Layman Versus Lawyer: Alleged Drunk First Date Causes $300,000 Damage to Art In Attorney’s Residence

warhol29n-2-webTo a layman, the concerns of an attorney can seem quaint or overblown.  To an attorney, discussions with a layman can present a problem of translation.  That seemed to be the case in a dispute recently between Lindy Lou Layman and well-known attorney Anthony Buzbee.  Buzbee took Layman, 29, home after a first date.  She was drunk and allegedly proceeded to trash his home — causing more than $300,000 in damage to art including two Andy Warhol paintings. 

tony buzbee mug shot_1482209313023_7405900_ver1.0Buzbee (shown here in his own mugshot from an earlier dismissed DUI case) told police that he tried to get Layman to leave his his home and called her an uber ride but she refused to leave.  He said that she then hid from him and started to scream profanities while tossing wine on art and throwing (and smashing) art pieces.  This included damage to two Warhol pieces valued at $500,000 each.  Paintings were torn from the walls and liquid poured on them.

It may be time to sue Lindy Lou.

Buzbee can afford both the art and the litigation.  He secured the largest jury verdict in history against British Petroleum in 2009 and also served as counsel to the Governor Rick Perry of Texas in his indictment on two felony counts.

Whatever the outcome of this case, this was clearly a memorable and costly first date for both parties.

127 thoughts on “Layman Versus Lawyer: Alleged Drunk First Date Causes $300,000 Damage to Art In Attorney’s Residence”

  1. Oh my goodness, but these two people deserve each other! He probably thought he was going to git some, and she was blitzed. But IMHO, that was not what caused the problem, because can you imagine being falling down drunk and the first thing you see when you pry your eyelids open is Warhol art??? I mean, I would be like sooo WTF??? Am I in Hell??? Anyway, a multimedia Irish Poem!

    Whores D’oeuvre*???
    An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm

    There once was a lawyer sooo rank- – –
    That he brung home a very drunk skank!
    It t’werent lack of scruple. . .
    When she saw quadruple-
    She freaked and her mind drew a blank!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    * In French, hors d’oeuvre means “outside the work”, which kind of has two meanings if you think about it.

    FWIW, I also thought about the the third and fourth lines being:

    She was thrown for a loop
    By a big can of soup

  2. The state of inebriation of both may render nil either party’s credibility as a witness who can provide the Court with reliable testimony. This is the lesson of alcohol overconsumption — if you are victimized, and there are no sober witnesses or cameras, you may have already squandered your legal rights. Young women who want to party until they black out need to hear this message LOUD and CLEAR. The law cannot protect you if you cannot serve as your own witness.

  3. CV Brown – Alcatraz has been closed for some time. She could give tours there, though. 😉

  4. Destruction of art, especially historically significant art, is a sin. It cannot be repaired exactly to its unblemished state.

    I am troubled that Buzbee took Layman home when she was in such a state, but do not know if perhaps her car was there. If she was that drunk, she was unable to consent to anything.

    It is just not a good idea to sleep with strangers or bring them into your home. Casual meaningless sex is supposed to be cosmopolitan. However, just because she is a woman does not mean she’s not dangerous, clearly. From her mugshot, the possibility arises that she may do meth. I have no idea, and neither would Buzbee. I am not blaming the victim, but just pointing out ways that people can be proactive to avoid trouble.

    It is also troubling to read how the crime was minimized because the victim was wealthy. Those statues were smashed, lost forever. The art was damaged, never to be pristine again. These aren’t dollar bills ripped up but irreplaceable works that the artist poured his or her creativity and efforts into. No one can afford to be a victim of a crime, or subsequent legal drama, and everyone deserves equal sympathy regardless of class.

    1. Liberty2nd – I think he was wearing his “beer goggles” when he picked her up. However, she might do well with her makeup.

      1. True, nothing was said about his own state of sobriety. If he was drunk enough that he thought taking her home was a swell plan, then he wasn’t in a fit state to make decisions, either.

        1. Karen S – and how do we know that HE did not injure the paintings? We only have his word for it at this point and he is not a reliable witness.

          1. And, you know that he is an unreliable witness because. . .he once received a DWI? Because he chose to go out with an unstable person? Because he brought an inebriated woman home to his house?

            1. bam bam – all of the above. Plus, he hires Uber to take her home, not Yellow Cab. He was no soberer than she was. It was just that his body weight is greater so he could consume the same amount and do less damage. I am sure they were matching drinks.

              If I was defending her, I would want to see both of their bar bills for the evening. My guess is he is blowing. .2 and she is blowing .25. Much higher than that and they have alcohol poisoning.

  5. Does anybody know whether this Anthony Buzzi fellow is any relation to Ruth Buzzi of Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In fame??? The bone structure in the mug-shot seems to bear a family resemblance of sorts. And then there’s the bawdy lushes that Ruth Buzzi played on TV to consider. Maybe Anthony Buzzi was just looking for an odd sort of surrogate mother figure in Ms. Lindy Lou Layman. Am I making any sense to you, Cheddar?

