What's My Case Worth? (Personal Injuries In Waukesha County.)

Continuing my survey of the oft-rumored claim that Waukesha County juries do not give out big awards, I came across the case of A.M. v. Orthopaedic Assoc. of Wisconsin, a 2009 case in which medical malpractice was alleged against a trainer who checked out a high school football player after a concussion in practice.

The player, a minor who I won't name (although other records do) was 15 and playing on the varsity team. On August 19, 2005, he was injured in a scrimmage and was claimed to have told a teammate he was dizzy and lightheaded. The trainer, named Jason Abels, said that the player could continue with scrimmages.

Later on, it was asserted the teen told his parents he couldn't remember several plays from the scrimmage, but he said he felt find (although he thought he might have a concussion.) For the next two weeks, he took part in practices and games, but asked his mom for headache medication a few times.

On September 2, he started at linebacker. Just before halftime, he collided with an opponent, and took himself out of the game -- then collapsed, threw up, and passed out. At the hospital, he was diagnosed with a subdural hematoma and edema. He had surgery but suffered a series of strokes and was left with permanent injuries to his cognition, motor function and vision.

The lawsuit claimed the trainer was negligent in diagnosing the headache and that he'd ignored "return to play guidelines," leading to "second-impact syndrome." The trainer denied liability and said that the player had not reported any symptoms. The player's medical expenses exceeded $185,000.

The jury found no negligence and awarded zero damages.

So does that support the rumor that Waukesha County juries are tight-fisted? I don't know; it's hard to say, since experts on each side were hired and obviously differed, and since the agreed-upon facts say that the player continued to play -- but would he have continued to play if the trainer had held him out? Did the player deny symptoms so that he could play? One expert in a case of mine recently testified that sometimes in high school athletes you see underreporting of symptoms in high school athletes who don't want to miss a game.

But still: No really big verdicts in Waukesha, as yet.

Steel Toe Boots and Shoes Available Online -- Get 'Em While They're Tough.

If you have a job where you require Steel Toe Boots, I imagine it's hard to find a good quality pair -- and you definitely want a good quality pair, because those Steel Toe Shoes or boots are going to protect your foot from whatever danger is waiting to crush them -- alligators, or hot rivets, or terrorists, or whatever. (You can tell I do not work in a job that requires steel-toe boots. Or steel-toe anything, for that matter.)

But getting a good pair of steel-toe boots and shoes can be hard, I bet -- hard, that is, unless you know about Metboots, where you can get great-quality safety shoes online. Metboots has pretty much every kind of steel-toe boot or shoe available, but that's not what makes them special; what sets Metboots aside is their dedication to customer service. This company doesn't just sell you a pair of boots; they'll walk you through the sale if you want and make sure that you get the proper footwear for whatever it is you need it for: if it's alligators, they'll get you alligator-proof boots. If it's hot rivets, they'll get you the footwear you need for that. Their website has their goal printed right on it:

We aim for complete customer satisfaction. If you are not completely happy with your purchase, we want to hear about it. Let us know if something is wrong and we will do what we can to make it right.

How often do you hear a company say that? Okay, maybe a lot -- but how often do they mean it? Metboots means it; they back that up: the best in footwear and the best in customer service.

My actual case results: Auto repair shop liable for regulatory violation.

In Dane County Case Number 09 CV 2318, Holmes v. Wal-Mart, I represent the plaintiff, who took her car into Wal-Mart for an oil change one year around Christmas time. The oil change on her car requires a couple of steps peculiar to that car, and if any of them is not done properly, the oil will leak out and eventually leave the engine oil-free.

After the oil change was done, my client took the car on a cross-country trip and when she returned home noticed odd noises and took the car to her mechanic. He found metal shavings and damage to the engine and told her that the oil change had not been done properly. After trying to work it out on her own, only to have Wal-Mart decide it wasn't liable, she hired our firm and we filed suit, alleging breach of contract and violation of the automotive repair code section of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Code didn't apply because it had completed the repair; we argued that "completing" the repair means completing it properly, and Judge Moeser in Dane County agree, finding Wal-Mart liable for violations of the code. The case will now move on to damages, which could include a doubling of the plaintiff's pecuniary losses and attorney's fees.

Small business doesn't mean small profits, if you do it right.

Just because you run a small business doesn't mean you have to have small profits. You have to act like the big companies in some things, while keeping your business true to its form.

Take how you get paid. Small companies usually have a cash register and a tip jar. But big companies have websites and take credit cards. So you need to be able to compete with them by getting customers who don't carry cash, or who don't want to order in person -- which means you need credit card processing for small business, one of the services offered by Bluepay.com.

Bluepay's services will help you compete and make more money by doing a lot of the work for you. With Bluepay, you don't need to worry about how to set up a credit card scanner and what information you need to take. They'll do that for you, and you'll be able to take debit and credit cards and even electronic checks.

That'll help reduce your costs while enlarging your customer base. No more trips to the bank, no more waiting to see if checks will cash or bounce. Instead, you'll get paid instantly and you'll be able to do things like manage your accounts online and take advantage of Bluepay's round-the-clock everyday customer service.

They've even got mobile and wireless access-- so you contractors who are out on the job don't need to have an office. You can get paid onsite and have it billed right there.

Bluepay can also help with invoicing and business loans, too -- so your accounts payable can get paid, and you can borrow the money to expand when you need to, or to cover unexpected expenses -- and we all know there's lot of those.

Small business survive by filling a niche -- but you've got to be able to get paid to fill that niche. More and more these days, people are paying online or with plastic, not paper. Get with the program and get more money coming in.

Interesting Judicial Comments

I'll probably have more to say about this case in the near future, but Saturday's are a time for a little fun, so for now, all I'll mention about the recently-decided case of Parker v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., a case in which the Supreme Court of Wisconsin took the unusual step of publishing a decision regarding a motion to dismiss a petition for review, is that Justice Prosser has a way with words. When taking up the movant's challenge to the Court's jurisdiction to do anything, here, Prosser said this:

In response to Parker's petition for review, Beverly Enterprises contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to review a circuit court order compelling arbitration. Making an argument that this court lacks jurisdiction to review a circuit court order is roughly equivalent to a minnow taunting a muskellunge. Neither the argument nor the minnow is likely to survive.

Microsoft Exchange Cloud Services Let You Get More Done

What do you know about cloud computing? If you're like me, not very much; odds are I know more about clouds than I do about cloud computing, which means that I, and you, and people like you and me (which is everyone) needs Microsoft Exchange options provided by OzHosting.com's online services.

OzHosting provides cloud computing services -- what that means (if I may summmarize, hopefully not TOO incorrectly) is that your data is stored not on your own desktop computer but on THEIR servers -- the Internet, the "cloud" -- so that you can reach it anytime, anyplace, anyhow. Well, not "anyhow," since you need a computer to connect but you get the point.

With OzHosting, you get access to that Microsoft Exchange, and other apps like Microsoft SharePoint and Mobile Email so that you can function productively wherever you are -- no more logging in remotely or trying to copy things to one computer with a thumb drive or, worst of all, being stuck in Hoboken with nothing to do.

When Is A Parent Not A Parent? (The Wendy M. Case Examined, Part 3)

Part one of this review of the recently-decided Wendy M. "Same-sex couples can't both be parents" case is here.

