicans were outraged that employers would now have to face more lawsuits from the damn plaintiff's bar.
Both are right to an extent. But, I feel that if we are to error; let us error on the side of equality in the workplace. When there is a woman's perspective at work, the company will be better suited to succeed.
I strongly disagree with Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum's statement. He recently said that the, "[Lilly Ledbetter Act] had nothing to do with changing the law with respect to pay for
women or rights for women. It simply gave lawyers a longer time to sue..."
Lawyers do not simply sue an employer for the hell of it. Lawyers have clients, and some of those clients may happen to be women who have faced discrimination. When most attorney's decide whether to take a case, he or she makes certain that the case has merit. Lawyers are bound to an oath of responsibility and despite what Senator Santorum says, will pursue a claim only if there sufficient evidence of discrimination.
Besides, this can only be good for employers. Businesses will take precaution in assessing the pay of employees and it will ensure that a person's pay will be determined by their work, not their gender. There may be more discrimination suits initially, but the courts will delineate guidelines on when is the appropriate time to bring a suit in accordance with the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
Justice Ginsburg and Lilly Ledbetter may have shared adversity in explicating a woman's perspective to a group of men. But one thing is for sure; a whole country full of men have now heard a woman's opinion, and it is now the law of the land.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Negative Action: Why the Supreme Court Should Not Change Current Law
Chief Justice John Roberts was sworn in on September 29, 2005 with thunderous applause and praise. His appointment was seen as a win for conservatives and for originalism judicial philosophy. Despite the clear victory for traditional moral values, the Chief Justice expressed that his bipartisanship appointment proved that "judging is different from politics."
Boy, was he wrong. Politics soon became intertwined with the highest court when "Obamacare" was upheld.
The Affordable Care Act was arguably the most watched Supreme Court Decision in modern history. By the end of the day, after Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court liberals, he was vilified and called a traitor. Rand Paul said, “just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so..." Actually Rand, it does.
Now, Justice Kennedy has the same opportunity to be scorned. His swing vote decision on the current affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas, will give him an opportunity to put the judiciary branch in direct line with the political line of fire.
But like Roberts, Kennedy should not fear the conservative's wrath. He should keep current law in place or uphold the tradition of encouraging diversity in schools. I have first hand knowledge that a diversified school can lead to a better understanding of others and ourselves.
The first woman on the Supreme Court Justice believed this sentiment too when in 2003, Grutter v. Bollinger, she put in place the standard for how universities may consider race as a factor.
Justice O'Connor said race may be used in a flexible non mechanic way with a number of other factors by admissions offices when they determine who will be the next batch of students. This "holistic review" has worked and almost all universities want to keep the current system in place.
Besides schools wanting a diverse student body to ensure that the best and brightest students resembles the make up of the public, there is overwhelming evidence that race relations is still a problem today. A Newsweek poll suggests that minorities still feel that relations between race have stagnated or deteriorated.
The Trayvon Martin incident has split opinions on racial lines, the Arizona immigration law has brought attention to racial profiling, and the birther issue has led to questions of blatant racism.
One way these problems can be addressed is to ensure that students learn besides students of other races, socioeconomic backgrounds, and religion. When universities accept students based upon factors of race and other criteria, it will allow friendships to be made and differences to be embraced. This will lead to progress in race relations.
I graduated high school from an affluent, mostly white school, in Temecula. When I stepped foot into my law school after attending UCI, I met people from a wide variety of backgrounds. I was challenged for the first time to rethink some of my ideas related to affirmative action. Now that I have graduated, I know that a diverse student body is indelible to a career in law. The American Bar Association agrees, filing an amicus curiae brief in Fisher v. University of Texas to voice its support of our current law.
Justice O'Connor said in 2003 that “we expect...that 25 years from now, the use or racial preferences will no longer be necessary.” If the court agrees with her, it should keep Grutter in place until 2028. I think there is still some time left.
