The other day, I posted John Stossel’s disjointed and irrational diatribe printed in the Wall Street Journal. The focus of his piece, as well as his 20/20 report, was to attack a lawsuit by a New York lawyer named Jonathon Selbin for suing his neighbor for smoking.
In reading Stossel’s attempt at persuasion of the logic-challenged, clearly effective to some of our commenters who failed to recognize the absence of connection between one anecdote of a neighbor lawsuit to Stossel’s conclusion that class actions were the bane of America, I assumed that Stossel had at least gotten his facts right. I reacted, like most, that Selbin was a jerk for suing his neighbor, but that this had zero logical connection to Stossel’s irrational conclusion. Oops. Never assume.
Today, I received a statement from Jonathon and Jenny Selbin, which they had previously provided Stossel and 20/20, which they immediately ignored. After reading the Selbin’s statement, maybe he’s not such a danger to society after all. As for Stossel, his ability to adhere to facts may be almost as challenged as his logical reasoning.
The bottom line if that after reading the details of the Selbin lawsuit, you may still think that the Selbin’s are a little too touchy and making a mountain out of a molehill. But they aren’t the lawyers run amok that Stossel claimed, nor evil people for trying to live comfortably in their own home.
Courts exist to resolve disputes that people can’t resolve on their own. That’s the whole point, John Stossel, and the Selbins were forced to go to court by their neighbor’s refusal to get along, not because they are evil, money-grubbing lawyers. Next time you want to scam the public and feed into the paranoia and ignorance, find a better target.
Statement of Jonathan and Jenny Selbin Regarding Smoking Lawsuit
We declined 20/20’s offer to appear on camera, just as we have every other such offer, because we are private people who did not seek and do not want publicity. Indeed, we regret that this matter had to come to litigation and generated any publicity at all.
For over a year we reached out to our neighbor Galila Huff and asked her to simply take reasonable steps to reduce the second-hand smoke coming from her apartment into our common hallway. She refused every step of the way. When that did not work, the Condominium Board passed a resolution requiring residents to keep second-hand smoke out of common areas. Ms. Huff ignored that too. As a last resort, we filed our lawsuit based upon well-established New York law that treats second-hand smoke in private residences as a nuisance.
We filed our lawsuit for one reason and one reason only: because second-hand smoke is toxic, especially to young children. That is not just our view, it is the official position of New York City, New York State, the Surgeon General of the United States, and just about the entire scientific and health communities. This is not a situation involving the sorts of things every New Yorker knows they must live with in the tight quarters we share, like food smells and noise. This is about toxins in our home being breathed every day by our 4-year old child. We filed our case as parents trying to do the best we can to protect our son from the needless exposure to toxins. Surely if we put chemicals toxic to Ms. Huff or her dog in the common hallway on a daily basis, she would be justified in asking us to stop (and, ultimately, suing us if we refused to stop).This is no different.
We do not want money. We do not want publicity. We simply want Ms. Huff to take reasonable steps to keep her smoke in her own apartment. We also do not want to try to tell Ms. Huff to stop smoking (in her home or anywhere else), nor is it our business what she does in the privacy of her home. It is only because her smoke comes into our common, shared hallway that it has become our business.
We believed this case was settled shortly after it was filed when the Aerus Company graciously donated two of their high-end air purifiers to Ms. Huff and one to us. We told Ms. Huff that we would quickly dismiss our lawsuit if she would simply agree to use these air purifiers and to put a fan in her window blowing out. Unfortunately, Ms. Huff has told us through her lawyer that rather than put a fan in her window, she instead intends to “contest this matter both in court and the media.” We regret that is her position.
We stand behind the basis for our lawsuit, but also stand ready to work with Ms. Huff to resolve this issue along the lines we have already made clear so that everyone can return to their normal private lives.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scott: You are a lawyer. Your stream of consciousness boohooing has the credibility of a 9/11 Government conspiracy theorist.
The justice system is rigged to empower the lawyer oppressor. The judge is a lawyer, biased in favor of litigation. The lawyer bully and the little Caesar on the bench speak the same gibberish, share the same lawyer rent seeking values, and a hatred of our nation. These lawyers know that.
The lawsuit itself is a nuisance. It represents behavior incompatible with remaining in a condominium. The board should expel these lawyers, and pass a regulation excluding all lawyers, as they might an active pig farmer.
