President Obama’s health care law will push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.
CBO said that this year’s tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade.
Daily Archives: February 5, 2013
160 John Street is back, now asking $28.5 million for the house, the 8 acres it sits on and another four 2+ acre building lots/ horse stable stuff, for a total of 18 acres.
The whole shebang started looking for a buyer two agents ago in 2009, when it was priced at $39,500,000. That dropped to $32.5 in 2010 and then was jacked up again to $41 million in 2011 and when it still didn’t sell and a new broker was brought in, she raised the rice to $45 million. I tell you, that’s a tactic that just doesn’t work, even though your common sense says it’s bound to. A real puzzler, that.
So here it again, at its lowest price yet. Will this third time be the charm? It’s gorgeous land and depending on your feeling for Robert Lamb Hart designs, there’s a house that comes with it that you could keep. We’ll see.
Little brother Anthony (big brother to you, Gideon), the very Bovina Bloviator Blogger himself, digs up the secret that explains why Miss O’Clay has so much free time on her hands. UPDATE: She’s substituted my name for hers on the link – this is the behavior of a 45-year old temp lawyer? Shocking, I say, it’s simply shocking!
Darn it, just as things were warming up, Barbara O’Clay calls it a day. But does she commit a tort by doing so?
Miss Clay has retreated to the sidelines, which is too bad, because I suppose it means I have to go back to work. But her parting shot seems to be calling for someone else to take up her cause, and that might just constitute the tort of champerty. Here’s what she posts:
Submitted on 2013/02/05 at 4:09 pm
Who would like to take this case? Seriously, I have no time working 24/7. Call me if you want it. I wasn’t “canned” by David Boies, so I think we’re set. I alerted Crius that this was going on as it’s a circus show now thanks to cf. This will be the last post I make. You all have been great fun. Thanks for all the kind comments. Best to you all.
And here’s how Wikipedia defines Champerty – I wouldn’t know whether they got it right, having failed law school and all that, but it seems to jibe with the definition I once read on the back of an “Inspiring Tales for Young Lawyers” card set, back in the day.
Champerty and maintenance are doctrines in common law jurisdictions, that aim to preclude frivolous litigation. “Maintenance” is the intermeddling of a disinterested party to encourage a lawsuit. It is “A taking in hand, a bearing up or upholding of quarrels or sides, to the disturbance of the common right.” “Champerty” is the “maintenance” of a person in a lawsuit on condition that the subject matter of the action is to be shared with the maintainer. Among laypersons, this is known as “buying into someone else’s lawsuit.”
In modern idiom maintenance is the support of litigation by a stranger without just cause. Champerty is an aggravated form of maintenance. The distinguishing feature of champerty is the support of litigation by a stranger in return for a share of the proceeds.
At common law, maintenance and champerty were both crimes and torts, as was barratry, the bringing of vexatious litigation. This is generally no longer so as during the nineteenth century, the development of legal ethics tended to obviate the risks to the public, particularly after the scandal of the Swynfen will case (1856–1864). However, the principles are relevant to modern contingent fee agreements between a lawyerand a client and to the assignment by a plaintiff of his rights in a lawsuit to someone with no connection to the case. Champertous contracts can still, depending on jurisdiction, be void for public policy or attract liability for costs.
So yesterday I posted on 14 Sound Beach Avenue and, because it is perched immediately on I-95, I suggested that it might be a little noisy.
Notwithstanding that caution, several readers commented that it seemed like a reasonable rental property investment and inquired about the current rent; the owner chose to take umbrage and posted her own comment:
Hi, I’m the current owner and an [sic] very experienced and well respected attorney. Chris, you have a lot of facts here that are flat out wrong. You may want to give me a call and correct this article 203-560-4477 or perhaps I can have some fun and get a ceast [sic] and desist on your website. There are also assumptions in this article that are just silly, not well thought out, and mean-spirited…..Next example – everyone knows in Greenwhich the “95-sound” travels down the block, not next to the house. As your bloggers note, there is huge opportunity here as the state is willing to sell the land behind (I had the right for a while, I can tell you know to do it). Thank goodness I have the best realtor that dealt with your meanness in an elegant way. I’ll be calling you to make the needed corrections ASAP.
Okay, I wasn’t particularly impressed, so I made a request of my own:
If there’s more than that “error”, feel free to add them here. But please, enough of the “I’m a well respected attorney and I’m going to sue you hrmmphh hrmmph” crap – you give the rest of us ambulance chasers a bad name.
O’Shea, Clay, the owner of 14 Sound Beach has now taken to emailing me, thus:
I will be filing in court tomorrow unless the article is taken down or a MAJOR correction is posted immediately.
I just don’t understand the sloppy journalism and evil tone “grab your ear-muffs”. What is wrong with you? On second thought, you can explain it to the judge.
Do you even understand the liability you may have bought yourself – interference with a contract, etc.?
I’m just dumbfounded by the stupidity. Forgive me for this second e-mail, but I re-read the garbage writing and article (garbage) and I just started to realize just how wrong it was …
I am so ready to take this to court tomorrow. Maybe you’ll think twice about doing this to people who can’t defend themselves.
Associate General Counsel
And now this:
100 Rockwood Lane, $3.4 million. It’s a short sale, which suggests a bargain, but otherwise uninteresting, at least to my clients, none of whom would even nibble at this pseudo-barn.
5 North Ridge, $829,000. Havemeyer, next to the Big Dig.
12 Oak Drive, Riverside. I’ll withhold comment.