  6. Da dude is a T rump fundraiser. Had a whopping big one at da house for T rump. Da drunken young one thought she was gonna cash in with da old geezer. Nothin new here.

  7. Really, two Warhols got damaged? I am questioning the price of the paintings and the damage. The problem is she probably was so drunk she thought they were copies, not originals. Anyone who runs away and hides when being escorted out of a house is not working on all cylinders.

    He brought her home, he is responsible for the damage. She is too intoxicated, probably at the blackout level. This would be one of those perfect cases if someone has sex with her, she would be too impaired to give consent. It would be rape.

    The assumption of the risk.

      1. Wealth doesn’t automatically imply intellect, and vice-versa (perhaps even more so!)

  8. Quite certain that an appropriate response, upon reading that an otherwise innocent individual–whose only sin, allegedly, was asking out a skanky-looking, unbalanced and violent woman–who was victimized by having his home trashed and losing irreplaceable art, would not be that said victim could “afford the art and the litigation”. . .really, JT?That is how you respond to learning of an individual who was victimized? That he can, according to you, afford it? How much can you afford to be terrorized, abused or victimized? How many of your personal and treasured possessions can you, personally, afford to lose? Is there a portion of your home and possessions that you would relinquish, to someone invited into your home, based upon your earnings? I, unfortunately, denote a sense of jealousy. . .a jealousy, which allows you to, somehow, dismiss the suffering and victimization of this individual, simply because he is a man of means. If the victim were, instead, a female, or, perhaps, a minority, would you be as brave and brazen to quip that the victim could afford having his or her precious works of art destroyed and that he or she could well-afford the litigation? News flash. . .the victim’s wealth is irrelevant. The victim’s class is irrelevant. The operative word, if you didn’t know, is VICTIM. From the few facts that were supplied, this man. . .no matter how wealthy, no matter how affluent. . .is the victim of a mad woman. . .where an attack occurred in his home and where irreplaceable works of art were vandalized and destroyed. The mere fact that one has means does not lessen the impact of an unprovoked attack and destruction of treasured possessions within one’s own home and sanctuary. A strange and odd slant on a story about a wealthy individual being abused and victimized. Class warfare. . .who said that it’s not alive and well?

    1. I believe you might be on to something there bam bam. A simply Google search for Anthony Buzbee brings up many, many photographs and yet JT opted to post a DUI mugshot. That cannot be accidental.

    2. Two possibilities among others- The woman was in the attorney’s “class”, explaining his effort to get compensation or, the lawyer anticipates a debt she will be compelled to pay, provoking some action on her part that he wants.
      In general terms, both the mentally ill and the impaired are victims. If exploitation instead of aid results, what inference can we draw about a “class” that thinks it is entitled? The Brock Turner case focused dialogue on the issue.

      1. The bottom line–anyone can be a victim. Anyone. Very simple. Nothing groundbreaking. The rich don’t get a pass on suffering or victimization. Yes. They suffer. Yes. They can be victims. Not just the mentally ill, not just the physically handicapped, not just the young, not just minorities, not just the poor, not just women, not just immigrants, not just animals. . .any person, of any social status, of any gender, of any age and of any degree of wealth, at any time, whatsoever, can be a victim. How is it that, on a legal blog, most commenting seem to miss that obvious point? How is it that a professor, whose life revolves around the teaching and study of the law, feels free to be flippant enough to allege that the victim–the rich victim–can well afford the losses and can pursue litigation? Perhaps, that is so, but is he not a victim of a crime? Outrageous to believe that this man can, somehow, afford the loss and destruction of his irreplaceable items or escape the suffering caused by the vandalism of his home, simply because he has the money to litigate. In other words, the wealthy have it coming to them. Assaults. Attacks. You name it. The price that they must pay for being so privileged. They can handle it. They are undeserving of pity or concern, as victims, because, by the very definition, the wealthy can sustain the losses. Fascinating. Ask yourselves. . .how much can I stand to lose. . .how much vandalism can I sustain to my property. . .how many treasured and irreplaceable items can I have destroyed. . .before I am declared a victim? What threshold must be crossed before I am considered to be a victim?

        1. For a hungry child, a meal is irreplaceable. Life itself and hope, they are irreplaceable.

          If the attorney really has something “irreplaceable” affixed to his walls then, the items should be in a museum where, if deemed worthy, they have protection.

          It’s pathetic, bam bam that you are oblivious to how money reduces the opportunities to be victimized and how entitled you feel to have those protections.

          1. What is truly pathetic is that you, along with others, seem to believe that money insulates a person from all harm. From all suffering. From all injury. From all hurt. From all damage. From all victimization. It’s not just the poor, hungry child who is a victim. Yes. There are any assortment of victims–rich and poor, young and old–and, no, contrary to your immature and stunted belief system, priceless objects are not always found in museums. They are often found in the possession of individuals who, through hard work, perseverance and determination, have succeeded in life and have been fortunate enough to obtain such items. It’s sad that people like you, so obviously envious and jealous of the accomplishments of others–not to mention, the priceless possessions that those accomplishments allow them to purchase–can’t comprehend the possibility of suffering in all human beings, regardless of their respective bank accounts. A very sick and demented way to see the world, which, I suspect, emanates from jealousy and envy. Good luck with that.