The presence of a lawyer in the building would decrease any desire to buy an apartment. The intimidation of the lawyer makes life unbearable for all productive sectors of the economy. The lawyer should be excluded wherever possible.
The self-dealt litigation privileges of the lawyer proves the bias of the judges and the other lawyers controlling the three branches of government. Only self-help remains for the oppressed victim of the lawyer.
Careful, SC. The bar association is coming after you. Wooooooooo.
Scott-
Congratulations! When whackjob trolls come out, it means you’ve arrived as a blogger. If “lawyer bull[ies] share… rent seeking values, and a hatred of our nation,” then this person’s conspiracy theory has deep roots as roughly half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were lawyers.
I have noticed a general bias, however, on the part of lawyers towards… the law, Yoo’s theories notwithstanding. Sounds better than unspecified “self-help measures” to me.
Engraved above my elementary school doors is the phrase “right makes might,” but many want to reverse this today. What’s scary about the view of this commenter isn’t the fact that his or her views are so radical, but that they’re so common. Bill Moyers was on to something when he observed that today “the delusional is no longer marginal.”
How is personal attack persuasive or lawyerly?
No conspiracy theory of the lawyer profession. A criminal cult enterprise theory of the lawyer profession. That theory has three elements, indoctrination in 1L, supernatural central doctrines, crushing cult professional responsibility.
The Bar association is not coming after me. It is coming after the lawyer, to impose its narrow orthodoxy on the lawyer. Let the lawyer try crossing it sometime. See what recourse there is, facing personal destruction. The lawyer is as oppressed by the hierarchy as the public is oppressed by the lawyer. Think of it as a cycle of abuse and intimidation.
The article does not state that the second-hand smoke infiltrates the condo where a 4-year-old resides. Does he/she use the hall as a playground? How sad.
I recommend these lawyers buy a house in the suburbs with less toxic fumes from cars, smoke, etc.
If they were “so concerned” about their child’s welfare, they would provide him/her with a yard and a neighborhood where he could interact with other children.
As to the other side of the story, as I’ve read it, if Huff refused to take reasonable steps to filter the smoke away from the hallway, she not 100% innocent either.
I suggest and her intolerant neighbors buy single homes and commute.
“But please keep it civil and respectful. I reserve the right to delete or edit all comments. SHG”
I feel disrespected by “whackjob trolls.” I take offense at the mischaracterization of my criminal cult enterprise theory of the lawyer profession as a conspiracy theory. Please, be more careful with your choice of words.
The lawyer profession is “whackjob trolling” the entire economy, and especially crime victims. I have not consumed 1000’s of hours, or $millions by frivolous litigation against productive parties. I have not loosed millions of vicious predators to attack millions of crime victims a year, especially in the minority community.
You feel disrespected by whackjob trolls? Well, at least we have that in common.
Best way to get rid of a troll is to not feed it, but it’s difficult to resist the temptation not to respond to a person who calls us part of a “criminal cult enterprise” but feels offended by “whackjob troll.”
You can have the last word, however, as it’s truly best not to feed trolls. To paraphrase Twain, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Nuts. I must have missed that class. Now I feel left out.
Now what made you think that David’s wholly inappropriate ad hominem attack was directed at you? By the way, “disrespected” is not a verb.
You are just some rich yuppie bastards looking for something to argue about. Smoke in the hallway. Give me a f#@king break. As if there aren’t enough exhaust fumes and other toxins floating around in NYC. Don’t worry. I’m sure your “holier than now” son will grow up to be a healthy A#@hole just like the two of you.
Reading this did not change my opinion at all. I heard your side and you are still wrong. Leave the poor woman alone.
First I agree with Jo-Marie. This lawyer needs to get a hobby and maybe a life for their child if they are worried about the minimal amount of smoke that might get into the hallway. I wonder if they let their 4 year old walk down the street with all those cars around spewing toxins everywhere; he/she is probably the kid with the mask on. Just so you know I’m not trying to be mean. I’m a non-smoker and wouldn’t want my kids playing in a smoke filled room either, but I doubt this is the case.
However, filing a law suit isn’t the answer. A wise man once told me; never get an attorney involved if you can avoid it.
