Mississippi Lawyer Blog

From everyone here at Coxwell & Associates - best wishes for a wonderful Easter weekend!
Let this video start it off with a smile....

Same sex marriage has been a hot button issue for quite some time. Last week, two major events took place on the west coast. In California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the state's ban on same sex marriages (Proposition 8) was unconstitutional. Then just one (1) day later, Washington passed a law allowing same sex couples to marry.

Prop 8 had been approved by 52% of California voters in 2008. The three judge panel declared the ban unconstitutional because it singled a specific group of individuals- in this case homosexuals- for no reason. In other words, in order to "discriminate" against a specific group of individuals, a state must have a compelling reason. The majority of the judges found California had no such reason; however, the lone dissenting judge found California's ban was constitutional because the state had an interest in the preservation of families. The judge who issued the opinion on behalf of the Ninth Circuit said the ban "serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."

Even though the Court of Appeals declared Prop 8 unconstitutional, the same sex marriage issue is far from over in California. Opponents of the decision are already planning an appeal to the United States Supreme Court to review the decision. Additionally, Judge Vaughn Walker- the judge who initially declared the ban unconstitutional at the district level (level below the Court of Appeals) in 2010- has a conflict of interest hearing set for later this year. Critics of the decision allege the Judge should have disclosed his sexual orientation due to the decision he was being asked to render. The Ninth Circuit refused to invalidate Judge Walker's decision on that basis and held a judge's sexual orientation was not a basis that would allow the court to overturn that judicial decision.

Prior to Washington's recent law, six states and the District of Columbia allowed same sex couples to marry: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. The Washington House of Representatives approved the bill last week and then the Republicans and Democrats of the Washington Senate- in a 55-43 vote- approved it. Washington Governor Chris Gregoire is set to sign the bill later this week. Yet same sex couples will not be allowed to marry until ninety (90) days after Gov. Gregoire signs the legislation. Even then, Washington voters- like the California voters in 2008- will be allowed to vote to decide whether they wish to overturn the legislature and Governor's decision to allow for same sex marriages in their state.

Mississippi currently has a ban on same sex marriages. The ban was initially issued in former Governnor Kirk Fordice's executive order in 1996. This was codified in Mississippi Code Annotated § 93-1-1 ("Any marriage between persons of the same gender is prohibited and null and void from the beginning. Any marriage between persons of the same gender that is valid in another jurisdiction does not constitute a legal or valid marriage in Mississippi.") 86% of Mississippi voters amended the Mississippi Constitution in 2004 to reflect this thereby declaring the ban appropriate. However, Mississippi does allow single homosexuals to adopt a child (Miss. Code Ann. § 93-17-3(5): "Adoption by couples of the same gender is prohibited."). The individual cannot be in a relationship or be part of a couple wishing to adopt (Miss. Code Ann. § 93-17-3: "Couples of the same gender may not adopt.")

Regardless of how you feel on the subject of same sex marriage, the debate over it in our court system does not seem to have an end in sight. Perhaps the United States Supreme Court will take California's appeal during their next session and shed light on this issue.

In September of last year I had the bright idea to start training for the Mississippi Blues Half Marathon in January. A full marathon consists of 26.2 miles, but a half marathon is only 13.1 miles. I saw a bumper sticker once that sums up the difference between the two perfectly: "13.1....because I'm only half crazy." So after 4 months of running around Jackson and the Trace, race day was upon me.

The race stretched throughout the Jackson area zigzagging through parts of State Street, Jefferson Street, Pearl Street, and Belhaven just to name a few. Now, as a Jackson resident, I was aware of our less than stellar streets. Most of the time it feels like you're driving on road that would put an old wooden roller coaster- one that throws you from side to side- to shame. Apparently race organizers had the same idea too. Race organizers started making precautions. Prior to race day, I had seen the news reports of the city filling up some areas of the race route with dirt to keep runners from tripping over potholes. They put up small barricades here and there too as extra precaution.

Well, try as they might, come race day, when 2, 572 individuals are running through the streets, those dirt filled holes and barricades weren't much use. For us clumsy folk, added potholes and bumps in the road didn't help our less than stellar race times. Certain sections of the road were closed off to traffic but at other times, cars were zooming past you. Over all, the race was a great experience and something I'd do again (remember: I'm only half crazy).