            1. The rich are all but immune from being indicted for any crime. Ever hear of Wall Street, Big banking, Monsanto, Apple, Congress, Obama, Hillary, etc? Books have been written about the privileges the rich enjoy at the expense of the middle class.

              1. Are the rich to blame for the corruptible political class? All classes of citizens lobby the legislature, that’s human nature. It is also human nature for politicians to ignore their oath of office. When you support a government that will exceed its authority and not provide the equal security of rights for all our citizens, then it’s not just the government that is to blame, it’s not just the wealthy or just the poor that is to blame. It’s the entire body politic that is to blame.

                1. The body politic is to blame for Hillary sacking Bernie Sanders? The body politic is to blame for fake news? The body politic is to blame for a criminal deep state?

                  You probably do not know that, like separation of church and state, there also used to be separation of enterprise and state. Not until we restore what bribing carpetbaggers and whoring politicians destroyed during Reconstruction, can Americans ever hope to have their constitutional and God-given liberties completely restored.

                  1. Not until we restore what bribing carpetbaggers and whoring politicians destroyed during Reconstruction, can Americans ever hope to have their constitutional and God-given liberties completely restored.

                    The operative word there is we. Hope will not change anything. Nothing will change until the majority of our citizens accept responsibility for the government we have.

                    Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature … If the next centennial does not find us a great nation…it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.
                    James Garfield, 1877

                  2. vinegart, The latest proof of consumer profit hijacking for political purpose is Trump’s DeSantos of Florida. In DeSantos’ camp, the usual suspects- co-founder of Home Depot, hedge fund magnate Mercer, religious right and Bannon friend Foster Freiss, and Adelson.

                    1. I’m against all corruption. if you are in denial about Hillary sacking Bernie, then you and I can never have a conversation. Period!

                    2. There are no grounds to refute the suggestion that Bernie’s campaign was axed by Clinton associates.
                      CAP and Podesto are not friends to labor.

              2. Thank you for proving my point. You did so, beautifully. The demented and warped mentality that the rich, by virtue of their privilege, have it coming to them. The bizarre and odd notion that crimes, such as assaults or attacks, on those who are wealthy, can be easily tolerated or sustained due to the privileged status of said wealthy individuals, because, of course, there is no victimhood for the elite. I wonder how much pain and abuse is acceptable for you, personally, to sustain? What if I believed that you made enough money to survive the break-in of your home and the loss of your possessions? Would you say, oh well. . .someone in need can make good use of my hard-earned possessions? Would you celebrate to victory of good, over evil, declaring that some individual felt as though he should level the playing field a bit by helping himself to your things? Yeah. Try to convince everyone that you would understand and sympathize with loss or destruction of items in your home. The loss and destruction by someone who viewed you as too privileged. . .to elite. Somehow, that would never occur, because until you feel the pain, yourself, you are incapable of empathy. A sad, sad state of affairs, when we, proudly and unapologetically, celebrate the suffering of others we deem deserving of such suffering due to their wealth.

                1. The law of unintended consequences prevails when the Linda’s and Vinegart’s of the world fire first and then wait to see where they’ve aimed. Oops, I didn’t think about that is typically their next reaction as they go about compounding their mistake with another.

                  1. All who are aware of the history of aristocracies’ overthrow, have fear and dread, which is why empathetic people, as they watch wealth concentrate to the point that it strangles justice and economic growth, still strive for a political outcome that avoids revolution. Targeting the greed and callousness of the richest 1%, won’t prevent innocents from harm. Widespread suffering as the result of intolerable conditions like in Washington state, home to Bezos and Gates, where the poor pay a tax rate 7 times that of the rich will inevitably provoke response.
                    It’s anticipated by the wealthy as reflected in their funding of aerial community surveillance without the knowledge of the elected leaders (Enron’s John Arnold and the city of Baltimore).
                    People like bam bam will have ignored and refused to address the conditions, assuring a violent U.S. future all because he thinks he thinks his possessions are his due. 1,000,000 Irish were allowed to die for the same reason.

                    1. because he thinks he thinks his possessions are his due.

                      WTF are you talking about? his possessions ARE his possessions. It’s not about thinking that to be true, it’s not about thinking his possessions are his due, what he is due is his legally acquired property, he has a natural right to that property.

                    2. They are not my due, dear comrade Linda. My possessions are mine, simply, because I worked for them. Earned them. Saved for them. Purchased them, with my hard-earned m9ney. That’s right. I’m a proud capitalist. I didn’t take anything from you. I didn’t steal anything from you. I didn’t deprive you of an opportunity to work and obtain the things that I possess. Neither did anyone else. Stop being delusional. Get off of your lazy a$$ and get to work. Save. Plan. Then, you, too, could have what you need. What you desire. Instead, you b!tch and moan about what others have. Gripe that it is unfair. Boo hoo. Cry me a river. You are no victim. Stop obsessing about what others have and improve your own life. Learn the concept of gratitude. Hard work. Perseverance. Perhaps, if you did, you wouldn’t be so bothered by what others have or possess.

