Source: https://leyhane.blogspot.com/2006/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 07:13:04+00:00

Document:
Ironic that all these "peace globes" are being posted in the Blogosphere on Election Day in the U.S. -- but this is not meant as a political statement of any kind. People of good will can disagree on how true peace may best be achieved, but can people of good will ever doubt that peace must be our ultimate goal? It's Veteran's Day on Saturday: Ask a vet about it.
For more on the peace globe idea, ask Mimi.
So where's the follow up?
A German court has ordered a self-proclaimed witch to refund a client her hefty fee for a spell that failed to win back the woman's boyfriend.
The court ruled the witch must pay back the $1,275 on the grounds she offered a service that was "objectively, completely impossible."
Do blogs by lawyers amount to advertising?
Read about it in this link to the September 29 ABA Journal eReport.
This is the link to the proposed New York rule.
The eReport article suggests that this provision would make the rule applicable to everyone, since blogs by out-of-state lawyers -- such as this one -- could be freely accessed in New York State.
I thought the disclaimer would be enough. Wouldn't you?
John Marx collected motorcycles and he rented two storage bays from M & S Rentals, Inc. in Morris, Illinois in which to keep them. Marx considered the bikes to be collectors’ items; whether Marx’s 1976 Honda Goldwing, 1980 Honda Goldwing, and two 1979 Yamaha 750 cc motorcycles actually were collector’s items is not resolved by the Appellate Court’s opinion in Standard Mutual Ins. Co. v. Marx, 2006 WL 2381967 (Ill.App.3rd Dist. 8/15/06).
Marx came by the storage units from time to time to visit his collection. But he didn’t just visit; he sometimes rode the bikes, too. But only the 1980 Honda was actually licensed and insured.
And he wasn’t riding the Honda on September 1, 2003; on that day, Marx had come to visit one of the ‘79 Yamahas. He’d operated this bike without incident only a month before, but when he went to start the machine on this occasion, there was an explosion – and a fire. Marx tried to put the fire out with a towel, but failed; he subsequently called 911. The fire caused more than $177,000 worth of damage to the storage facility. M & S Rentals’ insurer, Springfield Fire & Casualty Co., paid the claim and brought a subrogation suit against Marx.
Marx tendered the suit to his homeowner’s carrier, Standard Mutual; the newly reported opinion arises from the declaratory judgment action that Standard Mutual filed in response to the tender.
The Circuit Court of Grundy County found for Standard Mutual, agreeing that the homeowner’s carrier did not have a duty to defend Marx in this suit. The Appellate Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Kent Slater, affirmed.
Marx was not a party to the appeal: He failed to file a timely notice of appeal; his subsequent motion to adopt Springfield Fire’s brief was denied by the Appellate Court. This may seem odd to persons unfamiliar with coverage litigation, but it happens frequently. The underlying plaintiff and the insured do have a common interest: Both want the insurer’s carrier to remain on the risk – but is it not logical to assume that the insured will want this just a little bit more? It is the insured’s assets that are at risk; the easy collectibility of an eventual judgment against the insured is all the underlying plaintiff really has at stake.
Courts around the country have split on what constitutes “dead storage”; the Standard Mutual court indicated that it was the first Illinois court to construe the term.
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Burns, 837 N.E.2d 645 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (unlicensed car which had been inoperable for over a month was in dead storage notwithstanding that fire occurred while insured was attempting to start car); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Geiwitz, 86 Md.App. 704, 587 A.2d 1185 (1991) (car kept by insured as collectible rather than for transportation was in dead storage despite fact that car was occasionally driven on property where it was stored and accident occurred while repairing gas gauge); Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Allen, 68 N.C.App. 184, 314 S.E.2d 552 (1984) (motorcycle which had been inoperable for six months prior to fire caused when insured was “inspecting” cycle in his living room was in dead storage); Sharpe v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 558 F.Supp. 10 (E.D.Tenn.1982) (old, unlicensed vehicles that were not driven on highway but were occasionally driven on insured’s property were in dead storage).