If this guy was half a smart as he thinks he is then he should have looked into spending the money fixing the problem for everyone instead of on filing a lawsuit. All you need to do is slightly over pressurize the hallway with additional fresh (if you can call outside air fresh in NYC) air, thus keeping any odors/smoke etc. in the respective apartments. There are multiple ways to accomplish this, just ask your local Mechanical Engineer. Typically code requires you to pressurize hallways and stairwells anyway to keep smoke from filling them, as they are commonly used as the exits during a fire. Another good thing that will result by actually fixing the problem, instead of suing someone.
But this is just my 2 cents.
If I was a lawyer and I was so concerned with the Healthof my child I would live in the Country where my child would have clean air and a safe place to play.
Well, I am a non-smoker, and I find it a danger to my health when others take it upon them self’s to endanger my life and others something needs to be done. We stop drunk drivers, murders etc., what’s the difference.
As for lawyers, I feel the legal system is long since been broken. I work as a bailiff in a Superior Court of California and what I see on a daily basis makes me sick. Justice is what you can afford and has nothing to do with truth or justice. The lawyers have built themselves job security by bullying the common person from participating in the legal system unless you have cash to hire them. A must need change on how we do business in the courts needs to come about. The laws that govern court rules and laws that were made to hide truth need to be changed or done away with. It is we the people, not we the lawyers. If you are not a lawyer in this country you are basically screwed if you find yourself in a legal battle.
To the lawyers, I know some are good and enter the profession for the right reasons, but the system beats you into submission. I have talked with judges and some lawyers that know that the system is broken, but no one does anything to fix it. May be it is time to have a new revolution to free us from all these stupid laws that have been created to strip us of our freedoms our forefathers set up. The forefathers would be ashamed of present day in this country. It is apparent the people have no control of the destiny of this country; it is all controlled by lawyers, corporate criminals and politicians that are paid and owned by corporate greed.
We need sensible change and not 50 years from now, but now. I am not advocating a war; I am advocating a political movement, grassroots organizations to pressure the law makers that we the people are tired of the greed, the inability to seek justice with out a huge cash war chest. Justice should not be what you can afford, it should be a right.
However; to get change will cost money, money we do not have so the rat race continues. We are kept to busy with keeping up with the Jones to protest or fight back for what the lawyers have taken away from us as the people. Old money suppressing the surfs, and we are all surfs like it or not.
Lawyers should be required to hire OTHER non-affiliated attorneys when they bring a case to court, and pay “the going rate”. No favors. End of story.
It should be part of the Ethics Code, and penalties should be enforced if it is not followed.
I have seen several local attorneys abuse their knowledge of the profession to continually harass people they have social issues with, and seeing a couple of national cases indicates to me that something should be done to prevent any such abuses.
I feel that it is sad when the justice system is used as a sword against innocent people who want to enjoy their homes. I find this whole issue utterly ridiculous. This clean air you speak of NYC, has the 22nd worst air quality in the nation according to American lung Association. If you were truly concerned about the quality of air your child was breathing you would not live in NYC.
You made a choice by purchasing and living in a building with common spaces. You assumed the risk that your neighbors may introduce substances into the air without your knowledge or control. Your child is likely exposed to more harmful substances such as the volatile organic chemicals in the paint you fixed up his big boy room with, or the flame retardants in his clothing, not to mention all of the household chemicals you use to create a sanitary environment for him to frolic in. Let’s not mention the pesticides that he is consuming in his food.
It is hard to find a clean life these days and finding it in the city is even harder.
I sincerely hope that atwo things happen here:
First, the Selbin lawyer family gets kicked out of the BAR or at least suspended for a good 10 years or so.
Second, I hope that this goes to Supreme Court as everyone knows there is no way that this would pass muster.
Oh and third, I hope someone picks up her case pro bono so she can live on her life without a very atrocious pair of lawyers nearby making someone into a victim.
You could not be more wrong. Go ahead and defend the lawyer folk. You will have your day in court and the judge will throw your garbage out. Hopefully you pay some punative damage too.
http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/disrespected
Sorry, still a noun. There is no such thing as an “urban” verb, even if it’s become fashionable to use it improperly and it’s accepted in urban slang.
Suing because you can. No other reason. Bullying [expletive deleted] and nothing whatsoever to do with your health. If it were you would be suing every smoker in New York and you plainly are not. Why not ? The old woman down the hall is an easy target isnt she. The rest of the world sees you for what you are so be warned that you are deplored worldwide for your pompous arrogance and greed.
The rest of the world? Do you think you may be exagerating your worldwide influence?
