How many readers will believe me when I say that prior to her new media “exposure” I had never heard of Erin Andrews.  It’s true.  It may seem even more astounding being related to the owner of a professional sports franchise and being a self professed sports fan.

Prior to this incident I would not be able to pick her out in a crowded locker room other than saying “that women standing over there holding a mic and interviewing the guy wearing nothing but a jock strap is hot“.   Someone would say, “that’s ESPN anchor Erin Andrews” I would say “who“?   They would say “the one voted “the hottest sports anchor on television“. I would say, oh, that Erin Andrews.  Who is that again?”

That’s just me. Maybe I just do not watch much ESPN unless the Mavs are playing. Maybe it comes from being at more events than I watch at television.  I tend focus on the action on the court or the field and hit the head when there is a break.   Maybe I am just to old to notice.  If you ask me who Al Michaels or  John Madden are I can talk your ear off.  If you ask me who Bob Ortegal or Mark Followill(The Mavs television and radio play by play announcers) , I am right there with you.

Erin Andrews?  “Miss Peephole 2009″?  Never heard of her.  Until now.

Ms. Andrews, an ESPN anchor apparently known to every horny male in the world but me found out the hard way to stay clear of the “no-bootie zone” in view of  her hotel room peep hole when “celebrating her birthday.”

Pinhole videos and still shots of her walking around her hotel room nude showed up on a web site prompting a letter from ESPN general counsel to the site owner.

I am the General Counsel of ESPN, Inc. It has come to my attention that you have posted on your site pictures of a young, blonde woman at [redacted]. These pictures were obviously taken through a peephole or otherwise in a fashion constituting a trespass/assault on the rights of the woman involved. Your continued posting of these pictures are highly likely to render you an accessory after the fact to a criminal act. We hereby demand that you (i) immediately remove these pictures from your site and (ii) disclose to us the source of the pictures. We intend to hold you fully responsible for further display of material that so obviously violates the law.

Please confirm by return e-mail that you intend to comply with these demands. In the absence of such confirmation we will assume you are an active and willing participant in these acts

Hawkworths own attorney also released  a statement:

“While alone in the privacy of her hotel room, Erin Andrews was surreptitiously videotaped without her knowledge or consent. She was the victim of a crime and is taking action to protect herself and help ensure that others are not similary violated in the future. Although the perpetrator or perpetrators of this criminal act have not yet been identified, when they are identified she intends to bring both civil and criminal charges against them and against anyone who has published the material. We request respect of Erin’s privacy at this time, while she and her representatives are working with the authorities.”"

Will these “peephole perverts” be brought to justice?   The authorities are reportedly hot on the their trail.  There apparently have been enough electronics footprints and other evidence that I expect the perv or pervs responsible will either be caught or turn themselves in in the hopes of avoiding starring in their own involuntary perv-peep shower room show at the local state or federal penitentiary.

The current theory appears to be that the person or people involved were part of the ESPN production team working with Ms. Andrews.   Given that the video was shot at two different hotels, this would make sense.  The simplest explanation is usually the answer and that is simpler than a stalker following her around or some hotel employee conspiracy.

It is also appears unclear whether the one or all of the videos where taken through the hotel room peephole or holes drilled in the hotel room wall.  If it is the latter, the criminal responsibility attached to the acts would in my humble opinion change drastically to the detriment of the peepers.  When you start drilling holes into a room you do not have an ownership interest in for the purpose of making an illegal recording or taking an illegal photograph a true legal expectation of privacy comes into play along with what I would imagine are a whole slew of criminal statutes going beyond simple peeping.

What about the owner of the site where the videos and stills were posted?  Is he in hot water?

The bottom line is that as long as the web site owner is not a “content provider” under Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act,  he/she is probably going to be immune from civil or criminal liability.  If the owner is deemed to be a “content provider” meaning the person actually provides content to the site and exercises a certain level of  editorial control over what is on the site beyond what is stated in the act,  that person will be open to whatever liability attaches to his posting of the videos and stills.

I suspect it will not be long before the culpable peepers are apprehended and they will ultimately get to enjoy all the unobstructed peeping their hearts desire in  the shower room of a federal or state prison as they should. They will reap what they sowed. Maybe part of their sentence should be to stand naked in NYC Times Square every day for a month or so right next to the Singing Cowboy.  On second thought, Times Square passers by would treat it as business as usual…

The bright side to this sordid tale?  We have just found the One Million and 1st use for Post-its...(peephole covers)

Hide your dogs and cats!  Michael Vick  is a free man.   His sentence arising out of a conviction on federal dog-fighting charges has ended.  He is now free to make his case for reinstatement to the NFL.  Vick had previously been released from Federal prison to home-confinement but was required to wear an electronic ankle monitor.  He can now walk without a limp as that requirement has ended.

