The following CNN legal news video is about actor Jason Patric, his biological son, and ex-girlfriend, Danielle Schreiber. This video was added to the CNN website on July 16, 2013. It aired on the New Day TV show.
Patric “donated” sperm to Schreiber so that she could have a baby. Although Patric is appealing and trying to get a new law passed in California, he lost his court case against Schreiber. It seems that Patric is saying that he was not a donor at all because he was in a relationship with Schreiber at the time the sperm was given. It seems hard to believe that position without explaining why you wouldn’t just do it the old-fashioned way. Without a good explanation, this seems like a sperm donation. And under California law, a sperm donor has no parental rights unless he has a specific agreement for such rights. With no agreement, parental or custody rights never exist in the first place.
On Katie’s show, Patric says his son was stolen, and he is trying to get him back. This kind of language is probably not helpful and should be toned down. He did not do an interview for this New Day piece.
Schreiber is likely correct in terms of the legal case. But this situation seems to have gotten out of hand and should have been dealt with out of court. There are so many hypocrites in this area of the law. They moan when a father doesn’t want to be in a child’s life. Then, when they think it’s in their own best interest, they shut the father out.
CNN Video About Jason Patric, Sperm Donors And Their Legal Rights, And Danielle Schreiber
The following Today show video is about legal parental and custody rights as it relates to sperm donors. Actor Jason Patric sued for custody of a biological child. The problem is, for some reason, he donated sperm to his ex-girlfriend. And under existing California law, a sperm donor generally has no parental rights. Patric is now fighting for a new law to address this situation. The first Today video on this story aired on the July 15, 2013 episode of Today. Click below to see that one, which features an interview with the son’s mom, Danielle Schreiber.
Jason is interviewed for this new clip. Basically, he says he wants to see and have a relationship with his son. In Patric’s case, it may be that even a new law will not help him. Schreiber has a pretty good argument that Jason waived his rights to the child. But the real problem is Danielle just using this situation as a power trip. It’s her son we’re talking about here – a son whose dad actually wants to be in his life. Why would you do anything to harm that?
Today Video With Interview of Danielle Schreiber, Former Girlfriend Of Jason Patric And Mom Of His Biological Son
Today Video With Interview Of Jason Patric, The Day After Danielle’s Interview
The following Today show video is about legal parental and custody rights as it relates to sperm donors. Actor Jason Patric sued for custody of a biological child. The problem is, for some reason, he donated sperm to his ex-girlfriend. And under existing California law, a sperm donor generally has no parental rights. Patric is now fighting for a new law to address this situation. This video aired on the July 15, 2013 episode of Today.
Danielle Schreiber, the ex-girlfriend, is interviewed for this story. Her biggest evidence in support of her position is a letter where Patric said he was not ready to be a father but would let her use his sperm. She did that. What seems absurd is that she is now acting like this to someone that she supposedly loved. What harm is this guy trying to do? It seems like none. Schreiber seems way too interested in winning a legal battle.
Lawyer Carol Chodroff says the new bill is only for sperm donors that did not waive their parental rights. Most donors do waive their rights, such as when they donate at a sperm bank. This is part of the deal. But the situation with Patric is different.
Today Video About Actor Jason Patric’s Legal Issues With Sperm Donors And Parental And Custody Rights
The following Today show video is a legal update on the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash-landing, which occurred in San Francisco, California. This video aired on the July 15, 2013 episode of Today.
Asiana has come under fire on the issue of whether or not a co-pilot should have even been in control of Flight 214, considering he was doing a training flgiht and had never landed a Boeing 777 at San Francisco International.
During the midst of this controversy, KTVU aired some pilot names that turned out to be incorrect. Asiana says the names were offensive. Meanwhile, KTVU had claimed that the names were confirmed by the NTSB. In fact, the NTSB says that a summer intern improperly confirmed these fake names.
As it turns out, the names were a hoax and resorted to a play on words that would be offensive to some people.
I don’t get why Asiana thinks it has any sort of case for defamation here. Misquoting someone’s name doesn’t sound like defamation because defamation refers to a false statement that causes ridicule or scorn. But there is nothing disgraceful about having a name that someone else named you even if it contains an arguably offensive play on words. I can’t imagine this being defamation. As an aside, it would literally cut off free speech at the knees. So Americans can no longer make a joke cause it hurts someone’s feelings?
There are other problems. Does Asiana even have standing to sue? It seems they don’t. If anyone was defamed, it was the pilots, not Asiana. Finally, since individual people were not identified (they couldn’t have been identified since fake names were used), which pilots were defamed? This seems like an attempt to turn a tacky joke into a lawsuit.
Today Video About Asiana Airlines Considering Defamation Lawsuit Over Fake Pilot Names Aired By KTVU
The following Today show video is about a restaurant that has been shut down in San Francisco, California. Neighbors complained about the aroma coming from this establishment, which specializes in bacon dishes. However, fans of the restaurant are raising their own stink to try to get it reopened. This video aired on the July 12, 2013 episode of Today.
The name of the restaurant is Bacon Bacon, and it is located in the Haight-Ashbury district. The owner is Jim Angelus. It cooks up about 300 pounds of bacon per day.
Ryan Patterson is a lawyer for the neighbors. He says it’s a pungent smell. But customers like Greg Robinson like the smell and are campaigning for the restaurant.
Ingre Nevis is complaining about the restaurant’s smell during a public hearing.
