Employee vs Independent Contractors; Lesson 5:

It can be scary going into business on your own and losing the security of a weekly paycheck. In addition, the self-employed no longer receive a host of benefits such as health insurance and vacation pay.

Nevertheless, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an ever-increasing number of workers choose to leave the tyranny of the 9-5 working world, opting instead to become independent contractors. These individuals act as their own bosses, setting their own hours and determining for themselves what work they want to accept and on what terms.

Which working choices have you made? Do the benefits of working for yourself outweigh the shortcomings? And is it always so easy to figure out just who is an employee and who is an independent contractor? We’ll discuss this in Lesson Five.

High Court Split Over Case on Judicial Ethics

Lesson 4 Recap:

Thank you for attending our fourth lesson of You Be The Judge II. Here’s a quick recap of the session:

Going Beyond the Letter of the Law

Our lesson began with a discussion of the ethical and the legal. In general, a judge’s role is mainly to determine guilt and enforce legal principles. The Jewish system, on the other hand, sees a judge as a mentor as well, and the Talmud discusses the importance of acting beyond the letter of the law. In addition, a Biblical verse instructs a person to “do that which is right and good in the eyes of G-d (Deuteronomy 6:18).” Thus, in the Jewish tradition, ethics and law are deeply connected.

In this lesson, we discussed a particular instance in which sages legislated compliance with higher legal standards which is referred to as bar metsra. When a landowner is selling a plot of land, he has the moral obligation to offer it first to neighboring landowners. The Talmud reasons that a potential buyer could easily purchase a different lot at a similar price. However a neighbor might have a vested interest in owning the adjoining lot, since it is burdensome owning and caring for scattered properties. Thus, decency dictates that the neighbor be given the opportunity to meet the purchase price of the lot. A buyer who neglects to provide a neighbor this right can be taken to a rabbinic courts and penalized.

Cases Involving the Right of First Refusal

After studying the Talmudic passage about bar metsra, we discussed a similar case in American law in which purchasers bought a property while neglecting to get a waiver from a neighbor with first refusal rights. In that case, because four years had passed since the purchase of the property and because the neighbors with the rights of first refusal had already verbally indicated that they did not intend to purchase the property, the new owners were allowed to keep the house.

We also reviewed a case brought before a Jewish court and the ruling of Rabbi Moshe Sofer. This quandary focused on a house seized from Moshe by secular courts because of outstanding debts and awarded to Yehudah, who was first in line to collect. Yehudah felt compassion for the elderly Moshe, though, and allowed him to remain in the house free of charge. Moshe’s neighbor Dan argued that Yehudah had no rights to the property and that he wished to exercised his rights as the bar metsra and evict Moshe in order to claim the house for himself. The rabbi pointed out that whole principle of bar metsra is not based on neighborly rights, but rather the dictum to do, “that which is right and good.” Rabbis are often forced to competing priorities and differing perspectives. In accordance with this principle and judging the particulars of the situation, he ruled against such an eviction.

Bar Metsra: A Mystical View

In previous lessons, we discussed the mystical truth of a person’s connection to the divine sparks embedded in his or her possessions. Everything in the world occurs by hashgacha pratis, Divine Providence. Thus, when the divine sparks connected to two people are found in close proximity to one another, it means that the sparks are related to one another as well as to their respective owners.

Our lesson concluded with a story from the Talmud in which the angels protested G-d giving the Torah to the Jewish Nation. They claimed that according to the principle of bar metsra, the Heavens were physically closer to G-d, and they should thus be first in line to receive such a treasure. The Alshich commented that the angels were only interested in the spiritual dimensions of the Torah and not its physical components, since they had no connection to physical life. Moshe responded with two nuances of the bar metsra principle: first of all, since it is a great inconvenience for a seller to divine his property and sell it in different parts, a neighbor cannot put forth this principle to claim just one portion of the property. Second, if two buyers wish to acquire the same property, one for housing and the other for farming, the former takes precedence. Since the purpose of the Torah is to build a “dwelling place” in the world for G-d, and since this is done through the physical mitzvot, the Jewish People’s claim to the Torah outweighs that of the angels.

Thank you again for joining, and I very much look forward to seeing you next week for lesson three.

Billerica man gets a ticket out of jail...

Nasty Neighbors? Lesson 4:

Ever heard a nasty neighbor story? There is now a website – www.rottenneighbor.com - dedicated to exposing nasty neighbors and lauding good ones. It describes itself as, “the first real estate search engine of its kind, helping you find troublesome neighbors before you sign the paperwork on your new house, condo or apartment.” The site includes detailed maps, outlining each neighborhood house by house. Users can highlight individual houses, label the “good neighbors” in green, or the “rotten neighbors” in red, and they can also elaborate on their tales of misery.

For while the law is limited in the kinds of behavior it can prohibit, it seems that there is no end to the number of ways that neighbors can make each other miserable. Common courtesy, it seems, is not always very common.