But it got me thinking. I was running along a course that had been fixed up and I still found trouble spots. What about the Jackson residents that ride their bikes or walk to work or school? They have to endure these roads and sidewalks day in and day out. It's not uncommon for a bike tire to hit a bump or a hole in the road and send you crashing to the ground. It's also not uncommon for a walker or a jogger to trip on uneven pavement in the sidewalk. As far as the zooming cars are concerned, as a cyclist in Mississippi, you are guaranteed at least three feet of space between you and the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle must reduce his speed- not zoom past you. Granted, when you are a bike it might feel like everyone is "zooming" past you. Unless you are Lance Armstrong.

Back to the road hazards. Jackson, just like other cities, has an obligation to maintain its roads and sidewalks for safe use. If the city, or governmental agency in charge of the road, fails to maintain a safe roadway, then there could possibly be an action for negligence. Of course, you would have to prove the city had notice of the road hazard and had reasonable time to fix it. By covering potholes in the street, Jackson has taken a step in fixing our roadway problems. But for a state that implemented the "Let's Go Walkin' Mississippi" program, more permanent measures should be taken. Jackson residents should not have to worry about potholes or uneven sidewalks during their commutes or exercise routines.

Everyone, from the wealthy down to the hourly worker, wants to own a home. It's the American Dream right?
Until around 15 years ago, if you didn't have money for a down payment and pretty good credit, it was almost impossible to get a mortgage. Then things started changing. Banks started approving mortgages for more and more people. Suddenly everyone could have a home of their own.
But the mortgage companies weren't being kind, they were secretly getting ruthless. They started peddline mortgages with adjustable rates, interest-only payments, and multiple-payment options. Why did they do it? Simple - to make more money.
Maybe you got one of those mortgages. There's nothing wrong with most of them. In fact, they helped millions of people finally step out from under the shadow of a landlord and get a place of their own.
The problem is that no one explained to you exactly what you were getting and what the implications of these loans really were. The loan officers and morgage brokers painted a very rosy picture telling borrowers that they could just refinance in a couple of years. Nobody told you the full story...About how refinancing depended on your home's value going up. About how your adjustable rate loan could go up every single year if you couldn't refinance. About how your principal balance would never go down and your payments could double or even triple.
Didn't the banks know people would fall behind on their mortgages? Didn't they see this coming a mile away?
Absolutely! So why did they push these loans on people? Simple. It was all about money. You see, mortgage banks knew that they could package and sell these mortgages to investors who were hungry for high-risk, big-money deals. And were not talking just about investors in the United States. Much of this investment came from hedge funds filled with money from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other far-flung parts of the world. What's incredible is that one mortgage might be divided up 30 or 40 times; little pieces held by 30 or 40 investors. This is greed in its most basic form.
If you've been watching the news at all the last couple of years, this shouldn't all be new information. So why am I going on about this? To let you know that if you are one of the millions of Americans facing foreclosure (more than likely on property that is no longer worth what it was) or are falling behind on payments not knowing how much longer it will be before the lender forecloses - that there are real ways to fight back and hold on tightly to that house you scrimped and saved for. To let you know that if you own a home in Mississippi and are ready to take control and fight for your home - pick up the phone and call me to discuss a plan of attack.

In a recent interview with CNN, Tiffany Ellis Brewer appeared to say what the media has been thinking for the past twelve weeks, "It takes 12 people to put somebody in prison and one man (the governor) gets to release him because he gave him a good car wash or served dinner right." Bear in mind, Ms. Brewer was referring to former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour's decision to pardon five individuals who served on his trusty program at the Governor's mansion. By the end of his term as Governor, Barbour granted pardons to over 200 individuals.

But with the recent media swarm around Barbour's last minute pardons, the pardon process in Mississippi has also been scrutinized. As the current Mississippi Constitution reads, the Governor is allowed to grant pardons in all criminal and penal cases- except those involving treason and impeachment. The Mississippi Constitution forbids the Governor from issuing pardons prior to an individual's conviction. Should the Governor grant a convicted felon a pardon, then written notice and reasoning behind the pardon must be published in the county where the crime occurred thirty (30) days prior to the felon's release. In the case of criminal convictions, victims of the crime have the right to be notified and submit a statement to be considered during the pardon process. Once the pardon is granted then two copies of the pardon must be filed with the Mississippi Secretary of State. One copy remains at the Secretary of State and the other is sent to the Circuit Clerk where the pardoned individual was convicted.