Other cases cited by the insurer for the proposition that a vehicle “undergoing maintenance” or being started is not in dead storage were Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. McMahon, 365 F.Supp.2d 671 (E.D.N.C.2005); David v. Tanksley, 218 F.3d 928 (8th Cir.2000) (same); Holliman v. MFA Mutual Insurance Co., 289 Ark. 276, 711 S.W.2d 159 (1986); and Broadway v. Great American Insurance Co., 465 So.2d 1124 (Ala.1985).
“As defined in the policy, an insured location includes “premises occasionally rented to an ‘insured’ for other than ‘business' use.” * * * [I]n this case, the storage units where the fire occurred cannot be said to have been rented to Marx on an irregular or infrequent basis. According to Marx’s deposition testimony and his answers to plaintiff’s request to admit facts, Marx had rented the same two storage bays for a period of three years prior to the fire. Such extended and continuous use cannot be characterized as “occasional” and therefore, even if the motorcycle was considered to be in dead storage, it was not in an “insured location” within the terms of the policy.
It did not matter to the coverage determination, but I have to admit to some curiosity about where Springfield Fire’s claimed $177,000 in damages came from.
If a self-service storage facility is not a warehouse, it can limit its liability to customers; it is not bound by §7-204(2) of the UCC (815 ILCS 5/7-204(2)), which allows warehousemen to limit liability only on a “per article or item” basis, or by “value per unit of weight.” Of course, a warehouse has to know what is coming in and going out of its facility; what comes in and out of the self-service storage facility is limited only by the amount of space the customer rents (and, hopefully, by §7 of the Act which provides, “No occupant may use a self-service storage facility for residential purposes,” 770 ILCS 95/7).
So did M & S Rentals limit its liability to customers in the Standard Mutual case – and, if so, where did the $177,000 in damages come from? It must have been some fire.
If a tree falls in the insurance policy, will it be covered?
Can a tree be cut by accident?
Well, unless you have super powers, you can’t accidentally cut down a tree: Cutting a tree takes considerable effort.
But you can accidentally cut down the wrong tree – a tree you weren’t supposed to cut – a tree you didn’t intend to cut.
This fine distinction is at the heart of Pekin Ins. Co. v. Miller, 2006 WL 2265604 (Ill.App. 1st Dist. 8/8/06).
Sarang Construction hired Miller Tree Service to cut down trees on lots 13, 14, and 15 of a subdivision in Hanover Park. Miller removed the trees from lots 10, 11, and 12 instead.
Miller tendered the suit to Pekin for a defense. Pekin brought a declaratory action instead, contending that it did not owe a defense. First, it argued, the property owners’ suit did not allege an “occurrence.” That would keep the incident outside the insuring agreement of the Pekin policy. In addition, Pekin argued, even if the incident described in the property owners’ suit was an occurrence, two policy exclusions would defeat coverage. The trial court rejected these contentions and found that Pekin had a duty to defend; the Appellate Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Warren Wolfson, affirmed.
Miller surely intended to chop down trees but, just as surely, Miller did not intend to chop down trees on the wrong lots. That was not expected from the insured’s standpoint.
Significantly, the Pekin court found it “immaterial that the underlying complaint alleges intentional torts.” (2006 WL 2265604 at *6.) The words used to describe the conduct giving rise to the claim are not controlling; the conduct described is what counts.
That brings us to the exclusions on which Pekin also relied.
The Pekin court found no Illinois case which provided any guidance in this case. Instead, the court looked to a case from Minnesota, Thommes v. Milwaukee Insurance Co., 641 N.W.2d 877 (2002).
Wrongful tree cutting cases are not a major burden on the courts of Cook County. But Pekin has a general lesson, as well as the specific ones we’ve just gone through: When in doubt, if you’re sued, tender the complaint to your carrier. Even though the complaint does not plead “negligence” – even though the suit pleads only intentional torts – tender. The insurer has an obligation to carefully evaluate its obligations whenever a suit is tendered for a defense.
Why don't they ever offer more than 25%?
I know it's becoming redundant (all together now: "and repetitive") but I can't help but read these scam fund transfer e-mails. The facts change; the size of the fortune varies -- but 20 or 25% seems to be the going rate for participation in these ventures.
I am interested in a partnership investment programme with your self/corporation.
Clearly they've done their due diligence; they seem to know so much about me.
