George Soros wants to fix America’s criminal justice system. Sacramento’s DA race is a good place to start

“What is the out-of-state billionaire funding Noah Phillips’ campaign not telling us?” intones a woman who sounds like she should be narrating a life insurance commercial, while hedge fund manager George Soros flashes a creepy, out-of-context smile …

Read more from George Soros…

The Rise of the Food-Related Lawsuit

Food lawsuits are on the rise. At first glance, most are terrible, some are good, and others require a closer look. It’s not easy to tell the difference between each type, which is why it’s important to look at who stands to benefit from these lawsuits and what they might accomplish for consumers.

Most food lawsuits (at least the ones that interest me) exist under the broad umbrella of tort law, which—in contrast to criminal law—”addresses private wrongs and has a central purpose of compensating the victim rather than punishing the wrongdoer.”

What makes a food lawsuit “good” or “bad”? For one, we can ask if a defendant did exactly what the suit alleges, was the defendant wrong to do so? If the court rules in the plaintiff’s favor—and against the defendant—will the plaintiff be better off and will the defendant be sufficiently discouraged from behaving similarly in the future? In the case of larger lawsuits (larger either in terms of monetary damages or because the suit is filed on behalf of more than one plaintiff), would society benefit if the court were to find in favor of the plaintiffs?

We must also consider the unintended consequences of such lawsuits. We should seek to understand whether a suit harms society (say, through added costs, decreased availability of products or services, or encouraging frivolous litigation) in any way.

Some cases immediately check all the right boxes for a “good” food lawsuit.

For example, a lawsuit filed this month by a Florida woman alleges she was sickened by salmonella (a potentially fatal bacteria) contained in eggs she bought and ate. She’s one of 35 people in nine states allegedly sickened by eggs from an Indiana farm. More than ten people, including Judy Roberts of Florida, required hospitalization. Here, if the farm in question did exactly what the suit alleges and the court rules in favor of compensating Ms. Roberts at the farm’s expense, Roberts will be better off and the farm will likely behave better in the future.

In another case reported this month, a Florida butcher sued the Publix grocery store chain this month after the company fired her because she reported alleged food-safety violations at the store location where she worked. Society benefits from (and should encourage) whistleblowers, even if their actions might result ultimately in higher consumer prices. If Publix did exactly what the suit alleges and the court rules in favor of compensating the plaintiff, the plaintiff and society will be better off and the Publix will likely be discouraged from behaving similarly in the future.

Staying in Florida, at least one other food-related lawsuit filed there this month is of the “closer look” variety.

In that case, Florida’s attorney general filed an action in civil court under the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, alleging Ice Box, a restaurant with two Florida locations, profited “from the increased demand for locally-sourced or sustainable products [by] including false and misleading claims about their menu items.” Florida seeks to enjoin the restaurant from continuing to make such claims and is asking the judge to award civil penalties and attorney’s fees.

The state claims Ice Box, a longtime Oprah Winfrey favorite that has locations on South Beach and at Miami International Airport, “represents that its food products were locally grown and markets meals… as ‘farm to terminal’ options for travelers. In reality, few of the meals, if any, offered and sold at [the airport…] were made with products from local farms and nearby sources.” More damningly, the state also claims the Miami Beach location stated “it purchased products from specific Florida farms and suppliers when such was not the case.” And the state claims the restaurant’s falsely touted some fish wild or fresh-caught when the fish was allegedly frozen or farm-raised. The state claims Ice Box harmed both consumers—who willingly paid more for food they believed to be fresh, local, and/or sustainable—and competing restaurants.

Ice Box owner Robert Siegmann, who is also named in the suit, told the Miami Herald that “he relies on his vendors for information about the source of ingredients [and that i]f items aren’t locally grown… his suppliers are the ones doing the misrepresenting.”

Why the focus this week on Florida? For one, the state is home to more lawsuits a growing category—food class-action lawsuits (FCAs)—than all but two other states, according to a 2017 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform, which has sounded the alarm over what it labels a “surge” of FCAs. (A class-action suit is a lawsuit brought by a members of a class of consumers on behalf of all consumers in the class.)