There most certainly is such a thing as a transitive verb. I don’t know who instructed you otherwise, but they were ill-informed. As documentation, I would direct you to English Grammar: The English Language in its Elements and Forms written in 1850 by William Chauncey Fowler. On page 305 of this highly esteemed guide to the English language, Mr Chauncey plainly states:
“Verbs are divided into two classes, according to their uses: I. Transitive II. Intransitive.”
Now I understand that most people do not have this book lying around, so here is a hyper link: http://books.google.com/books?id=XXQSAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA305&lpg=PA305&dq=history+of+transitive+verbs&source=web&ots=Hei8_uYrBy&sig=SA40Z-suOTZOgbK18hyHxUkau2E&hl=en#PPA305,M1
Stossel’s piece was one sided because the Selbin’s declined to be interviewed. How is a journalist supposed to present both sides when one side refuses to participate? Only now do the Selbins seek to comment in an anonymous forum?
If they seek good health and a life free of publicity might I suggest moving to a location with cleaner air and a moratorium on filing lawsuits in public courts? Otherwise perhaps they should continue to keep their mouths shut and cease to publish propaganda on the internet since they seem so willing to discredit the court of public opinion by stating their own opinion and conveniently aligned “facts.”
Perhaps Ms. Huff could request some legal assistance from the tobacco companies in filing several hundred counter-suits.
You are correct about transitive. My mistake in typing in the wrong word (it happens). I have corrected my error. Thanks for the heads up.
Just to correct one thing: The Selbins declined to be interviewed, but provided the statement here to Stossel at the time he sought their interview. Stossel chose to ignore it.
And what do you mean by an “anonymous forum?”
Sir,
I am afraid that your interpretation of the verb in question is a bit off the mark. The word “disrespected” has a great deal of historical precedent. To quote from the Oxford English Dictionary:
Disrespect, v. trans. The reverse of to respect; to have or show no respect, regard, or reverence for; to treat with irreverence.
1614 WITHER Sat. to King, Juvenilia (1633) 346 Here can I smile to see..how the mean mans suit is dis-respected. 1633 BP. HALL Hard Texts N.T. 11 If he love the one he must disrespect the other. 1683 CAVE Ecclesiastici 231 (Basil) To honor him, and dis-respect his Friend, was to stroke a man’s head with one hand, and strike him with the other. 1706 HEARNE Collect. 26 Apr., He was disrespected in Oxford by several men who now speak well of him. 1852 L. HUNT Poems Pref. 27 As if..sorrow disrespected things homely. 1885 G. MEREDITH Diana I. 257 You will judge whether he disrespects me.
You have convinced me. I defer to your precedent. Nice job, by the way.
“We stop drunk drivers, murders etc., what’s the difference.”
Ahh Hyperbole. I love to play this game.
You know what does more harm than intermittent exposure to secondhand smoke? Poor air quality on account of automotive and industrial exhaust. While we’re treating smokers like murderers and drunk drivers I say we prosecute everyone who drives a car, ships a product in a truck or creates anything in an exhaust producing factory. These criminals need to be held accountable for the harm they’re doing to us.
On a more serious level, this shouldn’t be in a court. Take it to the landlord/POA/etc… I don’t smoke, but the war being raged against smokers is ridiculous. The worst was banning smoking in businesses. If a smoke free business is something that’s important to enough people, the market will provide one.
Honestly I think it is a pointless lawsuit. They have lived there since 1999 and Ms Huff has been there longer. If they could smell the smoke say 8 years ago why didn’t they complain then. After reading both sides I would think that Ms. Huff has attempted to be accommodating but they just weren’t going to have it. They complain about toxins in the air but look at where they live. Not exactly the purist air in the country. I’m sure the smog and toxins coming the tail pipes of the buses, cars, etc is more harmful to their kid then the tiny amounts of smoke going into the hallway. I think the court systems are overloaded with pointless lawsuits for stupid things and stuff like this just adds to it.
I’m not rich. I live in a neighborhood where, as a child, I grew up surrounded by wonderful woods, fresh air, clean water, dirt roads and lots of wild animals. There were swarms of colorful dragonflies that delighted me and big, Gopher Turtles who lumbered through my yard and enjoyed being cleaned with fresh water, ticks removed and munching on our grass or lettuce we provided.
