In one short (actually, really long) month, I'll get sworn in as an attorney in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The bar exam in Massachusetts is one long horrible wait. Most other states hear their results shortly after the National Conference of Bar Examiners releases the results of the Multistate Bar Examination to the states. But at least it's over!
Soon enough, I can put up my shingle and offer legal services. Kind of like a plumber. Just not as well paid.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
How Does Law and TV's The Office Mix? That's What She Said
It may be the best legal blog in the world. That's What She Said.
As in the blog, That's What She Said. A blog that recaps each new episode of The Office and calculates the value of any litigation resulting from the activities from each episode.
For example, according to That's What She Said, Stanley would be able to recover $100K for tortious invasion of privacy from Michael Scott and Dunder-Mifflin in the Season 6 premiere Office Scuttlebutt. The blog also has helpful hints for employers on how not to commit the tortious violations that Michael Scott seems to have a particular affinity for.
As in the blog, That's What She Said. A blog that recaps each new episode of The Office and calculates the value of any litigation resulting from the activities from each episode.
For example, according to That's What She Said, Stanley would be able to recover $100K for tortious invasion of privacy from Michael Scott and Dunder-Mifflin in the Season 6 premiere Office Scuttlebutt. The blog also has helpful hints for employers on how not to commit the tortious violations that Michael Scott seems to have a particular affinity for.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
What Not to Do With Reality TV Prize Winnings
Don't invest your winnings in oxycodone for resale. Or at least, don't sell it to an undercover DEA agent.
That is what the DEA accuses Adam Jasinski of doing with his Big Brother 9 TV winnings. Jasinski apparently took his winnings and rolled it into oxycodone, then became the 21st century equivalence of the 19th century traveling medicine show, going up and down the East Coast selling it.
Now he finds himself with a court-appointed lawyer because all his money is in pill form. He should have followed his fellow Reality "star" Richard Hatch from survivor, who showed that if you break the law, break it by evading taxes on your winnings. Then you can use your winnings to hire a decent lawyer, or at least one of the not-court-appointed variety.
Of course, with the jail term for selling 2000 oxycodone pills about 20 years and the US Attorney's office's near undefeated track record in drug prosecutions, Jasinski won't be heard from anytime soon. And by then, Reality TV will hopefully be a long lost memory.
Adding insult to injury to Jasinski, given the ratings for Big Brother, most people will know Jasinski as "that idiot who turned his winnings into Federal prison" as opposed to "that idiot who won Big Brother".
That is what the DEA accuses Adam Jasinski of doing with his Big Brother 9 TV winnings. Jasinski apparently took his winnings and rolled it into oxycodone, then became the 21st century equivalence of the 19th century traveling medicine show, going up and down the East Coast selling it.
Now he finds himself with a court-appointed lawyer because all his money is in pill form. He should have followed his fellow Reality "star" Richard Hatch from survivor, who showed that if you break the law, break it by evading taxes on your winnings. Then you can use your winnings to hire a decent lawyer, or at least one of the not-court-appointed variety.
Of course, with the jail term for selling 2000 oxycodone pills about 20 years and the US Attorney's office's near undefeated track record in drug prosecutions, Jasinski won't be heard from anytime soon. And by then, Reality TV will hopefully be a long lost memory.
Adding insult to injury to Jasinski, given the ratings for Big Brother, most people will know Jasinski as "that idiot who turned his winnings into Federal prison" as opposed to "that idiot who won Big Brother".
Monday, October 19, 2009
More UMass Law School Madness
Today the Boston Globe has an article purportedly explaining the critics of a UMass law school. However, the article then speaks about how the new low priced UMass law school would help lawyers who wouldn't otherwise be able to pursue public interest law into public interest. A couple more points on why a UMass law school is a bad idea.
1. Despite the fact that Southern New England would "become" UMass law and despite the fact that it sounds like this would not really create a new law school, Massachusetts would in fact be creating a new law school through ABA accreditation. There are two tiers of law schools, ABA and non-ABA. The ABA ones count, the non-ABA ones do not. Right now, Southern NE grads can only take the bar exam in MA and CT. A UMass law school would seek ABA accreditation and would be in effect be adding a law school to the list of "real" law schools in Massachusetts.
