California criminal law

Gym, Tan, Laundry….Lawsuit

There’s quite a “situation” brewing over phrases like “Gym, Tan Laundry (GTL)” and “Twinning”. Pun most definitely intended. MTV’s parent company, Viacom is in the process of thwarting Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino’s plans to capitalize on these catchphrases he made famous playing ~~a suuuuuper-tanned-and-muscular dude with abs of steel and hair of glue~~ himself on MTV’s reality show Jersey Shore.

Specifically, The Situation recently filed paperwork to trademark the phrase “Twinning” with the hope to plaster it on shirts, stickers, folders, and whatever else the tweens need these days as they prepare to go back to school. For those keeping score, “Twinning” is a portmanteau (the act of making two words into one) inspired by a “winning” moment on the show during an escapade with twins. “Twins! Winning! Twinning!” Voila.

But what The Situation may have in the sculpted abdomen department, he clearly lacks in contract-reading ability. Like most every reality “star” before him, prior to filming the inaugural season of Shore, Sorrentino signed a contract which, by its terms, granted the rights in “all ideas, gags, suggestions, themes, plots, stories, characters, characterizations, dialogue, text, designs, graphics, titles, drawings, artwork, digital works, songs, music, photography, video, film and other material whether or not fixed or reduced to drawing or writing, at any time heretofore or hereafter created or contributed by me which in any way relate to ["Jersey Shore"]… .”

So…yeah, basically everything he says, does, writes, eats, poops, and drinks in front of those omnipresent cameras is owned by MTV. Including (but not limited to) “Twinning,” of course.

Here’s the thing about contracts: they’re awesome. The reason we enter into contracts is to dictate actions in the future and spell out the consequences for acting contrary to the agreement (if such penalty isn’t dictated by a statute, ordinance, or other regulation).

We enter into contracts every day. Next time you hastily pull into that parking spot in the mall, before you bolt out to scout the aisles of Nordstrom and Victoria’s Secret, read the back of your parking ticket. Notice that by taking that little ticket, the premises owner explicitly limits its liability—for theft, water damage, fire, or anything else that might go wrong while you diligently search for deals on designer goods and eat soft, fluffy cinnamon pretzel bites. Chances are you didn’t even read the contract. You surely didn’t go over the terms with your lawyer (Shame on you!).

When you got home from the mall, you probably installed the latest version of iTunes. Remember checking the box at the bottom and agreeing to “all the terms and conditions” before the download would commence? That, too, was a contract (with definitions of future conduct and how to proceed when unforeseen things may go awry).

But, for better or for worse, The Situation’s contract is wayyyyyy more valuable than a parking ticket contract or your iTunes contract. The potential for ca$h that may be generated from “Twinning” is a much bigger deal to a great number of important people than the liability potential of someone vandalizing your Honda Civic. And for that reason, Sorrentino was given a detailed contract (and presumably reviewed it with competent counsel) with clear-as-day language in it.

Why he’s trying to misappropriate catchphrases that clearly stopped belonging to him the moment they left his lips is confusing, and it’s ultimately a big waste of time, lawyering, and money.

That said….dude’s got great abs. There is no denying that.

Drug Reform: Coming Soon in CA?

Earlier this week, a proposal was presented in California that would reduce the charge for possession of heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine, from a felony to a misdemeanor.

The Senate Public Safety Committee voted 4-2 to approve measure SB 156.

Wait…so…..the public safety peeps in the California senate think that the decriminalization of drugs is…good for public safety?

Without a doubt.

Here’s the deal. As the law stands right now, possession of these “hard” drugs is absolutely fatal for users. Let’s say you’re a cocaine addict. You get nabbed with an 8-ball, you’re definitely going to have some consequences, like jail (or even prison), drug programs, possibly community labor, or some combination thereof. But the truly insurmountable part of the sentence is the formal probation. Formal probation means that your probationary period is “supervised” by the court and by a probation officer. This means that with any little slip up, your butt is going right back into jail or prison. Each time you slip up, the judges and prosecutors become increasingly less patient with you, and the penalties become harsher and harsher.

Formal probation is a vicious cycle for heroin, meth, and coke users. Because of the chemical effect on their systems, the urge to use is stronger than any other urge, want, or need (like following the law, orders of the court or probation, eating, sleeping, or having meaningful relationships with others). On formal probation, there are just too many ways for the users to violate: getting arrested with drugs in their possession; failing a random drug screening; committing some other crime related to their drug use (robbery, burglary, DUI).

Some might say, “OK, isn’t having drug-using criminals ‘on the hook’ for their behavior a good thing? Getting drug users off the streets and into prison means less drugs on the street and less crime in our communities, right?”

Wrong.

Putting a user in the penal system is pretty much like putting a hamster on a hamster wheel. He’s gonna’ just run and run and run until he’s got nothing left in the tank. On formal probation, the user won’t be any more inclined to stay out of trouble because of the potential for incarceration. On the contrary, because he knows that incarceration is all but a sure bet for any misstep, he will go about finding and using drugs with brazen, callous disregard for his community and for the people around him. He’ll use and use and use and use until he’s back in prison.

These users aren’t just users. They’re addicts.

The idea of treating addiction with formal probation and the threat of jail time makes about as much sense as fighting the obesity epidemic with liposuction. Extra fat may be what’s visible, but the dangerous cholesterol levels, unhealthy relationships with food, and diabetes lurking in the wings are still very, very dangerous, and very, very costly to society.

Addicts need treatment. Not jail. Whether addicts are wreaking havoc on our streets or rotting in jail, our current (and very flawed) system does not adequately address the stuff making them addicts—the emotional stuff, the family stuff, the societal stuff. Reducing possession of these now “major” drug possession crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor will take these addicts off of the formal probation hamster wheel, and onto a path of addiction treatment and true recovery. These addicts will get a chance to change the destructive patterns in their lives without the fear of long prison terms.

It costs about $47,000 per year to house an inmate in California. $47,000!! Imagine if an addict received $47,000 per year of counseling, treatment, community intervention, healthy lifestyle coaching, yoga, and other ways to break the vicious cycle of addiction. Hopefully, SB 156 will be adopted and that money can provide treatment for those addicts who so desperately need it. Then we can begin addressing the underlying problems so pervasive in our jails, prisons, and communities. Then, we can really improve public safety.