Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
This Week's "Your Turn" Radio Lineup

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM/99.1FM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.” Today’s guest lineup includes:


4:00 CDT/5:00 pm EDT:  Kay S. Hymowitz, William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute - An Epidemic of Loneliness;

4:15 CDT/5:15 pm EDT:  Ross Marchand, Director of Policy for Taxpayers Protection Alliance - Unwarranted Carcinogenic Classifications and How the US Government is About to Drive Up the Cost of Videogames;

4:30 CDT/5:30 pm EDT:  Tom Schatz, President of Citizens Against Government Waste - 2019 Congressional Pig Book;

4:45 CDT/5:45 pm EDT:  Marlo Lewis…[more]

June 17, 2019 • 12:48 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Jester’s Courtroom
A Swimmingly Interesting Lawsuit
Wednesday, June 27 2018

A Virginia man is suing the Fairfax County Police Department and a lifeguard for saving his life after they pulled him out of the water.

According to news reports, Mateusz Fijalkowski allegedly suffered a bipolar episode and tried to drown himself in a pool. Fijalkowski, who was underwater for more than two minutes before a lifeguard jumped in to save him, claims eight police officers stood by and watched. The officers claim to have acted appropriately to save Fijalkowski and protect themselves and the lifeguard from a disturbed person.

Fijalkowski, who has since been diagnosed with bipolar disease, is seeking more than $100,000 for medical bills and says he had never suffered any mental health episodes before the near drowning.


Follow the Bouncing Ball
Thursday, June 21 2018

Former Louisville men's basketball coach Rick Pitino and the University of Louisville Athletic Association (ULAA) are locked in a lawsuit over what constitutes "inappropriate behavior."

Pitino is suing ULAA for breach of contract, claiming his suspension lacked proper notice and that he was not fired for “just cause,” thus entitling him under his contract to roughly $4.3 million per year through 2026. ULAA attorneys have filed a motion for summary judgment requesting dismissal of the lawsuit. Pitino’s attorneys counter, claiming the motion should be denied because the school has not yet proven Pitino violated a “major” NCAA rule.

According to NCAA bylaws, head coaches are responsible for assistant coaches and administrators who report to them. Pitino claims he was unaware of the escort scandal involving former assistant coach Andre McGee and allegations of sex parties for recruits and players. ULAA’s attorneys argue Pitino’s knowledge of McGee’s actions is “irrelevant” under the rules.

"Pitino cannot go back in time," the motion said. "The addition of the presumed responsibility language was an effort by the NCAA to avoid exactly the argument Pitino is making in this case. Pitino’s defense of 'I didn’t know' is no longer valid. Pitino was responsible for the actions of his staff members, whether he knew about them or not.

"Pitino sued ULAA for nearly $40 million while it continues to try to recover from the harm Pitino caused by the multiple highly publicized scandals that occurred on his watch. Yet, Pitino attempts to portray himself as the 'victim' because ULAA detailed Pitino’s long history of scandals in its motion for summary judgment."

ULAA has announced it intends to vigorously defend itself against Pitino’s frivolous claims.


Way More Than a Penny For Your Thoughts
Wednesday, June 13 2018

A New York doctor is suing a woman for $1 million after she posted a negative review about him on multiple internet sites.

Dr. Joon Song, a gynecologist, is accusing his former patient Michelle Levine of defamation, libel and causing emotional distress following Levine's negative comments posted on sites like Yelp, Zocdoc and Healthgrades. According to news reports, Levine visited Dr. Song for a routine annual exam, but received a bill for an ultrasound and a new patient visit, not an annual exam. When her complaints to the physician's office went unanswered, she took to the review sites. The lengthy critical review said, "very poor and crooked business practice," among other things.

"And I gave them one star on Facebook, which they also put in their complaint," Levine said.

Levine, who has since taken down all of her reviews, claims she has spent close to $20,000 fighting the lawsuit.

In a statement to the media, Dr. Song's attorney said, "While everyone is entitled to their opinion, outright lies masquerading as reviews can inflict serious damage to a medical practice or small business."

Levine said that she doesn't regret writing her review and will continue to fight to the end.


Not Your Typical Cup of 'Jo
Wednesday, June 06 2018

A California couple is suing Starbucks, claiming their toddler drank a beverage that contained a barista's blood.

According to news reports, after the Vice family visited a Starbucks in San Bernardino, California, they noticed a red streak on the side of one of the cups. Upon further investigation, they detected a "strong metallic smell" coming from the cup that their young daughter had been drinking from.

"Once we drank it, then we could see on the inside of the rim that there was blood," Amanda Vice said, adding that her daughter was licking the lid, and eating whipped cream from the cup.

After reporting the incident to the store, it was discovered that an employee had been bleeding and was removed from the floor.

"My wife and my baby just drank someone’s blood," Louis Vice said. "It was bad."

The family requested to have the employee undergo a blood test to determine if he/she was HIV positive or if the employee had any other communicable diseases. Although the manager agreed to the testing, the employee could not be "forced" to get the blood test. Ultimately, the family underwent testing, with the blood tests reportedly coming back negative. A second round of tests was repeated.

"This caused the family stress, nervousness, fright, anguish, grief, anxiety, worry and shock for several months while awaiting the second round of test results,” officials said in the news release.

Starbucks initially offered the family free drinks for a week, followed by $1,000 to each family member. Stan Pekler, the family's attorney, said that "does not begin to compensate the family for the suffered injuries and damages for which Starbucks is liable."

"They endured additional distress because Starbucks seemed to not care about their well-being and refused to direct the employee to undergo a blood test to ensure the family's safety," Pekler said.

The lawsuit against Starbucks Coffee Company seeks damages because of a failure to warn the family, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, assault, negligent hiring, and negligent training and supervision.


A Sucker Punch
Thursday, May 31 2018

The makers of Dum Dums suckers are suing the makers of Tootsie Roll, claiming their new packaging is causing confusion among sucker lovers.

According to news reports, Spangler Candy Company, the makers of Dum Dums, alleges in its recent lawsuit that Tootsie Roll Industries, the makers of Charms Mini Pops, intentionally confuses consumers with its new packaging that is similar in color and style to that of Dum Dums. Long sold in a yellow bag, Charms now come packaged in a red bag similar to Dum Dums, with a quantity “300” stamped in the same location.

Spangler maintains this repackaging amounts to trade dress infringement and unfair competition, adding that “customers are likely to confuse the products and their source of origin."

The question remains whether consumers are the real dum dums or whether they can distinguish between the suckers.


Question of the Week   
Prior to 2016, what was the last Presidential election year in which the candidate who won had never before held elected public office?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
"President Trump's detractors are trying to play down the significance of the US-Mexico immigration deal, saying it is largely comprised of actions that Mexico had already agreed to many months ago.Nice try. If Mexico had truly agreed to implement many of these measures in December, then why had they not been implemented six months later? As even Mexican officials acknowledge, it was Trump's threat…[more]
—Marc Thiessen, American Enterprise Institute Fellow
— Marc Thiessen, American Enterprise Institute Fellow
Liberty Poll   

Should the 2020 U.S. Census add a multi-part question regarding U.S. citizenship, including specifically whether the respondent is or is not a U.S. citizen?