                    3. bam bam,
                      Bastiat has Linda nailed to perfection. She cannot argue against his philosophy so she will dismiss him because of what she perceives is his undeserved inheritance.

                      But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.


                    4. Possessions-his due
                      It was a proud moment for American democracy when, following 2008, local police departments refused to evict homeowners despite claims of bank ownership of the properties. The institutions had no proof of ownership but, had bundled papers showing inflated home values, with bogus income projections for payees, which were fraudulently signed off on, by bank employees. Not one person at the top of the bank hierarchy, who enriched himself by orchestrating American financial Armageddon, faced charges nor lost his smoke and mirrors- driven “income”.

                      Despicable moments for the current U.S. colonialism- every time a hedge funder gets a tax advantage from carried interest.

                      A lot of “personal” possessions are inextricably linked to policy (e.g. corporate welfare, prohibited price negotiations by customers of big Pharma, etc. ) so what is one’s “due” is untethered to hard work and contribution.
                      The financial sector drags down GDP by an estimated 2%.

                    5. Linda – you threw a lot of crap against the wall hoping it would stick, but most of it was fraudulent. I am not even going to take the time to tear it apart. You, and your crap, are not worth my time and trouble.

                    6. Linda – bam bam’s possessions are his due because he paid for them or inherited them. They sure the f**k are for common use.

                2. You make it sound like British Petroleum paid for those Andy Warhol paintings, when in fact you and I paid for them at the fuel pump. Stop living in a dream world!

                  1. Yeah. And on any claim, that you leveled, against your insurance company, for damages and injuries, whether justified or not, whether truly sustained, or not, the rest of us paid for in higher premiums to make up for that bonanza, on your part. Yeah. That’s right. I paid for the money that you received from your insurance company. . .for your car accident. . .for damages to your home. . .for that slip and fall. . .for that botched operation. You think that your measly premiums paid for that windfall that you received? We all paid for it. We all paid for it in higher insurance costs. Give it back. We all paid for your settlement. Sounds about right, now doesn’t it?

                    1. Your premiums also help to pay for the six- and seven-figure salaries of insurance executives!

                    2. Trust me. . .no need to explain that to me. I get it. I was responding to an individual who condemned an individual for benefiting from a lawsuit in which his client prevailed, stating that we pay for the lawyer’s victory every time that we go to the gas station. I was attempting to remind her that we all pay for her victories when she submits a claim against an insurance company and prevails. . .we all pay for her gain, in the form of higher premiums, across the board. Some how, some way, when she is the beneficiary, that is okay.

            2. Linda’s seething jealousy and envy of people with wealth is on regular display here. In almost every single comment she makes. Not a great way to go through life.

              1. No envy, no jealousy- just abject loathing for a political system of colonialism that replaced the American democracy. The lesson from 1,000,000 Irish who were allowed to die because of colonialism is too important to ever forget. And, failing to heed it, as a warning, is beyond reprehensible.

                1. The American system that rejected British colonialism is based on the principles of equality and natural rights. That the true purpose of any government is to secure those rights equally for all. If you want to discover the root cause of the failure to accomplish that end, then look no further than means that our administrative state employs that defies those principles.

                  You really have 1 of 2 options: either accept the founding principles or reject them. There is no middle ground.

              2. Just cuz ya know your pocket is being picked by the likes of Stevie Mnuchin and d boys from Goldman does not mean you are jealous of em. It just means you ain’t stupid enough to buy T rump’s con job.

            3. Money doesn’t insulate from everything, but it helps more than anything else will, I’m afraid.

          2. If the attorney really has something “irreplaceable” affixed to his walls then, the items should be in a museum where, if deemed worthy, they have protection.

            Your socialist ideology is disgusting. What part of property rights do you not accept? In your worldview, someone that has property in excess of what you deem reasonable should have no expectation that they should be secure in their property. You don’t get to decide who should be considered a victim. You would have the state determine how much of someone’s property rights is worthy of security; where their qualifications as a victim begins and ends. Your type of envy is destructive to civil society.

            Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

            1. Olly,

              One of my friends is from Moldova. She went back to visit her ailing mother, bringing her little boy along. All the other kids took his toys from him, because they grew up in the remnants of socialist society. They believed his toys did not belong to him. Anyone could take them and enjoy them, and then they get passed on down the line. They looked down upon anyone who put value into owning things.

              American pro-socialists should really experience socialism to gain perspective. Have people mob their home and cart of their things, because ownership is so capitalist. Any rickety table would do, and everyone has the same stale bread in their pantry. If you create things to sell, you’d have to do it on the black market, afraid that your neighbors would turn you in for the crime of capitalism. After all, doing better than anyone else, based on your own ideas and labor, is evil according to their grimoire.

