The Beer-Devil Made Them Drink It
The Oglala Sioux tribe wants $500 million from beer makers, four beer stores, plus beer distributors its suing, for selling alcohol to residents South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, where alcohol is banned. Kevin Abourezk writes in the Lincoln Journal Star:
(The suit) alleges the defendants violated the tribe's alcohol ban as well as Nebraska law by providing alcohol to the reservation's residents, knowing those residents would transport the alcohol into the reservation and resell much of that beer to other reservation residents.The lawsuit also alleges the owners of the four beer stores sold alcohol to intoxicated people and accepted sex, pornographic photos and food assistance vouchers in exchange for beer.
"Alcohol is a devastating drug to the Lakota people," the lawsuit states. "The vast majority of beer consumed in the town of Pine Ridge and the (reservation) is sold in Whiteclay establishments."
Ted Frank makes the right point (and has posted the complaint online):
How it is these companies' responsibility to prevent the legal sale of beer is beyond me; are they supposed to engage in racial profiling at the checkout counter? Refuse to sell to vendors near dry areas?
Don Surber adds:
In the old days, I would have called it a frivolous lawsuit except we just saw bankers agree to pay $25 billion to millions (of) people who were behind in their mortgage payments. Suddenly in our world, moochers, freeloaders and welchers on loans are heroes. Why not alcoholics?
via Overlawyered
The politics are hypocritical. Yes, we sell them firewater. The flood us with gambling, cheap cigarettes and illegal fireworks.
Eric at February 11, 2012 7:34 AM
I would have called it a frivolous lawsuit except we just saw bankers agree to pay $25 billion to millions (of) people who were behind in their mortgage payments.
The banks had to pay the $25 billion because they routinely broke the law in the foreclosure process.
Christopher at February 11, 2012 7:49 AM
Then that means I have the right to sue neighboring counties that aren't dry on Sundays, because I can buy alcohol and bring it into my county and drink?
Anonymous Coward at February 11, 2012 8:46 AM
Exchange sex for beer? Don't we call that Friday Night?
Steve Daniels at February 11, 2012 9:24 AM
The residents of the Indian tribe who purchased beer are the ones that violated the ban. But of course, you can't get billions of dollars in damages by suing the residents.
Patrick at February 11, 2012 9:43 AM
Where Is the Compensation for Victims in the Mortgage Settlement?
02/10/12 - Cato by Mark A. Calabria
== ==
[edited] This was supposed to be about compensating families who lost their homes to foreclosure due to “robo-signing” and other process abuses.
Out of the $25 billion settlement, only $1.5 billion goes to borrowers who “lost” their homes to foreclosure. Just 6% of the settlement actually could go to the victims it was supposed to be about. Worse, the money can go to forclosed borrower, harmed or not. As far as I can tell, a borrower could get money even if he committed fraud, like overstating his income.
It appears that $3 billion is going to state governments, about twice what the victims might get. That is not far off from the typical class-action: lawyers make out like bandits and victims get peanuts.
The rest of the money is going to homeowners who are still in their homes, by defintion not victims of foreclosure abuse. The state Attorney's General apparently never bothered to look for any real victims, so it is not surprising that they completely forgot about them when crafting the settlement.
== ==
Every large business operates under a capricious regulatory sword. Real life is more complicated than the vague and numerous rules. Companies routinely break technicalities in a compromise with regulatory agencies. Those agencies look the other way so that things can get done. Under political influence, those agencies will reverse themselves, "shocked, shocked" that "the law" has been broken.
The reason for procedure is to prevent errors. Here, an error would be a mistaken foreclosure which was not warranted. There are very few of those. Bank lending is one of most watched and regulated activities in our society.
The result of this settlement is
() Bank shareholders will regard banks as more risky and will fund them less or at higher returns. It is shareholders who are paying this settlement; another element of class warfare.
() There will be a slowdown in mortgage forclosures, and so a slowdown and higher standards for granting mortgages. If foreclosure is more expensive, then loans will be more expensive.
() Banking moves closer to being a branch of the federal government, one of the desired results for our benevolent rulers.
Andrew_M_Garland at February 11, 2012 9:50 AM
Consistency alert!
You cannot blame the Lakota for the behavior of the alcohol dealers...
...because you do not blame other drug users for the behavior of their drug dealers.
And we just lost Whitney Houston to drugs & alcohol. Boy, if only all that stuff was legal!
Radwaste at February 11, 2012 9:13 PM
So there were reports of drug in the room then?
Dont get me wrong Rad, I'm willing to bet it was drugs, but I have seen anything suggeting it yet, and even then it might have been a contaminate which did her in
And if all that stuff were legal at least you could buy it from a dealer who didnt cut it with borax or baking soda to improve his profit margin, or from someone who isnt also a user and cant remeber which baggie is pure coke and which one has a little speed, or lsd for fun
lujlp at February 12, 2012 5:15 AM
Ummm... luj...
Reports all over have connected Whitney and cocaine use. That can't be good for you.
She's yet another responsible citizen who would still be alive if only drugs were legalized.
Not.
Radwaste at February 12, 2012 6:04 AM
Look closely Rad, I never said it wasnt drugs, just that at the time I posted it hadnt been confirmed.
I also said I was willing to bet it was drugs
lujlp at February 12, 2012 1:49 PM
"The banks had to pay the $25 billion because they routinely broke the law in the foreclosure process."
Well, from what I've read about it, that depends a lot on what you consider "the law". A lot of the "abuses" I've read about look a lot more like excuses for deadbeats to remain in homes that they aren't paying for. It's like the proverbial dangerous criminal who walks because the judge signed the warrant on line 21 instead of line 22.
Cousin Dave at February 12, 2012 8:27 PM
Leave a comment