Part two of this review of the case is here.

Do you need a compelling reason to want to parent your kids? If you gave birth to them, or married the woman who gave birth to them, no. But if you're prohibited from marrying your kid's biological or adoptive parent, then... yes.

Those are the only measuring sticks we use in Wisconsin, mind you. When we decide whether someone can be a parent, the tests are:

1. Can they impregnate someone or get pregnant? If so, they can be a parent.
2. If they can't do one or the other of those things, can they marry someone who can? If so, they can be a parent.
3. If they can't do either 1 or 2, then they can only be a parent if nobody they love is also a parent to that child.

Note that no part of the test to become a parent asks anything like "are you a maniac who will ask a 10 year old to babysit your toddler for an entire day?" We, as Wisconsinites, don't care to keep people like that from becoming parents, just as we won't do anything if a father accidentally shoots his 8-year-old son in the chest-- "accidentally" meaning he had a loaded, unlocked, unsafetied rifle in a house with an 8-year-old and was getting it out when the kid was around. That guy gets to become a parent, and stay a parent -- albeit not of that 8-year-old, anymore.

Not so with people who happen to love someone of the same sex as themselves; in Wendy M's. case, having decided that Wendy wasn't a parent (and having upheld a ruling that Wisconsin judges aren't smart enough to apply tests used by other states), the Court of Appeals next considered Wendy's argument that there might be compelling reasons she should be allowed parent-like rights and access to her children.

Under Barstad v. Frazier, a 'third-party' can win custodial rights from a parent of a child if compelling reasons exist to make that decision. Note, again, that this is a rule that requires that only one person have the right to make a decision about a child in some circumstances. In family law cases involving heterosexual couples, courts routinely apply a presumption that joint custody is to be granted-- giving equal power and rights to parents in all but the worst situations. But in same sex relationships, the state has no desire or power to let two women, or two men, share that decision making authority.

Wendy M. argued that the compelling reasons to give her custodial (guardianship) rights existed primarily because Liz, her partner, had first fostered a relationship between Wendy and the kids, then refused to allow it to continue; the drastic alteration of Wendy's participation in the children's lives, Wendy argued, was a compelling reason to allow Wendy, not Liz, to make the decision about how Wendy should be involved.

In a single paragraph, the Court of Appeals shot that down:

Wendy’s argument that compelling reasons exist is based on an out-of-context interpretation of the phrase “other similar extraordinary circumstances that would drastically affect the welfare of the child.” The Barstad standard is not concerned with detrimental affects to the child caused by the end of the relationship with a person, like Wendy, who is a third party to the child under Barstad. The Barstad standard applies only to circumstances caused by the biological or adoptive parent drastically affecting the child’s welfare that might justify the award of custody (or guardianship) to a third party. Barstad sets forth the circumstances that must exist before the state may infringe upon the rights of a biological or adoptive parent’s rights to make decisions regarding the care, custody and control of the parent’s children. These circumstances, under Barstad, include abandonment, neglect, disruption of parental custody or other extraordinary circumstances caused by the biological or adoptive parent. Wendy makes no allegation that Liz meets any of these criteria. Thus, there are no triable factual issues concerning whether compelling reasons exist under Barstad to justify granting Wendy’s guardianship petitions over Liz’s objection.

Read the highlighted portions -- I added those-- carefully, because the Court of Appeals said that Wendy took the "other extraordinary circumstances" factor out of context, but didn't say how. If you want the answer to that, you've got to go back to Barstad, which I did.

In Barstad, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin began with its holding, simply put:

We hold that unless the court finds that the parent is unfit or unable to care for the child or that there are compelling reasons for denying custody to the parent, the court must grant custody to the child's parent.

That seems to say that there are two ways for a third party to wrest custody from a parent: prove the parent is unfit, or prove that "there are compelling reasons for denying custody to the parent." In Barstad, the Court ruled that the petitioner -- the child's grandma -- hadn't proven compelling reasons for taking away custody of the child from mom.

The kid had been born to a 16-year-old mom, and then raised in part by mom and part by grandma for four years. After that, mom moved in with a friend, then married, then divorced and moved back in with grandma, then moved in with a friend again; that all took place in 7 years, until grandma filed an action seeking custody. Home studies showed both parties were fit (or, put another way, declared neither to be unfit.)

Grandma won custody of the child -- based on "the present stability which the grandmother has given and which is reflected in the happy, well-adjusted boy ... as contrasted to the unknown future of Wanda Frazier... although Wanda Frazier is not an unfit person to have custody of the minor child, the present stability and happiness of this young boy should not be exchanged for the unknown."

It's not clear, but it seems, from reading the opinion, that the child always lived with mom -- and that grandma had the boy only when mom lived with grandma. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed the circuit court and Court of Appeals' decision, focusing exclusively on whether compelling reasons, not unfitness, existed to give grandma custody; remember, both parents had been determined to be fit: "In this case the trial court found Wanda Frazier to be both fit and able to have the care and custody of Michael. That finding is supported by the record. Therefore the trial court's judgment can be upheld only if there are compelling reasons justifying an award of custody to Theol Barstad."

The Court reviewed the history of these types of cases -- one in which an apparently-devoted dad who was in the military got custody over a grandparents' objections, and one in which a dad who had essentially abandoned the kids lost custody to the grandparents after his ex-wife (the mom) died. Then, having at length expounded on the history and reasons and constitutional underpinnings of the rule, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled as follows:

We conclude that the facts of this case do not evidence compelling reasons for an award of custody to Michael's grandmother. Therefore the decision of the court of appeals is reversed and custody of Michael Frazier is ordered transferred to his mother Wanda Frazier.

Nice. Nice and concise. Completely lacking in persuasive authority, but very concise. Brevity is both the soul of wit, and of custodial determinations, apparently.

Remember, though, how I said it was not clear where the kid lived and with whom? That's only true if you rely solely on the majority's opinion. In the dissent, Justice Steinmetz sets out more details:

According to the testimony of Theol A. Barstad, the grandmother, and Wanda K. Frazier, the mother of Michael, the boy was born on November 24, 1973, and has lived outside of the grandmother's home for only six months, except for the time after birth when he lived with his mother and her father for about two months and with his mother and her brother for less than a month. Michael was approximately eight years of age at the time of the custody hearing on December 21 and 30, 1981, and is now about ten and one-half years. During his eight years he has:
(1) lived outside of the grandmother's house for approximately six months;
(2) lived in the grandmother's house with his mother also living there for approximately four and one-half years;
(3) lived in the grandmother's house while his mother lived elsewhere for close to three years.

He has now lived in his grandmother's house without his mother living there since April, May or June of 1980. The parties differed in their testimony as to who was involved in the daily care of Michael while they all lived in the grandmother's house. However, during that period of time, the mother worked nights and she testified that she saw Michael only for an hour a day in the morning before he went to school and during weekends. The grandmother testified that from February, 1974, to February, 1977, she was primarily responsible for meeting Michael's physical needs and that from August, 1977, to the time of the hearing, she and her husband had been primarily responsible for raising Michael and meeting his physical needs. Michael's mother admitted to attending only one parent-teacher conference at his school. The grandmother testified that she attended the balance of such meetings.

Said Justice Steinmetz, in arguing that Grandma should win: "We do not have a mother in the instant case who has raised her child."