When Justice Kennedy makes his decision he should remember the words of Justice O'Connor. He definitely shouldn't consider the political assault on John Roberts. Maybe then Roberts statement will be correct. The Supreme Court will never have to bow to political pressure.
Boy, was he wrong. Politics soon became intertwined with the highest court when "Obamacare" was upheld.
The Affordable Care Act was arguably the most watched Supreme Court Decision in modern history. By the end of the day, after Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court liberals, he was vilified and called a traitor. Rand Paul said, “just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so..." Actually Rand, it does.
Now, Justice Kennedy has the same opportunity to be scorned. His swing vote decision on the current affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas, will give him an opportunity to put the judiciary branch in direct line with the political line of fire.
But like Roberts, Kennedy should not fear the conservative's wrath. He should keep current law in place or uphold the tradition of encouraging diversity in schools. I have first hand knowledge that a diversified school can lead to a better understanding of others and ourselves.
The first woman on the Supreme Court Justice believed this sentiment too when in 2003, Grutter v. Bollinger, she put in place the standard for how universities may consider race as a factor.
Justice O'Connor said race may be used in a flexible non mechanic way with a number of other factors by admissions offices when they determine who will be the next batch of students. This "holistic review" has worked and almost all universities want to keep the current system in place.
Besides schools wanting a diverse student body to ensure that the best and brightest students resembles the make up of the public, there is overwhelming evidence that race relations is still a problem today. A Newsweek poll suggests that minorities still feel that relations between race have stagnated or deteriorated.
The Trayvon Martin incident has split opinions on racial lines, the Arizona immigration law has brought attention to racial profiling, and the birther issue has led to questions of blatant racism.
One way these problems can be addressed is to ensure that students learn besides students of other races, socioeconomic backgrounds, and religion. When universities accept students based upon factors of race and other criteria, it will allow friendships to be made and differences to be embraced. This will lead to progress in race relations.
I graduated high school from an affluent, mostly white school, in Temecula. When I stepped foot into my law school after attending UCI, I met people from a wide variety of backgrounds. I was challenged for the first time to rethink some of my ideas related to affirmative action. Now that I have graduated, I know that a diverse student body is indelible to a career in law. The American Bar Association agrees, filing an amicus curiae brief in Fisher v. University of Texas to voice its support of our current law.
Justice O'Connor said in 2003 that “we expect...that 25 years from now, the use or racial preferences will no longer be necessary.” If the court agrees with her, it should keep Grutter in place until 2028. I think there is still some time left.
When Justice Kennedy makes his decision he should remember the words of Justice O'Connor. He definitely shouldn't consider the political assault on John Roberts. Maybe then Roberts statement will be correct. The Supreme Court will never have to bow to political pressure.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Facebook's IPO: Lawsuits, Billions Lost, and Wall Street Wins
There is something attractive about a criminal trial. Most of our
beloved shows involve violent crimes and the aftermath of police
and prosecutors trying to seek justice. Maybe too many. I lost count with how many CSI shows there are.
We are enamored with the whole process and the high stakes involved. A person's liberty is at stake versus the justice rightfully needed for the victim's family. It is fundamental to our core that we see to it that criminals are punished and that's why it catches our attention.
For me though, a botched initial public offering of a tech
company and the legal aftermaths captures my interest. I'm just
fascinated with the idea that an attorney can wave around a
disclosure form and some documentary evidence representing the
current trading price of a Facebook share and win an argument. And
there are many people who are trying to do just that.
In May, the news coverage was heavy on the genius of Mark Zuckerburg and the meteoric rise of the social networking site. Look in the Wall Street Journal today and there are articles about dozens of lawsuits pending against Facebook and the underwriter, Morgan Stanley.The bases for their claims is that the required disclosures given to investors prior to the public offering were insufficient and the analysts failed to provide realistic revenue projections.
The plaintiffs, investors who lost a substantial sum of money from the IPO, argue that there should have been more information given as to Facebook's problems with advertisement, revenue, and trend that users are accessing Facebook with their mobile devices.