As Ms. Brewer's quote suggests, it appears American media outlets have latched on to the trusty program and the fact five individuals were able to benefit from their time spent working near the Governor. After all, it garnered those pardons and national attention. With media outlets and talking heads raising eyebrows at the program, Mississippi legislators have joined in the fray as well. As a result, it appears this trustee program may be on its way out in Mississippi.

Representative David Baria of Bay St. Louis is introducing bills in the House in order to do just that. Part of Baria's overhaul prohibits convicted murderers from serving as trustees. However, the trustee program already denies access to individuals convicted of sex crimes, who have been sentenced to a life term, those who have found guilty of possession or trafficking certain drugs, and apparently those convicted of homicide or attempted homicide. Baria also hopes to overhaul the pardon system in Mississippi with his proposed legislation. Another bill asks the State to provide not only notice but also hearings to the public when an individual is up for a pardon. More than that, Baria also suggests amending the Mississippi Constitution to prohibit the Governor from issuing pardons during the final ninety days he or she serves in office.

Time will tell if these proposed legislations will pass in Mississippi. But it appears the scrutiny given to Mississippi's pardon system and former Governor Barbour's 200+ pardons will continue to be a topic of national debate for a little while longer.

This week in Mississippi ex-Governor Haley Barbour pardoned over 200 people. A substantial number were convicted of murder, DUI manslaughter, manslaughter, armed robbery, and some other violent offenses. Many were also convicted of non-violent drug offenders and property crimes. These pardons made national news and touched off a fire-storm of protest across Mississippi. The families of the victims were outraged, hurt, and dismayed by Governor Barbour's actions. I listened to people on the T.V. and radio who said they had been staunch Barbour supporters but after the pardons would not support him for dog catcher. Attorney General Jim Hood filed for a Temporary Injunction and it was granted. According to Attorney General Hood many of the pardons were granted without strict compliance with the Mississippi Constitution. The Mississippi Constitution grants the Governor the power and grant reprieves. The section is quoted below in full:

Article 5, Section 124. Reprieves and pardons. In all criminal and penal cases, excepting those of treason and impeachment, the governor shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons, to remit fines, and in cases of forfeiture, to stay the collection until the end of the next session of the legislature, and by and with the consent of the senate to remit forfeitures. In cases of treason he shall have power to grant reprieves, and by and with consent of the senate, but may respite the sentence until the end of the next session of the legislature; but no pardon shall be granted before conviction; and in cases of felony, after conviction no pardon shall be granted until the applicant therefor shall have published for thirty days, in some newspaper in the county where the crime was committed, and in case there be no newspaper published in said county, then in an adjoining county, his petition for pardon, setting forth therein the reasons why such pardon should be granted. SOURCES: 1832 art V § 10; 1869 art V § 10.

The gist of Attorney General Hood's complaint is that some of the people who received pardons did not publish in the newspaper thirty (30) days before the pardons were granted. If you look at the highlighted section above you can see the Mississippi Constitution uses the word "shall" be published. This was the basis of the Temporary Restraining Order granted by Judge Green blocking the release of some inmates from prison apparently because the Attorney General could not find proof they had published in the paper. A final hearing has been set and it should be an interesting court hearing.
I would also like to direct attention to the language about pardons. One should note the Mississippi Constitution says pardons must be published. It does not say reprieves shall be published. In fact it does not place any requirement on a Governor's power to reprieve. So I would suggest the reductions of sentences and commutations that Governor Barbour granted are safe from legal attack.