There is this huge amount of Five million Seven hundred and fifthy thousand U.S dollars($5,750,000.00)which my late father kept in a security/financial company before he was assasinated by unknown persons, during a political crisis in my country. My father deposited it as a family treasure and that was before his death.
Now I and mother left Angola to Senegal,through the help of my late father's good friend. Right now we are in refugee camp and we have decided to invest these money in your country or anywhere safe enough outside my country Angola and the whole of Africa for security and political reasons.
Maybe I'm just a spoiled American, but if I had $5.75 million burning a hole in my pocket, I'd find a decent hotel to stay in, not a refugee camp. Couldn't your "father's good friend" direct you to the local Holiday Inn? Is that why you're not looking to him to help direct your investment strategy? Because you think any random stranger with an e-mail address can do better than he could?
If you will be able of rendering an assistance to us we will adequately compensate you 25% Of the total fund.
We will arrange all the necessary procedures in ensuring a smooth process for the funds to get to you. We will also appreciate if you contact me once you receive this mail to enable me give you more details.
Such as the your bank's ABA routing number and your account number so that funds can be 'smoothly' wired in. Or out.
This matter requires your urgent attention , confidentiality and discretion no matter what your decision maybe.
These things keep coming, so I have to assume that -- at least sometimes -- they actually work. When? Who's fallen for this? How? If you know of a 'for instance' please leave me a comment.
I am pleased to introduce a business opportunity to transfer to your overseas account the sum of ($15;US Dollars) Fifteen Million United States Dollars from one of the Fidelity Finance & Security Company here in Dakar-Senegal.
I am M/s Laura Jones the Auditor General in the Real Estate Finance & Security Company here in Bangkok, Thailand, During the course of our auditing , I discovered a floating fund in an account opened in the our custody since 1998 and till date no body has operated or inquired about this fund.
After going through some old files in the records I discovered that the owner of the account died long ago in a plane crash along with his family without leaving [Heir/WILL] hence the funds is floating and if I do not remit this money out urgently it will be forfeited for nothing.
The owner of this account is Engr.Taha Ali William a foreigner, before his death, he was a management consultant and he died since 1992. No other person knows about this account or any thing concerning it the account has no other beneficiary.
Since I hardly know any foreigner,I am only contacting you as a foreigner to stand and apply as his international business partner because this money can not be approved to a local person here as his next of kin.
I need your full co-operation to make this workout fine because the management is ready to approve this payment to any foreigner who has correct documents concerning this fund, which I will provide to you upon your positive response and once I am convinced of your capability and assurance that you will never never let me down.
At the conclussion of this project ,we may proceed into an investment as equal partners of which you are to guide it pending my resignation which will be in a short while after the transfer if you may wish or we may share it in a ratio of 2.5 for you and 7.5 for me.
Regarding moral justification of the fund ,i wouldn't want you to consider it haramful. If you had been the victim, Certainly you wouldn't be happy having your hard earned fund shared among government as an unclaimed deposit, i believe there are aspects of life we may contribute with this fund to help the less priveledged and the needy in our society .
Thanks for spending your time to go through this proposal, even though we do not know each other. It would have been more formal for a transaction or business of this magnitude should have commenced properly with a formal meeting between you and us to enable both parties know ourselves, have a fore knowledge of the nature of the business, discuss and acquaint ourselves with the responsibilities and functions of both parties and appropriate shares accordingly.
Let me start by first introducing myself properly to you. I am Professional Financial Advisor on offshore and real estate investment, Portfolio Management with a Private Security & Finance Company Here In Bangkok Thailand. My company work for expatriate community here in Thailand. I came to know of you in my private search for a reliable and reputable person to handle this confidential transaction, which involves the transfer of a huge sum of money to a foreign account requiring maximum confidence.
The proposition is this: A Foreigner, Late Engineer Al-Akram Bin Abdullah an Iraqi Oil Merchant/Contractor with the Thailand National Petroleum Corporation, lodged the sum of $19.5 Million USD with our company. Upon Maturity, I have sent a routine notification to his forwarding address but got no reply, after a month I sent a reminder and finally discovered from his contract employers (TNPC) that Mr. Abdullah died in war in Baghdad last year. Ever since no close relative or family has come forward to claim the money deposited with us. Therefore, my colleague and I, who are the direct fund managers, have decided to move/transfer this fund into a nominated foreign account, for future investment. To this regards, we sincerely request for your immediate assistance and co-operation for our mutual benefit.