2. A $24,000 tuition will drive ZERO more lawyers into public interest law. If UMass is serious about driving public interest students to its law school it should do what Cal-Irvine did, give free tuition to its entire opening class. $24,000 tuition means that after three years of tuition and expenses, a UMass graduate will likely have $80-100K in law school debt at graduation.
3. Assuming that these grads have undergrad debt, and UMass law students will be just in need of real jobs as every other law graduate in Massachusetts, and unless UMass law were to raise the millions of dollars needed to finance loan repayment, the only way UMass law accomplishes that is by using tax money. The UMass people are adamant that their plan won't cost public money, but there is no chance it won't. If not on loan repayment, on scholarships or capital contributions or anything to drive people to UMass.
4. Massachusetts already have law schools dedicated to public interest law. Harvard and Northeastern specially, but the other Massachusetts law schools already turn out hundreds of public interest lawyers every year. The restriction on the amount of public interest jobs out there has nothing to do with the number of lawyers, it has to do with the amount of money that public interest employers have. If the state really were interested in the number of public interest lawyers, they would put money in the budget for hiring public defenders, not take over a 5th rate law school.
5. Criticism of the UMass law school by legislators is not just because they went to private law schools supposedly "threatened" by a UMass law school. It is because it is a bad idea. In this economy, a new law school makes no sense, especially when the motivation behind it is as a profit center to UMass-Dartmouth. It will be selling false hope to prospective lawyers that a low debt load will be more help to them than internship opportunities and a thriving alumni community.
Obviously, these are but a few reasons for not adding a UMass law school, but these are clearly some of the most obvious.
1. Despite the fact that Southern New England would "become" UMass law and despite the fact that it sounds like this would not really create a new law school, Massachusetts would in fact be creating a new law school through ABA accreditation. There are two tiers of law schools, ABA and non-ABA. The ABA ones count, the non-ABA ones do not. Right now, Southern NE grads can only take the bar exam in MA and CT. A UMass law school would seek ABA accreditation and would be in effect be adding a law school to the list of "real" law schools in Massachusetts.
2. A $24,000 tuition will drive ZERO more lawyers into public interest law. If UMass is serious about driving public interest students to its law school it should do what Cal-Irvine did, give free tuition to its entire opening class. $24,000 tuition means that after three years of tuition and expenses, a UMass graduate will likely have $80-100K in law school debt at graduation.
3. Assuming that these grads have undergrad debt, and UMass law students will be just in need of real jobs as every other law graduate in Massachusetts, and unless UMass law were to raise the millions of dollars needed to finance loan repayment, the only way UMass law accomplishes that is by using tax money. The UMass people are adamant that their plan won't cost public money, but there is no chance it won't. If not on loan repayment, on scholarships or capital contributions or anything to drive people to UMass.
4. Massachusetts already have law schools dedicated to public interest law. Harvard and Northeastern specially, but the other Massachusetts law schools already turn out hundreds of public interest lawyers every year. The restriction on the amount of public interest jobs out there has nothing to do with the number of lawyers, it has to do with the amount of money that public interest employers have. If the state really were interested in the number of public interest lawyers, they would put money in the budget for hiring public defenders, not take over a 5th rate law school.
5. Criticism of the UMass law school by legislators is not just because they went to private law schools supposedly "threatened" by a UMass law school. It is because it is a bad idea. In this economy, a new law school makes no sense, especially when the motivation behind it is as a profit center to UMass-Dartmouth. It will be selling false hope to prospective lawyers that a low debt load will be more help to them than internship opportunities and a thriving alumni community.
Obviously, these are but a few reasons for not adding a UMass law school, but these are clearly some of the most obvious.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
No Public Massachusetts Law Schools
Tim Cahill is right, Massachusetts does not need a public law school. Sure, the idea of getting to go to law school without incurring that much more debt is appealing, but students to the proposed UMass law school would not be getting much for their dollar.
For one, Massachusetts should not be spending tens of millions of dollars to get the Southern New England School of Law up to snuff for ABA accreditation. UMass-Dartmouth says it won't be spending state money, only university money to get the law school improved, but university money comes from the state one way or another. Massachusetts does not need to spend the money because there are already a myriad of choices of law schools in Massachusetts, whether they are Harvard, Boston College, Suffolk, Western New England or the others. If a student can't spend the money for law school and does not care about ABA accreditation, Mass School of Law in Andover is an option to go to law school inexpensively without sacrificing the ability to take the bar exam in Massachusetts. For the first few years, the proposed law school would likely not be even provisionally accredited by the ABA, a status given to most new law schools like Drexel and Cal-Irvine that are likely to be accredited on the standard ABA timetable.
