A recent item on the Tucson News Now web site describes another instance of an old, and widespread, scam. Someone (a scammer) sends you a check for more than you expected. They tell you to deposit the check in your account and send them back the difference. By the time your bank tells you that the scammer’s check is no good, the scammer has cashed the check you sent back to them. This scam usually depends on the scammer’s check looking genuine enough to fool you, but even if the check looks perfectly genuine, that doesn’t mean it’s not fake, or from a closed or nonexistent account or bank, etc. Even cashier’s checks can be fake.
I have said it before: stop for just a moment and ask yourself if what the other person is asking you to do makes sense. If not, don’t do it until you have verified that it’s legit.
Or to put it another way, who knows better where the restaurant will succeed: the owners of the restaurant, or elected officials? I know, the elected officials have concerns other than whether or not the restaurant succeeds. But if that’s the case, then why do their comments (at least, as reported by the Arizona Republic) make it sound like they are only concerned with identifying the location where the restaurant is most likely to be a success?
I have written about this before. The methods used by large enterprises to select locations for their outlets are very sophisticated. Armchair quarterbacking by elected officials is unlikely to be helpful.
I saw this Alice Cooper quote over at Ace's and just have to share it:
I call it treason against rock 'n' roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics. ... When I was a kid and my parents started talking about politics, I'd run to my room and put on the Rolling Stones as loud as I could. So when I see all these rock stars up there talking politics, it makes me sick. .... If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal.
Now it’s Instapundit saying, in a column posted at USA Today, that automation is going to replace lawyers. The only concrete example he mentions, however, other than citing a book by another law professor, is a web site that I already pointed out has little potential impact.
He may well be right that automation will make legal information available to people who couldn’t get it otherwise. Far be it from me to question the logic of the Instapundit, but I can’t help asking: if automation is mostly going to benefit people who can’t afford lawyers now, how is that going to hurt lawyers?
The minister of transportation of India has declared that his country won’t allow self-driving cars. Because jobs?
It has come to light that the state of New York has a law that requires drivers to have at least one hand on the steering wheel. It sounds like something that was adopted to prevent the introduction of self-driving cars (see above), but it actually dates from the 1960s.
You didn’t include the birthday check from your grandmother on your income tax return, so why would you have to include the money you receive from her estate? That question and a few others are answered in my latest Estate Planning Law Report. You’ll find it in the same place where it’s posted every month: in the publications section at deconcinimcdonald.com.
Your comments are welcome, as always.
Apparently, contrary to what I said in my previous post, Charlie Gard is still alive. I apologize for the error.
There’s been one additional development that reinforces my feelings about the whole situation. The infant’s parents have now not only been denied the opportunity to bring him to the United States for treatment. Their request to take him home before he dies has also been denied.
Let me emphasize that bringing the infant to the United States would have been funded by the parents, and that the request to take the infant home was made after all treatment options had been ruled out.
Absent a demonstrable failure by the parents to act in their child’s best interest, which has not even been suggested as far as I know, state action depriving the parents of their right to make decisions about their child’s care is inexcusable. I know I’m not the only one who thinks so.
End of life care is a subject I have addressed before, most recently in my June, 2017, Estate Planning Law Report. Charlie Gard was an infant born in England who died recently after living for only a few months. The case attracted international attention when a court in the United Kingdom denied the child’s parents the opportunity to seek experimental treatment for Charlie in the United States. It’s a difficult situation with no easy answers, and I know this is controversial, but I found it pretty appalling that a court would deny the child’s parents the opportunity to seek experimental treatment for him at their own expense. There’s a brief commentary at The American Interest that sums it up pretty well.
If you are concerned about who will have the ability to make decisions for you, consider a health care power of attorney.
It’s an entertaining story: Alice Cooper recently discovered that he has an Andy Warhol silkscreen that’s been in storage for decades. Alice’s girlfriend bought the picture from Warhol in 1972.
Alice is generally entertaining, if you ask me. Have you heard his radio show?
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.