3. We shall guide you up in all that we will do in ensuring that we claims this consignment as soon as possible.
All these will be worked out as soon as we get your interest and acceptance. Upon the receipt of your mail message, send to me the following: Your private telephone and fax number for easier communication and to enable me fax to you the documents concerning the consignment. This is a sensitive and private business, The knowledge of which should be restricted , therefore do not discuss it with a third party, and bear it mind that these funds is not terrorist or drug money. I am assuring you of a 100% risk free transaction. While awaiting your prompt reply, please contact me on these emails.
I love these letters! But wouldn't you think that these titans of business would be able to construct a proper English sentence?
Oh -- I did not include the return address for you to send your e-mail response. You'll just have to respond to the copy of this letter that's probably in your own spam filter.
Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, eggs, bacon, spam -- and e-mail, too.
I've been on AOL since it was new, through all the years when it's been the "Internet on training wheels." I'm used to it. And my AOL e-mail address is published in enough places that people can find me. Such as clients. I hope.
Since even AOL now offers a spam filter, I assume that everyone who can read this is familiar with what spam filters are and what they do. Or what they're supposed to do.
I have moved this e-mail to my spam pile -- but, if you want me to refer this case to you, well, feel free to e-mail me. Who knows where your e-mail will end up?
HONG KONG - The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned scientist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday.
The British astrophysicist told a news conference in Hong Kong that humans could have a permanent base on the moon in 20 years and a colony on Mars in the next 40 years.
"We won't find anywhere as nice as Earth unless we go to another star system," added Hawking, who arrived to a rock star's welcome Monday. Tickets for his lecture planned for Wednesday were sold out.
He added that if humans can avoid killing themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth.
"It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," Hawking said. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of."
The 64-year-old scientist -- author of the global best seller "A Brief History of Time" -- is wheelchair-bound and communicates with the help of a computer because he suffers from a neurological disorder called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.
And, yes, Stephen Hawking is a "super-physicist." We have "supermodels," don't we?
Hawking numbers 'sudden global warming' among the potential events that may wipe out Earth-bound humanity. I have argued global warming may not be caused by humanity -- but that does not mean that it isn't happening. The global climate is always changing -- and we know that it has sometimes changed dramatically, in a relatively short time (without human assistance). Indeed, focusing our efforts at "stopping" global warming -- by curtailing auto emissions or handicapping industry -- may well cripple our global economy... and be about as effective at holding back global climate change as standing on a beach with an umbrella would be at trying to hold back a tsunami. Nature is bigger and stronger than we are. We should diversify, and not limit ourselves to the hope that we can control the heating and air conditioning system on Spaceship Earth.
Where to stand on immigration reform is easy -- in the abstract.
We must have secure borders. A nation that can not control its borders can not long remain a nation. The tide of illegal immigration must be stopped.
But for so many of us, it becomes much more difficult when viewed on a personal level.
You may not know an illegal immigrant. You may not have had a nanny or au pair who overstayed her visa, or worked contrary to the visa's terms -- or was just plain undocumented. But you may well know someone who has employed an 'illegal' nanny. You may not have a lawn service -- but you probably know people who do.
I don't have either a nanny or a lawn service. But I worked for a building contractor nearly 30 years ago, after my first year of law school, as a laborer. I was the only Anglo among the laborers. The others were Mexican. I did not know their immigration status, but I can guess. We lived in an area (now the built-up Northwest suburbs of Chicago) that had a long tradition of Mexican migrant laborers coming through each summer to work local farms.
Anyway, these men got to work before I did, and left later. They were stronger than I was, and worked harder. And they sent much of their money "home" to their families.
It is impossible to see such men as felons.