Let's leave the legal aspects of the pardons and discuss the moral aspects. In order to empathize with the families who lost loved ones to a violent crime it is necessary to "crawl inside their skin" and feel what they feel. I suspect anyone of us who lost a loved one to a violent crime would want the perpetrator in jail for as long as possible. Am I right or wrong? When I put myself in the "skin of the other person" I can feel the loss, anger, and outrage. But do these natural human feelings fun counter to the tradition notions of our legal system which is founded in part on Christian principle of forgiveness and redemption?
I think it is hard to deny that our society is based on principles of forgiveness, redemption, and pardon for those who admit their wrong and apologize. Isn't the Bible based on forgiveness, redemption, and doing good deeds? Of course there must be some form of punishment but for how long? Some people probably feel that anyone convicted of murder, manslaughter, or any other violent crime should be in prison forever, regardless of how they act in prison or what redeeming things they do. Does this feeling run counter to the teachings of the Bible? Others take a different view and say that people should have the opportunity to redeem themselves and re-enter society. I suppose at the end of the day that is a policy decision.

I have heard it said that the majority of the people Governor Barbour pardoned were already out of prison. I did not check on this fact. Does that make a difference? For years I have argued the criminal laws in this country are too harsh and sentences too long. America incarcerates more people per year than any other western society. Up until the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act people sentenced for first time, small possession of cocaine base could routinely get 14-20 years in prison without any form of parole. Since the 1980's the laws in the Federal and State System kept getting more severe each year until I thought there would be no end to the punishment. Now I have seen a change and interestingly it does not seem to be a concept of humanity or enlighten in human understanding that has brought about this change but rather the financial cost of incarcerating so many people for such a long time. Wall Street brought about the collapse of the economy and some of the more Draconian aspects of the criminal justice system.

The bottom line is this: Should anyone convicted of a violent crime, like a murder be pardoned? If so when? If not, then do we believe in redemption and rehabilitation? These are the questions that have to be answered as a matter of public policy. Personally I think allowing people who have committed a non-violent offense to get a pardon and completely clear their records is in most cases a good thing. The application of this rule to violent crimes is more difficult to apply, but still a matter of policy. If the people of Mississippi want the Governor to retain a pardon power, I believe they want the pardon process to be completely open, transparent, and with adequate notice for public input. That is my two cents worth.

Unless you have been one of the few people living in a hole over the last month, you have undoubtedly heard at least part of the story of former Pennsylvania State University assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, who is charged with multiple counts of sexually abusing young boys. Earlier this morning, attorneys for Sandusky waived his preliminary hearing. There are legal reasons for making this decision, but in Mississippi, this decision could not have been made like it was for Sandusky.

Rule 6.04 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice discusses the issue of "preliminary hearings" and actually provides the Courts with reasons for conducting such a hearing. When a defendant is charged with a felony and the defendant does not post bond, the defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether "there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the defendant committed it." If the Judge finds there is enough evidence, the case will be bound over to the grand jury for their consideration. In Mississippi, once a defendant posts bond, the defendant waives (gives up) his/her right to a preliminary hearing.

If Sandusky's case was in Mississippi, he would have waived his right to a preliminary hearing merely by bonding out of jail as he awaits his trial date.

Mississippi is number one in delinquent mortgages. During the month of October, there were more homeowners behind on their house payments in Mississippi than any other state.
According to the Mortgage Bankers Association there are 4.2 million homeowners across the country that are more than 90 days behind on their house payments or already in foreclosure. This indicates that we are not on the road to recovery like the media would have you believe.
Foreclosures are increasing and mortgage companies are still not willing to help homeowners with modifications. If you want to save the house you cannot sit around and wait for the foreclosure sale. Get your documents together now, meet with a lawyer that does foreclosure defense and bankruptcy and learn what your options are. Get the information now before you need it. Be prepared. Plan ahead. You don't buy car insurance after the wreck. Over and over people come in to meet with me after the foreclosure sale is set trying to find out what to do. In most cases we can still help them and save the house, but they would have been a lot better off meeting with me as soon as they started getting behind.

LAWSUITS: FANTASY V. REALITY

I'm sure everyone has heard of "frivolous lawsuits" and how they are to blame for rising insurance costs, driving doctors away, and the decline of Western Civilization as we know it today. The truth of the matter is certain politicians have created the fear that there are "runaway juries" which will destroy America unless there is so-called "tort reform"! Why do they want to do this? Easy. Big Insurance and Big Business lined the pockets of these politicians to push their agendas. Big Insurance and Big Businesses do not want to be held accountable for their actions. They want to be protected. Below we have listed some of the popular "Myths" in the justice systems along with the actual "Facts". You read and decide for yourselves

1. MYTH: Frivolous lawsuits are flooding our legal system.

FACT: Frivolous lawsuits do not exist as represented by tort reformers.
A May 2006 study conducted by Harvard School of Public Health and Brigham and Women''s Hospital shows that 97 percent of medical malpractice claims are meritorious . Eighty percent of those claims involved physical injury, which killed or permanently disabled the victim. Sadly, only 56 of these claimants received compensation for their losses.