Justice Steinmetz then addressed the Court's fears that wealth would always trump biology -- and in doing so, actually complimented Wisconsin's circuit judges, for a change:

The plaintiff in the present case, the grandmother, receives Aid for Dependent Children to support Michael. Therefore, the majority's fear of the wealthy prevailing if the best interest of the child test is applied is unfounded in this case. When the situation arises that there is a contest between wealth of a third party and the minimal financial ability of a parent, then the trial court can address it, and it is doubtful whether any trial judge in this state would award custody on the basis of wealth. This mother is supported by her male friend with whom she lives. He has not been employed since August, 1981, and lives on separation funds. This man has no legal obligation to support either Michael or his mother and the relationship can end anytime he chooses. Therefore, the decision of the trial court did not involve financial advantage of minimum economic circumstances.

So the only real explanation of the facts which support (or don't support) a finding of compelling circumstances sufficient to take custody from a parent and give it to a third party exists in the dissent to the Barstad case, as neither the majority in Barstad nor the majority in Wendy M bothered to say why the facts didn't measure up.

But nonexplanation appears to be the rule of the day in Wendy M, as the Court of Appeals finished up by dealing summarily with Wendy's constitutional arguments: It found the 3 pages Wendy devoted to them in her brief ("much of which does not focus on her equal protection and due process arguments") to be inadequate and therefore did not address the arguments at all -- so the Court of Appeals didn't have to explain why Wendy's constitutional arguments couldn't win because Wendy didn't explain why they should win.

In the end, Wendy M loses not because of anything the Court of Appeals did right, or wrong; it's an error-correcting court that can, but isn't supposed to, make law, and in this case the Court followed the dictates of decades of ill-explained Wisconsin rulings that have made clear that same-sex parents can't really be parents. Whether Wendy M will appeal to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin remains to be seen -- she's got about 9 more days, as I write this, to do so. But there's no reason to think she'll fare any better there than anyone else has, and no reason to think the Courts will do a better job of explaining why they're making the decisions they make, as opposed to summarily ruling one way or the other.

The real problem is that the state -- by which I mean us -- has to decide which is more of a priority. Is it more important that we let kids have two parents making decisions for them and being involved in their lives, even if the two parents are the same sex? Or is it more important that we force these kinds of uncomfortable decisions on courts just to keep Heather from having two mommies? A review of any decision of this type keeps poking the reader in the eye with the discomforting fact that the criteria by which we decide who can become, or stay, a parent, is arbitrary (at best) -- but until the legislature and voters decide to stop being arbitrary, courts will have no choice but to keep imposing these rules.

Want cheap but good auto insurance? Like your momma told you, you better shop around.

Periodically Sweetie and I get together, much like Pip and his roommate did, to go over our budget and see how hopeless things are. The last time we did that, I looked at how much we're paying for auto insurance and asked her why it was so much.

Sweetie then pointedly reminded me of the two consecutive speeding tickets I got last year, and also reminded me that we have two teenagers on our auto insurance.

So I reminded her that I'm still good for something by asking her how she chose our insurer. "I went with the one we had before," she said, and I decided to do something about that by going out to find cheaper auto insurance.

Me being me, though, I wanted to put zero effort into this -- if not a little less than that. After all, I'm pretty busy reading "Wonderella" comics and listening to David Byrne's concept album about the life of Imelda Marcos.

I ended up on a site called "Cheap Auto Insurance," which simply asked me to put in my zip code and get links to quotes for insurance. I was torn: I'm skeptical of everything on the internet, but I do like things to be cheap, so I went ahead and did it and got instant links to 6 different insurance companies to get me quotes on my auto insurance.

Everyone, including me, knows that shopping around is the only way to get good prices, on anything -- but before Cheap Auto Insurance's site, "shopping around" meant going to a bunch of different sites or relying on an agent -- or Sweetie -- to find the lowest price, and that could be time-consuming, to say the least. With their site, it's a quick bit of business to find a bunch of quotes and get the lowest price on the best insurance -- and that's key, because the companies they link you to are quality companies, too, so you're getting quotes from insurers who'll actually provide good coverage.

Whether you want cheap auto insurance in Alabama or Alaska or California or any other state, check out Cheap Auto Insurance for your quotes.

Ambiguous results and hypothetical jurors. (What's My Case Worth, Waukesha County PI Case Edition)

Word on the street -- Law Street-- is that Waukesha County juries don't give big personal injury awards (and that sometimes they don't give awards at all.) The rumor mill seems to insist that Waukesha County juries simply won't give damage awards that matter, even if the case seems to warrant one. Is that true? Or a slap in the face to Waukesha County jurors? Or both? (I'm not sure how it could be both, but I suppose it's possible.)

I'm trying to figure out whether it's true, so I'm looking at some reported jury verdicts from Waukesha County. Keep in mind that reported verdicts are reported because one side or the other felt it worth reporting -- so one side or the other thought they did well. As such, the reported verdicts probably exclude run-of-the-mill, expected, middle-ground verdicts, because neither side would feel good enough about getting a typical result to report it. (Generally, and hypothetically speaking that is.) So these may be outliers -- but they're reported results and they're all I've got other than hunches and conjecture -- and hunches and conjecture are all other lawyers have, so I'm a step ahead.

Today's case is Cindy Rolfs v. Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Company, the facts of which were reported as follows:
Cindy Rolfs reportedly drove her 1997 Chevrolet minivan westbound on Bluemound Road/Highway JJ near Pewaukee, Wis. Dec. 11, 2001. At the same time, Peter Ells allegedly turned left across Bluemound Road from Westmound Road, thereby causing oncoming traffic on Bluemound Road to stop. According to court documents, Rolfs was able to stop her vehicle without colliding with the car in front of her; however, Mark Clark, who was also traveling westbound on Bluemound Road, was reportedly unable to stop his vehicle and rear-ended Rolfs' vehicle, allegedly causing her numerous physical injuries.

Rolfs sued Clark and Ells, and the verdict is reported as a zero dollar verdict in Acuity's favor -- so that seems to suggest that those Waukesha jurors didn't think Rolfs was injured (or, as Law Street rumor has it, didn't care). Again, is that true?

Maybe, maybe not. Rolfs settled with Clark prior to trial for an undisclosed amount. Ells then passed away and Rolfs went to trial against Acuity, Ells' insurer. The jury then determined that Ells wasn't negligent in the accident, so Rolfs got no award from Acuity. The jury did determine that Clark was negligent and made what would be a hypothetical award of $1,000 for past medical expenses and pain & suffering, and zero for future medical expenses.

That seems to be support for the tight-fisted reputation that Waukesha jurors have -- but keep in mind that it's likely that nobody at trial really took Clark's side to try to prove he wasn't negligent, and keep in mind that if Rolfs settled with Clark for more than $2,000, she came out ahead by settling -- maybe because her lawyers were aware of the juries' reputation in that county?

If it was good enough for Bell, it's good enough for lawyers. (Laws You Should Know About)

Lawyers: if you have a client who needs to travel or work at his business, but who also is being asked to appear at a deposition, or clients, if you are that person who is being asked to appear at a deposition and you've got kids, or a job, or no car, or otherwise have difficulty getting to the spot where lawyers insist you be at a given time on a given day -- often without checking with you first-- remember this law:

804.05(8) Participation by telephone. Upon notice by any party unless the court otherwise orders for good cause shown, the deponent, the reporter, or any other person participating in a deposition under this section may do so by telephone. Any participant other than the reporter electing to be present with any other participant shall give reasonable notice thereof to the other participants.

