Law And More

"District of Columbia v. DoorDash" - Alleged Violation of Consumer Protection Procedures Act

Food delivery is big business.

DoorDash, valued at $13 billion, has a nice piece of that - for now.

But after the members of the media run with this lawsuit, that market share could shrink, along with brand erosion.

BusinessInsider reports that District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine has filed a lawsuit against Doordash. Here is a copy of the complaint "District of Columbia v. DoorDash." It is titled "Violation of the Consumer Protection Procedures Act."

Essentially, the AG contends that between July 2017 and September 2019 DoorDash used tips from consumers to subsidize its own balance sheet.

Consumers assumed the tips were going to the delivery drivers.

Instead, the AG claims this: If the amount of revenue from the delivery didn't pay the worker's minimum compensation, then DoorDash applied the tip to that to bring it up to standard. Whatever was left over from the tip DoorDash pocketed. 

Two parties were allegedly harmed. Consumers had been fooled about where their tip was going. So much for transparency. The workers didn't receive the tip.

When the policy was uncovered there had been a outcry by constituencies ranging from the press to the individual drivers. The policy was then changed.

Unfortunately, if this lawsuit hurts DoorDash's business what also could be hurt is the ability of their drivers to continue with this work. They will have to hustle to find other sources of income.

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Shift from Public Relations to Legal - Darkness Fell Fast Post-BBC Interview of Prince Andrew

The fallout from Prince Andrew's BBC interview doesn't only negatively impact the brand - and future - of the British royals. 

In addition, as the Daily Mail reports, the situation has rapidly transformed into a legal one. Public relations expert Jason Stein had warned Andrew not to do the interview. But Andrew did. Now this. Darkness has fallen fast.

The this is that players in the legal sandbox are discussing the vulnerability of Andrew to be extradited to the United States to "cooperate" with officials.

The alleged sexual misconduct occurred in the U.S., not the UK.

Being a royal doesn't confer immunity to Andrew.

And currently prosecutors and plaintiff lawyers have what is being labeled "ammunition" to use in questioning Andrew. That could be under oath. And the content of the BBC interview could be part of cross-examination.

From the get-go in the BBC interview, those of us in the communications industry picked right up on Andrew's absolutely wrong tone and no evidence of sincere regret about whom he chose to be on his international network.

Regarding the latter, more and more of us are aware of the dynamics of mirror neurons. The research about them proved out that we human beings affect each other, cell by cell. Years ago, in the pre-scientific age, mothers and religious organizations warned about "bad companions." The Roman Catholic Church even classified those as "near occasions of sin."

Remorse for behavior is required by most social norms. Also, as lawyers know, they are expected in most courts of law. It is contended that AdmissionsGate miscreant Felicity Huffman got off relatively easy because she was contrite. Former law partner Gordon Caplan also adopted that persona.

Andrew did not.

Singlehandedly, Andrew could bring down the institution of the royals. Those in the UK who pony up the funding for much of that may decide to pull the plug.

Bring in top marketing and public relations firms to create a fresh approach to UK tourism. A former English major, I could advise on beefing up drama performances of the dramas of William Shakespeare. 

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

LASIK Eye Surgery - Science, Regulation Called into Question

Science is supposed to be about progress. But, how are the negative side effects of that big leap forward to be assessed and what role do regulatory agencies have in not approving or banning procedures with severe risks, including suicide?

That's the controversy surrounding LASIK surgery.

Essentially, LASIK is a procedure to correct myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism. The motivation to have this done is to be able to live without the bother of glasses or contact lenses.

According to the FDA, reports Daily Mail, 95% of those treated had no problems post-procedure.

Those pushing for the FDA to ban LASIK provide different numbers. Participating in that movement is the expert - Dr. Morris Waxler - who had participated in the 1996 advisory panel for the FDA to evaluate LASIK. It was approved. Now he has gone public with his objections.

According the Ban LASIK advocates, there is a 10% to 3o% risk of complications. They include severe pain, blurred vision and, yes, suicide. So far, what is known is that 17 people committed suicide after undergoing LASIK surgery. Among them had been Michigan meteorologist Jessica Starr.