FACT: The number of lawsuits has significantly decreased in recent years.
Between 2002 and 2003, the number of tort cases filed on the federal level decreased by 28 percent, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In 2005, the Justice Department reported that the number of federal cases has decreased by 79 percent since 1985.

Between 1992 and 2001, the number of civil trials filed in state courts decreased by 47 percent, according to the Department of Justice. The number of tort cases specifically, decreased by 31.8 percent during that same time.

FACT: Businesses, not consumers, are far more likely to file frivolous lawsuits.
Businesses and their attorneys are far more likely to file frivolous claims than the average American. In a recent study, 69 of the 100 most recent sanctions due to cases of frivolous lawsuits were against businesses and their attorneys. US businesses file four times as many lawsuits than private citizens.

2. MYTH: Plaintiffs are being awarded outrageous and unwarranted sums of money for their losses.

FACT: The amount of compensation awarded in personal injury cases is in decline.
The amount of compensation awarded to victims, who have been seriously injured through no fault of their own, has drastically decreased over the past few years, according to the Department of Justice. Between 1992 and 2001 the average personal injury award decreased by 56.3 percent.

FACT: The payout in medical malpractice cases has decreased over the last four years.
A 2005 Public Citizen study revealed that medical malpractice payments to victims fell nearly 14 percent between 2001 and 2004. In 2001, juries voted against injured victims in three of four medical malpractice trials, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

3. MYTH: Capping damages lowers medical malpractice insurance premiums for doctors.
FACT: Tort reform caps result in savings for insurance companies NOT doctors.
Capping damages does NOT translate into savings for doctors who continue to pay exorbitant medical malpractice insurance premiums. According to an independent research organization, "most insurers continued to increase [doctor''s] premiums at a rapid pace, regardless of caps" or reductions in plaintiff''s awards (Weiss Ratings 6/3/03).

In states with tort reform caps on damages, the average insurance premiums are nearly ten percent higher than the average in states without caps (The Medical Liability Monitor, 2004). Take it from the insurance industry, "Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific savings [on insurance premiums]" - the American Insurance Association.

Medical malpractice insurance costs are cyclical. Litigation does not drive the cycle.
Therefore, doing away with fair compensation for victims will NOT help an
American citizen AND it will do nothing to help doctors who pay high insurance costs.

4. MYTH: The tort system places a $300 billion burden on the economy.

FACT: There is no such thing as a tort-tax.

The figure in the myth above comes from the insurance industry, which has a vested interest in propagating tort reform myths. In this so-called cost assessment, Tillinghast-Towers Perrin included insurance company costs, overhead, and the salaries of the insurance industry's CEOs. For example, the salary of AIG's chairman--a whopping $29 million a year--was figured into this supposed cost of the tort system. The TTP assessment didn't include relevant data, which makes their figure more a reflection of the cost of the insurance industry rather than the cost of the tort system.

The idea of a "tort tax" dates back to 1988, when one man coined the term and quantified this so-called tax in a book called Liability. Several researchers immediately examined this man''s methods of determining this tax. They found that he had made it up. "The $300 billion figure has no discernable connection to reality," observed The Economist. The Congressional Budget Office has repudiated the so-called tort tax.

5. MYTH: Medical malpractice claims run up the cost of healthcare.

FACT: Medical malpractice claims have a negligible effect on US health costs.
According to the Congressional Budget Office in January 2004, medical malpractice costs constituted only two percent of the total cost of healthcare in the United States. Other figures from Public Citizen show that malpractice costs represent only 0.62 percent of the nation's expenditures for health care.

In 2003, the top HMOs in the United States reported doubling their profits, according to the Jacksonville Business Journal.

6. MTYH: Lawsuits are filed at the slightest provocation.

FACT: Many people who are seriously injured never file a claim.