              1. You don’t have to make a trip to Moldova. The same mentality can be easily found on this blog.

              2. Karen,
                The biggest threat to free enterprise comes from the American oligarchy. The share of national income going to labor is at the lowest point in recorded history.

                1. Take the money out of politics. I support free market capitalism but not crony capitalism. Politicians cannot be bought if they are not for sale.

                  Once you take away unfair influence, people are free to succeed while enjoying equal rights as anyone else.

                  Hillary Clinton is a symbol of politics for hire. She sold 1/5 of our uranium to Russia. What will the rest of us have to bear as the consequences of her actions? What about the consequences of her taking over the debt of the DNC in exchange for controlling the entire committee, before the primaries even took place? She was a power broker, and the average citizen suffered. Those in Benghazi and their loved ones suffered. She is one of the very reasons why we need to take the money out of politics. Everyone should be equal under the law, but we would be rotting in some oubliette if we created our own server to handle classified information, uploaded its contents to the Cloud, and then destroyed evidence with a hammer. That is not robust individual rights. Its a government ruling class operating under a different set of laws.

                  1. Oh for crying out loud already! Nobody is going to take bam bam’s toys away from bam bam. It’s the most ridiculous reductio ad absurdum I’ve yet to read on his blawg. You cannot be serious. For how long have you free-marketeers been harboring these childhood grudges of yours, anyhow? Let go. Move on. Time to put away childish things.

                    1. Can you say “Rosebud?”
                      Do you know what “Rosebud” means?
                      Where’s Al O’Heem when you need him?

                    2. Diane – Rosebud is the name of Kane’s sled. Of course, it has other meanings, at least one sexual. Which Rosebud are you talking about?

                    3. Instead of engaging in dismissive criticism, how about making a point of providing substantive argument to support your position (if indeed you possess one other than being contrarian). You’ve offered only vacuous content. Karen consistently provides multi-faceted analysis and facts to support her position. Loudly shouting hyperbole may appear for some to be an effective means of counterpointing but it does not objectively establish credibility to what you are saying. In other words, know that creation of something of worth, value or structure requires talent, time and resources. But to tear down someone or something requires only force and any level of wit, however dim, is capable of that.

                    4. Well, then . . . At least you troubled yourself to reply directly for a change, Mr. Smith. While you were typing your reply to me, I was busily typing further replies to Karen S. Therefore, I shall eagerly await your reply to my replies to Karen once you’ve read them–assuming that you can trouble yourself further toward that end.

                      BTW, Karen S. is the one who broached the subject of Moldovan Socialists depriving Moldovan-American children visiting Moldova of their toys. It’s good to know that you regard Karen’s toy-snatching complaint as another example of her multi-faceted analyses rather than a ridiculous reduction to an absurdity the observation of which you further decry as vacuous content. But in this particular case, Darren, Karen S. was not up to her usual snuff.

                    5. Paul asked L4D, “you have proof that Karen is wrong?”

                      Karen S. had said, “All the other kids took his toys from him, because they grew up in the remnants of socialist society.”

                      I’ll gladly take Karen’s word for her anecdote. However, I simply must deny that The International Communist conspiracy had anything whatsoever to do Lindy Lou Layman hurling wine at Anthony Buzzbee’s Andy Warhol paintings. Likewise, I further deny that neglecting to express empathy for Buzzbee’s criminal victimization makes anyone the remnant of a socialist society that steals toys from children.

                      Of course, if either Paul C. Schulte or Karen S. can “prove” the contrary to what I’ve just denied, then I’d love to conduct a multi-faceted analysis of the supposed “proof.” Otherwise, Karen’s toy-snatching complaint remains the most ridiculous reduction to an absurdity that I have thus far read on this here blawg.

                    6. Diane – if you have been reading my posts on this subject, I think Lindy Lou might be innocent, He doesn’t sound sober either.

                    7. L4D,
                      You’re on a righteous roll.
                      Laughter had to be the response to Karen’s property value comparisons that included her kids’ locks of hair in the same category with easily valued paintings ($300,000).
                      Fox listeners resent expectations that they broaden their vision from the network’s talking points. Karen is a person who wants to justify the talking points with original examples and anecdotes- the result is a less polished version of a horror show.

                    8. Linda, I have every reason to believe that children have been filching one another’s toys for as long as there have been toys in the world.

                      But until I read it with my own eyes right here on this blawg, I had no reason seriously to believe that any adults would remain so downright indignant about the theft of their beloved “Rosebuds” as to amass vast fortunes worthy of provoking the envy and resentment of those who had done them wrong when they just little kids.

                      Nor had it occurred to me that any adults of lesser means would reflexively bask in the borrowed glory of any given rich person’s envy vendetta whilst shaking their bleeding hearts in the manner of a talisman to ward off the dreaded riff raff. Their plight seems to pitiable for credulity.

                2. T rump and his cronies want to suck da life out of da middle class. They want a country like the one one in da “Hunger Games”.