It aint that way anymore. The area is crowded, noisy, polluted and most of the animals are gone along with the huge swarms of dragonflies. I can’t see most of the stars at night because of light pollution. Vehicles blast along the now paved road 24/7. The turtles are gone, their burrows buried under expensive homes.
So, who do I sue?
All of this can’t be good for my health. There are no doubt scores of reports out there concerning the effects of stress, pollution, noise and over crowding as unhealthy.
One neighbor wangs golf balls into a net frequently. That ‘tock’ sound annoys me. I have high blood pressure. Another neighbor blast by on this loud motorcycle, going way too fast. That irritates me. All of the traffic as infused the air with various toxins. That’s probably affecting my health. I’ve had a heart attack.
Now, who do I sue because the couple of hundred new neighbors are irritating me and endangering my health?
Maybe I need to go see those lawyers. They seem to be experts in finding the ludicrous or improbable for probably any type of lawsuit.
Wait! I forgot. I’m not rich.
Thank god for lawyers like you. With all the polutants in our food and air and water, corporations skirting employment laws, usurious lenders and credit card companies, and well…a thousand other things including all the missing childredn. We know it is safe to attack a woman who smokes in her house because you cannot stand the smell it causes.
You have the power as lawyers to do so much, yet you do little but destroy others.
You must be authoritarians…
wow….welcome to the better half of the human race.
This case illustrates the need to prevent lawyers acting as their own attorneys. If they had to pay for their own services, perhaps there would be fewer lawsuits.
You may be legally right, but you are a poor human being.
And did this lawyer test the air quality in the hall? can he prove that any pollutants or toxins in the air were the result of defendants cigarette smoke? did he trace the toxins down to her specific brand of smokes? can he prove it is not from any other tenant?
sound is pollution too. noise can be made in a home such that the noise can be heard outside the home, usually until 10 or 11 pm, but it is a form of pollution people are allowed to create and emit from their homes. can you sue someone just for hearing them, or activities from their apartment in the hall?
sounds like some selfish power hungry lawyers.
So you want this lady to dump her toxic fumes onto a common, shared street where thousands of people are rather than a common, shared hallway where only a few people wander through.
Both aren’t your property. If you don’t like pollution move to the suburbs.
So Selbin doesn’t want publicity but his firms website refers to him as a “superlawyer”? I am sure he regularly runs as fast as he can from all publicity….. that is negative. Besides, if there is one group who should be forced to inhale carcinogens, its lawyers. The first letter that this lady received is all you need to see to know exactly who these people are, who talks to their neighbors like this?
Are you guys for real? I think you are all whack jobs. What does all this dictionary quoting have to do with this woman not being allowed to smoke in her own home? I am sitting here with my jaw sitting on my keyboard. I am beginning to believe that I am the last normal person left in this country, and for sure in New York State.
Are you guys for real? I think you are all whack jobs. What does all this dictionary quoting have to do with this woman not being allowed to smoke in her own home? I am sitting here with my jaw sitting on my keyboard. I am beginning to believe that I am the last normal person left in this country, and for sure in New York State.
Veoletta: I understand how exciting it must be to come across the Supremacy. However, try to control the impulse to repeatedly pound the enter key. This vocabulary discussion is the most useful entry of this topic. J-CO is just trying to reteach Scott the English so badly devastated by his law school experience.
Scott: Seriously, you may be young. Ask your older lawyer friends the consequences of crossing this lawyer hierarchy, if only for your own protection and survival.
I had no doubt that I would hear about the double post. Thanks for making me smile.
David: You may not be a lawyer. Scott understands the consequence of such an outburst of frustration, when trying to make a case, and when trying to persuade strangers of a point.
Scott: I would to hear you address the concept of coming to the nuisance, and whether the laywers had notice of it, prior to taking the apartment.
If you’re smiling, my life’s mission is done. All comments are for Entertainment Purposes Only. That is my disclaimer. I would love to hear why Scott has his prominent disclaimer. Is he really afraid of being sued for the totally satirical stuff he writes about people already in the news? Is he afraid of being prosecuted for the unauthorized practice of law in a state where he does not have a license? Then, he has never heard of the oppression of the lawyer by the lawyer hierarchy?
I can see both sides of things. I smoke, and I am a mother of a small child. I do not think at all that there is anything wrong with what you want. To be able to breath fresh air. I have never smoked inside my own apartment at all, even with the 3 sets of stairs to go down. I choose to endure the smoke myself, and myself only it will be.
SC, can you tell us more about the supernatural central doctrines?