The UMass law school is not needed because there is no need for more lawyers than the current law schools provide. A UMass law school would be a patronage dump for legislator/attorneys who leave office. UMass claims that the $24,000 tuition would more than cover the cost of attendance, and would turn the law school into a profit center, which would create more patronage hires in UMass. If students have a legitimate financial need in attending law school, the current private law schools already have many aid packages available for qualified students, from need based grants to zero interest loans to loan repayment assistance. A UMass law school is likely to not offer any of these options. People who go to law school have many options to cut their tuition expenses down, and don't need to resort to going to a public law school.
The UMass law school will be in Dartmouth. This will put the students at a severe disadvantage. All other ABA accredited Massachusetts law schools are in major population centers, either Boston or Springfield, giving law students ample opportunity to supplement their education with internships and employment after the first year. A law school in Dartmouth will be too far from the Boston market and the Providence market to give the students any real chance to participate in meaningful clinics, clerkships and other externships. UMass law students will graduate with fewer skills than current law students because of this.
It is a huge red flag that the law school UMass wants to acquire, Southern New England School of Law, is willing to turn over all its assets to UMass, including its cash, for $0. This makes clear that the administration, the physical plant, the facilities and the people clearly are nowhere close to making the law school ABA ready, and it will cost much more than the tens of millions that UMass claims will take to get the school accredited. Accreditation will still make the law school the worst ABA law school in Massachusetts, and without replacing almost the entire faculty and facilities, will ensure that a UMass law school will be a symbol of mediocrity. A mediocre UMass law school would bring down the reputation of all other UMass schools, from UMass-Amherst to UMass Medical School.
As a UMass-Boston and Suffolk Law School graduate, a UMass law school will cause much more damage to the UMass name than challenge Suffolk Law for law students. A Suffolk Law school will thrive even if UMass creates a law school because of its location, faculty and huge alumni base located within Massachusetts. UMass-Boston will only be lumped in with another mediocre school and will be guilty of mediocrity by association with a UMass law school. A public law school in Massachusetts is a mistake for these, and many other, reasons.
For one, Massachusetts should not be spending tens of millions of dollars to get the Southern New England School of Law up to snuff for ABA accreditation. UMass-Dartmouth says it won't be spending state money, only university money to get the law school improved, but university money comes from the state one way or another. Massachusetts does not need to spend the money because there are already a myriad of choices of law schools in Massachusetts, whether they are Harvard, Boston College, Suffolk, Western New England or the others. If a student can't spend the money for law school and does not care about ABA accreditation, Mass School of Law in Andover is an option to go to law school inexpensively without sacrificing the ability to take the bar exam in Massachusetts. For the first few years, the proposed law school would likely not be even provisionally accredited by the ABA, a status given to most new law schools like Drexel and Cal-Irvine that are likely to be accredited on the standard ABA timetable.
The UMass law school is not needed because there is no need for more lawyers than the current law schools provide. A UMass law school would be a patronage dump for legislator/attorneys who leave office. UMass claims that the $24,000 tuition would more than cover the cost of attendance, and would turn the law school into a profit center, which would create more patronage hires in UMass. If students have a legitimate financial need in attending law school, the current private law schools already have many aid packages available for qualified students, from need based grants to zero interest loans to loan repayment assistance. A UMass law school is likely to not offer any of these options. People who go to law school have many options to cut their tuition expenses down, and don't need to resort to going to a public law school.
The UMass law school will be in Dartmouth. This will put the students at a severe disadvantage. All other ABA accredited Massachusetts law schools are in major population centers, either Boston or Springfield, giving law students ample opportunity to supplement their education with internships and employment after the first year. A law school in Dartmouth will be too far from the Boston market and the Providence market to give the students any real chance to participate in meaningful clinics, clerkships and other externships. UMass law students will graduate with fewer skills than current law students because of this.
