In what some observers presume is an early sign of a presidential run, over the weekend Hillary Clinton…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Harkin Lashes Hillary to ObamaCare

In what some observers presume is an early sign of a presidential run, over the weekend Hillary Clinton spoke at a high-profile political event for Iowa’s retiring Democratic U.S. Senator Tom Harkin.

Though Clinton had her own gaffe, the biggest surprise was how much credit Harkin heaped on her for passing ObamaCare – even though she wasn’t even in Congress!

“One of the things she always worked on was advancing this concept, this idea that health care should be a right and not a privilege in this country,” said Harkin. “So, Hillary was not there when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, she was of course secretary of state, but I want you all to know that her fingerprints are all over that legislation. It would not have happened without her strenuous advocacy in that…[more]

September 15, 2014 • 07:02 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
$45 Theft Becomes $10,000 Fine
Thursday, September 11 2014

Several years ago, a bag of Ruffles chips, some Little Debbie Nutty Bars and a set of two-way radios were stolen from a custodial room at the University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK). The total value of the loss was reported at $44.88. Six years later, this incident is costing UNK $10,000.

The gist of the dispute gets down to how the custodial room has been classified by the U.S. Department of Education in its review of the school's campus crime statistics.  UNK maintains the space is a public closet because it had no lock; the Department claims it is a private space because the incident report referred to the area as an "office" -- meaning any theft from it also entailed breaking and entering, which turns an act of larceny into a burglary.

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, first enacted in 1990, requires colleges to report crimes that happen on or near their campuses and to warn students and employees about ongoing threats to public safety. Under the Clery Act, the failure to report a burglary (but not a larceny) on a college campus results in a fine of up to $35,000 per violation. Thus, the Department's finding that UNK incorrectly categorized the janitorial theft meant the school violated the law, resulting in a $10,000 fine.

Congress last year expanded the law to include new categories of crimes that must be reported and to mandate training and prevention programs. The Department is in the process of finalizing rules to carry out those changes. According to news reports, many colleges are calling for the current fine structure and process to be changed to properly read campus maps. 

Source: Roll Call

Brand Name Drug Makers Held Liable for Generic Drug Label Warnings
Thursday, September 04 2014

The Alabama Supreme Court recently upheld an earlier decision that found the makers of brand-name drugs liable for the warning labels on the generic version of their drugs.

Citing the theory of innovator liability, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that, even if the plaintiff only used the generic brand, the brand-name drug maker had potential liability since generic drug makers must provide an exact copy of the warning labels on the brand-name drugs they copy. 

Alabama is the first state to find brand-name drug manufacturers potentially liable.

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Pliva v. Mensing that generic drug makers cannot be held liable through “failure to warn” lawsuits, since such claims are pre-empted by federal requirements that prevent the manufacturers from providing different warnings than are provided on the brand-name version.

According to news reports, the FDA is in the process of finalizing new generic drug label requirements.

Source: aboutlawsuits.com

The Naked Truth
Wednesday, August 27 2014

A contestant on the new VH1 reality series Dating Naked has filed a lawsuit claiming the viewers got more than she bargained for.

Jessie Nizewitz is suing the network's operator Viacom and two production companies for allegedly flashing her "private parts" during a playful wrestling match on the beach with a male contestant. In her lawsuit, which seeks $10 million in damages, the 28-year-old New York model claims she was assured that all of her privates would be blurred during the show. In her lawsuit, Nizewitz claims there was no blurring during that quick exchange, subsequently sparking an embarrassing outpour on social media.

"Although I went on this show knowing that I would be nude while taping it I was told that my private parts would be blurred for TV. If you watch an episode, you will see that the blur actually makes it less revealing than a bikini would. Obviously, I did not expect the world to see my private parts, this is not what I anticipated or what any other contestants on the show anticipated," Nizewitz said in a statement through her attorney.

According to news sources, VH1 and Lighthearted Entertainment had no comment, while Firelight Entertainment was not immediately available for a response.

"Plaintiff...was shocked, horrified and outraged to observe this intrusion into her privacy for all to see," reads the suit. "Immediately Plaintiff became subject to ridicule by those watching...Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer extreme emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation and embarrassment...Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that broadcasting an individual's vagina and anus on national cable television would cause substantial and severe emotional distress."

Source: eonline.com

What Took So Long?
Thursday, August 21 2014

Nearly two years after a police stop and citation that made national news, a grandmother is suing a Dallas-area police officer and city for allegedly being "antagonized and assaulted."

According to news reports, on August 19, 2012, then 77-year-old grandmother Lynn Bedford was stopped for going 66 mpg in a 50-mph zone.  Citing a bladder infection and the need to use a restroom, Bedford refused to get out of the car or hand over her driver's license, prompting Sgt. Gene Geheb to open the door and remove Bedford from the car. Bedford ultimately received two citations: one for speeding and another for failing to provide ID.

Originally, Bedford said she did not have plans to sue.  Now, two years later, she has changed her mind and is seeking a jury trial and damages against the City of Keene and Sgt. Geheb for, among other things, unreasonable search and seizure and for having in place policies that show “deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens.” In the federal lawsuit filed in Dallas, Bedford claims she “suffered a painfully-bruised tailbone, bruising on her arm, and a sore shoulder.”
 
In September 2012, Keene Chief Rocky Alberti defended his officer’s actions: “The incident has been reviewed thoroughly by the Keene Police Department and the City of Keene administration,” Alberti said. “All parties have concluded that Sgt. Geheb did not violate any state laws or department policies, and in fact was following department policy in regards to violators not providing information.”

Source: Dallasnews.com

A Prayer for Relief
Thursday, August 14 2014

In the wake of a threatened lawsuit, a North Carolina restaurant is no longer offering a discount to diners who pray in public before their meal.

Mary's Gourmet Diner in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, announced by way of a note on the front door of the establishment that the 15% discount previously offered to customers who chose to pray before their meal was discontinued. According to news reports, Mary's Gourmet stated on a Facebook post that, "There's a lot of craziness going on in regard to the 15% discount. ... I will say that it is not a 'policy,' it's a gift we give random to customers who take a moment before their meal.  Who you talk to or meditate on etc. is your business."

The discontinued discount at Mary's appeared to be prompted by a letter from a Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation, which urged the restaurant to stop.  Legal experts have noted that it is fine for a business to give out random discounts.  For example, a restaurant in Los Angeles, California, gives discounts for voice impersonations.

Co-owner Mary Haglund told one media outlet that her intent had always been positive and that she never meant to offend anyone.

Source: Newsday.com



Question of the Week   
Which one of the following significant days in American history has been designated Patriot Day by Joint Congressional Resolution?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to 'separate' damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on…[more]
 
 
—Sharyl Attkisson, Investigative Journalist and The Daily Signal Contributor
— Sharyl Attkisson, Investigative Journalist and The Daily Signal Contributor
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you believe that President Obama is committed to decisively combating ISIS or is merely giving lip service to it because of public opinion regarding his entire foreign policy approach?