{"id":527,"date":"2007-02-14T12:37:47","date_gmt":"2007-02-14T16:37:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2007\/02\/14\/valentine-quickies\/"},"modified":"2007-02-14T18:31:21","modified_gmt":"2007-02-14T22:31:21","slug":"valentine-quickies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2007\/02\/14\/valentine-quickies\/","title":{"rendered":"valentine quickies"},"content":{"rendered":"

q.s.<\/a><\/em> for those who need self-help on Valentine’s Day \"embraceRS\"<\/p>\n

\"HeartArrowG\"\u00a0A Valentine from Sperm-Donor Dad<\/strong>: Today’s New York Times<\/em> tells the moving story of Jeffrey Harrison, a very popular donor\u00a0at the California Cryobank in the 1980s.\u00a0“Sperm donor father ends his anonymity<\/a>” (NYT<\/em>, Feb. 14, 2007) Mr. Harrison decided it was time to find his\u00a0donee children (some of whom had been looking for him<\/a>).\u00a0 Now, 50 years old, and living in a recreational vehicle with four dogs, Harrison says:\u00a0\u201cIt\u2019s a short life and these children need to have some kind of resolution. I thought I could send a little valentine, kind of, to everyone, just saying hello.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 Because this is a quickie blurb, I haven’t done research on the state of the law relating to the anonymity rights of sperm donors, donees and their children.\u00a0 However, donors loss the right to anonymity in Britain in 2005 (see BBC article<\/a>), and Canadian legislators\u00a0have been considering how to handle the Controversy\u00a0Over Sperm-Donor\u00a0Anonymity<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"HeartArrowN\"\u00a0Lat’s Looking for Hotties Again<\/strong>:\u00a0 We thought shlep<\/em>‘s readers with curious minds would want to know that the latest “hottie” contest at David Lat’s Above the Law<\/em> tabloid is aimed at finding the Hottest Law Librarian<\/a>.\u00a0 Contestants must be current, genuine law librarians and may be at any<\/a> library or legal workplace.\u00a0 Please feel free to tut-tut.<\/p>\n

\"UnscrewedCover\"\u00a0Unsure about<\/strong> Unscrewed<\/em>: \u00a0A couple days ago, Laura Orr mentioned<\/a> the book Unscrewed: The Consumer’s Guide to Getting What You Paid for<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>by Ron Burley, at her Oregon Legal Research Blog<\/em>.\u00a0 Burley’s website<\/a> has an excerpt<\/a> from the book (its introduction), and says its<\/p>\n

“Five easy-to-learn principles and a collection of simple techniques win satisfaction in virtually any business negotiation without the hassle of writing letters, arguing, screaming, making threats, or going to court.”\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The book is new to me, and I hope\u00a0that visitors who have read it will share their thoughts about its value to consumer self-helpers.\u00a0 I’m a bit reluctant to endorse it blindly, because\u00a0the article “Don’t get mad, get what you want<\/a>” (USA Today, Nov. 13, 2006) says “Some of Burley’s ‘Unscrewed Solutions’\u00a0. . . could be interpreted as a deliberate action to damage a business” in some states, and that “A few tactics seem a little shady.”\u00a0 Also, a\u00a0customer review at Amazon.com notes “In fact, some of the things Mr. Burley advises people to do could land them with a defamation lawsuit, a punch in the jaw or worse.”\u00a0\u00a0 Unscrewed<\/em> lists for $14,95, and sells for $11.66 at Amazon.com.\u00a0 [For $.01 plus shipping, you can get\u00a0the 1993 book Getting Unscrewed and Staying That Way<\/em><\/a>: The Sourcebook of Consumer Protection<\/em> (Hardcover) Henry Holt & Co; 1st ed edition (July 1993), by David Klein\u00a0et al<\/em>.]\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"HeartArrowG\"\u00a0\u00a0 Disbarred & Pro Se<\/strong>:\u00a0\u00a0We might make this a\u00a0recurring topic here at shlep<\/em>. \u00a0The latest example is ex-lawyer\u00a0George R. Leach, a 1975 graduate of W&M’s Marshall-Wythe School of Law,\u00a0 who “filed a federal lawsuit to force the school to return the Wren Cross permanently to the historic chapel on the Williamsburg campus.\u00a0 “W&M graduate files lawsuit seeking return of Wren Cross<\/a>,” Richmond Times-Dispatch<\/em>, Feb. 14, 2007.\u00a0 The suit names the college President Gene R. Nichol and the Board of Visitors as defendants. According to the Times-Dispatch<\/em>, Leach says in the suit that Nichol’s decision last fall to remove a 2-foot-tall brass cross from the chapel “deprives the plaintiff and others of the free exercise of religion.”\u00a0\u00a0I could be wrong, but Leach’s argument that\u00a0President Nichol is “an active agent of the ACLU” seem a little bit unlawyerly (or at least irrelevant to the legal merits).\u00a0 An article in the Hampton Roads Daily Press<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(Feb. 13, 2007, via Religion Clause<\/em><\/a>) points out:<\/p>\n

“[A] suit filed against the college would be frivolous and unsuccessful, said Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, a group that promotes First Amendment freedoms.”\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Despite being in the Valentine spirit, I have to agree with Haynes that ex-lawyer Leach has not filed a winner.<\/p>\n

\"aaiLogo\"\u00a0\u00a0As we noted in our post “understanding antitrust law<\/a>,” \u00a0the American Antitrust Institute website<\/a> is a major source of information for anyone wanting to learn about antitrust law and competition policy.\u00a0 This morning, AAI unveiled its new-look website<\/em>, at the same URL.\u00a0\u00a0Along with AAI’s Current Activities, it’s easier to locate Upcoming Events and Recent Working Papers on the homepage.\u00a0 The link antitrust resources<\/a> brings you to AAI’s Antitrust Directory and Gateway to Anititrust Resources.<\/p>\n

Click Fair Fight in the Marketplace<\/em><\/a>\u00a0for a great antitrust video.\u00a0\u00a0\"TrustBusterTeddyN\"\u00a0<\/p>\n