Of course, anyone who has studied science in college knows there can be a correlation but not necessarily a cause-effect relationship. The procedure could be associated with the negative consequences but not directly causing them. For instance, one person in pain after the LASIK surgery could have accidentally overdosed on medication. That was ruled a suicide. LASIK would not have been a cause. 

It's no secret that the era of blind faith in science is over. Also, the regulatory agencies are being questioned about their commitment to protecting the public. 

The battle over LASIK could accelerate the breakdown of trust in both.

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Ronan Farrow's "Catch And Kill" - Familiar Saga of Power's Abuse, Its Details of Interest to Many Lawyers

On Amazon, Ronan Farrow's "Catch And Kill" ranks #105. The author is an awesome investigative reporter and an equally talented writer. 

But the story he tells is a familiar one: the abuse of power.

That saga stretches all the way to "Genesis" in the "Old Testament."

The higher power (and landlord) over-punishes the tenants Eve and Adam.

Had there been landlord-tenant court back then Eve and Adam might have retained their right to stay in Paradise. That kind of injustice in the bible had been described by famous criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

And, lawyers reading the detailed accounts Farrow presents of proven and alleged injustices inflicted on women by entertainment industry power players will have much to analyze. Those of them not directly in the loop of criminal prosecution, criminal defense or civil plaintiff/civil defense likely envy those who are.

Also, there really do still exist men and women who haven't gotten enough insider information on how the business of entertainment really works. They will also find "Catch And Kill" a riveting read. Afterwards, they may warn their loved ones to steer clear of that industry.

However, for others the 414 pages may become tedious.

The story line seems to be as predicable as the 2019 episodes of "Law & Order SVU." There are powerful men and those who protect them (some allegedly even in law enforcement). There are ambitious women who seem to be naive (didn't their mothers/mentors warn them?). There is then a time of exposure including internal investigations by brandname law firms, actual legal action, negative media destroying careers, and backlash. Regarding the latter, women who did speak up or filed lawsuits told Vanity Fair how they have been blackballed in the entertainment business. Here is that article.

Come on, #MeToo is a movement which has peaked. Much of what is in "Catch And Kill" is already known or has been suspected.

The more interesting issue is: Can power be tamed into humane behavior? That is, in supposed civilization is there progress in values?

At the meetings of the Secular Humanists of Western Lake Erie, president Douglas Berger leads discussions of that.

In the group there are optimists who argue that some aspects of society have evolved into enlightened norms.

There are also cynics like myself who envision the dark creatures portrayed in "Catch and Kill" simply mutating into other forms. Their predatory activity will shift from alleged sexual misconduct to whatever they assume they can get away with. 

Realists mouth the old adage: In restaurants in Manhattan, if rats stay in the basement, all is well. Chaos happens when a few make it up the stairs and plop in diners' laps. Perhaps the best we can hope for from #MeToo is that the rats have gotten it, for now, to stay in the basement.

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Snail Mail, Alleged Financial Fraud, Whistleblowing, Fired General Counsel, Excommunicado Saint - Three Lawsuits, Including "McKellar v. Mithril Capital"

The three lawsuits have all the bizarre twists and dramatic turns of a James Patterson mystery.

The most recent is "McKellar v. Mithril Capital."

Filed by the venture capital firm's former general counsel Crystal McKellar it is a response to two earlier lawsuits against her filed by Mithril. 

Essentially, the former employer is alleging McKellar conducted whisper outreach contending financial fraud by the firm's leadership. The company had been co-founded by the Peter Thiel.

Among the contentions was that the value of the portfolio companies was overstated to investors. That campaign included handwritten letters sent snail mail.

McKellar was fingered by Mithril leadership as the chief suspect for the letter-writing.

The fact is that she did file a whistleblower complaint with the FBI and the SEC.

Mithril's two lawsuits also claim McKellar breached confidentiality and was in the process of setting up a competing firm.

Mithril invests in late stage enterprises such as Reddit.

McKellar was fired. According to her employer it was for cause.

In response she filed what would be the third lawsuit in this saga that could be reducing the equity in Thiel's powerful brand.

She contends her termination was a result of the whistleblowing. She is asking $30 million in lost compensation and $30 million in damages.

These bits of litigation drama have gone high profile not only because Thiel is in the loop. It is also because of McKellar's background.