It is being reported that Vick will work with the Humane Society of the United States on anti dog-fighting campaigns.

It is a given that  Vick will seek to re-enter the NFL.  It has been reported that he could return to professional football as soon as September if reinstated by the NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. I frankly do not see that happening.   NFL Commissioner Goodell will certainly want his own “stupid mouth” probationary period. That is a time frame long enough to see if Vick does or says anything stupid that would be in conflict with a claim of rehabilitation and remorse.

There will  also be opposition from animal rights groups and animal lovers in general.  I count myself among the animal lovers.  Many would even consider me a “radical” animal lover.  I am both anti-hunting and horse racing.  Do not however, count me among the opposition to Michael Vick being allowed to again play professional football.

When the time comes, should Roger Goodell find that Vick is in compliance with internal NFL conduct guidelines,  I believe he  should re-instate Vick’s eligibility to play and seek NFL employment under whatever probationary terms he deems appropriate.

Anyone who knows me is probably shocked as hell to read this. I have been active in various animal rights causes and benefits.  I screamed loudest for Vick’s head on a doggie platter and a long prison sentence. I was disappointed when his state sentence ran concurrent with his federal sentence although as an attorney I was expecting just that.

I do not like Michael Vick.  I think he is a gangster thug.  I admit that I have never met him.  It does not matter.   In my mind it is res ipsa loquitur.  If you abuse animals or take pleasure from watching them abused that is all I need to know.  You are a bad person and a gangster thug.  End of story.

I  believe Michael Vick will  again end up in trouble with the law.  Why?  I believe that anyone who abuses animals or takes pleasure in watching them abused has on a certain level, a sociopath personality.  That person lacks the mental mechanism to understand societal values.  This  moral disconnect will more often than not lead to long term trouble.  You can’t grow a conscience regardless of any explanation for not having one.

With all that being said how could I possibly support Michael Vick?

I support Micheal Vick being allowed to seek employment in the NFL because I respect our justice system and the equality of judgment it is supposed to represent, even if it often does not always work out that way.  Michel Vick was judged.  He is paying his debt born out of that judgment.  Once that happens, our Constitution and justice system mandates that while we can hold opinions, express them and judge him as a person, we can no longer legally judge his act.

I am comfortable enough in my convictions in this area to know that I would never hire someone who did what he did to work for me in any capacity.  You have the right to ask me for a job.  I have the right to say no.  I have the right to bring my moral compass into play in saying no.  You have the right to find someone else to hire you in the same type of job who may view things differently than I do.

Michael Vick has paid his legal dues to society.  He should not have to pay them again in being denied the right to seek employment.  I know there will be an NFL owner or two who does not view Michael Vick the same way I do. The NFL is too competitive and the margin of error too small.  A team will give him a chance.  I won’t like it.  I however am not society’s moral gatekeeper.  The NFL and individual team owners will decide which way their own compass points.

I will say that whoever hires Michael Vick had better hope that somewhere deep inside himself  he has found the guilt ridden emotions that help shape the human conscience.  If he has not, it is a given that  he will be judged again.

The Michael Jackson death mystery continues to crescendo towards the expected announcement of his cause of death.  The announcement will have an impact on numerous level the most obvious is being any criminal liability. The announcement will also have an effect on both insurance coverage and civil liability arising out of his death.

It is being reported that concert promoter AEG spent well over $20 million in preparation for Michael Jackson’s 50-date run to have started July 13 at O2 Arena in London. The promoter sold about $85 million in tickets for Jackson’s comeback stand against an expected profit of approximately 115 million.

AEG chief exec Randy Phillips  has stated that AEG may  break even or make a profit regardless of the failed concert series. They have offered Jackson ticket buyers the choice of a refund or to receive the actual concert tickets as souvenirs in lieu of the full refunds. 

Insuring Jackson was not an easy task in itself.  With Jackson’s history of canceling concerts, AEG reportedly had trouble finding suitable insurance.  They were allegedly able to finally secure coverage for the first 23 million.

In order to get a better understanding of these issues I contacted one of the countries top producers of special events insurance.

