Those issues don’t arise so much in my life these days, so I’d like to thank Adrian Martinez and Morusa Media for once again giving me the opportunity to say, “Um…that’s illegal.”

Martinez is the creator of the as-yet-unsigned-but-already-infamous television show “Who Wants to Marry a U.S. Citizen?” There’s been a lot of fuss and controversy already: does this exploit immigrants? Is Martinez attempting to cash in on the immigration conflict? Does the show’s premise take advantage of desperate people in difficult circumstances?

All valid concerns, but I really just have one thing to say:

Um…that’s illegal.

As you probably know, marrying someone simply to obtain (or confer) U.S. citizenship is a crime. And marriages between U.S. citizens and non-citizens are scrutinized pretty carefully before citizenship is granted—especially when there are red flags like…oh…just for example…WINNING YOUR SPOUSE ON A TELEVISION SHOW.

I’m just guessing, but it seems possible to me that the reason no network has jumped to pick up the program is that network execs are a little hesitant to face criminal charges. Just speculating.

With a little research, the whole thing just gets curiouser and curiouser. A recent press release refers us to a website with the questionable URL “hookacitizen.com”. Though the press release calls this the show’s website, it’s actually just a single page that disclaims a bunch of stuff (apparently, I’m not the first to raise the possible legal issues) and then provides a link for those needing more information about Immigration law.

That link goes to an Alabama law firm.

My first thought was that the concept had somehow been hijacked, but no…”hookacitizen.com” does seem to be registered to Adrian Martinez, the show’s creator—with a California address. So does “immigrantlove.com”, which displays the same single-page disclaimer and link to the same Alabama law firm.

I said “curiouser and curiouser” already, right? I’m beginning to think the real entertainment has nothing to do with the show.

The ordinances were thrown out primarily on the principle of preemption. The Congress may expressly forbid states and local governments from passing laws. A local law would be implicitly preempted if it interferes with or conflicts with already existing federal laws.

In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, providing for the removal of illegal aliens from the United States. The Act expressly preempted any state and local laws imposing penalties for hiring undocumented workers. The Court, relying on the Act’s preemption clause, threw out Hazleton’s ordinance penalizing employers who hire illegal workers.

Federal law also reserves to the federal government the right to remove a foreign national or to allow him to remain in the country. Hazleton’s laws forbidding renting property to illegal aliens conflict with the federal government’s right to allow an illegal alien to remain in the country. So, the Court ruled against Hazleton’s anti-rental laws.

That all changed last month.

On June 28, the United States Supreme Court overruled that 1911 case, holding that vertical price restraints should be judged by “the rule of reason”.  (Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Ink., d/b/a Kay’s Kloset…Kay’s Shoes)  The Court based its decision in large part on the fact that “respected economic analysts” had concluded that vertical price restraints could have a pro-competitive effect.  That is, that prohibiting retailers from lowering prices beyond a certain point might be good for competition.

Some of the justifications offered included the idea that vertical price restraints would increase inter-brand competition, and that being unable to compete based on price, retailers will be forced to invest in other tangible or intangible services or promotional efforts to corner their share of the market. 

In other words, since every retailer will be equally expensive and consumers won’t be able to hope to find a better price, retailers will have to offer them something else in order to capture their business.  The idea that most consumers would prefer lower prices to having tea served in the boutique seems to have escaped these noted legal scholars.

It seemed inevitable from the moment this ruling was published that consumers could expect to start paying more.  The Consumer Law & Policy Blog warned, in particular, that the ruling would have negative consequences for internet shoppers.  Consumers used to using the internet for quick price comparisons on identical items may now find the answers startlingly similar.  And, of course, the ease of online price comparisons will also make it very easy for manufacturers that insist on minimum-price agreements to monitor internet sales prices.

Although the full impact of the ruling remains to be seen, the Southern District of Florida alone has already seen two cases in which corporations have invoked the Leegin reasoning in defense of various restraints on re-sale of specific products.  All in the interests of promoting competition, of course.

Now, Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn) have introduced a bill that would establish mandatory insurance coverage for up to eight weeks of paid leave in such circumstances.  In its current form, the bill provides for a sliding scale benefits, so that those at the lowest end of the income spectrum would receive full salary, while those at the higher end would receive only a percentage.

Dozens of other countries guarantee paid paternity leave and paid time off for parents with sick children, and more than 150 countries already guarantee paid leave for women for childbirth.

Or at least, it didn’t look that way to being with.  For some reason, though, the blogging world has been buzzing about this duck for two months, and the overwhelming concensus has been that Kristen should keep the duck, should not pay for it, and should not be at all troubled by the “holier-than-thou” folks who for some reason believe that you should pay for what you take home from the store.