She had been a child star on "The Wonder Years." Then, instead of imploding like too many child stars who reach adulthood, she got herself an elite education. Undergraduate she did Yale. It was there she met Ajay Royar who still heads Mithril. Next stop was Harvard Law School. She had practiced law for more than a decade before being hired at Mithril.

Meanwhile, Saint Peter (Thiel) whose litigation funding helped save the world from mean-spirited digital tabloid Gawker could be excommunicado (term from film "John Wick 3"). That would be from his top perch in venture capital heaven. Also, his best-selling guide for entrepreneurs "Zero to One" could be attacked. 

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

McKinsey & Company - Questions about Its Bankruptcy Practice

Again, unwanted attention by government and media has been cast on elite management consulting firm McKinsey & Company. 

This time, reports The New York Times, the focus is on how it operates its bankruptcy practice. As lawyers know, that niche can be very lucrative. Some law firms are beefing up their own practices in bankruptcy and restructuring in preparation for an economic downturn in America.

The Justice Department, based on information from sources, is looking into possible misconduct in how the management consulting firm conducted itself in, among others, the bankruptcies of Alpha Natural Resources and Sun Edison.

Among the concerns are:

•  Steering the bankrupt companies' assets to itself
•  Not disclosing its own financial interests in the bankrupt companies
•  Establishing transactions which treated more favorably its own clients
•  Overall lack of transparency.

In itself, the coverage of those kinds of questions by the Justice Department throws shade on McKinsey in general and more specifically its bankruptcy specialization.

If the investigation picks up steam the McKinsey brand could be shaken to the core. Transparency is the meme of these chaotic times. Constituencies, ranging from government officials to those on Main Street, want to know what's really going on. 

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

Gordon Caplan - The Curse of Genius

A five-judge panel on a New York appeals court ruled to suspend Gordon Caplan's license to practice law. That will be in effect until a later hearing. They determined he was guilty of serious crime. Here are more details from the New York Post.

That new development in the downward trajectory of the career of a former co-chair of law firm Willkie Farr would reach Caplan in the Loretto, Pennsylvania correctional institution which he entered last Tuesday. There he will spend a month. When he is released he will do 250 hours of community service and pay a $50,000 fine. 

A Greek Chorus might chant: Smart man, stupid decisions.

The Chorus might have made the same observation of the thought processes which propelled former McKinsey head Rajat Gupta to his ruin. He figured that getting into the loop on the insider trading game would facilitate his career transition to launching a hedge fund. 

Some might label this a "tragic flaw." Others might perceive it as all too common fallout of superior intelligence. The book "The Curse of the High IQ" documents that. Author Aaron Clarey presents persuasive evidence that prospective parents shouldn't ask the universe to bring them a genius. 

Elite law and graduate business schools might develop an elective on how geniuses can prevent career catastrophe.

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Homeless, Business, Law - Las Vegas Tries Something Out

Las Vegas, like so many metro areas, is undergoing the perfect storm. 

There is growing homeless created by:

• Landlord Nation, that is, high rents with no caps for the percentage of increase at lease-renewal time.
• Substance abuse, and not only opioids. Attend any 12-step meeting and there is plenty of speaker presentations about winding up on the street because of booze.
• Unemployment and underemployment triggered by a volatile global economy driven by technology
• Mental illness, much of which science doesn't yet understand. Finally, it is admitting clinical depression is a chronic disease. 

That's no new story, of course.

Also, not new is that the realities of the homeless camped on the streets had been hurting local businesses. For Las Vegas one of those businesses is tourism. No couple from the UK wants to step over human bodies to get into X or Y commercial establishment. Through word of mouth, the message could go out: Skip Las Vegas. 

So, it shouldn't be a surprise that Las Vegas is trying out something legally to address this business problem. There is little or no humanity sprinkled in. As the Daily Mail reports, the new law forbids living sleeping on the downtown (this doesn't apply to the strip) streets if a bed is available in a shelter. There is a fine of $1,000. Haha, as if the homeless can buy their way out of the legal pickle.

Those putting together the law hoped to anticipate legal challenges through the provision of "if a bed is available." A law without that had been struck down in Boise, Idaho by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Of course, human rights groups are already active opposing this one. What some may have in mind is the poignant true saga captured in "Stuart: A Life Backwards."