That law is interesting in a few respects: First, it lets ANY person choose to appear telephonically at a deposition -- the witness or me or the reporter, even. Second, it puts a burden on the others, once notice is given, to give notice that they're going to be there in person. And third, it requires that the party trying to compel an in-person deposition get an order from the court -- and prove good cause to make that person appear in person.

Almost every lawyer -- and many judges -- I've provided a telephonic notice to have been completely unaware of this statute, which is why I'm trying to let people know about it now. The most common objection I receive is that the lawyer trying to compel an in-person deposition has documents to show the witness -- an argument that I secretly think shows that the other lawyer is unfamiliar with the wonders of email and scanning technology, a process whereby a witness in another state can get documents sent at the time of the deposition and open them up -- seeing the exhibits for the first time, so the element of surprise (note: "surprise" is not technically part of discovery!) is still there.

Ramblers Way or the highway: You choose. (Hint: Choose Ramblers Way.)

This is a Sponsored Post written by me on behalf of Ramblers Way. All opinions are 100% mine.

The other day, on the morning radio show I listen to on the way into the office, the hosts were making jokes about wool kilts and the chafing that might result from wearing them the traditional way.

It was funny -- in a painful manner -- but also true: wool has never been something you'd call "comfortable," at least not in my memory. I had a great wool sweater when I was a kid: great color, nice looking, and expensive enough that my mom would make me wear it for big gatherings like Thanksgiving or Christmas. But that sweater was ITCHY. And HOT. And HEAVY. I spent two or three years in itchy misery at holidays, looking nice but dying a little inside.

Which brings me to Ramblers Way -- makers of attractive wool garments that DON'T kill the holiday spirits of a chubby little boy.

Ramblers Way uses wool from across the US to make great wool clothing, but that's not the real selling point for their clothes. Yes, they look nice, but what's more important is they FEEL nice, and they feel nice because the sheep listen to talk radio while they... No, wait, that's not right. Let me check their website again, hang on, almost done, got it:

Ramblers Way wool feels nice because of technology! They use something they call the "WINDspun" technology to make their wool garments smooth and luxurious -- the smoothest, softest wool you'll find anywear.

What Ramblers Way does is different than other wool clothing makers. Most of the wool stuff you buy is just pre-washed in chlorine to soften i ta little. Not the Ramblers Way clothes. Those are treated not with chlorine but with Ramblers Way's own patented enzyme -- not chemicals; they're chemical free-- that softens the wool much more AND lets the clothes still be fully washable and prevent shrinking in the future.

The result is that Ramblers Way's clothes are ultra-light, soft, and still warm. They can be worn year-round and you'll hardly feel like you're wearing wool at all.

In addition to being entirely American-made, Ramblers Way garments are all natural and chemical-free.

I thought I'd never totally get away from the memories of the discomfort my wool sweater, but with Ramblers Way clothes, I'm rethinking wool.

What's My Case Worth? (Personal Injuries In Waukesha County.)

I recently tried -- almost to completion -- a personal injury case in Waukesha County, despite ever-present warnings from other lawyers that Waukesha County doesn't tend to give good jury verdicts in personal injury cases.

Aside from the fact that I don't know what a good PI verdict is -- wouldn't it depend on the case, and the jury? -- I also doubted that Waukesha was a dismal black hole of jury awards. So I went looking, because I like to challenge the conventional wisdom -- and also because, of course, it impacted on my own practice.

I'll report, over the next few weeks, on Waukesha jury verdicts that I find, with the first being Zutz v. Knierem, a 2005 case in which Zutz was rear-ended at a railroad crossing where he'd stopped. Zutz claimed soft-tissue neck and back injuries, and sued, citing medical expenses of $12,831, and lost earnings of $30,450. He claimed he couldn't go back to his job as a welder and sought future loss of earnings and pain and suffering.

The defense offered $28,500 to settle, but Zutz pressed on and got his day in court -- and a lot less. The jury gave him $12,700 for medical benefits, $3,000 for past pain and suffering and $1,500 for past lost earnings, but nothing to compensate him for the future. While it's always hard to tell what a jury is thinking, I'd say that jury decided that Zutz's injuries were real -- hence the award of almost all his medicals -- but that he was fully healed and could have gone back to work.

So I'm Gonna Be On The Radio; Better Save The Date.

Hey, readers! I've been invited to be a guest on the wildly popular radio show hosted by James Strait; I'll be appearing at 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time, August 1, 2010. Strait Talk is hosted by a guy who proclaims that his ideals include "a love of fast sports cars, skilled artisans, people who value his and their own time, individualists, one special brand of ice cream, and home made apple pie."

He doesn't say what that brand of ice cream is, though. Maybe I can get it out of him when I appear. Or he may say it on his show every day at 6:30 p.m.; you can listen live here.

So if you're curious to hear what I sound like (I've been told that my voice is mellifluous. [Does saying things to yourself in the bathroom mirror count as being told something?]) or curious to hear my thoughts on stuff before they're written down, jot down the date and time and tune in. I'll be giving away a book to anyone who listens -- all you have to do is comment or email me with a quote from the show I'm on and you'll get a free book.

See you on August 1 at 6:30. Well, I won't see you. But you could see me. You could paste a picture of me onto your radio while you listen. That's what they did in the 1950s, you know.

I'm here to help -- even with old cars and veterans.

With the car market in the doldrums these days, anyone looking to get rid of an old car seems to have only two options: Sell it to a dealer, and get lowballed, or sell it on their own, and go through a lot of hassle to get lowballed.

As a lawyer, I'm here to present you a third way: Sue. No, wait, sorry-- that was just a reflex. I meant to say find a donate car charity to give your car to -- one like Vietnam Veterans Car Donation.

This program -- the official vehicle donation program for Vietnam vets -- will let you donate that old car for a good cause and get a tax deduction for doing so. Your car donations can be arranged online (and they'll take vans, too), and it'll be used to help those brave men and women who not only risked their lives for us but who didn't get proper credit for it.

Your donate car tax deduction is done through a fast and easy process. You can call 1-800-HELP-VETS, or use their online form to schedule a pickup. They'll come get your car and you're done -- except for claiming that tax deduction (they'll give you a receipt to back it up) and keeping more of your money in your pocket. Your old car is gone, some vets get helped, and you've got more money. Win win win.

I think this program is a great one -- I've bookmarked the website and I refer plenty of people to it. Anytime you can do something nice for someone and help them out, while getting something in return, I like to make note of it.

You know who's NOT claiming to be LeBron's dad? Everyone in Cleveland.

Everyone followed that LeBron news this week, right? No, not the unimportant stuff about going to the Miami Heat; the important stuff about how his "dad" sued him and his mom for paternity -- and $4 million bucks.

And here I never knew that having kids could make you money. But then, I'm not supersmart (?) Princeton grad and D.C. lawyer Leicester Bryce Stovell, who this week filed a lawsuit claiming that he's (maybe) LeBron's dad.