In other words, the investors feel duped into buying a stock that was overvalued. It sounds ridiculous, right? They should have been more careful. Haven't they heard of "buyer beware?"
Wall Street is never simple and that has been proven with the third largest IPO in our history. There seems to be a lot of news coming forward that despite investors losing money and Facebook losing respect in the mind of investors, Wall Street ended up with more money than usual. That shouldn't sound ridiculous, they always win.
The banks used an underwriting provision called a stabilization
clause, or a Greenshoe option, to minimize their
risk.
It paid off. While Zuckerburg lost billions,
Morgan Stanley was handing out the pool of about $100
million.
Not only did banks profit from their underwriting services, they profited from taking short positions on the Facebook stock. Traders at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan took positions that the shares would decline in value. These complicated and controversial trades almost always benefit the banks despite the damage done to the issuing company.
When its all said and done, we have laws in place which
enable
investment banks to engage in this business. We can put some blame
on Facebook for overvaluing itself or the underwriters for failing
to disclose all material information. At this point, it may not
matter. The average investor lost money, Facebook lost money, and
the banks made money. Like I said, it is totally legal but its
like they are getting away with a crime. The banks are the ones robbing
the investors.
It may be best to just watch CSI. In those shows, there is always justice at the end.
We are enamored with the whole process and the high stakes involved. A person's liberty is at stake versus the justice rightfully needed for the victim's family. It is fundamental to our core that we see to it that criminals are punished and that's why it catches our attention.
In May, the news coverage was heavy on the genius of Mark Zuckerburg and the meteoric rise of the social networking site. Look in the Wall Street Journal today and there are articles about dozens of lawsuits pending against Facebook and the underwriter, Morgan Stanley.The bases for their claims is that the required disclosures given to investors prior to the public offering were insufficient and the analysts failed to provide realistic revenue projections.
The plaintiffs, investors who lost a substantial sum of money from the IPO, argue that there should have been more information given as to Facebook's problems with advertisement, revenue, and trend that users are accessing Facebook with their mobile devices.
In other words, the investors feel duped into buying a stock that was overvalued. It sounds ridiculous, right? They should have been more careful. Haven't they heard of "buyer beware?"
Wall Street is never simple and that has been proven with the third largest IPO in our history. There seems to be a lot of news coming forward that despite investors losing money and Facebook losing respect in the mind of investors, Wall Street ended up with more money than usual. That shouldn't sound ridiculous, they always win.
Not only did banks profit from their underwriting services, they profited from taking short positions on the Facebook stock. Traders at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan took positions that the shares would decline in value. These complicated and controversial trades almost always benefit the banks despite the damage done to the issuing company.
It may be best to just watch CSI. In those shows, there is always justice at the end.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Mayweather Knocked Out in Court!
Floyd Mayweather Jr. is one of the most successful boxers of all time. He has a perfect record of 43-0. No losses, and all wins. It's too bad for him that it does not carry over into the court. He's losing all those fights.
A couple of days ago, Mayweather was forced to pay his nemesis, Manny Pacquiao, over $113,000 in legal fees and costs. Pacquiao's attorneys made the legal jab when Mayweather failed to show up to his own deposition. The court stated that it was "obviously intentional," and ordered monetary sanctions.
This case is not for a battery or an upper punch. Pacquiao sued Mayweather in federal court for defamation when Mayweather made a statement that claimed Pacquiao used performance enhancing substances. Instead of retaliating with his fists, Pacquiao retained an attorney. I would have liked to see the fight on pay-per-view.
A defamation case gives justice to those who believe that their reputation has been tarnished due to a false statement. Pacquiao has every legal right to pursue this remedy, but it seems unnecessary. Mayweather seems to be losing the fight for the public's respect. It could be because of his domestic abuse conviction or the controversial win against Victor Ortiz. But, its probably a combination of the two.