James Chippendale is the President of  CSI Insurance Group.  They are the leading hospitality and entertainment insurance specialist in the country, placing coverage for some of the country’s top recording artists, live music venues, concert promoters, special events, nightclubs, bars and restaurants. This includes artists such as Ludacris, Busta Rhymes,Better Than Ezra, the Nation’s largest events such as Lollapalooza,Austin City Limits Music Festival and even President Obama’s Victory Party Inauguration.

What will be the primary liability and coverage issues with regards to the failed Michael Jackson concert series?

“Whether AEG had Key Man Insurance in place will be of prime importance.  AEG’s insurance carrier is no doubt anxiously awaiting the results of the toxicology report from the autopsy. The  ”key man’ insurance policy should cover accidental death. On the other hand, recovery of insurance proceeds is often prohibited  where  intentional, willful acts are involved.”

What is Key Man Insurance?

“Key man insurance is a sub-type of life insurance pout in place where one person’s skills and abilities can make an enormous financial difference”

Who Needs It?

“Key man insurance is meant to cover the company’s losses in the event of the death of a key employee or in the case of a concert the star performer or band member whose inability to perform would prevent the event from going forward.”

What Is It?

“Key man insurance is generally a term life insurance policy, with the length term being the time until that employee retires. The company pays the premiums on the policy and receives the death benefits if the key performer, Jackson in this case, unexpectedly dies.”

Will there be underwriting Issues?

“This again will ride on the results of the toxicology report.  The Insurer or insurers will no doubt be closely scrutinizing the AEG application for insurance.  They will be looking closely at all disclosed pre-existing medical conditions and drugs Jackson disclosed he was taking at the time of application.”

If the AEG insurance carrier believes there could be reason to deny coverage, what steps will they take?

“The first thing they will do and what they have probably already done is to issue what is known as a Reservation of Rights to AEG.”

What Is A Reservation Of Rights?

‘Reservation of Rights are common in the insurance industry.  It is basically a letter that would be sent from the insurer to AEG  putting them on notice that for a one or several reasons there may be no coverage for a particular claim under the insurance policy covering Jackson or other aspects of the concert.”

We have heard a  lot about AEG allegedly having coverage with “LLOYDS”.   Can you explain what Lloyds is and how it works as an insurer?

“A broker would place the risk with LLOYD’S.  In the case of the Jackson concert I believe it was Robertson Taylor.  The broker commission would be 20-25 percent”

“LLOYD’s is a network of syndicates  ( individual companies ) they each take part of the risk. An  example would be a company that needed 100,000,000 in coverage for a specialized risk that he could not obtain coverage for elsewhere.”

“Company A may take on the “lead syndicate” at 60 percent of the risk or 60k.  There could be dozens of companies below each taken on a small percentage of the risk.”

Why do companies go to LLOYD’s and not standard carriers for such coverage?

“There are only about 5 insurers in the United States that write this type of coverage. No mainstream also know as “standard market” insurer  would take this kind of risk. LLOYD’s  is the market of global choice for high risk events such as this”

Who would have insisted on a personal doctor for Michael Jackson?

“Either the insurance carrier, AEG or both”

My thoughts:

There also the looming issue of whether Michael Jackson died as a result of medical negligence.  More specifically, if he died as a result of the negligence of Dr. Conrad Murray who was allegedly hired by concert promoter AEG to monitor Jackson’s health.  This in itself will raise various insurance issues. If there was medical negligence, we will certainly see a malpractice/wrongful death suits against Dr. Conrad as well as other doctors involved.  We should also expect a suit AEG for negligence in the selection of and monitoring of  Dr. Conrad if the toxicology results so warrant.

My opinion? I am always leery of a “negligence by enabling” type  claim.  They always smell of an abrogation of personal responsibility.   When, however, you have licensed medical professionals involved the buck is supposed to stop there.  In my humble opinion, it is a treating doctor’s  ethical responsibility to put a stop to the prior medical enabling.  It was Dr. Conrad’s responsibility.  If he failed in that responsibility he should be held to the applicable standard, criminal, civil or both.

In the meantime, long after the  memory is gone the lawyers will continue to churn on….

Chief Judge Sidney Fitzwater said in a 35-page ruling released Friday that the SEC had failed to prove that Cuban, who owns the Dallas Mavericks, “undertook a duty of non-use of information required to establish liability under the misappropriation theory of insider trading.”

As the SEC has 30 days to amend the complaint, further comment by me would be inappropriate until the deadline has passed.  Here is the ruling.(PDF).