The lawsuit seems to have a few holes in it -- aside from the fact that it appears the lawyer admitted to statutory rape by alleging he had sex with LebMom when she was 15, the guy also admits that a 2007 paternity test failed... but blames that failure on tampering with the evidence, and claims a right to $4 million in punitive damages, apparently on the basis of that tampering. Says the lawyer, whose knowledge of the law appears to be somewhat... tilted...:

I recently have concluded that a comprehensive, sophisticated and well-funded effort might well have been underway for quite some time, perhaps beginning in its present form as early as when defendant LeBron James was in high school, to frustrate identification of his real father, and that there is a likelihood that the father in question is me.

He's representing himself pro se, as you probably guessed.

Free Forex Video Can Help You Trade Smarter.

Thinking of getting into currency trading? Want to get better at it? Learn Forex Free through the instructions at the Free Forex Eduation site. I checked it out -- because I needed something to do besides "work," -- and found this free Forex Tutorial to be fascinating, and actually very informative, too. I don't have the cash to trade currency -- I've got KIDS, remember -- but if you're thinking of getting into that exciting investment, then learn the ropes, and learn them free: Save your $ for trading.

My Actual Case Results: Contract Dispute Jury Award Gets Doubled.

In the recently-tried case of R&K Supply Co. v. ProBuild (Grant Co. Case No. 09 CV 156) in which I represented R&K Supply on claims against ProBuild, the jury awarded $17,600 on a breach of contract claim; the primary issue at trial was whether the salesman, who'd asked that the checks be made payable to himself rather than ProBuild, could bind the company to a contract to sell concrete rebar. We had asked the jury for $35,200, covering two checks written for the order in question, but the jury, while finding a contract existed, awarded only half of that.

Yesterday, Judge Day, Grant County Circuit Court, granted our motion after verdict for additur -- awarding the plaintiff $35,200, but giving the defendant 10 days to decide if they wanted to accept that ruling, or get a new trial on damages only.

Get your student some health insurance before you get him a bean bag chair.

With kids going off to college in a little over a month, new adults, and their old adult parents, should consider getting some private student health insurance.

Health insurance is a necessity -- it's more important, probably, than that laptop you gave your son or daughter for a graduation gift, because it'll make sure that the kid can continue to study. Everything from sports-related injuries to unexpected illnesses to meningitis-- which runs through dorms periodically -- can afflict your youngster as he or she begins to work through college, and if there's no insurance coverage you'll be saddling your kid with medical bills that'll follow them longer than student loans.

In fact, even if you DO have insurance you should look into getting some private insurance to cover your child; does your policy cover care provided in another city? Does it cover everything that can befall a college student? Do you even know? Probably not -- but you can find out, and if you think the coverage is a bit lacking (or a lot lacking) then check out Health On Line -- you'll find a variety of private health insurance packages, with one for every kind of budget and every kind of need. The money you'll spend upfront on the package or premiums will pay for itself down the line, trust me: savings on out-of-pocket costs, plus peace of mind, will equal any small premium you pay soon enough.

No more using your debit card for late-night Butterfingers at the convenience store. (Consumer Matters)

Make sure you read your mail. I shouldn't have to say that, but it's often a standard instruction I give to clients: Make sure you read your mail. And now it's more important than ever to read your mail... and also to read all that stuff banks give you when you sign up for a new account.

As of July 1, banks cannot automatically charge new customers for overdrafts caused by debit cards. And as of August 15, banks will not be able to automatically charge old customers for overdrafts caused by debit cards. Instead, banks will only be able to impose a fee on you when you use your debit card to get overdrawn if the bank got permission beforehand to cover the shortfall.

Banks are doing that by having customers "opt in" to overdraft protection when they open their account, or, likely, by sending them mailings allowing them to opt in. Since automatic opt-ins are the problem, the Fed has ruled out automatic opt-ins now-- meaning that you'll have to affirmatively choose the "protection" offered for overdrafts -- "protection" meaning a super-high-interest loan.

If you don't opt in, then generally the bank will not be allowed to charge you for overdrawing your account via debit card transactions -- likely meaning they'll be declined if the result would be an overdraft.

The new rules don't cover automatic payments set up as an EFT or ACH or whatever it is you're calling it nowadays, and they don't cover checks, either. I wasn't able to tell whether the rules cover those situations where the person tells you you don't have to make out the check and runs it through the system -- so best to avoid that if you're concerned.

And, above all, read the stuff you're signing, because this won't always be the case.

Get an overview of the new regs here.

Michigan's Courts Might Be A Little Smarter Than Ours. (The Wendy M. Case Examined, Part 2)(Family Law Matters)

Part one of this review of the recently-decided Wendy M. "Same-sex couples can't both be parents" case is here.

Parent by Estoppel: Not the best way to become a parent, by any means, but one that's been tried on occasion, most recently by Wendy M, who would rather be a parent by estoppel than a third party.

Estoppel is a doctrine that springs into action when one party to a lawsuit has done (or not done) something that causes the other party to rely on it to her detriment. Wendy M. had to start out by trying to make herself a parent -- despite the law's determination that she wasn't one -- because not being a parent raised the bar for Wendy's efforts to have a say in her childrens' lives.

If Wendy M. isn't a parent, she's a "third party," a person who's trying to wrest control away from a parent, and, while would-be adoptees and same-sex partners have no constitutional rights, parents do have protected interests in their relationship with their children, so a "third party" like Wendy M. has to prove parental unfitness or other compelling reasons to get custodial rights over a child that has a parent; essentially, Wendy would have to prove that Liz was unfit to parent in order to get custodial rights over their children.

(So we're back to that again: The state would prefer that a child have one parent instead of two same sex parents: proving that Liz is unfit takes Liz out of the picture and puts Wendy in. Instead of a mom and a mom, the children just get a mom. Parenting, for same-sex couples, is a zero-sum game -- and it's only same-sex couples that the rule applies to, because nonbiological parents can adopt kids, while unmarried opposite-sex parents can be deemed parents via a paternity suit or even just by getting married, and nonbiological parents can be forced to parent children who they're not related to even if they really don't want to. Parents who don't want to be parents are forced to be parents, but parents who really want to be parents can't... if they're in a same-sex relationship.)

So Wendy M. argued that she is a parent even though she hadn't adopted the children, saying that since "parent" wasn't defined in Chapter 54 -- the guardianship statutes-- the Court could look to the dictionary definition and hold her to be a parent as society (rather than the law) defines that word.

The Court of Appeals said nay -- and noted that chapter 48, which governs in this case because the children were minors -- "parent" is the biological or adoptive parent. Only.

So Wendy M. then said that Liz's promises that Wendy would always be an equal parent estopped Liz from now claiming that Wendy wasn't an equal parent; Wendy said that Liz's promises were the reason why Wendy herself hadn't adopted one or both of the children.

Parents have been created by estoppel before -- including in the case Wendy relied on, Randy A.J. v. Norma I.J., 270 Wis.2d 384, 677 N.W.2d 630, 2004 WI 41. There, when a dad filed for divorce, the wife counterclaimed and said the child wasn't his; a third party dad tried to intervene in the divorce and claimed that he was the biological father.

The couple in Randy AJ had been married 8 years when their daughter, Selena, was born. For at least part of that time, Norma was cheating on Randy, though, and ultimately, Selena would prove to be the other man's biological child. Randy might not have found out about this all, though, except for the fact that Other Dad filed a paternity action in Illinois -- and except for the fact that Norma was convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to 8 years in prison.