                  1. Let us eat cake. Like T rump does. Two scoops of ice cream for all. Sugar-free for diabetic patients.

                    1. Professor Mifsud told Papadopoulos The Russians had emails damaging to Hillary Clinton in April 2016. Papadopoulos told Autralian diplomat, Alexander Downer, what Mifsud had told him in May 2016. Wikileaks began posting the emails in June 2016. The Australians told The FBI what Papadopoulos told Downer immediately after Wikileaks posted the emails in June 2016. The FBI launched its investigation of Russian election meddling immediately after the tip from Australia.

                      No Steele dossier required. Except that the Australian tip-off verified and corroborated at least two allegations in the Steele dossier. Way to go, Five Eyes Alliance. Way to go!

              3. There are a lot of envious “Pauls” in the world. Or Lindas.

                A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. George Bernard Shaw

                1. Olly – to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever robbed anyone to support me. 🙂 Although I am still trying to figure out how to get my ATM to give me too much money. 😉 BTW, if they are robbing anyone, they do not have my support.

                  1. 🙂 I thought about you when I wrote that post. Not that I considered you were that Paul, but that I should make a conscious effort to state you were not.

                    1. Olly – thanks, I appreciate your support. I have been watching too many crime shows, never know when you need an alibi. 😉

                2. It’s not envy, Chief. It’s aidos–defined by Joan Didion in “The White Album” as an admixture of pity and ruth, where ruth is further held to be a type of revulsion–believe it or not.

                  P. S. that’s from memory. I can’t find the exact quote. But I do recall Didion giving the example of Achilles putting Hector out of his misery then proceeding to desecrate Hector’s corpse by dragging thrice around the walls of Troy. Go figure.

                  1. O! Bother. I still can’t find Didion’s take on aidos. So here’s what Schmikipedia has to say, instead:

                    “Aidos was the Greek goddess of shame, modesty, and humility. Aidos, as a quality, was that feeling of reverence or shame which restrains men from wrong. It also encompassed the emotion that a rich person might feel in the presence of the impoverished, that wealth was more a matter of luck than merit.

                    She was the last goddess to leave the earth after the Golden Age. She was a close companion of the goddess of vengeance Nemesis. One source calls her daughter of Prometheus. Mythologically, she is often considered to be more of a personification than a physical deity.”

                    That’s not exactly what Didion was getting at; but it seems to fit the fracas on this thread well enough anyway.

                    1. Sorry anonymous. You’re quicker than I am. I hope I didn’t hurt your toes too badly. More coffee. Now.

                    2. It’s Republican leaders McConnell and Ryan who help deliver the agenda of Trump’s backers, the richest 0.1%, whose interests run counter to American interests.

                  1. Nothing the NYT fact checks beats the real deal straight from the horse’s mouth:

                    TRUMP: Yeah. Virtually every Democrat has said there is no collusion. There is no collusion. And even these committees that have been set up. If you look at what’s going on — and in fact, what it’s done is, it’s really angered the base and made the base stronger. My base is stronger than it’s ever been. Great congressmen, in particular, some of the congressmen have been unbelievable in pointing out what a witch hunt the whole thing is. So, I think it’s been proven that there is no collusion.

                    Check that against the tip-off to The FBI from Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, on the link posted somewhere upstream from here. O! Do we owe the Aussies, Big Time. G’day Mates.

                    1. More NYT in the kitchen with Donald blowing his horn:

                      TRUMP: [Inaudible.] So, I actually think that it’s turning out — I actually think it’s turning to the Democrats because there was collusion on behalf of the Democrats. There was collusion with the Russians and the Democrats. A lot of collusion.

                      There was tremendous collusion on behalf of the Russians and the Democrats. There was no collusion with respect to my campaign. I think I’ll be treated fairly. Timingwise, I can’t tell you. I just don’t know. But I think we’ll be treated fairly.

                      What I’ve done is, I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department. But for purposes of hopefully thinking I’m going to be treated fairly, I’ve stayed uninvolved with this particular matter.

                      For purposes of the Justice Department, I watched Alan Dershowitz the other day . . . he said, No. 1, there is no collusion, No. 2, collusion is not a crime, but even if it was a crime, there was no collusion. And he said that very strongly. He said there was no collusion. And he has studied this thing very closely. I’ve seen him a number of times. There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime. But there’s no collusion. I don’t even say [inaudible]. I don’t even go that far.

                      But there is tremendous collusion with the Russians and with the Democratic Party.

                      Remember: In April of 2016 Mifsun told Papadopoulos that the Russians had emails damaging to Hillary Clinton. In May of 2016 Papadopoulos told Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, what Mifsun had told Papadopoulos. When Wikileaks started leaking the emails, The Australians told The FBI what Papadopoulos had told Downer. The FBI then launched its investigation of Russian election meddling in July of 2016 before Christopher Steele filed his first intelligence report with The FBI. And the tip-off from The Australians subsequently verified and corroborated at least two allegations in the Steele dossier.

                      Admittedly that’s a lot to remember. So boil it down to this: 1) The FBI started investigating Russian election meddling in 2016 before they had received any intelligence reports from Steele; and 2) the evidence the FBI had already uncovered verified and corroborated key allegations in the Steele dossier.