That started out as a book, then it became a theatrical production and movie. By Alexander Masters, it chronicles the life on the streets of a man who, since childhood, endured profound emotional and spiritual suffering. The UK social system would provide housing for him and he made it his business to untangle himself from that and return to his social network on the street. One meme is: the right to live without a roof over one's head.  

Also, there is the horror of the shelters themselves. No, the street isn't safe. But shelters aren't either. Also, being in them can rob the soul, while taking care of the body, of human dignity. The other occupants can be emotional and spiritual downers.

Through wrong information when I was traveling in England, I wound up spending a night in a shelter on the East End. What popped in my head: No human being should have to provide for his or her physical needs in this way.

Later, in the U.S. I did volunteer work collecting and transporting food from local grocers to shelters, including those housing whole families. I wondered why there couldn't be a better solution to not being able to pony up rent in the U.S.? 

More recently, when running two businesses in southwestern Arizona, I encountered Millennials who feared homelessness more than anything. That was a reason they held on to low-paying jobs rather than taking career risks and/or remained in relationships which did pay the rent.

Obviously, homelessness should be a major issue in Election 2020. Meanwhile legal experts will track this Las Vegas law.

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

The Case of the Mirror Neurons - Bill Gates Labels Being in Loop with Jeffrey Epstein "Mistake in Judgment"

Those in the know always knew. They ranged from the wise members of the psychiatry profession to the nuns teaching in Roman Catholic schools to mom.

What they knew is this: Our associates affect us, significantly.

That's why over the years young people had been warned and are still are warned to avoid supposed "bad companions." In Roman Catholicism, they were categorized as "near occasions of sin." 

And those struggling with the decision whether to marry X or Y is told to observe whom X or Y hangs out with. That will reveal plenty about who the possible spouse really is. Yes, the old adage has lots of truth: Birds of a feather fly together.

Later, researchers in Italy discovered the scientific reason for that phenomenon. What they called "mirror neurons" trigger profound connecting dynamics among humans. We impact each other cell by cell. Those mirror neurons provide the very human characters such as empathy. We can "feel" - literally - for another person.

So, one does wonder what were the mirror neurons doing during the multiple times that Bill Gates interacted personally with Jeffrey Epstein. Those encounters took place after Epstein's conviction as a pedophile in 2011. So Gates cannot plead innocence. 

Now, reports BusinessInsider, Gates positions and packages those meetings as a "mistake in judgment." He contends he was hoping that the deep pocket Esptein would contribute to global health initiatives. But that didn't happen. 

The scientifically minded among watchers of what might be called "The Case of the Mirror Neurons" could persist in asking about what kinds of thoughts and feelings might have been transmitted during the meetings. Is Gates worse off as human being as a result of them? 

The media outlets might not be willing to let Gates off the hook easily. Also, society might be puzzled how a sophisticated player such as Gates would allow Epstein into his network. Surely, Gates had access to myriad other deep pockets to fund his philanthropic outreach.

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

Dementia Among Lawyers/Judges - Resignation of Justice Laura Higley Outs How Common That Has Become

To some, Houston, Texas First Court of Appeals Justice Laura Higley seemed fine.

As played out on the popular network television show "Boston Legal" seasoned members of the legal profession such as Denny Crane can conceal their cognitive decline. But, eventually the various forms of dementia take over. 

It had been Justice Higley's two sons who outed her condition. She resigned.

According to Texas Lawyer, her situation is not an aberration. In that state 17% of the lawyers are 65 years or older. In addition, more lawyers have no plan to retire. They enjoy the work. If they are on their second marriage there might be offspring to put through college. And they might have noticed that the retired become invisible. The end of a job usually means the end of a whole identity.

Overall in the general population, about one in six females and one in 10 males will suffer memory loss significant enough to impair their professional performance and ability to function in daily life. 

The bar association in TX is looking into this and it encourages members to have a confidential evaluation. Many other state bars are also aware of the high cost - on many levels - of allowing impaired members of the profession to continue to practice law. 

But, having a judge or lawyer give up the title and job tends not to be easy. And it could be politically dangerous. On another popular network television show "Blue Bloods," prosecutor Erin Reagan risks her career putting pressure on a judge, who is sliding into senility, to retire. The episode does have a happy ending.

With dementia becoming common in the legal sector, others could also get caught in that kind of scary situation. They might not land on their feet as had Reagan.

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.