Pay Parking Sign Citing CVC 21113(a)

21113(a) CVC


California Vehicle Code § 21113(a) states that “[n]o person shall drive any vehicle or animal, nor shall any person stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle or animal, whether attended or unattended, upon the driveways, paths, parking facilities, or the grounds of…any educational institution exempted, in whole or in part, from taxation,…except with the permission of, and upon and subject to any condition or regulation which may be imposed by the…educational institution….”

So, if you ride your donkey to school and leave him tied to the parking meter during class, I think you have to leave a payment at the machine.

humor Law

Formula Restaurants

USA Today reports that a group of investors are challenging a Springdale, Utah ordinance that bans “formula restaurants” to preserve the charm of the local community. Justia has the Complaint from Izzy Poco v. Town of Springdale et al..

Springdale Town Code 10-2-2:

FORMULA RESTAURANT OR DELICATESSEN: A business which is required by contractual or other arrangement to provide any of the following: substantially identical named menu items, packaging, food preparation methods, employee uniforms, interior decor, signage, exterior design, or name as any other restaurant or delicatessen in any other location.

Springdale Town Code Section 10-3A-5:

C. Standards for conditional uses in agricultural zone:

1. Restaurants:

d. Formula restaurants are prohibited.

Springdale Town Code Section 10-22-3:

Subject to the provisions of section 10-21-1 of this title, the following uses are recognized to be incompatible with the general plan, because of the limited amount of private land available within the town’s boundaries; the large size or scale required of such uses; excessive noise, odor or light emissions; their excessive use of limited resources and the undue burden they place on public utilities and services, or because they are of a character hereby found to be in conflict with the town’s general plan:

Formula restaurants and formula delicatessens.

I don’t understand the ordinance. In fact, it reminds me of San Francisco’s strange obsession with chain stores. At the end of the day, unless a business is operating on federal, state or local lands, I don’t understand why one restaurant is permitted, but another is not. After all, we’re talking about sandwiches and not adult motion picture theaters.

The food industry is challenging enough. Let the market decide whether the local or visiting population really dislikes formula restaurants. And, in this day and age of Yelp, mom-and-pop restaurants that deliver quality food and service can compete toe-to-toe with the so-called formula restaurants with their national advertising budgets. And, if a mom-and-pop restaurant cannot beat a chain restaurant, maybe a visit from Gordon Ramsay would be in order.


Santa Clara County Tackles Child Obesity

The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted to ban restaurants from offering toys or other incentive items in conjunction with foods that contain excessive calories, sodium, fat, saturated fat, trans fat and sugars. Interestingly, this ordinance will not affect all of Santa Clara County. Instead, the ordinance only regulates restaurants “in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County.” So, at first glance, this seriously diminishes the number of restaurants that may be affected.

However, the real curious aspect of this law is that it does not prohibit restaurants from serving unhealthy food to children. Restaurants may continue serving high caloric foods with excess sodium, fats and sugars. They just can’t provide toys, games, trading cards, admission tickets or other consumer products along with the meal. Note also that if the restaurant provides such toys, games, trading cards, admission tickets and other products with no purchase necessary, such a transfer will not run afoul of the ordinance since the toy is no longer linked to the purchase of a Single Food item or Meal.

Net effect: much ado about nothing.

humor Law

Cyber Privacy Act

Last week, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) introduced a bill that would require certain Internet websites that contain personal information of an individual to remove such information at the request of the individual.

This bill potentially affects “[a]ny Internet website that makes available to the public personal information of individuals.”

The bill also defines “personal information” as “any information about an individual that includes, at minimum, the individual’s name together with either a telephone number of such individual or an address of such individual.”

Megan’s Law. If this bill passes, the first class of persons that will be seeking relief under the bill would be the people on California’s Megan’s Law website. Interestingly, not all the offenders subject to Megan’s Law qualify. Those with names and addresses listed do, but those with addresses denoted as “Specific address not subject to disclosure”, “transient” or “unknown” do not meet the minimum threshold set forth in the Cyber Privacy Act.

Barack Obama. I did not realize that there were so many Barack Obamas in the United States. Spokeo lists a Barack H Obama in Illinois. The listing displays Michelle Obama as a member of the household, but the profile states “Children: No” and “[i]s not interested in politics,” which should give you a hint about data quality. Spokeo also has a listing for Barack Obama on Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington DC. Would this be 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW? The data for this Obama is no better: “[i]n a relationship”, no children, and “[i]s not interested in politics.” So, can President Obama get his personal information removed from Spokeo? Well, even though the website does not display his full address, it does make such data potentially available if you sign up to view full results, which may include the name, address, home phone, mobile phone and other personal information. So, Spokeo qualifies as an Internet website that contains personal information. However, like the prior example, not every individual may request to have their information removed from the website, such as if Spokeo is missing the full address or phone number of the individual in their records.

Credit Reports. For credit reporting websites, such as Equifax, Experian, or TransUnion, the Cyber Privacy Act presents a real nightmare. The credit reporting bureaus qualify under the Cyber Privacy Act because they “make available to the public personal information of individuals” in the form of credit reports. These reports definitely contain your personal information, including your name, address (past and present), as well as your phone numbers, unless you fear killer robots from the future and are truly living off the grid. The problem for credit reporting bureaus will occur when people with bad or poor credit start requesting that their credit reports be removed from these databases. Fun! And, so long as the report meets the minimum threshold (i.e., name + phone number or address), the individual may request that all the personal information be removed. No more online credit reports. Back to faxes.