                      Now recall what Trump said: “But there is tremendous collusion with the Russians and with the Democratic Party.” So what? Who cares? Then recall what Dershowitz said, “collusion is not a crime.”

                      P. S. The Aussies are Awesome.

          3. Linda – my family photos are irreplaceable. The lock of a child’s hair is irreplaceable. Original art that you love and enjoy in your home is not replaceable.

            No human being puts everything that means the most to him or her in a museum, far away where it cannot be enjoyed.

            Victims of a crime deserve sympathy regardless of class. Showing snobbery or class warfare to a victim of a crime is intolerant and unkind. What kind of world would we live in if we judge someone negatively by their level of financial success, or think they deserve it or don’t matter when they are on the receiving end of a crime? Someone, somewhere, is worse off financially than you. How would you feel if those people disregarded you if you were targeted by a criminal and your house trashed? Should the middle class be joyous or callous when the middle class gets hurt? And so on up the ladder? How inhumane.

            Concerns about dire financial straights are in addition to the general, humane concern one would show to any victim of a crime.

            1. Karen,
              Layman or Buzbee, which is the victim? You probably should look for a better example to pin your smug mash of rationalizations on, since we don’t know Ms. Layman’s “class”. Buzbee’s 1st date allegedly ended with the loss of his property so, you assume a poor person victimized him? Based on Layman size and likely impairment, why should we believe a big, rich guy couldn’t protect his stuff from a lady he invited into his home? Does he expect the taxes that community members pay, to enforce his property rights?
              Taxpayers who are workers shouldn’t be expected to pay security costs for the possessions that are excessive like “priceless” art and which are owned by people who could easily be described, in the circumstances, as irresponsible. Oh, where o where, would it end? Along the same lines, a police department in Arizona decided their tax-funded services were being disproportionately used by the distant-owned Walmart and said, to the Walton’s, protect you own damn stuff or pay extra.
              BTW, no museum wants that lock of your kids’ hair, no matter how special and entitled you think that your offspring are.

              Let’s hear your rationalization about the 1,000,000 Irish allowed to die because the rich in England shared your economic views?

              1. Okay Linda. You are obviously cray-cray.
                There is absolutely no point in engaging with you anymore.
                Have a nice life, if you can.

                1. I’m following Linda just fine. The subject of class warfare was broached by bam bam, who accused Turley of being so jealous of Buzzbee’s wealth as supposedly to deprive him of his status as a crime victim. Needless to say, bam bam’s accusation against Turley reveals more about the chips on both of bam bam’s shoulders than it reveals about Turley. And then came the obsequy paid to The Almighty Dollar. And you think Linda is the crazy person??? Why, yes, of course that’s what you would think. Isn’t it???

              2. “since we don’t know Ms. Layman’s “class”” Well, no one said that Ms Layman could afford her crime did they? They said Buzbee could, which is why I referred to class has no bearing on compassion for the victim of a crime.

                “why should we believe a big, rich guy couldn’t protect his stuff from a lady he invited into his home?” Well, to do so would require him putting his hands on her and wrestling her to the ground. Perhaps there would have been consequences for that decision. Do you object to someone letting the police handle a violent person, and would instead prefer for citizens to handle it themselves? That is indeed an option.

                “Taxpayers who are workers shouldn’t be expected to pay security costs for the possessions that are excessive like “priceless” art and which are owned by people who could easily be described, in the circumstances, as irresponsible.” Please clarify. Are you against museums accepting government grants, which go to the salaries of security staff, climate control, and infrastructure? I like museums, personally, and support public endowments to the arts. I do not know of any taxpayer money that Buzbee would have access to to pay for security for his art. Or was it a misuse of taxpayer funds for police to answer calls to the successful?

                As for no museum wanting a lock of my child’s hair, you remarked, “If the attorney really has something “irreplaceable” affixed to his walls then, the items should be in a museum where, if deemed worthy, they have protection.” Value is in the eye of the beholder. If someone finds an item irreplaceable, why would they want it far away under maximum security, rather than enjoy it in their own home? Original works of art are unique. Precious keepsakes are unique.

                As for the less wealthy paying a higher rate than the rich, that is a misnomer. Investment income is taxed at a lower rate in order to stimulate investment. If it was taken at half or higher, no one would invest, certainly not the middle class. That would decimate 401K and IRA accounts. The rich just happen to invest like everyone else. If they no longer get employment income, then more of their income is investment. They follow tax laws just like everyone else. Without investment income, there is no venture capital, no funding of fantastic innovating ideas like new wind turbines or start up companies. In actuality, the rich pay a disproportionate amount of income. The top 10% earners pay more in taxes than the entire population combined.

                I hold no animosity for the poor who didn’t build anything, using Elizabeth Warren’s terms. They don’t build bridges or schools or dams or green energy grants. They enjoy what the rest of us pay for. The rich pay for almost all of our tax burden, and likewise, I do not resent them for paying the freight or for their success. I’m grateful for their shouldering the load, and would be delighted if I was similarly successful one day. The poor are not evil, nor are the rich. We should all be judged on the content of our character and our actions, not by class.