Mayweather is also losing any fans he may have had in the legal field. He is blatantly disrespecting the judiciary. The deposition of a party is a necessary part of the discovery process. It allows all of the necessary evidence to come before the court. It is within the court's power to sanction those individuals that refuse to participate and rightly so.
I do not think it will have any effect on Mayweather's finances. He makes millions for each fight he takes part in, before it is even decided who wins. One contract showed that a Mayweather-Pacquiao fight would have netted over $50 million for both. A $113,000 sanction is like chump change to the champ.
Ultimately, this dispute between the two must be decided in the boxing fans eyes highest court - the boxing ring. We will have to wait and see whether Mayweather wins this legal fight first. It's not looking good, his 0-2 record in court proves the law has been the Kryptonite to this undefeated boxing champ.
A couple of days ago, Mayweather was forced to pay his nemesis, Manny Pacquiao, over $113,000 in legal fees and costs. Pacquiao's attorneys made the legal jab when Mayweather failed to show up to his own deposition. The court stated that it was "obviously intentional," and ordered monetary sanctions.
This case is not for a battery or an upper punch. Pacquiao sued Mayweather in federal court for defamation when Mayweather made a statement that claimed Pacquiao used performance enhancing substances. Instead of retaliating with his fists, Pacquiao retained an attorney. I would have liked to see the fight on pay-per-view.
A defamation case gives justice to those who believe that their reputation has been tarnished due to a false statement. Pacquiao has every legal right to pursue this remedy, but it seems unnecessary. Mayweather seems to be losing the fight for the public's respect. It could be because of his domestic abuse conviction or the controversial win against Victor Ortiz. But, its probably a combination of the two.
Mayweather is also losing any fans he may have had in the legal field. He is blatantly disrespecting the judiciary. The deposition of a party is a necessary part of the discovery process. It allows all of the necessary evidence to come before the court. It is within the court's power to sanction those individuals that refuse to participate and rightly so.
I do not think it will have any effect on Mayweather's finances. He makes millions for each fight he takes part in, before it is even decided who wins. One contract showed that a Mayweather-Pacquiao fight would have netted over $50 million for both. A $113,000 sanction is like chump change to the champ.
Ultimately, this dispute between the two must be decided in the boxing fans eyes highest court - the boxing ring. We will have to wait and see whether Mayweather wins this legal fight first. It's not looking good, his 0-2 record in court proves the law has been the Kryptonite to this undefeated boxing champ.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Vote (with an ID) or Die!
From 1776 until now, we have had men and women die for our freedom. In risking and sacrificing their lives , our citizens in uniform believed that it secured the rights of all people. Including those people without photo identification.
Unfortunately, the right to vote has been turned into a polarized issue. Just like with any issue our elected officials can argue about, it has become a party line vote. I would not be surprised if Republicans and Democrats took party positions on whether Coca-Cola or Pepsi was more American.
It did not have to be this way. Right after the Tea Party birth in 2010, newly Republican-controlled legislatures started passing voter ID laws with the hopes of preventing fraud. There was only one problem with their goals. There was no fraud occurring.
Before Pennsylvania's highest court heard arguments on the validity of the law, both parties stipulated that, "[the state] will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere,” nor will it "offer argument or evidence that in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of the Photo ID law."
With no evidence of past fraud or evidence that fraud will likely occur in the future, the Pennsylvania Republican Legislature has passed laws that could prevent thousands from voting. And there just so happens to be evidence of the law's negative effect on the poor, minority, and elderly. Even Jim Cramer, the host of Mad Money, has said it has caused a burden to his father.
Pennsylvania's counsel should have at least mentioned that there have been 13 credible cases in the past 10 years throughout the whole country. I mean its less than the amount of UFO sightings reported, but it is still a number.
If this law is not about preventing fraud, then what is it really about? Could it be about politics? Sadly, there's recorded evidence to support that.