After the hearing, Bacon Bacon will be allowed to reopen after it installs the proper exhaust system. That will probably take about 2 months.
Today Video About San Francisco, California’s “Bacon Bacon” Restaurant Being Shut Down Over Smell
The following CNN animal news video comes out of Covington, Ohio. It is about a bear named Maddie and owner Kim Wymer. Kim is being forced to give up her bear to an animal sanctuary due to a new state law in Ohio. The video on this story, which was supplied by WDTN, was added to the CNN website on July 10, 2013.
This new law will essentially ban dangerous exotic animals without a special permit. And Wymer says the requirements for a permit are too demanding for her to meet. For example, she can’t build the kind of cage required by law to get a permit.
Maddie the bear is being given to Lions, Tigers and Bears, a rescue group based out of California. Bobbi Brink, founder of this rescue group, says the way these bears are treated by some owners is abuse. She did not specifically name Kim Wymer as an abuser in this video. However, Maddie, who is 10, has been kept in a 20 foot by 20 foot cage for several years.
Tim Harrison, who is with Outreach For Animals, supports the new Ohio law, which goes into effect on January 1, 2014. He says it’s necessary to protect the public from dangerous animals.
CNN Video About New Ohio Exotic-Animal Law And Covington’s Kim Wymer Giving Up Maddie The Bear
The following CNN crime news video is about a traffic stop in Brazoria County, Texas. KHOU (Houston) is the original source of the story. The clip was added to CNN on July 4, 2013.
Two women were returning from the beach when they were stopped, reportedly for speeding. After the male cop (DPS trooper) said he smelled marijuana, he called a female officer to come and give both the driver and passenger a body cavity search. The two women were Brandy Hamilton and Alexandria Randle.
The Texas Department of Public Safety (they control the Highway Patrol in this state) does not seem to be defending the body-cavity search. In fact, the KHOU report indicates that the female officer was fired, while the male officer was suspended.
Meanwhile, the girls have filed a federal lawsuit. One of them is charged with marijuana possession. But that is unlikely to affect the civil lawsuit, which is about whether a body-cavity search was an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment, in these particular circumstances. Since this kind of search is very intrusive, the argument would go that you need some kind of suspicion that something illegal is being hidden in the body cavity before you can search it. In this case, there was no hint of danger and arguably no reasonable suspicion that drugs were being hidden there. In addition, it would appear that the officers violated DPS policy. However, that would not be the deciding factor in whether the search was unconstitutional.
Here are some of the people briefly interviewed for this story:
1. Allie Booker, an attorney for the girls;
2. Gerald Treece, a legal analyst who thinks this violated the 4th Amendment; and
3. Attorney Tara Long.
CNN Video On Allegedly Unconstitutional Body-Cavity Search By Texas DPS Troopers, On Bikini-Clad Brandy Hamilton And Alexandria Randle
The following CNN news video comes out of Ross Township, which is in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area. It is about Jennifer Finley, a certified aesthetician who was fired by the European Wax Center, for refusing to participate in Brazilian wax training. This video was added to the CNN website on July 2, 2013. WTAE is the original source.
The European Wax Center is located at 4868 McKnight Road.
However, it should be noted that she was asked to receive a Brazilian wax, which is something that really should not be a requirement. But refusing to give a Brazilian wax as part of her training might reasonably disqualify her for work at this company. It is not clear from this video, however, whether she offered to give a Brazilian wax as instructed (and only refused to get one), or whether she refused to both give and receive this treatment.
Janice Russell is Finley’s attorney. She says her client did not want to expose her privates to co-workers or undergo this painful treatment.
The European Wax Center owner refused to sit down for an interview. The company’s lawyer gave a completely cookie-cutter-type statement that meant nothing.
CNN Video About Jennifer Finley Being Fired By The European Wax Center, For Refusing To Get a Brazilian Wax
The following CNN news video is about a lawsuit filed by a mother after the death of her son. She is suing the makers of Monster Energy Drink. The mom claims that this high-energy drink killed her kid. The video for this story aired on the New Day TV show. It was added to the CNN website on June 27, 2013.
Son Alex Morris was only 19 years old when he had a heart attack and died. His mom, Paula Morris, says in the lawsuit that Alex consumed two cans of this Monster Energy Drink every day.
Rex Parris is the attorney for the mom. He says science is going in the direction of showing that these drinks are dangerous. Parris also represents Wendy Crossland, who is the mother of Anais Fournier. Anais was 14 when she died after drinking two cans of Monster Energy Drink. The Fournier case has not gone to trial.
Monster Energy says there is no proof of any link to the energy drink in the Fournier case and no link in the Alex Morris case, either.
CNN Video About Mom Suing Monster Energy Drink Over Death Of Her Son
The following CNN news video is an edition of Anderson Cooper’s The RidicuList. It is about the town of Moultrie, Georgia. That municipality decided to ban saggy pants. This video was added to the CNN website on June 25, 2013.
There are two main parts to Moultrie’s saggy-pants ban:
1. Your underwear may not be visible.
2. Your pants cannot be more than 3 inches below your waist.
As to whether this ban is unconstitutional, it may be with respect to the 3-inch rule. That is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with covering anything up. But the underwear rule is tougher.
First-time offenders of Moultrie’s baggy-pants rule are fined $25. Repeat offenders can be fined up to $200.
CNN – Anderson Cooper’s The RidicuList – Moultrie, Georgia Bans Saggy Pants