Fifth Avenue Forum

I'm all ready for my trip. I've got plenty of entertainment downloaded and read to watch. One of which is Game of Thrones. The guy warned me that there is some nudity in series, and I said that I don't particularly care. It's a popular show and if the person next to me has a problem with me watching it, they can pound sand. Then another coworker said that I have to be careful if there's a kid around. I said I'm not too worried, but if there's a kid sitting next to me, I'm obviously not watching it. He said that I need to be careful if there are any kids anywhere near me because if they see it, and I get reported I'll be put on the sex offenders list.

I don't think that's necessarily true, but I figured I'd ask the crew here. Thoughts? Opinions?

turn the brightness down so only the people next to you can see

Whatever the answer it would be a federal prosecution as they have jurisdiction on aircraft.

Reminds me of when we would watch The Sopranos while my wife was getting her 2hr long chemo treatment. We'd have to sit near the edge and pay attention to who was around.

I'd be mindful of the carrier and region of travel. Like, I wouldn't watch uncensored GoT flying Etihad from Dubai to Riyadh, for example. But I don't think that's the situation here. Generally, I'd just apply common sense, and comply with all crew requests if someone complains. To me, this would not be a refuse-to-show-your-receipt-at-Best-Buy type of situation to assert the principle of the thing.

I watched Alien on the in-flight entertainment system (Lufthansa) on one of our flights to/from Europe a few years ago, and the only scene that had been edited for content was the shot of Lambert (Veronica Cartwright) getting face-blasted with blood when the Chestburster was birthed. All other graphic content and language was intact.

I'm having a bit of trouble with a philosophical legal concept. It's basically the premise that my 'thesis' paper is based on and I want to do more reading on it, but having trouble finding the right research keywords and concepts.

I feel that it's important for state citizens to be subject to the laws that are closest to them. For instance, if a consumer has a problem with a defective product and they want to sue the manufacturer, its best that they have the option to sue under state law rather than a 'catch-all' federal law. The idea being that a law created by a state legislature would be crafted to the needs of citizens of that state better than the one-size-fits-all federal solution. This is philosophical, so whether the consumer can gain full remedy under the federal law is not relevant. It's almost advocating for a form of structured tribalism in a way.

In practice, Pennsylvania has a consumer protection law that arbitrarily excludes a small subset of PA residents from stating a claim under the PA law. Those consumers must fall back on the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act instead which is a blanket federal consumer protection law. I'm arguing to remove the barrier in the PA law and want to use, as part of my public policy argument, the federal v. state 'home rule' concept but am having trouble finding secondary source material about what I thought would be an important issue.

Usually my research is cluttered by more generalized explorations of Federalism which has more to do with FedGov v. StateGov control than how the actual citizens are affected by practical laws.

If anyone wants to toss in their two cents I'd be interested to hear their thoughts.

Who is in this "small subset of PA residents from stating a claim under the PA law?"

Who is in this "small subset of PA residents from stating a claim under the PA law?"

So, to completely answer your question I looked up the exact verbiage of the law to provide to you. It turns out the legislature went back and changed the law already. So now, in PA, there is complete overlap between the state Lemon Law and the federal Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act in terms of who can bring suit. Until the law was changed consumers who were PA residents that bought a car over state lines and brought it back were ineligible under the PA law. This was litigated in PA and the Superior Court that decided the case sided with a car company rather than a consumer back in 1996, in Mikula v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Pa. Super. 560, 680 A.2d 907 (1996).

So, rather than circle-file all of my research, notes, proposal, outline, and writing I will now shift my paper to "Why PA is a shining example of consumer protectionism done right, and your state should too." Because that's easier than starting over entirely at this late stage.

So, I still need to figure out the 'home rule' piece.

This is the newest huge Czech legal scandal:

Last year, one woman was sentenced to 30 years in prison for a murder. (Given that murder penalties in Europe are significantly lower than those in the US, she must have done something quite brutal. Sentences the ranges of 25 years and above are very rare.)

Well - last week it was revealed that she is pregnant. At this point, nobody knows how that happened (guards vs. smuggling of sperm vs. ???) - but here is the kicker:

Czech MANDATORY legal guidelines require immediate suspension of her sentence until the child turns 1. Even worse, NOBODY (probation office, ....) is allowed to monitor her. The only thing the authorities can do is to be in contact with her doctors just in case the pregnancy gets terminated or the child dies. And, of course, if she gets pregnant again before the kid turns 1, the suspension of the sentence gets renewed automatically....