It is a huge red flag that the law school UMass wants to acquire, Southern New England School of Law, is willing to turn over all its assets to UMass, including its cash, for $0. This makes clear that the administration, the physical plant, the facilities and the people clearly are nowhere close to making the law school ABA ready, and it will cost much more than the tens of millions that UMass claims will take to get the school accredited. Accreditation will still make the law school the worst ABA law school in Massachusetts, and without replacing almost the entire faculty and facilities, will ensure that a UMass law school will be a symbol of mediocrity. A mediocre UMass law school would bring down the reputation of all other UMass schools, from UMass-Amherst to UMass Medical School.
As a UMass-Boston and Suffolk Law School graduate, a UMass law school will cause much more damage to the UMass name than challenge Suffolk Law for law students. A Suffolk Law school will thrive even if UMass creates a law school because of its location, faculty and huge alumni base located within Massachusetts. UMass-Boston will only be lumped in with another mediocre school and will be guilty of mediocrity by association with a UMass law school. A public law school in Massachusetts is a mistake for these, and many other, reasons.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Tinfoil Hat Patrol, Vol. 1
In the first of what is likely an irregular series, I bring you The Tin-Foil Hat Patrol. This will place the spotlight on those conspiracy theories who use the legal system against the government in ways that show these pro se patriots clearly are a few eggs short of a dozen.
Meet Anthony P. Keyter. He has sued and sought criminal charges, among other things, from the following: George W. Bush; Bush, John Roberts, Alberto Gonzales and Robert Mueller; John McCain; Boeing; 230 Government Officers; John Ashcroft; Maureen Keyter (his likely ex-wife); Air India; Ford Motor Company; "443 Known Insurgents"; and the 535 members of the 110th Congress. According to him, 14,589 conspirators have conspired against him, 14,535 government officials and 54 others.
Now I know you must be thinking, "Just think of the legal fees he must be generating?" Alas, he is going pro se, partially because he likely cannot afford the fees and partially because no lawyer outside of a sanitarium would give Keyter the time of day.
Why not give Keyter the time of day? Well, he claims that George Bush ordered no action to be taken on this conspiracy to murden him despite Keyser's 64 letters to Bush regarding it. Keyter claims that the Supreme Court illegally removed evidence and failed to recuse all of its justices in the criminal complaint he filed with the Supreme Court against all of the justices for the supposed crimes the Court committed against him related to the attempt on Keyser's life.
These are just the tip of the iceberg. Keyser complains that on the eve of his Supreme Court filing against Bush, White House aides contacted Boeing with a scheme to kidnap him. The kidnapping failed, so they tried again, and in doing so ruined Keyser's career at Boeing. Somehow he also mentions that he was assigned to train Air India pilots to fly Boeing planes, and because he pointed out that the Indian pilots were lax on safety regulations, Air India told Boeing what had happened and Boeing and the US Government got together to attempt to kill him. Yikes.
Keyser claims that all law and order organizations in the government have refused to investigate his attempted kidnapping, so this means that the President, Congress and the heads of all Executive Agencies were involved in a Seditious Conspiracy to refuse to enforce the laws on the books. Keyser claims that President Obama was informed of the government's murder plot against Keyser in a meeting on January 7.
Yes, this is all a pretty rambling, silly synopsis of what he claims is the conspiracy directed by the tens of thousands of government officials against him. However, please understand that I take this information from his own synposis of his cases, and they are written by someone who clearly writes without regard for brevity or clarity.
Why does he sue everyone? Well, according to a judicial order in the Western District of Washington, it has all snowballed from the original divorce lawsuit against his ex-wife. When he got an unfavorable ruling, he appeared to take it out on an increasing number of people who were causing him problems in his divorce case. As the judge in Washington says:
Mr. Keyter was dissatisfied with the result of his divorce, and blamed the presiding judge, his former wife, and her attorney for the outcome. He then embarked on a campaign of communicating with government officials in an effort to correct what he believed to be a miscarriage of justice. When his efforts were unsuccessful, he named each of the officials with whom he communicated as a coconspirator. Numerous iterations of this process have led to Mr. Keyter’s current allegations, contained in a three volume “Dossier of Crimes” which he has filed in each of these cases.
As the court illustrates, it is evidently a natural progession from a divorce dispute gone wrong to an international conspiracy to kidnap and murder him at the highest levels of government. The judge also noted that Keyser's case could not be transferred to another judge in the district because every other judge in the district was already a co-conspirator in one of Keyser's lawsuits. Keyser continued to file these lawsuits despite the fact that the the Western District of Washington has barred him from filing these suits in the district any longer, and this order issued by the judge in August may have been the last straw.
