Among the many positive changes within the federal government since the end of the Obama Administration…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
FCC Should Preempt Individual State Attempts to Regulate the Internet

Among the many positive changes within the federal government since the end of the Obama Administration and the arrival of the Trump Administration, perhaps none surpass those brought by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under new Chairman Ajit Pai.

And the most welcome and beneficial change undertaken by the new FCC is its action to rescind Obama FCC decisions to begin regulating the internet as a "public utility" under statutes passed in the 1930s for old-fashioned, copper-wire telephone service.  The Obama FCC's action instantly began to stifle new broadband investment, and was subject to legal reversal.  The internet thrived for two decades under both the Clinton and Bush administrations precisely due to the federal government's "light touch" regulatory policy, and there…[more]

November 16, 2017 • 11:27 am

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 Juicy Award
Tuesday, November 14 2017

An Alabama man has been awarded $7.5 million in his lawsuit against Walmart after he became entangled in a wooden pallet, causing him to fall and break his hip.

Henry Walker of Phenix City, Alabama, claimed his foot became trapped in a pallet beneath watermelons when he reached for the fruit. Walker’s attorney argued that Walmart should have covered the pallet to protect its customers. Walmart maintained the displays, which come to the store from the producer already packaged in that fashion, are not inherently dangerous and that Walker’s negligence put him at fault.

"We are disappointed in the verdict," Walmart spokesman Randy Hargrove added. “We appreciate the jury's service, however we believe that the damages awarded were excessive in light of the facts in this case. We plan to appeal."


Lawsuit Involving Climate Science Community Heats Up
Thursday, November 09 2017

A Stanford University professor is suing the author and publisher of a peer reviewed study seeking $10 million in damages for "libel and slander" and the retraction of a published paper.

Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, has filed suit in D.C. Superior Court against Christopher Clack, of Vibrant Energy, and the publishers of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). According to new sources, Jacobson authored a paper in 2015 that mapped out a course to powering the U.S. entirely by renewable energy sources by the year 2050. In 2017, a study conducted by Clack and colleagues, and published in PNAS, refuted the findings in Jacobson’s paper.

In the lawsuit, Jacobson claims he reported at least 30 “false” and five “misleading statements” to NAS prior to the publication of Clack’s study, but NAS published the study anyway. Jacobson further alleges that the Clack study has harmed his reputation and career.

"The resulting headlines and articles in the press made Dr. Jacobson and his co-authors look like poor, sloppy, incompetent, and clueless researchers when, in fact, there were no 'modeling errors' made in their study," the suit states.

Clack, calling the lawsuit “unfortunate,” stated, “I am disappointed that this suit has been filed. Our paper underwent very rigorous peer review, and two further extraordinary editorial reviews by the nation’s most prestigious academic journal, which considered Dr. Jacobson’s criticisms and found them to be without merit. It's unfortunate that Dr. Jacobson has now chosen to re-argue his points in a court of law, rather than in the academic literature, where they belong."


Neither Snow Nor Rain…But Dogs?
Thursday, November 02 2017

A Washington state man is suing the United States Postal Service after not receiving his mail for nearly a decade because his previous dog, now deceased, was deemed too threatening.

Randall Ehrlich says he remains blacklisted and put on a “dog hold” for mail service by the USPS despite the passing of his previous dog and his offer to install a mailbox near the sidewalk, rather than receive his mail in the slot next to his door. Ehrlich claims that even when there was no dog living in the house, he remained on the list. Although Ehrlich now has another dog, he maintains this dog, Ilsa, is low-key.

“The regular mail carrier will not deliver to my residence,” Ehrlich said. “They keep on bringing it back to dogs. And I just want to get my mail."

According to news reports, animal attorney Adam Karp is now helping Ehrlich file a lawsuit. “It is not a very common complaint that I get,” Karp said. “So essentially, they make the decisions unilaterally and there's no appeal from that.”

In defense of its position, the USPS issued this statement: "It is important to note that the safety of our employees is paramount at the U.S. Postal Service when we make operational decisions affecting customer service and delivery practices.”

Ehrlich's case is now heading to court.

“I'd rather not be doing this. I'd rather just be getting my mail," Ehrlich said. "I've found no other recourse.”


Coffee, Tea or Sparking Wine?
Wednesday, October 25 2017

A Canadian man is suing Sunwing Airlines after being served sparkling wine on his flight, contrary to the airline's promotion of "Champagne service."

Daniel MacDuff of Quebec claims in his lawsuit that Sunwing is guilty of misleading market practices in violation of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. MacDuff is seeking punitive damages for the alleged wrongful practice, as well as compensation for the price difference between the sparkling wine he was served in a plastic cup and the Champagne he expected.

According to news reports, Sunwing believes the lawsuit to be "frivolous and without merit."


Here's a Tip For Ya
Wednesday, October 18 2017

Several top restaurateurs in New York are being sued after dropping tipping in favor of a "service included" format.

According to news reports, Shake Shack king Danny Meyer, who operates popular places such as Union Square Cafe, Gramercy Tavern and Marta, joined with several other "pricey" New York restaurants to change tipping policies to a "service included" format. The restaurateurs claim their goal is to pay workers more equitably and make customers’ lives easier by raising menu prices and overall wages by the same percentages.

Now, they are facing a class-action lawsuit that alleges the restaurateurs were really out to illegally line their own pockets because the "service included" places raised menu prices by higher percentages than tips typically given by customers. The lawsuit accuses Meyer of ringleading a price-fixing “conspiracy” that “unlawfully transfers millions of dollars from customers and servers to restaurateurs."

The suit demands damages for every supposedly overcharged customer based on “credit card records and other evidence of purchases.”

Meyer maintains that the “service included” is fairer to workers. A spokesman for Meyer told news sources, “We intend to vigorously contest the suit.” It would be a big mistake to laugh it off. Although the case was filed in California, it’s only a matter of time before ruthless New York barristers get into the act."


Question of the Week   
Thanksgiving was established as an annual event by presidential proclamation in which of the following years?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
Thanksgiving has always been a special holiday, an opportunity for family reunions, bountiful feasts, marathon football games and the traditional kickoff of the Holiday Season. We travel home by car, train, plane and bus to come together with loved ones. As Americans gather with friends and family this week, let us not forget those brave men and women who put themselves in harms' way to protect our…[more]
—The Center for Individual Freedom
— The Center for Individual Freedom
Liberty Poll   

For Thanksgiving Dinner, how many recipes used by your family have been passed down through at least two generations?