Jewish law has some unique mechanisms, however, to enforce neighborly relations and ethical conduct. We’ll take a fascinating look at how the courts deal approach “mentchlichkeit” this week in Lesson Four of You Be the Judge.

Looking forward to seeing you at the Chabad Torah Centre next Tuesday, 7:30pm.

'I'm afraid of Mr. Murphy,' witness testifies in civil trial

Intro Lesson 4: The Neighbor's Advantage

Lesson 3 Recap:

Thank you for attending our third lesson of You Be The Judge. Here’s a quick recap of the session:

Deciding Disputed Ownership in the Absence of Proof

Our lesson began with the case of Thomas Law Wilcox, who found a shopping bag full of historical papers in his late stepmother’s home. After advertising for an auction, several government officials obtained a temporary restraining order to prevent the sale of the papers, declaring the State of South Carolina their rightful owner. Generally, gubernatorial papers do belong to the state. At the same time, a fundamental legal principle is that “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” Thus, in order to challenge the status quo, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove the other party’s claim is invalid.

Turning to the Jewish tradition, we reviewed a classic Talmudic passage in which two men grasp a single garment, presenting counterclaims of ownership. Such cases are often resolved by splitting the item, or selling it and dividing its value. However, if only one party has possession of an item, the possessor of the item is presumed to be the owner, since most people are averse to “breaking and entering” in order to steal an item which is not theirs.

Matters become more complicated, though, when the dispute involves land or cattle. People are less reluctant to move onto abandoned property, or to take cattle which is normally kept outdoors. Thus, in the case of real estate or livestock, and the possessor is presumed owner only if three years have passed since the onset of possession.

A Modern Talmudic Case

In a recent case brough before a rabbinic court, two men argued regarding ownership of a bike. Edry admitted stealing the bike from the bike rack in front of Soleimani’s house. However he claimed that the seller was a crook and had already sold the bike to him before Soleimani.

To resolve this case, the first step is to establish the classification of the bike. In one way, it is similar to inanimate property because it does not move on its own – so one might apply the principle that “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” At the same time, it resembles cattle in that it is kept outside. Since one is less hesitant to steal from outside of a home, it is possible to invoke the rule requiring demonstration of a history of undisputed ownership.

A unique principle in Jewish law, migu, can also pertain to this case. It applies when a litigant brings a claim, in the absence of witnesses, and it is impossible to prove or disprove it. If the claim could have been stated in a way more advantageous to the person’s position, the migu argument would dictate that the claim, as stated, should be believed. According to this, since Edry freely admitted seizing the bike, the court may assume that he is telling the truth and took what was rightfully his.

The Legal and the Mystical

We conclude by reflecting on the mystical significance of these ownership laws. Early in the lesson, we reviewed the text in which two men present both claim to own the same garment. Similar arguments are made by souls standing before the heavenly tribunal, seeking to claim the reward for mitzvot performed during the souls’ lifetime. Mitzvot are often referred to as the garments of the soul. Each soul has a right to the mitzvot performed by the body it inhabitated during its lifetime. At the same time, every person is shaped and guided by mentors, teachers, parents and friends who also claim partial ownership to those good deeds. The souls thus stand before the Heavenly Tribunal, arguing over how to divide the the value of the soul’s “spiritual garments.” The Mishnah ultimately concludes that both the soul of the one who performed the mitzvah as well as the souls of those whose influenced in its performance share in the reward.

Thank you again for joining, and I very much look forward to seeing you next week for lesson four.

The Baseball Case: Hayashi vs Popov

Here is the Statement of Decision from the Superior Court of California (HONORABLE KEVIN M. McCARTHY):

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/bonds/popovhayashi121802dec.pdf

Proof of Ownership

Harlee, a Pomeranian, is a little dog who has caused a whole lot of trouble – and a heated court case – in Spokane County, Washington State. The Graham family owned Harlee since he was a whelp, but on July 17, 2007, he wandered away from their home. Marcia and Richard Graham immediately began posting signs, placing advertisements and making phone calls to local animal shelters. Their efforts bore no fruit.

Two weeks later, on July 29, Harlee was found and taken to the SpokAnimal Shelter. After the 72-hour requisite waiting period, he was adopted by James Notti. About a month later, through a social grapevine, the Grahams located Harlee.

A huge dispute ensued. Both Graham and Notti held valid claims to Harlee. The Graham family desperately sought out their lost pet. At the same time, Notti, who had legally adopted Harlee, did not want to give him up.

In cases of ownership, many courts say that possession is nine-tenths of the law. But does this apply to animals that can move about freely and wander off on whim?

Our third lesson of You Be the Judge will consider this question – as well as compelling arguments in cases in which both parties present very legitimate – albeit mutually exclusive – claims. Additionally, in cases unlike Harlee, where it is impossible to trace the history of ownership, on whom does the burden of proof rest?

Find out in our third lesson!