This behavior makes me ashamed of my profession and my peers. There’s no logic here. There’s no legal reasoning or professionalism. It’s blatant use of the economic realities of litigation to force someone into complying with demands. I hope I never turn into this kind of lawyer. Shame on you. Shame on you for sullying yourself, your firm, and our profession.
Sue sue sue like $cientologist do!
You’re both lawyers and obviously have money so why not move? Even if it’s just to another place in the building or slightly down the road. You have to be hypersensitive to smoke to worry about that minuscule amount that goes into the hallway, and that’s your cross to bear. Pack your stuff and go elsewhere. Remember she was there first and you apparently didn’t do enough research on the location before you moved in so I say it’s your own fault.
“roughly half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were lawyers.”
They all also, I believe, agreed that only landowners ought to vote: That is, to have a say in passing legislation, among other things. In other words, poor people didn’t deserve to run the country, only the lawyers did.
The conspiracy theory pretty much writes itself; though it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just lawyers using the only tool they know how to get what they want. Don’t tell me they asked her to, nicely, either; I bet it was nice in lawyer terms, but a letter in lawyerspeak isn’t really friendly to most people. Next, they had the condominium board pass a resolution against her: that’s effectively ganging the whole floor up on her and passing a law just against her.
Regardless, I don’t think any of them are people I’d want to live around. Not the old woman who doesn’t listen when you tell her how to live her life, not the yuppies who get annoyed and sue other people.
Stossel DID do a good job invoking the Chungs, though. Great bit of fearmongering. One can only hope that’ll have a chilling effect!
Yoji
This might come as a shock to you, but many companies are legally dumping toxins into city air and no one says a peep about it.
Also, I recall when AIDS hit. We had a plague on our hands that could have turned into something like the one which wiped out two-thirds of England and Europe in the middle ages. We did not know how it was spread. We had no way to fight it. The absolutely dumbest and most irresponsible action I came across a few years after AIDS hit was a lawyer taking the case of a lady, whose AIDS infected child had been removed from school for the safety of others.
REMEMBER, we still were not sure as to how it spread.
The lawyer convinced the courts that the kids civil rights had been besmirched or violated, that singling him out was discrimination, that he had a right to a public education, there was no real proof that AIDS could be spread without direct contact, this was mental cruelty, a denial of his constitutional rights — and so on, and on, and on.
He won the case. The kid got back in school.
He never considered the fact that if AIDS turned out to be as contagious as the Bubonic Plague, he had just basically killed nearly every kid in the school. The idiot judges sided for the kids rights instead of the safety of the community.
Second hand smoke is not the lethal biotoxin that you’ve been led to believe. The smoke coming off a charcoal brick fed BBQ is worse, especially when using cheap coal. (Ever wondered why the bags tell you NOT to dump the ashes in vegetable gardens or around fruit plants? Heavy metals.)
Been near a popular body of water where boats are common lately? Ever notice all of those ‘trails’ in the water or the occasional rainbow sheen? Engine oil polluting the waters, since the majority of private boats vent their exhausts under the surface and small ones use a mix of oil and gas.
That’s a lot more harmful than some old lady blowing smoke out of her apartment or some of it seeping into a common hallway.
Boy, Scott. You sure got something started.
That’s because I’m provocative. Frankly, I always find it fascinating to learn what people think and how they arrive at their conclusions, regardless of what that may be.
Lawyers: Can’t Live With Them
But won’t live without them. There have been a few posts lately that have (inexplicably) brought out a wild crowd of readers and commenters. A few post mortum thoughts seem appropriate.First, it’s important to recognize that this is not a representative sampling of the lay view of lawyers. These are people who have sought out the subject to read further about it, then gone the extra step of leaving a comment. Most people, lacking either a strong interest in the subject or a need to express themselves on its, particularly to say “me too,” won’t bother. …
Lawyers: Can’t Live With Them
But won’t live without them.
Selbin Update: The Case Settles
Hat tip to
“Ansonia Smoking Lawsuit Is Settled”
A company’s donation of air purifiers helped end the legal squabble between the Manhattan neighbors (Feb. 9); smoker Galila Huff has also agreed to use a smokeless ashtray, say Jonathan and Jenny Selbin, the husband-and-wife…
Selbin Update: The Case Settles (Update)
Hat tip to
Lawyers: Can’t Live With Them
But won’t live without them.