Keyser seems to have figured out that his welcome was worn out in Washington, so he has filed criminal charges against all his conspirators now in the District of Massachusetts. This is despite the fact that a judge in Washington has told him private citizens cannot privately file criminal charges against others, even if they are not of the baseless sort that Keyser files.
What exactly does Keyser want to accomplish? I fail to believe even that the likely insane such as Keyser think that the same very courts who Keyser claims to be engaged in a conspiracy against him will grant him the relief that he seeks. If Keyser really believes that the Supreme Court is out to get him and that they destroy his filings and evidence and give the executive branch information about him, does he really think that the Supreme Court would allow Keyser to win a suit, either criminal or civil, in a district court? Or that Obama would not pardon anyone convicted in an attempt to kidnap Keyser. After all, Obama has knowledge and is complicit in all of this, according to Keyser. I fail to see what it is Keyser thinks he is accomplishing. He may be missing a few eggs, but he isn't completely clueless.
That may be the most insane part of Keyser. All governmental institutions are against Keyser, so he seeks redress in another governmental institution? Keyser thinks the judiciary is against him! It sounds like he is just going to go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction filing the same tired complaints until someone issues him a Bar Order. The problem is that the places he file suit just transfers the suits back to Washington, where the judges there have incredible restraint.
Keyser clearly needs to be doing something else with his time, but as long as he continues to file criminal charges against his past-employer, he likely won't be working any time soon.
Meet Anthony P. Keyter. He has sued and sought criminal charges, among other things, from the following: George W. Bush; Bush, John Roberts, Alberto Gonzales and Robert Mueller; John McCain; Boeing; 230 Government Officers; John Ashcroft; Maureen Keyter (his likely ex-wife); Air India; Ford Motor Company; "443 Known Insurgents"; and the 535 members of the 110th Congress. According to him, 14,589 conspirators have conspired against him, 14,535 government officials and 54 others.
Now I know you must be thinking, "Just think of the legal fees he must be generating?" Alas, he is going pro se, partially because he likely cannot afford the fees and partially because no lawyer outside of a sanitarium would give Keyter the time of day.
Why not give Keyter the time of day? Well, he claims that George Bush ordered no action to be taken on this conspiracy to murden him despite Keyser's 64 letters to Bush regarding it. Keyter claims that the Supreme Court illegally removed evidence and failed to recuse all of its justices in the criminal complaint he filed with the Supreme Court against all of the justices for the supposed crimes the Court committed against him related to the attempt on Keyser's life.
These are just the tip of the iceberg. Keyser complains that on the eve of his Supreme Court filing against Bush, White House aides contacted Boeing with a scheme to kidnap him. The kidnapping failed, so they tried again, and in doing so ruined Keyser's career at Boeing. Somehow he also mentions that he was assigned to train Air India pilots to fly Boeing planes, and because he pointed out that the Indian pilots were lax on safety regulations, Air India told Boeing what had happened and Boeing and the US Government got together to attempt to kill him. Yikes.
Keyser claims that all law and order organizations in the government have refused to investigate his attempted kidnapping, so this means that the President, Congress and the heads of all Executive Agencies were involved in a Seditious Conspiracy to refuse to enforce the laws on the books. Keyser claims that President Obama was informed of the government's murder plot against Keyser in a meeting on January 7.
Yes, this is all a pretty rambling, silly synopsis of what he claims is the conspiracy directed by the tens of thousands of government officials against him. However, please understand that I take this information from his own synposis of his cases, and they are written by someone who clearly writes without regard for brevity or clarity.
Why does he sue everyone? Well, according to a judicial order in the Western District of Washington, it has all snowballed from the original divorce lawsuit against his ex-wife. When he got an unfavorable ruling, he appeared to take it out on an increasing number of people who were causing him problems in his divorce case. As the judge in Washington says:
Mr. Keyter was dissatisfied with the result of his divorce, and blamed the presiding judge, his former wife, and her attorney for the outcome. He then embarked on a campaign of communicating with government officials in an effort to correct what he believed to be a miscarriage of justice. When his efforts were unsuccessful, he named each of the officials with whom he communicated as a coconspirator. Numerous iterations of this process have led to Mr. Keyter’s current allegations, contained in a three volume “Dossier of Crimes” which he has filed in each of these cases.
