Wave Maker

How poignant it is that the Enron jury would convict Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling during the same week that the highest ranking representatives of the Institution of Congress would strenuously object to having its own members be subject to the law of search and seizure -- a position, by the way, that gets (and deserves) little respect from the legal profession.

Bro has once again boiled down the essence of the irony.

Bro's take on Miami's #1 ranking for road rage.....







Looks quite a bit like the comment
threads at Wizbang, dunnit?

For all you hard-core anti-immigration folks over at OTB and Wizbang, a good laugh courtesy of bro:


Good leg extension, huh?

I must admit, I am quite perplexed.

Yesterday, when I learned that 69 members of the Massachusetts legislature had sent a letter to every member of Congress stating their support for Cape Wind and their opposition to Senator Kennedy's attempt to kill the project, I thought that it would be big news today.

After all, how often during his 44 year career has the Senator been openly criticized by any appreciable number of his fellow partisans?

And yet, the story of the legislators' letter was mentioned only in passing in a Boston Herald story in which the primary focus was Kennedy referring to the wind farm as "Halliburton on the sea." Such a glib and responsible statesman, that Ted.

And ***GASP!!*** it wasn't covered at all in the Boston Globe. Could this be because of the Senator?

Interestingly, the Cape Cod Times story covered this slant:

''He's an icon that we all look up to,'' Smizik said. ''I'm not happy being on the other side of an issue, but it's not about him. There were a few people who didn't want to sign the letter because Sen. Kennedy was on the other side. People were looking at the issue, not Sen.Kennedy.''

"It's not about him." I appreciate the Representative's comment, but really, how naive.
_________________________________

I must also admit that, as pleased as I am to see that 69 legislators have the common sense and intellectual honesty to take on their own standard bearer on such an important issue, you'd think that the Chairman could have entrusted the drafting of the letter to someone with better writing skills. I mean, I'm no Calvin Trillin, but jeepers, this letter needed some work. How about this for crystal clarity:

"We, the undersigned, want to voice our opposition to the amendment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act that (1) singles out the CapeWind project proposed for Nantucket Sound and (2) subjects it to a veto regardless of the findings of a five year public hearing process."

No bill number? No identification of the amendment number or sponsor name?

How about this one:

"Additionally, the Massachusetts Audubon Society has given the project a provisional approval finding no significant danger to the local endangered species, specifically roseate terns and piping plovers. Please see the attached fact sheet for areas the DEIS/DEIR comments in specific areas."

Or how about this poetic beauty:

Is it fair to ask the people living along the Gulf of Mexico coastline to have gigantic oil rigs and gas flares within view to supply the nation with energy and not have wind turbines in Nantucket Sound? Is it fair to ask the people of the Appalachian mountain area to have mountain after mountain leveled losing ancient forests and mountain streams forever to provide the nation with coal and not have wind turbines in Nantucket Sound? Is it fair to allow the ranches of Wyoming to have the mineral rights taken out from under them for gas exploration and not have wind turbines six miles off the coast in Nantucket Sound?

Ladies and gentlemen. Commas and period are in limitless supply.

Ah well, I shouldn't complain. I wouldn't have expected so many to exhibit such courage so openly -- how can I quibble over their syntax?

[this press release was mentioned in the previous post, but it deserves a post of its own!]

The following press release was issued from the office of Representative Frank Smizik, House Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture:

The Boston Herald's Jay Fitzgerald covers the latest volley in the Cape Wind Farm controversy.

The Beacon Hill Institute, a conservative think tank out of Suffolk University, has come up with its second economic study that is critical of Cape Wind's project:

"As a result of the tax subsidies and high energy costs, the study said, Cape Wind Associates could expect to receive a 25 percent return on equity, or $139 million, over the decades-long life of the project."

Sounds like a ton of dough, dosen't it! But the spreadsheet of economic projections runs to 2033 (27 years from now). That said, a 25% return on equity over a period of 27 years (seems to me they've already spent millions to this point) is really pretty meager. No --- in fact, it's atrocious!!!

So what is the story here? It appears that much of the report's focus is on the variety of federal and state tax subsidies that are the only elements that make the project economically viable (and barely so at that):

The project would only be privately profitable because of the subsidies it can expect to receive. It would receive a “gross subsidy” (subsidy before taxes) of $731 million (in present value terms in 2008, using the prices of 2006), consisting of

(i) the Federal Production Tax Credit, which would contribute $180 million to revenue in present value terms;

(ii) the sales of Massachusetts “green credits”, worth a total of $487 million in present value terms; and

(iii) accelerated depreciation of investment costs, which would allow the firm to defer payment of Federal income tax, worth $65 million.