In one such case, also filed this month in Florida, a pair of plaintiffs sued McDonald’s, claiming the burger chain “is forcing customers to pay for cheese on its signature Quarter Pounder and Double Quarter Pounder burgers, even if they only want plain burgers.” The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for their suit, which for some reason brings to mind a scene from Five Easy Pieces.

One of my goals is to distinguish between “good” and “bad” food lawsuits, and I’ll be exploring the issue further in an article for the Loyola Consumer Law Review.

Many of these lawsuits appear frivolous at first glance (and, perhaps, even more so on closer inspection). But some are anything but frivolous. They’re filed to redress one or more examples of actual harm suffered by one or more plaintiffs.

We should applaud cases where the judicial branch makes injured parties whole while discouraging similar bad actors and actions in the future without the need for new laws and regulations.

Read more from…

Deportation protection restored in high-profile Georgia case

Federal immigration authorities have agreed to renew the temporary protection from deportation for a Mexican woman whose case made national headlines eight years ago when she was a Georgia college student, according to a court filing. The settlement agreement signed Monday and filed Friday in federal court in Atlanta is the latest twist in 30-year-old Jessica Colotl’s quest to stay in the country she has called home for nearly two decades.

Read more from Civil Liberties…

Ireland’s vote to OK abortion is the latest sign of a cultural shift

DUBLIN — Ireland voted decisively to repeal one of the world’s more restrictive abortion bans, sweeping aside generations of conservative patriarchy and dealing the latest in a series of stinging rebukes to the Roman Catholic Church. The surprising …

Read more from Roman Catholic…

Largely Roman Catholic Ireland votes 2-to-1 to repeal abortion ban

Voters in deeply Roman Catholic Ireland by a 2-to-1 margin support to repeal a 1983 constitutional ban on abortions, the official vote tally shows. Official results of Friday’s referendum showed that among 2.1 million votes cast, 1.4 million were in favor …

Read more from Roman Catholic…

Ireland overwhelmingly votes to overturn abortion ban, reject unborn’s right to life

It’s now official: Ireland has overwhelmingly voted to overturn its abortion ban.

It was widely predicted, given exit polling data, the vote to reject the unborn’s right to life would be a landslide — and it was. However, the numbers were not as large as predicted.

What are the details?

Irish media outlets reported, citing exit polling data, that 68-70 percent would vote to repeal the country’s Eighth Amendment, a 1983 law that legally declared unborn babies have a right to life, and a law declaring abortion illegal.

  • A whopping 66.4 percent of the Irish voted to repeal the Eighth and legalize abortion, while just 33.6 percent voted against it.
  • The vote saw a record turnout of 64.5 percent, according to the Guardian.
  • Dublin, Ireland’s capital, and the surrounding areas held the biggest concentration of voters for abortion. In fact, more than 70 percent of Dublin voted to legalize abortion.
  • Only one Irish voting district voted against the repeal, and even there it was close: 52 percent to 48 percent.

Friday’s numbers are almost an exact reversal of the 1983 vote to bar abortion and honor the unborn’s right to life. During that vote, about two-thirds of Ireland voted against abortion, while just one-third voted in-favor of it.

What happens next?

Irish citizens wishing to obtain an abortion will not be able to do it today and for at least the next several days. However, the country’s legislature is predicted to quickly change that.

According to the Guardian, lawmakers will soon bring legislation allowing all abortions up to the 12th week of pregnancy with a three-day waiting period prior to the operation. The Guardian reported:

Between 12 and 24 weeks, abortion will be available only in cases of fatal foetal abnormality, a risk to a woman’s life or a risk of serious harm to the health of the mother. After 24 weeks, termination will be possible in cases of fatal foetal abnormality.

There will be provision for conscientious objection among medical practitioners, although doctors will be obliged to transfer care of the pregnant woman to another doctor.

After Ireland’s historic vote, only one country in European remains with a complete ban on abortion: Malta.

However, Poland and Cyrus severely limit the operation to “grave risk to the health of the mother, fatal foetal abnormality, rape and incest,” according to the Guardian.

Read more from The Blaze…