It is fascinating to listen to the immigration debate today: The conservatives claim to be protecting the wages of American workers. The liberals call for the operation of a free market in labor. (No, I didn't get that backwards.) And the big business types, that one would ordinarily assume to be in the conservatives' camp, are all in favor of 'guest worker' status for illegals (do you think that might be because they buy into the idea that illegals keep wages down?).
But in all the talk about fences and felonies, on the one hand, and 'guest workers' and amnesty on the other, I'm not hearing enough about whether the immigrants among us already are here to become Americans -- or just here for the cash. In fairness, the McCain-Kennedy proposal supposedly requires that illegals learn English as part of their process of normalization. But there seems to be some sort of embarrassment about being American that permeates our society at all levels, and that is a matter of concern to me.
I think it's wonderful that a family keeps the traditions it brought with it into this country. It's nobody's business what language is spoken at home. American culture is a tapestry, woven from the threads of the myriad of traditions imported to these shores by immigrants. But people who come here should come here to become Americans; those of us who are Americans should be proud of who and what we are -- even if, and maybe even especially when, we disagree with a particular President or a particular party.
When did the oath of citizenship change? It formerly required renunciation of every foreign prince or potentate. Now we have "dual citizenship." It's not just Mexicans voting in Mexican elections in Chicago. There were Iraqis driving across the Midwest to vote in Rosemont for the new Iraqi government. We recently had a prominent Chicagoan campaigning to represent 'overseas Italians' in the next Italian parliament. (I don't know if he won or lost.) I know many Americans with Irish passports (although that may not a bad idea, I suppose, as a safety measure given the enmity which Americans can face overseas).
My point is this. The topic of immigration reform can't be limited only to a discussion of what to do about illegal immigrants. We have to address whether we who are here already are also asking newcomers to assimilate, to become Americans like us. I think we need to renew and celebrate our belief that being an American is something special, and desirable. That doesn't mean we embrace the prejudices that scarred our ancestors: Being an American is not about having blonde hair or blue eyes; being an American has always been more about ideas than genetics. (Don't tell me that I'm overlooking slavery and the subsequent struggle for civil rights. I'm not. I dispute the contention that this central fact of American history undermines my point. It underscores my point instead: Indeed, the civil rights movement can be seen as a struggle for African Americans to fully participate in the American meritocracy.) To be an American requires the embrace of principles of individual liberty, fair play, self-reliance, equal opportunity, tolerance. Yes, that's a partial list; yes, we can argue about what these values mean. I think of Frank Capra movies when I try to define what being an American is -- but I realize even that reference can be, and was at one time, controversial.
There's a quote from Theodore Roosevelt about immigration circulating now among red-meat conservatives. The cited link shows that TR made this statement shortly before his death, in 1919, not in 1907 as the ubiquitous e-mail asserts (hence the reference, omitted in the partial quote that follows, to the "red flag"). But here's the important part of the quote: "In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin."
Isn't that a good basis upon which to start discussing how to deal with the illegal immigrants who are already here?
Time is running out for a Norwood Park home that was built shortly after the community was annexed by the city of Chicago in 1893.
The James A. Low house, 5957 N. Nina Ave., a single-family, frame residence is targeted for demolition. According to records from the City Landmarks Commission, the application for a demolition permit was put on a hold list Jan. 23, postponing a decision for 90 days.
On the Chicago Historical Resources Survey, the house is rated "orange" -- the second highest classification -- meaning it "possesses potential significant architectural or historical features."
The house, which according to the survey was constructed beginning in 1895, was also listed as "contributing" to the Norwood Park National Register District.
Alderman Brian Doherty, R-41st, said he was informed by Brian Goeken, deputy commissioner of Landmarks, that the house does not meet the criteria necessary to designate it a city landmark. Doherty called the standards "very subjective."
The Norwood Park Historical Society's Tom Spenny called the Low House an important piece of neighborhood history that warrants preservation.
He has been trying to save the Low house, but doesn't expect it to remain intact much past April 23, when the demolition hold period expires.
The story illustrates a growing problem in the City of Chicago: How do we preserve our past and our property rights both?
"The city shouldn't tell people what to do with their property." Doherty said. The best way to save historic buildings, he said, is to give the property owners incentives to preserve them.
I think the alderman is entirely correct on this. But what incentives are appropriate?