After deciding that Other Dad had failed to prove he had a constitutionally-protected interest in raising Selena (because he'd waited to long to assert it), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin dealt with Randy's argument that Norma and Other Dad were estopped from claiming he wasn't the parent:

Randy and Selena assert they have proved all three elements by uncontradicted evidence, as to both Norma and Brendan. They argue that Norma and Brendan's deceit and lack of action to assert Brendan's putative paternity, which was ongoing all through Norma's pregnancy and until Selena was fifteen months old, caused them to believe Randy is Selena's *405 father and to develop deep emotional ties with each other. They assert that breaking those ties would be very harmful to Selena, as Randy is the only father she has ever known.FN13 Additionally, Brendan and Norma stood silent when Randy paid all of Selena's birthing expenses and met all her financial needs both before and after the genetic tests were performed. Furthermore, Randy has been fully committed to acting as Selena's father. He has organized his life around providing for her care for six years and has provided for her needs, emotionally and financially. And finally, as Randy's daughter, Selena has the status of a marital child.

The Court looked at that and said:

we conclude that Norma and Brendan's actions and lack of action, which were relied on by both Selena and Randy, are so unfair, that when combined with the state's interest in preserving Selena's status as a marital child, they outbalance the public's interest in a purely biological approach to parenthood. Accordingly, we conclude that Norma and Brendan are equitably estopped from rebutting the marital presumption of Wis. Stat. § 891.41 in regard to Randy's paternity of Selena

The Court then declined to adopt the "equitable parent" doctrine developed in a Michigan case. That doctrine would have let a person:

(1) who wants to be recognized as the child's parent;
(2) who is willing to support the child;
(3) who wants the rights of custody or visitation in regard to the child; and
(4) who raises “certain circumstances,” that were otherwise undefined by the case

become a parent, equitably. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin refused to adopt that rule "because its parameters are too indistinct, permitting its use to create uncertainties in the law."

The Court didn't say why "Equitable Parent," a Michigan doctrine, was "too indistinct" to be adopted. The case cited as establishing the rule is Atkinson v. Atkinson, 408 N.W.2d 516, a 1987 Michigan case. A quick search of Michigan case law using the phrases "Atkinson" and "equitable parenthood" finds twelve cases with those phrases in them. The most recent one I found was Vanderark v. Vanderark, where a man contended that he was an "equitable parent" of a child born to his wife. The wife had told the man the child wasn't his, but let the would-be dad -- Adam -- have visits and spend time alone with the child, Tristan. A circuit court held Adam to be Tristan's "equitable parent," but the appellate court reversed, holding that while no specific amount of time must be shown to have passed while the factors were met, Adam didn't meet the tests here -- in particular, Adam hadn't shown that the mom had facilitated a parent-like relationship with Tristan:

There are significant facts in this case that show Megan did not facilitate a father-child relationship between Adam and Tristan. Megan never represented to Adam that he was the father of Tristan, and shortly after Adam learned that Megan was pregnant, she moved out of the marital home. Thereafter, the parties' primary method of communication was by text messaging and telephone; the two rarely saw each other. While Megan communicated with Adam regarding the progress of her pregnancy, she testified that she communicated with members of her family in the same manner. Moreover, Megan did not invite Adam to any of her medical appointments with her obstetrician, her pregnancy classes, or the hospital for Tristan's birth. In fact, Megan did not even inform Adam when she went into labor, and he was unaware the child was born until three days after the fact. Following the birth, for a little over four months, Megan brought Tristan to the marital home on average one time per week where Adam would visit with Tristan for approximately two to three hours. Although Adam was Tristan's sole care provider on three occasions, these visits were brief and isolated. Two of the occasions lasted approximately three hours each, and the other occasion lasted approximately five hours.

It didn't seem that the Michigan courts had any difficulty applying the equitable parent doctrine there -- and certainly not the difficulty that our Wisconsin courts envisioned when they rejected the equitable parent doctrine -- and that decision helps provide a boundary to the otherwise-indistinct lines at the edges of any doctrine of law.

But I digress, as I so frequently do when courts make blanket statements of law and fact without bothering to justify them at all; ruling by judicial fiat makes me frustrated, since the judiciary's main power is its ability to persuade others that it's right. Back to Wendy M, where, remember, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is wrestling with whether Liz's actions in promising Wendy she'd be a full parent, and then reneging, meet the elements of estoppel. Having seen that Randy could become a parent by estoppel by showing, in part, there there were deep emotional ties between him and Selena, ties that would be harmful to break, one would expect that the Court of Appeals would engage in a detailed analysis of the ties here, examining in particular the fairness, or lack thereof, of Liz's actions -- the way it had with an opposite-sexed couple.

One would be wrong. Quoth the Court of Appeals:

Randy A.J. provides little support for Wendy’s position. ... The Randy A.J. court explained that its application of estoppel was based on the deep unfairness of the mother’s conduct, and the policy favored in Wisconsin law of “preserving the status of marital children, even when it can be positively shown that the husband of the mother could not have been the father of the child.... [T]he court applied equitable estoppel defensively under the unique facts of the case to prevent the rebutting of the statutory presumption in favor of a husband being the father of a child born during the marriage. Here, Wendy asks us to apply the doctrine offensively to establish her parental rights to the children where Liz has not sought to interfere with Wendy’s on-going relationship with the children, and to provide her with rights that do not exist under the relevant statutes and Barstad.

(Emphasis added, of course.) So you see? It's matter, first, of whether you're playing offense or defense -- although that shouldn't matter at all, since a doctrine of law is a doctrine of law, right?

And also, it's a matter of whether you're protecting rights that already exist, or trying to create rights...even though equitable doctrines exist to remedy wrongs that the law doesn't itself cure through statutes.

And also, what's the big deal, Wendy M? Liz isn't trying to interfere with your on-going relationship, so knock it off. So Wendy's attempts to establish parental rights to her children were rebuffed... because her former partner isn't attempting to interfere with her parental rights to her children?

Next: Does Wendy M. have a compelling reason to be a parent?

Extra! Extra! The Wisconsin State Journal Might Have Lost A Woman $2400! (Consumer Matters)

The Wisconsin State Journal has a little feature named SOS in which they help people with their problems -- or purport to. The installment in today's paper shows why it might be wrong to go to a newspaper for legal help; after all, you don't get your news from a lawyer, right?

SOS details the story of Carol Nenneman, who was groggy from a nap when she agreed, over the phone, to purchase a warranty for her recently-bought car. The aftermarket warranty was priced at $2,425, and when Nenneman realized she didn't want the warranty -- the next day -- she wasn't able to convince them to cancel her account; instead, she kept receiving bills and the warranty company (reportedly) tried to debit her bank account, too.

SOS to the rescue! (Almost.) A quick phone call from SOS got the issue resolved, SOS thinks -- a supervisor promised to cancel her account.

Problem solved, right?

Wrong.

The warranty Ms. Nenneman bought -- or almost bought -- may have been a "consumer approval transaction," as that term is defined in section 423.201 of the Wisconsin Consumer Act. And every "consumer approval transaction" in this state carries with it the right to rescind that transaction for up to three days after consummation of the deal. But, the rescission must be in writing under section 423.202, Stats. So SOS may not have validly rescinded Ms. Nenneman's transaction yet.