As the court illustrates, it is evidently a natural progession from a divorce dispute gone wrong to an international conspiracy to kidnap and murder him at the highest levels of government. The judge also noted that Keyser's case could not be transferred to another judge in the district because every other judge in the district was already a co-conspirator in one of Keyser's lawsuits. Keyser continued to file these lawsuits despite the fact that the the Western District of Washington has barred him from filing these suits in the district any longer, and this order issued by the judge in August may have been the last straw.
Keyser seems to have figured out that his welcome was worn out in Washington, so he has filed criminal charges against all his conspirators now in the District of Massachusetts. This is despite the fact that a judge in Washington has told him private citizens cannot privately file criminal charges against others, even if they are not of the baseless sort that Keyser files.
What exactly does Keyser want to accomplish? I fail to believe even that the likely insane such as Keyser think that the same very courts who Keyser claims to be engaged in a conspiracy against him will grant him the relief that he seeks. If Keyser really believes that the Supreme Court is out to get him and that they destroy his filings and evidence and give the executive branch information about him, does he really think that the Supreme Court would allow Keyser to win a suit, either criminal or civil, in a district court? Or that Obama would not pardon anyone convicted in an attempt to kidnap Keyser. After all, Obama has knowledge and is complicit in all of this, according to Keyser. I fail to see what it is Keyser thinks he is accomplishing. He may be missing a few eggs, but he isn't completely clueless.
That may be the most insane part of Keyser. All governmental institutions are against Keyser, so he seeks redress in another governmental institution? Keyser thinks the judiciary is against him! It sounds like he is just going to go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction filing the same tired complaints until someone issues him a Bar Order. The problem is that the places he file suit just transfers the suits back to Washington, where the judges there have incredible restraint.
Keyser clearly needs to be doing something else with his time, but as long as he continues to file criminal charges against his past-employer, he likely won't be working any time soon.
Monday, October 5, 2009
FTC Mandating Blogger Disclosure
The Federal Trade Commission, known for going after scan artists around the country, has taken on another scourge: bloggers. The FTC, through amending the myriad of regulations that they maintain, has stated that blogs must disclose when reviews of products are paid or when bloggers talk about items given to them free from companies. Naturally, they use the threat of fines that could total $11K for failing to disclose freebies.
What a waste of regulatory paper. People don't need to see a disclosure when determining whether there is bias in a review. People are smart enough to think that something may be unusual when someone is gushing about a product. Even if someone can't determine when one review may be biased, reading a blogger's aggregate work makes it very unlikely anyone has ever been fooled by a paid-off blogger.
However, those who complain to the FTC fall in two groups: stupid and lonely. Those are the people the FTC seeks to protect. So some idiot is now saved from believing a review.
The problem is that lots of legitimate bloggers have to worry that they aren't sufficiently disclosing. Take Christopher Elliott, of www.elliott.org. He reviews hotels and resorts in Florida and other places around the country, as well as acting as a consumer travel advocate. It's quite obvious that the places he reviews either comp his stay or discount it. Over the years, it is clear it does not influence him. Now he has to place a disclaimer, quite possibly on every blog he writes that reviews something, specifying that he received a discount or free stay.
Another reason bureaucracy just makes things worse.
What a waste of regulatory paper. People don't need to see a disclosure when determining whether there is bias in a review. People are smart enough to think that something may be unusual when someone is gushing about a product. Even if someone can't determine when one review may be biased, reading a blogger's aggregate work makes it very unlikely anyone has ever been fooled by a paid-off blogger.
However, those who complain to the FTC fall in two groups: stupid and lonely. Those are the people the FTC seeks to protect. So some idiot is now saved from believing a review.
The problem is that lots of legitimate bloggers have to worry that they aren't sufficiently disclosing. Take Christopher Elliott, of www.elliott.org. He reviews hotels and resorts in Florida and other places around the country, as well as acting as a consumer travel advocate. It's quite obvious that the places he reviews either comp his stay or discount it. Over the years, it is clear it does not influence him. Now he has to place a disclaimer, quite possibly on every blog he writes that reviews something, specifying that he received a discount or free stay.
Another reason bureaucracy just makes things worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