But this is the case with every other such project nationally. Are we making a statement about federal tax/environmental policy or are we saying something specific about Cape Wind? And as Cape Wind's Jim Gordon points out:

"... one federal tax credit, worth a potential $180 million to the project, is set to expire at the end of 2007 and there are no guarantees it will be renewed. Meanwhile, the institute bases its calculations on long-term electric rates that“no one can really know,” he said."

This is the second critical study that BHI has done on Cape Wind. The first study from 2004 made a number of conclusions that appear to contradict this latest work: it suggests that, notwithstanding the subsidies' delivering Cape Wind only a 25% return over 27 years, it is nonetheless "excessive." The earlier study also predicted (based upon a survey of tourists in 2003) catastrophic effects on the region's tourism economy -- predictions that contradict the experiences elsewhere, where windmill projects have actually helped tourism:

"...other studies of wind projects have generally found no damage to tourism from wind turbines. In fact, towns in Denmark that host offshore wind farms have set up visitors' centers to accommodate tourists who come to see the towering structures against the skyline. A federally funded study by the Renewable Energy Policy Project found no drop in property values near wind projects in the United States in a review of 25,000 real estate transactions."

That didn't affect the opinion of "environmental economist" Jonathan Haughton, who expressed his impirical thinking this way:

"We sensed that . . . if it were a question of 20 or 30 windmills out in Nantucket Sound, people would not be nearly so concerned," he said. "The sense of the infinite horizon will be lost."

No word on whether questions regarding the "infinite horizon" was part of the scientific survey.

But the worst aspect of the first study is its reckless and unfounded conclusion that the wind farm would result in an average 4% drop in property values in the six towns that contain real estate viewing the Sound.

What is the basis of that conclusion?

A survey of 501 home owners on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard, as well as 45 Cape Cod realtors, finds that the presence of a large scale wind farm in Nantucket Sound could indeed be perceived as a loss in amenity value.

Sixty-eight percent of home owners surveyed believe that the presence of the wind farm would worsen the view of Nantucket Sound. On average, home owners believe that the wind farm would reduce property values by 4.0% (and among these, households with waterfront property believe that the loss would be 10.9%).

A survey of homeowners? This means of "analysis" is so frivolous as to be completely meaningless. Indeed, it is an embarrassment to the Institute that something like this would come out under its name.

It appears that the smoking gun in the first study was the generous ($100,000) financial support of the Egan Family Foundation. Established by the family of Richard Egan, founder of EMC Corp., the Foundation's board of directors includes Michael Egan, an owner of oceanfront property on Oyster Harbors and a fierce opponent of the project.

The Institute denies that Egan had anything to do with either study.

Having watched this debate fester since its inception, it has become increasingly clear that the opponents of Cape Wind cannot even buy credible research to support their opposition.

UPDATE!!! And now, it appears that Senator Kennedy's underhanded effort to kill the project with typical backroom tactics may be unraveling. Today, sixty-nine members of the Massachusetts General Court sent a letter to the U.S. Congress stating their opposition to the anti-Cape Wind provision that was attached in Conference to the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act:

...Chairman Smizik stated, “This letter makes it perfectly clear that there is substantial support for Cape Wind in the Massachusetts Legislature and strong opposition to the move in Congress by the Alaskan delegation to interfere with Massachusetts energy policies.” “In Massachusetts, the Legislature has assigned the authority to approve major energy proposals to the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board, and not to the Governor, in light of the special public interest in maintaining adequate energy supplies”, Smizik continued....

...Matt Patrick, Representative of the 3rd Barnstable District which includes the shoreline nearest to the proposed offshore wind turbines, said, "We would be remiss if we let the gross inaccuracies from the opponents of the Cape Wind project justify the illicit amendment to kill the project.” Patrick continued, “The allegations from the opposition cannot be documented. The review process involving 18 agencies and numerous public hearings over the past 4 years have documented the positive benefits of the project in direct contradiction to the allegations from opponents.” “Let the process go forward and if Cape Wind survives based on its merits, it should not be subject to the arbitrary whims of the Governor”, Patrick continued....

Now things are getting interesting...

Picture this.