More here:
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... zpravy_pos

Wait.... what? Having a baby in you is a get-of-jail-free card????

I work in banking software, and a big piece of what we thinking about is how the software complies with federal lending regulations. One of them is the Fair Lending Act, which, as far as I understand, states that you can't let the borrower's demographics affect how much you lend them and what interest rate you give them. Which make sense...doing this is inherently prejudiced because you're judging an individual based on a large set of data.

My question is...how come it seems like car insurance isn't held to the same standard? I'm only speaking anecdotally, but I've heard that women receive better car insurance rates than men because men are generally seen as more aggressive and therefore more risky drivers to insure.

One reason you may see a disconnect between the two is because the Fair Lending Act is federal, so it applies uniformally across the board. California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan all prohibit setting auto insurance rates while using gender as a factor.

ah that's cool

but I guess my follow up is why isn't there a federal law for anti-discrimination in car insurance (and probably other) products?

My guess is the influence of special interest (insurance lobby) combined with legislative apathy. I can't cite my source because I'm doing it from memory and am pretty sure I heard it in a podcast; but it turns out that removing gender from the insurance calculation doesn't really do anything to the premiums anyway. The data sample is so large that any trends that were being attributed to gender still bore out elsewhere in the calculation. Meaning, if women 25-40 were singled out as being higher risk due to their collective observed behavior removing the tag of 'woman' doesn't change that fact that individual women with bad driving records still have higher premiums. So when the data is re-aggregated the trends are still there, even if the tag is not explicitly applied.

If the legislative apathy is real then you'd probably have to bring suit under Civil Rights Act and its progeny, or if you wanted to get real creative apply the CRA through the interstate commerce clause in the spirit of Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States.

Women ask Supreme Court to toss topless ban: Why are rules different for men?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... t-n1044161

I don't fully understand why this topic is of interest to Columbia U. lawyers, but since they like my paper, I don't complain....

http://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2019 ... -policies/

Man who died from a heart attack while having sex on a business trip was the victim of an industrial accident and his employer is liable for damages, French court rules

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rules.html

How does one evaluate and select an attorney (specifically for real estate)?

Is there a Yelp for lawyers?

How does one evaluate and select an attorney (specifically for real estate)?

Is there a Yelp for lawyers?

I used http://www.lomeolaw.com for a subdivide of 57 acres in Allegheny county a few years back. He was efficient as far as I could tell.

Is there a Yelp for lawyers?

https://www.martindale.com/

That's a good starting point if you can't get a word of mouth referral.

We have an attorney in Greensburg that we really like. She's young, a few years out of law school, but she's in a good firm. She did really good work for us with the estate, and most importantly to us she was always on top of things regarding answering her phone and returning e-mails. She's Nicole Pardus at Long & Long, LLC. Her rates are also very reasonable, in part because of her years of experience. Real Estate is one of her practice areas. http://www.longandlongllc.com/

I should get on Martindale and write her a review.

Is there a Yelp for lawyers?

https://www.martindale.com/

That's a good starting point if you can't get a word of mouth referral.

We have an attorney in Greensburg that we really like. She's young, a few years out of law school, but she's in a good firm. She did really good work for us with the estate, and most importantly to us she was always on top of things regarding answering her phone and returning e-mails. She's Nicole Pardus at Long & Long, LLC. Her rates are also very reasonable, in part because of her years of experience. Real Estate is one of her practice areas. http://www.longandlongllc.com/

I should get on Martindale and write her a review.

Thanks. I am in Fayette County so I presume I should probably stick with someone who is familiar (or is a Fayette County Bar member?) with those laws. Two attorneys I know personally have turned me down because of this. They practice in Westmoreland County.

Yeah, for some reason I always think you're near Mt. Pleasant.

Martindale can get you started, though.

Connellsville, close enough. Thanks!

Go figure, no reviews of local lawyers. I have a few real estate friends... Guess I will have to ask them

Do you have an accountant? Banker maybe? Usually can get a good referral there

Yea I have asked a few family members, and my realtor neighbor.