The right to rescind continues until the 3rd day after notice of that right is given; it's not clear if Ms. Nenneman ever received her notice; if she did, she may not have the right to rescind at all. A lawyer -- not a newspaper writer -- could investigate that. If the notice wasn't given, or not given properly, Ms. Nenneman could be entitled to up to $1,000 in damages, plus her attorney's fees, in rescinding the transaction.

But wait! There's more! Ms. Nenneman said she thought the warranty deal was being offered by the car manufacturer rather than a third party. If the salesperson said anything that was misleading about any consumer credit being offered in the transaction, Ms. Nenneman might have not only gotten to cancel the transaction, and get $1,000, but she also might have gotten to keep the warranty protection, for free.

So by calling a newspaper, Ms. Nenneman got a promise that the company wouldn't bill her anymore -- a promise they might even follow. By calling a lawyer, Ms. Nenneman would have been told that she had to rescind her contract in writing to be effective, and would have been told that she might get to keep the warranty protection without paying anything, plus get $1,000, plus get her attorney's fees paid.

Way to go, SOS. Way to go. Oh, and, sorry, Ms. Nenneman.
_______________________________________________________________

Here's another thing that you don't want to call a newspaper for: Finding other kinky people. Instead of going about things the hard way, just try findkinkypeople.com: the website that matches you up with like-minded people.

Your internet marketing is so yesterday, when it needs to be so tomorrow. Or even next week.

Technology changes fast -- and internet marketing strategies and information change just as fast. These days, as a business owner, you'll need to know how to market yourself today, and tomorrow, when the rules of the game might be different.

Just as you master MySpace, it's old and tired and Facebook is the thing. So you set up a Facebook page and think you're done, but suddenly everyone's Twittering. Then, when you get your Twitter account ready to go, everyone's all "Twitter is five minutes ago; nowadays, we Arquebus."

(Arquebus is a site I'm developing, where people will be allowed to post one, and ONLY ONE, thing, EVER: A video, comment, joke, photo, or whatever, you get one shot. "Arquebus: If You Could Only Say One Thing To The World, What Would It Be?")(It's gonna be huge.)

You can keep up with the Internet marketing news more easily by following High Position's Internet marketing site: they'll update their site frequently with news about tech stuff, SEO, pay per click, social networking and more. Just today, they had helpful articles on marketing to older people and on the Apple iPhone tech fix, all of it infused with their insight into these issues, so I don't just get the news, I get their expert spin on it. Bookmark their site today and make the most of your internet marketing efforts through them.

Don't cry for them, either, Argentina. (Debt Collection Matters)

All we hear about are hard times and how tough it is for everyone these days.

Everyone except debt buyers. A June 9, 2010, Star Tribune article included this suprising quote:

Portfolio Recovery Associates of Norfolk, Va., a publicly traded debt buyer with the biggest profits and market capitalization, earned $44 million last year on $281 million in revenue -- a 16 percent net margin. Encore Capital Group, another large debt buyer based in San Diego, had a margin last year of 10 percent. By comparison, Wal-Mart's profit margin was 3.5 percent.

So you'd rather be a debt buyer than Wal-Mart? You bet. Times are good in the debt-buying business, says Liz Pulliam Weston, who shows these signs of the growth in the industry:
* Asset Acceptance Capital, one of the nation's largest debt buyers, saw its revenues quadruple between 2001 and 2005, to $252.7 million, while profits rose from $18.9 million to $51.3 million. * In the same period, profits at Portfolio Recovery Associates rose more than six-fold, from $5.6 million to $36.8 million. Revenues quintupled, from $32.3 million to $148.5 million. * Encore Capital Group experienced similar sharp increases with $221.8 million in revenues in 2005, compared to $47.8 million in 2001. The company rose from a $10 million loss in 2001 to a profit of $31.1 million in 2005.

Those aren't the only companies doing well. Asta Funding went through a brief downturn, but still managed to collect $37.6 million in the 3rd quarter of 2009 -- during the recession -- resulting in net income of $1.5 million.

So when you hear about debtors' lawyers like me "taking advantage" of loopholes to sue debt buyers who violate the law -- or hear collectors complain about credit terrorists, ask yourself if you made $1.5 million. In just three months. In a recession.
* Arrow Financial Services, at one time the country's largest debt buyer, was acquired by Sallie Mae in 2004, making the student lender the nation's largest collection agency.

Can you be put in debtor's prison? (Debt Collection Matters)

Yesterday, I saw that MSN ran a big, attention getting headline about people being imprisoned for owing money, which seems shocking to people who (a) remember that we don't have debtor's prisons in the US, and (b) don't understand how reporters can be wrong about legal topics.

The story, found here, says that "people are routinely jailed for debt" and quotes a lawyer as saying "The law-enforcement system has unwittingly become a tool of the debt collectors." It then goes on to talk about several people "jailed for debt."

But when you read the story, you find out that the people are not being "jailed for debt." They're being jailed for ignoring court orders. Not a single person in any of the stories that article linked to went to jail for owing money. They went to jail for not doing what a judge 0rdered them to do.

There's a difference. Take the man who was sentenced to "indefinite incarceration" until he came up with money towards a debt. That's how the story was spun by the MSN article, but the amount of money the man had to come up with -- $300 -- was actually bail, and bail is not necessarily a payment on the debt, but a way to ensure that someone shows up for court.

In some of the cases detailed, the person had a seemingly-legitimate excuse: one lady was in the hospital recovering from a C-section when she was served with the papers; another said she was never served at all. Those would be good reasons for not appearing in court -- although there's no explanation of why the woman couldn't get someone to write a letter to the judge or make an appearance for her at the hearing while she was in the hospital -- but the fact remains that nobody was actually jailed because they owe money.

One thing missing from that story was this, too: A creditor who jails someone without actually having served them with the appropriate paperwork may be in for more than just a chewing out by the judge. In one case, Clodfelter v. United Processing, Inc., a Central District of Illinois federal case, a debtor got a judgment of $351,000 against a debt collector who'd threatened him with criminal prosecution. Debt collectors in Wisconsin who'd filed replevin actions in the wrong county were held subject to claims for damages. So a debt collector who gets someone locked up without any valid reason for doing so -- say, by not ever properly serving them -- can expect to get sued under the FDCPA and related laws for a substantial amount of damages.

Always assuming, of course, that the debtor knows they can do that -- and that information was left out of MSN's misleading article.

In the end, I let Sweetie pick out the washer and I spent my time pricing reclining chairs.

We had to go get a new washing machine about a year ago, and I was befuddled by the entire process. Our old washing machine had just stopped working, and the repairman wasn't able to save it, and so for the first time in my life, at age 40, I found myself in an appliance store and NOT walking quickly past the "boring" sections like washing machines.

Instead, I had to roam up and down aisle after aisle of identical-seeming square boxes, trying to figure out which one was good and which one was bad, and who was I to tell? I don't even DO the laundry at home, and when I used to do my own laundry, I just went to a laundromat and used whatever machines they had available and hoped that the people before me hadn't washed anything gross.

That's why getting information about appliances, and going to a reputable place to get one, is so important. Because I don't know, and I can't just go for the cheapest, or the most expensive, or the most red-colored one, I find. So I want to find a store that's got a good reputation, and salespeople who won't screw me over and who do know what they're talking about -- a place like Currys, which, unfortunately for me, is across the Atlantic ocean and not an option when it comes time to replace the dryer, which will probably be any day now, knowing my luck.