You and some buddies go to a California Angels game on Mothers Day. As a Mothers Day promotion, the team is giving out little "tote bag" gifts to all female fans over 18 years of age. Not being within that demographic, you and your pals are not offered one. What do you do?

If you are psychologist Michael Cohn, you seek out infamous plaintiff attorney Alfred Rava, and you initiate a class action law suit against the baseball team and the stadium owner (an institution of higher education).

And according to California's ridiculous Unruh Act, you are entitled to $4,000 minimum, plus attorneys fees, regardless of the fact that you suffered not one bit. It's all about everybody being equal.

So if your mother in Anaheim calls you next Mothers Day and says she didn't get her new Angels cap at the Mothers Day game, tell her to call Al Rava and thank him.

Hat tip: Walter Olson at Overlawyered.

Bro does it again....

It seems to me that seldom these days does one find exceptional prose within the four corners of a daily newspaper (as distinguished from fiction, of which there is entirely too much).

So it is especially refreshing that I would find such a sweet exhibit as this, in no more unlikely a place than the Globe sports pages. I am not a voracious reader of the sports pages -- and especially not news of (the gargantuan fraud known as) professional boxing. So I have no explanation for why my eyes would be drawn to this story.

Ron Borges, describing a light heavyweight bout between Osacr de la Hoya and Ricardo Mayorga:




"As the highly partisan crowd of 13,076 roared its approval, De La Hoya threw punch after punch, a raging river of fists that left Mayorga drowning in leather..."


Sweet work there, Mr. Borges.

The whole article makes for a fun read, even if you're not a boxing fan.

Dozens of pre-purchasers at a failed Miami condominium tower have filed a class-action lawsuit against the developer after he pulled the plug on the project in February, saying hurricane-related delays and rising construction costs doomed the project.

Although he returned all of the buyers' pre-purchase deposits, the plaintiffs seek not only interest on their deposit but the value of the condo if it had been built. Their lawyer says that if the developer can be shown to have "acted in bad faith" the plaintiffs are due the benefit of their bargain (i.e., the appreciation value of their unbuilt condos), not merely a returned deposit plus interest.

''We think the money damages per each unit is $200,000 and up,'' said the lawyer.

Meanwhile, the suit gives a glimpse into who some of the buyers are for Miami condos.

Thirty five of the 56 plaintiffs are from Colombia.

Here's the kicker:

The developer, 25 years old and a Mexico native, started the project with no previous high-rise experience.

Yikes.

It is certainly true that there are far fewer crooked lawyers than prevailing opinion might suggest. And perhaps it is my imagination that there seem to be more and more stories about lawyers absconding with their clients' money -- or perhaps it is just that more of them are getting caught.

Certainly, there have been more than enough instances in recent years. And when lawyers who have stolen their clients' funds cannot make full restitution, it falls upon the Clients Security Board to make them whole. Those in charge of the Clients' Security Board seem to be concerned enough about the growing problem that they have proposed a rather simple and effective rule relating to those lawyers who represent claimants in personal injury cases:

When an insurance settlement check is transmitted from an insurer to a claimant's attorney, the claimant receives notification.

Who could possibly object to that? Well, some lawyers.

... the proposal is opposed by some lawyers, who argue that the mere existence of such a rule suggests that lawyers are crooks, and who believe it would let insurance companies interfere with attorney-client relationships.

''It's basically saying you can't trust your lawyer," said Stephen A. Lechter, a executive board member of the Bristol County Bar Association, which opposes the proposal. Lechter called the proposed rule ''offensive."

Is it offensive? Pardon me, counselor, but you need to grow some skin.

Said Edward W. McIntyre, vice president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, ''we have maybe a half-dozen lawyers who steal client funds annually, yet their theft ends up harming the entire bar."

Actually, it's quite a bit more than a half-dozen. According to the records of the Clients Security Board, it has paid more than $310,000 over the past two years in 23 instances in which attorneys stole clients' settlement money. From September 2004 through August 2005, while the board reimbursed $152,046 in stolen settlements, it also refunded $710,833 stolen by lawyers from trusts and estates. In total, the board reimbursed $2.4 million during its last fiscal year.

These so-called "payee notification" laws have been adopted in a growing number of states (eleven now, including New York and California).

The Massachusetts Bar Association has yet to take a position on the proposed rule. I honestly don't know why it would hesitate. There is certainly no serious argument that copying the client on a transmittal letter from an insurance company to his lawyer constitutes "interfering in the lawyer-client relationship."