There’s been a lot of dismay voiced about how “worked up” people are getting about an inadvertantly stolen duck, but I don’t think that’s what people are worked up about at all.  I think people are worked up about the justification, the cheering, and the general sense that there’s no real reason to worry about paying for what you took home.  That perspective is much bigger than a stolen duck.

The controversy has grown to the point that tonight, Blog Talk Radio will be hosting a discussion of the “issue”.

I’m not especially interested in hearing people re-hash the ethical issues, which are fairly clear to me.  I am, however, interested to hear the analysis of the legal issues (which are equally clear to me).  A very popular “mommy blogger” who goes by the handle “LawyerMama” has been asked to serve as an “expert”, and I’m very interested to hear what she has to say.

You see, ethical issues and the relative importance of a $6.50 (or maybe it was $6.95–witness accounts vary) duck from The Gap aside, I’ve been utterly unable to come up with any LEGAL justification for keeping the duck.  Since I practiced criminal law, I have a bit of experience  working up legal justifications for questionable behavior, and in this case, I think my best approach would be to minimize, to paint a sympathetic picture of my client as a harried mother who just hadn’t realized.  That’d be a tough sell after she’s spent two months polling the internet community about whether or not she should keep the duck.

If LawyerMama has a legal argument as to why it’s okay to keep the duck, I’m very interested to hear it.  And if she doesn’t–well, then I’m very interested to find out whether she’ll risk sanctions from the bar association by encouraging a disregard for the law.  I don’t know that Kristen could rightly be called a “client” or what LawyerMama is offering legal advice, but if I were in her shoes, I’d be a little uneasy.   How does a lawyer justify proudly posting a “keep the duck” icon on her website when, so far as I can assess, there’s no legal justification for keeping the duck?  Even assuming this can’t be construed as advising a client to violate the law, what about the appearance of impropriety?

The law does vary–and so do ethical guidelines–from state to state, and my reading of her other posts indicates that LawyerMama is an intelligent woman, so I’m virtually certain that she wouldn’t be risking legal sanction to publicly take the “keep the duck” position without some kind of legal theory to support her advice.  I’m eager to hear what it is.

Fisher, whose court order requires him to pay $288/month in support for his two minor children, posted only $66 in earned income over a four month period in 2005.  During that same period, he spent nearly $1,200 in prison, including $330 at the commissary.  Fisher also paid for cable TV in his cell and a $65 pair of Adidas sneakers.  Although the prison system defines all money in an inmate’s account as “income”, state domestic relations law is much narrower.  Thus, Fisher’s cable television and commissary snacks remain safe, while his children go without support.

According to Phillyburbs.com, a 1998 study estimated that 38,000 custodial parents in the United States were then owed a total of $122 million in child support from incarcerated non-custodial parents.

The FTC allegations are simple, and all-too familiar.  The companies apparently represented to debtors that they had special relationships with credit card companies and other creditors that would lower interest rates and reduce overall payments.  Customers were “guaranteed” to save a certain amount of money, but no time frame was specified, so that the debtors might have to make payments for decades to realize the savings.  The savings they did see typically came only from increasing monthly payments and not from any actual reduction in interest rates or fees.

Schwartz and Whalen agreed to a permanent ban on engaging in the debt negotiation or debt elimination business.

Two down…how many to go?

Although trans fats have long been believed to be more damaging to health than other kinds of fat, recently clear evidence has come to light demonstrating just how dangerous trans fats can be. The American Heart Association recommends getting no more than 1% of calories from trans fat, or about 2 grams–but a single King-size serving of Burger King onion rings contains 6 grams of trans fat.  According to CSPI, a sausage biscuit with a large order of hashed brown potatoes contains a whopping 18 grams–considerably more than one person should consume in a week.

According to the Harvard School of Public Health, that’s not something to be taken lightly.  Researchers say that increasing trans fat consumption by a mere 2% of calories increases the risk of developing coronary heart disease by as much as 23%.

CSPI says it’s contacted Burger King and made every effort to work with the chain to decrease and eventually remove trans fats from its menu or to disclose the trans fat content to consumers, but Burger King won’t disclose and will only agree to start phasing out trans fats at the end of 2008.  Thus, CSPI has filed suit under the District of Columbia’s consumer protection statutes, alleging deceptive practices and a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

Mellinger settled his part of the case for $350,000 after a jury found in his favor.  Lee’s claim has not yet reached the trial stage.