There is a vicious cycle at work here: Beautiful old buildings attract new people to a neighborhood. Property values are enhanced by the newcomers who fix up or demolish run-down properties and build "McMansions" (as the link shows, this is not just a Chicago problem) -- and everybody's property value goes up. And so do the property taxes. Older folks living in the older houses may have trouble paying both the new, higher taxes and the costs of maintaining the properties. Now the one-time neighborhood gems, some of the very buildings that attracted the newcomers in the first place, are the small ones, the shoddy ones, the ones in the crosshairs of developers.
I worked for many years in the River North neighborhood. When we moved in, the area was run-down, faded, and not a place to be after dark. But there were beautiful buildings everywhere, like the Hotel St. Benedict Flats and dozens of beautiful buildings along Dearborn Street, particularly north of Chicago Avenue (we were just south). Now that whole area is a forest of skyscrapers, full of expensive condos and luxury apartments. The Hotel St. Benedict Flats has survived, although it's been threatened more than once, but many distinctive buildings have been lost. And yet: It's those buildings that helped developers sell the "charm" of the neighborhood in which they were building.
On the other hand, if you could sell your three-flat to a developer for 10-20-100 times what you paid for it -- wouldn't you take the money and run?
And that's why building owners fear "landmark" status like the plague: It prevents the owner from demolishing his building; it may prevent the owner from making all sorts of improvements. In the meantime, the assessed value rises along with the skyscrapers or the McMansions next door.
I'd like to know if we can link property taxes to landmark status; that is, if we can induce property owners to accept landmark status by offering to freeze, or even rollback assessed value on "landmark" properties. Perhaps this would supply sufficient incentive for owners to hold onto and preserve their distinctive buildings.
The votes are in, but not yet counted, from yesterday's Illinois primary.
One thing is certain, however: Thousands, probably tens of thousands, of Illinois voters were effectively disenfranchised.
I'm not referring to the speculations about the new voting systems that are thoroughly documented in today's newspapers. Rather, I'm talking about Republicans in Cook County (except those in a handful of Republican subcircuits) and Democrats in the collar counties who took ballots for their parties -- and were thereby prevented from having any say in who would be elected to the bench.
Judicial races are decided in the primaries in Illinois. In Cook County, the Republicans don't even bother to put up candidates for the circuit bench in countywide races: The winners of yesterday's primary races must wait until December to be sworn in, but they will take office at that time. November is only a formality.
The bar associations say this shows the need for "merit selection" of judges.
But what is merit selection? Politicians slate judicial candidates now; the slated candidates usually win. "Usually" means not always. Sometimes it's because a "slated" candidate is "dumped" in favor of someone else by a group of committeemen. Sometimes it's because the slated candidates have 'funny names' and they are beaten by a man or woman whose only qualification for elected office is a mellifluous Irish surname. But sometimes the slated candidate loses because a more qualified candidate finds a way to squeak by.
With merit selection, the politicians get to slate the candidates -- and they will always win. Because politicians will do the selecting, whatever "blue ribbon" commissions are set up to disguise their choices.
I know most voters don't know and don't care about judicial candidates. I know the newspapers can't be bothered to cover judicial races. Here's a link to the March 1 story that appeared in the Chicago Tribune -- the only one I could find while searching the website this morning. Not one candidate is mentioned. Last Sunday, instead of reporting information, the Tribune ran a six-panel editorial cartoon in the Perspective section lampooning how people choose judges in the absence of information with which to make informed choices.
My perception is that the Chicago Sun-Times does a better job of covering judicial races, largely because former Chicago Law Bulletin writer Abdon Pallasch is on the staff -- but I must confess that my search this morning of the Sun-Times web site for appropriate illustrative links came up empty.
In any event: I propose that we do away with partisan primaries for judicial elections. All judicial candidates would appear on all primary ballots, for whatever party. A candidate who receives 50% plus one would be unopposed in November -- in all other cases, the top two finishers would be paired off. It would not eliminate slating, but at least those persons sufficiently civic-minded enough to come out for a primary election would not have to choose between party loyalty or forfeiting the opportunity to stand up and be counted as to who will serve them on the bench.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §7
 §7
 v. 
 v.