Of the hundreds of thousands of people who are harmed by medical malpractice annually, only one in eight ever file a claim, according to a Harvard Study. Of the thousands of people injured by consumer products each year, only ten percent file a claim to seek compensation for their losses and suffering, according to a study by the Rand Institute for Civil Defense.

7. MYTH: Doctors are forced to practice "defensive medicine" for fear of medical malpractice lawsuits.

FACT: No evidence indicates that doctors practice "defensive medicine" as a response to lawsuit threats.

Defensive medicine, or extra medical tests given to avoid lawsuits, is a concept developed by a member of the Bush Administration. Every independent researcher who has tried to replicate this man's findings has been unable to do so, indicating that his findings were entirely fabricated (Public Citizen).

8. MYTH: Lawsuits threaten to drive doctors out of practice and bankrupt small businesses and factories.

FACT: Most lawsuits are not even filed against doctors or companies.
Most lawsuits involve complaints by one private citizen against another. Only 39 percent of tort lawsuits involve an individual filing a claim against a business (The Department of Justice). A lawsuit cannot destroy a business unless that business generates a profit based on fraudulent or unsafe practices (Public Citizen).

FACT: The number of lawsuits against doctors is decreasing while the number of practicing physicians is increasing. Evidence shows that the number of lawsuits filed against doctors has declined in recent years, while the number of practicing physicians has increased. According to the American Medical Association, the number of US doctors has increased by 40 percent since 1990. Additionally, since 1990, the number of ER doctors has doubled, the number of neurosurgeons has increased by 20 percent, and the number of OB/GYN doctors has increased by 25 percent.
There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that medical malpractice claims are forcing doctors to close their doors. While some doctors have suffered due to high insurance premiums, we know these costs have nothing to do with lawsuits and are purely the product of a rapacious insurance industry.

9. MYTH: Punitive damages are awarded to often and for too much money.

FACT: Punitive damages are rarely rewarded in civil suits.

Punitive damages are only awarded in 3.3 percent of all tort trials won by the victim, according to the Department of Justice). Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant in cases of blatant or malicious wrongdoing and prevent others from committing similar acts in the future. Given the statistics, it would seem that punitive damages are very conservatively awarded to the victims of egregious acts.

Continue reading "Mississippi Lawsuit Myths Debunked" »

I played college baseball at West Virginia State University. I worked out and since I was young, my metabolism burned off all the late night junk food I consumed. I was 6'2" and 198 pounds of "twisted steel and sex appeal". Life was good. Then I moved to Mississippi for law school. I became sedentary. I was introduced to fried pickles, fried cheese (my God, they can fry cheese?!?!), fried everything. And desserts. After three (3) years of this lifestyle, I ballooned up to 230 pounds.

My story was apparently very common for a lot of Mississippians as we were named once again the Fattest State in the United States. You don't have to spend too much time wondering about how this has happened. Simply look at all the signs proclaiming "ALL YOU CAN EAT" around the Jackson, Mississippi area. This is not a challenge people. You don't have to really "eat all you can eat". What's next? Will restaurants install vomitoriums?

Obesity is a serious health issue. According to the Mississippi State Department of Health, obese people are more prone to suffer from diabetes, high blood pressure, heart problems, and certain types of cancers. How does this affect you if you are not even obese? Health care costs related to obesity was $117 billion in 2000! Half of this $117 billion was paid by taxpayers to those on public health insurance such as Medicare or Medicaid. So our money is being used to underwrite obesity health care. Private insurance companies must raise also raise premiums to pay for obesity health care costs.

But is eating junk food really bad for you? A few years back, actor Morgan Spurlock (a West Virginia native by the way like yours truly) did a film called "Super Size Me". He ate at McDonald's for 30 days breakfast, lunch, and dinner. He was required to "super size" his meal if he was asked to do so by a McDonald's employee. At the end of 30 days, Spurlock gained 24½ lbs., a 13% body mass increase, a cholesterol level of 230, and experienced mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and fat accumulation in his liver.

People have scoffed at the idea that we need laws to regulate junk food and denounced lawsuits aimed at doing the same thing. People cry that "hey, this is America and I can eat whatever I want!". Yes, this is true. However, if I help pay your medical costs I should have a say in what goes into your belly pal.

Continue reading "Super Size Us! Mississippi is Fat, which is not Phat. Do we need to sue?" »