State Bar. If the State Bar has disciplined an attorney, and the attorney does not want the State Bar to publish his or her disciplinary record, the attorney can seek relief under the Cyber Privacy Act because the State Bar of California publishes an attorney’s address, phone number and fax number.

HR 5108 IH


2d Session

H. R. 5108

To require certain Internet websites that contain personal information of individual’s to remove such information at the request of such individuals.


April 22, 2010

Mr. MCCOTTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce


To require certain Internet websites that contain personal information of individual’s to remove such information at the request of such individuals.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Cyber Privacy Act’.


(a) In General- Any Internet website that makes available to the public personal information of individuals shall–

(1) provide, in a clear and conspicuous location on the Internet website, a means for individuals whose personal information it contains to request the removal of such information; and

(2) promptly remove the personal information of any individual who requests its removal.

(b) Definition of Personal Information- As used in this Act, the term `personal information’ means any information about an individual that includes, at minimum, the individual’s name together with either a telephone number of such individual or an address of such individual.


(a) Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices- A violation of this Act shall be treated as an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of a regulation under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

(b) Powers of Commission- The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this Act. Any person who violates such regulations shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in that Act.


Colorado Loves California Day

Cute. Colorado has a state crush on California. Despite California’s progressive streak, Gov. Bill Ritter should be forewarned. If our states start dating, we’re not going Dutch because, uh, we’re flat broke. At best, we might be able to muster up an I.O.U. However, so long as Colorado is footing the bills, count us in. We’ll be sure to steer you far away from Sacramento. Don’t want you to get cold feet after meeting your future in-laws at the Capitol. Between you and me, they’re a little dysfunctional.

WHEREAS, Colorado and California are both hotbeds for innovation, creativity and cutting-edge research, and have a unique relationship – sharing companies, technologies, venture capital and customers; and

WHEREAS, Colorado and California have similar growth industry clusters, including aerospace, bioscience, energy and high-tech; and

WHEREAS, Colorado has had great success in recruiting California companies looking to expand their operations in our state, and attracts much of its venture capital from California investors; and

WHEREAS, Colorado and California both lead the nation in innovative ideas about energy and the environment, and these ideas, along with the foresight and passion our citizens possess, have allowed New Energy Economies to take shape in our states, including cleantech investment and growth; and

WHEREAS, Californians love many of the same things Coloradans do, including active lifestyles, outdoor recreation and plenty of sunshine; and

WHEREAS, Colorado is often the next place Californians call home, as California is the top state in the nation for in-migration to Colorado;

Therefore, I, Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor of the State of Colorado, do hereby proclaim February 12, 2010,


in the State of Colorado.

GIVEN under my hand and the Executive Seal of the State of Colorado, this ninth day of February, 2010

Bill Ritter, Jr.


Saying Nothing at All


How insightful. The push for health care reform can “stall … or gain momentum.” When you have all bases covered, you will always be right.


George Carlin and the Seven Dirty Words

<p>George Carlin passed away.  He will forever be remembered (at least among legal scholars) for his Filty Words monologue which was the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case.  See <a href=””>FCC v. Pacifica Foundation</a>, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).  The Appendix to the Opinion includes a verbatim transcript of the monologue prepared by the Federal Communications Commission.  That’s U.S. tax dollars paying some bureaucrat to transcribe an indecent monologue.</p>


Philadelphia Eagles Sue Terrell Owens

Even though the Philadelphia Eagles released Terrell Owens two years ago, the team would like to see T.O one more time–preferably with a check in hand.  The Eagles just sued Terrell Owens this week seeking confirmation of an arbitration award of $769,117.65.

humor immigration

Real Immigration Reform

Kansas City Star: Florida bill would outlaw language denoting `illegal aliens’. Florida state Sen. Frederica Wilson is sponsoring a bill that would outlaw the use of “illegal alien” on state documents. Wilson prefers the use of undocumented citizen or undocumented immigrant.

A certificate of naturalization? Oh, that’s a mere document. Nothing more than a slip of paper. A few scribbles on a piece of paper, really. The oath of allegiance? A few meaningless words. Seriously, an undocumented citizen? Let’s see someone try that one in court.Trafficking in Stolen Property. I am really the undocumented owner of the property in question.Kidnapping. My undocumented child custody order stated I had possession of the kids.Bad Check. My undocumented bank statement said I had enough funds.And, if you ever lose at trial, there’s always the undocumented reversal that the appellate court issued in your favor.


No Bubbles Here

If you’re ever bored, take a look at Domain Name Scoop, a tool that “appraises” a website based on various publicly-available metrics. Just pinning a dollar figure on a website must provide tremendous entertainment value, at least it did for me and probably for others as well. Thus, the site has a tendency to go down. Madly hitting the refresh key does solve the problem though. 😉 Let’s punch a few buttons and what various legal websites are worth.Sitting at the top of the heap is, and no one else is even close. Compare their valuation to Essentially the same content, but one is designed for consumers and one is designed for lawyers. By repurposing their content, $6 million suddenly becomes $154 million. Wow! $154,017,560 Worth more than everyone else! Combined!! $20,629,620 Fighting with FindLaw for second place. $6,251,550 Ditto. $3,553,600 Neither as valuable as FindLaw, nor $2,811,620 $2.8 million will buy you a lot of legal forms. $1,316,310 Too good to be worth only a million. $1,114,960 Definitely one of the more useful legal web sites. $202,496 Kevin O’Keefe’s blawg company. $69,116 Robert Ambrogi’s website and blog.

Since the valuations are based on ongoing web metrics, these values will fluctuate depending on the data that that site pulls from (i.e., check in a week from now and the values may all be different).