Three people now have books coming to them. Free Books. FREE. FREE!

Did I mention FREE? Every other month, I put the names of everyone who commented on ANY of my blogs into a hat and draw out one lucky winner. That person is entitled to get one of my books, free. All they have to do is shoot me an email saying which book they want and where to send it, and it's theirs.

I'm still waiting to hear from:

Abbie, winner of the last drawing, and

Petri Dish, winner of the one before that.

And this bi-month's winner is: Rogue Mutt, otherwise known as Patrick Dilloway. Patrick, author of the awesome-sounding-and-it's-0n-my-list-to-read book "Where You Belong," (buy it on Amazon) commented on my The Best Of Everything post, "The Four Best Board Games That Should Be Made Into Sitcoms" (among other comments -- every comment's an entry, people!) and that was the one that was drawn.

Patrick, you get your pick of one of my four books; find them all on Lulu.com by clicking here, then email me at thetroublewithroy[at]yahoo.com, and tell me which book you want and where to send it.

(Same with you, Abbie Turned Normal and Petri Dish.)

The rest of you:

Wondering what my blogs are? Here's a list:

Thinking The Lions: Make Life More Interesting. Stuff about me, my family, and things that pop into my head.

The Best Of Everything: Our Opinions Are Righter Than Yours. Musings on pop culture, guest posts, lots of superheroes, and the definitive statement of what is the best. Of everything. You know, like the title says.

Nonsportsmanlike Conduct!: The World's Only Blog Without A Subtitle. A sports blog for people who hate sports blogs. And who are somewhat indifferent to sports, to be honest. I mean, we like them and all, but it's not like we'll skip doing something fun just to watch a game. Mostly I just make fun of athletes and post bikini pictures here. I gotta be me.

5 Pages: Read a novel the way I write it: Five pages at a time, serialized. Up now: the After: Saoirse died in a plane crash and only then realized how much more life there was to live. Awakening in the After, a world she's told is perfect, she soon has to cope with the fact that William Howard Taft is trying to find a way to get back out, just like she is -- only she's no longer certain that leaving is a good idea.

Lesbian Zombies Are Taking Over The World! A serialized erotic sci-fi horrorfest that follows the adventures of Rachel, who two weeks ago suddenly realized she didn't know who or what she was. That began a whirlwind of adventures that led her Valhalla, Hell, Limbo, the gates of Heaven, sex in a forest with her clone, and the bombing of the city of Tampa.

AfterDark: Short horror stories in serial form. Kids digging graves for corpses, people who steal identities and then get chopped into bits, gargoyles stealing babies... that kind of thing. No vampires, though. NEVER vampires.

Family and Consumer Law: The Blog. Remember, I have a job. Or so my boss tells me, nearly daily, and sometimes he insists that I do it. At those times, I go blog about the job I'm supposed to be doing, and am almost serious about it. If you've got a family or you spend money -- or you know someone who does -- this blog is for you.

Saturday Fun: The Eastern District Federal Courthouse In Green Bay.

In the over-1000 miles I drove between Shawano County's Wednesday trip last week and the end of my trial this week, one stop on Monday was to the federal courthouse in Green Bay -- the northern outpost of the Eastern District, where I traveled for a scheduling conference in one of my cases.

I was actually surprised to learn that there's something in Green Bay that's not Lambeau Field and/or Packer-related; my past trips to the city had led me to believe that if it wasn't green-and-gold, it didn't exist in Green Bay.

The courthouse -- such as it is -- is located downtown, or what I thought of as downtown. There's a spectacular building with pillars and a fancy top and a replica of the Liberty Bell and another statue out front.

That's not the courthouse. This, across the street from that, is the Courthouse:


And, surprise, it's not a courthouse, even though it looks like one. Instead, it's an office building that includes the "courthouse," which in this case is a metal detector, an office suite for chambers, and a courtroom, all tucked in with a bunch of law offices whose lawyers have the shortest trip to court I've ever seen. I realized that when I walked in and was confronted with a directory:




You enter the building on the second floor, and ropes keep you from walking up to the third floor. Inside, just past the directory, is a large airy atrium, where I was free to walk around unobserved for the 20 minutes before the hearing -- no security in sight -- and take pictures.


The courtroom was locked, but I note that there was no security because 15 minutes after I took that picture, that far corner was roped off by two marshalls who made me take off my shoes to get inside the courtroom. I wondered if the lawyers who worked there were ever searched before they came in to the office in the mornings. If you're going to have security, then have security. There's an office right next to the courtroom.

Down below, on the first floor, is a framed article discussing how the building, originally a library, came into existence. I didn't read the whole thing:


But I did take a picture of the atrium from the first floor.




Then I wandered back outside to check out the grounds, and noticed this:


That's a sign noting that there is time capsule buried in 1984 -- or was a time capsule buried in 1984, because it was to be opened in 2009. The sign doesn't say if it was opened, but all I could think of when I read it was 1984? Aren't time capsules supposed to be for 100 years or something? A lot of people alive today can still remember 1984, and remember it well. It's not like we're all standing around going Is it true they wore leg warmers and danced to The Cars? I mean, Hot Tub Time Machine took viewers back to 1986 -- and recreated that feeling well.

I can only imagine, at the re-opening ceremony, that the high schoolers themselves were there, with their kids, telling the children "See, that's what life was like in the far-distant, dimly-recalled time we know as "The 80s", to which their kids responded "Yeah, I saw the same thing on VH1."

Then fun and games were over: it was time to go into the courtroom, where the counsel tables were lined up one behind the other, with the jury just to their left and the judge in front. It made for an awkward-seeming lineup at first, and I think it would be difficult to try a case there, since the witness is to your right and the jury to your left; you'd have the jury behind you much of the time, which seems uncomfortable. But maybe that's just me.

The Russians knew about gold, but little else.

If you read the news, you know that one of the pieces of information -- make that "information" the Russian spies were sending back to the not-ready-for-prime-time Russian spy overlords was news about gold.

That's right: Gold. So while the Russians didn't know much, they did know that Bullion Gold was important these days, and they probably knew that because they, like you, hear a lot about gold and what it means in times of economic unrest.

A Gold Coin has always been important; gold has been valuable to humanity since there was a humanity and that doesn't look to change in the future. Dollars, euros, Beanie Babies, mortgage bonds... these things can come and go on a whim. But gold has always been sought after.

And these days are no different: gold has been and probably will be a fairly safe investment, and the sophisticated financial tools we have now don't change that, but they do change what you can do with your gold investment, and that's more than just having some gold coins to display in a case in the den. (Although you can do that if you want.)

You can also have gold investments you haven't considered -- like a Gold IRA, putting the power and security of gold into your retirement funds. You can buy different kinds of gold and hold it in different ways than you used to, making gold a more versatile investment than you might think.

The important thing (beyond remembering that anything can drop in value, so invest wisely) is that you diversify your investments and get good solid information before investing so that you make an informed choice. So find an advisor and sites that provide you that information -- like Regal Gold Coins, which will help inform you about your options and will provide you a FREE Gold Price with charts that auto update. (Visit this link for more information on that: http://www.regalgoldcoins.com/free-gold-charts.html.)