Mike Turzai, the Pennsylvania House Majority Leader, said so clearly while he was being recorded. In puffing his chest in a speech regarding the Pennsylvania House's accomplishments he stated, "voter ID, which is going to allow Mitt Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done!"
That takes some brass. The main legislator responsible for passing the voter ID law in Pennsylvania said that it will allow Mitt Romney to win, not that it will prevent in-person voter fraud.
I know that some Republicans will shrug their shoulders and dismiss it immediately. I know that for other moderate and reasonable minded Republicans it will cause a moment for concern. Winning a presidential election is not as important as the fundamental right to vote.
Many years ago, this country came to the conclusion that it is better that everyone get's an opportunity to vote. Not just a few. We decided that everyone should have a say in what direction America should take.
When the lower court in Pennsylvania relied on precedent to rule in favor of the voter ID law, it cited a 1869 case in which the court upheld a tough and similar law. That historic case said that if the law were not passed, the vote “would be to place the vicious vagrant, the wandering Arabs, the Tartar hordes of our large cities, on a level with the virtuous and good man.”
I do not think the Republicans have a monopoly on virtuous and good men. Nor do I think the Pennsylvania legislature should be the judge on what is virtuous. That should be left to Someone else. And when I head into the ballot box on November 6, I hope that I do not have to bring my birth certificate, social security card, and driver's license. As far as I'm concerned, all I need is my belief that we can move forward.
Unfortunately, the right to vote has been turned into a polarized issue. Just like with any issue our elected officials can argue about, it has become a party line vote. I would not be surprised if Republicans and Democrats took party positions on whether Coca-Cola or Pepsi was more American.
It did not have to be this way. Right after the Tea Party birth in 2010, newly Republican-controlled legislatures started passing voter ID laws with the hopes of preventing fraud. There was only one problem with their goals. There was no fraud occurring.
Before Pennsylvania's highest court heard arguments on the validity of the law, both parties stipulated that, "[the state] will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere,” nor will it "offer argument or evidence that in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of the Photo ID law."
With no evidence of past fraud or evidence that fraud will likely occur in the future, the Pennsylvania Republican Legislature has passed laws that could prevent thousands from voting. And there just so happens to be evidence of the law's negative effect on the poor, minority, and elderly. Even Jim Cramer, the host of Mad Money, has said it has caused a burden to his father.
Pennsylvania's counsel should have at least mentioned that there have been 13 credible cases in the past 10 years throughout the whole country. I mean its less than the amount of UFO sightings reported, but it is still a number.
If this law is not about preventing fraud, then what is it really about? Could it be about politics? Sadly, there's recorded evidence to support that.
Mike Turzai, the Pennsylvania House Majority Leader, said so clearly while he was being recorded. In puffing his chest in a speech regarding the Pennsylvania House's accomplishments he stated, "voter ID, which is going to allow Mitt Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done!"
That takes some brass. The main legislator responsible for passing the voter ID law in Pennsylvania said that it will allow Mitt Romney to win, not that it will prevent in-person voter fraud.
I know that some Republicans will shrug their shoulders and dismiss it immediately. I know that for other moderate and reasonable minded Republicans it will cause a moment for concern. Winning a presidential election is not as important as the fundamental right to vote.
Many years ago, this country came to the conclusion that it is better that everyone get's an opportunity to vote. Not just a few. We decided that everyone should have a say in what direction America should take.
When the lower court in Pennsylvania relied on precedent to rule in favor of the voter ID law, it cited a 1869 case in which the court upheld a tough and similar law. That historic case said that if the law were not passed, the vote “would be to place the vicious vagrant, the wandering Arabs, the Tartar hordes of our large cities, on a level with the virtuous and good man.”
I do not think the Republicans have a monopoly on virtuous and good men. Nor do I think the Pennsylvania legislature should be the judge on what is virtuous. That should be left to Someone else. And when I head into the ballot box on November 6, I hope that I do not have to bring my birth certificate, social security card, and driver's license. As far as I'm concerned, all I need is my belief that we can move forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)