                That is how Caste systems work, and that’s not supposed to be how we do it in America.

                Class warfare is how we got Venezuela, and all the starving children. It’s also how the French sent little children to the guillotine. It’s something to be rejected as intolerant and bigoted and hateful, and it has led to the murder of millions of people and untold suffering.


                    1. Slaves, by definition don’t pay taxes. But, the state of Washington found a way to bleed them dry. It has the most regressive tax system in the U.S. and its home to Bezos and Gates who pay no state income taxes and have their palaces capped at a tax rate of 1%.

                    2. Linda,

                      You are mistaken about Washington’s 1% property tax cap. The cap refers to the amount that a taxing district may increase a tax assessment rate. This does not reflect necessarily the amount of tax paid by a property owner. Washington further requires that all properties be assessed at 100% of their market value, as determined by the County Assessor and his or her agents.

                      From the Department of Revenue’s website:

                      What is the one percent levy limit on increases in property taxes?

                      It limits increases in taxes by individual taxing districts to one percent annually. For example, if a city levies their highest lawful l levy, $1 million in property taxes, it can only levy $1.01 million the next year, plus any tax revenues generated by new construction, improvements to property, state assessed utility value increases, and wind turbines, solar, biomass, and geothermal facilities added to the tax rolls in the past year.

                      Since you bring up Bill Gates. His residence, according to the King County Assessor was assessed at $124,994,000.00. The property taxes for 2017 were $1,041,278.77. A residence two blocks away is assessed at $2,690,000 and pays $ 22,422.15 (for comparison of City of Medina taxing district properties) the two rates of taxation are 0.0083306300302415 and 0.0083353717472119. Each tax district has differing rates due to voter approved initiatives and other taxation such as school districts and utilities. Not all are present or taxed at the same rate.

                      Tax rates change every year. Most often they rise but over the past eight years it was mostly down of the previous year. For the comparative property the tax bill changed by about a thousand dollars each year. It happens occasionally for assessed property value to take wide swings. The assessed value in my home town leapt by 28% for 2018. Returning to the Gates Property. For 2018 his assessed value increased $2,490,000.00 applying his tax rate he would pay $20,743.27 more in taxes.

                      Now we have to look at the value of having Mr. Gates and bringing Microsoft to Redmond, Bellevue, Issaquah, and Seattle. This brought in Billions of dollars in economic benefit to the area. Redmond was a small town prior to Microsoft. The company employs probably around 50,000 employees worldwide with its corporate center in Redmond. Think about it. If Washington chased away Microsoft at the beginning through unfavorable taxation and other negative accommodations, Redmond would probably have many vacant lots and comparatively little development. The employees along provide billions of dollars in tax toward King county alone.

                      If the state were to enact an income tax, (which our state supreme court declared unconstitutional in the 1940s), the tax rate likely would have been a factor in many large businesses not moving here. Most prominently, the citizen voters in the state do not want an income tax. It has been defeated every time it comes up and very often in the past politicians might position themselves and provide lip service toward enacting such a tax but politicians realize that forging ahead to actually pass an income tax was a political death sentence. That is the will of the voters here and I do not see this changing.

                    3. Smith, you’re reporting that Gates pays substantially LESS THAN 1% in property taxes on his palace!!!!

                      WORLDWIDE the company Gates founded employs 50,000 PEOPLE. He and the other 4 richest men in the world each have WEALTH EQUIVALENT to 750,000,000 PEOPLE and their share is growing.
                      So, Gates takes his outsized influence and tries to get state judges ousted from their jobs because they rendered verdicts favorable to public schools. In addition to working to corporatize public education (he’s an investor in the largest for-profit seller of schools-in-a-box), he gets an audience to attack raising minimum wage and to attack public pensions.

                  1. We were invited to discuss an incident in which a drunken, deranged woman hurled wine at a pair of Andy Warhol paintings. We are now discussing “class warfare . . . starving children . . . little children [sent] to the guillotine . . . [as] something to be rejected as intolerant and bigoted and hateful . . . [that] has led to the murder of millions of people and untold suffering.”

                    That transition goes by the name of agonistic argumentation. Agonistic arguments are required to be both relevant to, and proportionate with, the original issue under discussion. Which, I remind you, was an incident in which a drunken, deranged woman hurled wine at a pair of Andy Warhol paintings. Surely any truly reasonable person can clearly see that the agonistic arguments in question, here, are both irrelevant to, and disproportionate with, the original issue under discussion. And one need not conduct a multi-faceted analysis of the substantive content to arrive at that conclusion. You are treating human misery as though it were a mere playing piece on a board game that you aim to win at all costs including your capacity for reason and quite possibly even any future claim you might someday to stake on your own humanity.

                1. …investment is sooo hard and you have to take such big risks. Right. Just call TD Ameritrade, tell them you want to buy into an index fund. Snap.
                  The bigger problem is getting a paycheck that allows for disposable income to invest, which the richest 400 families have pretty much eliminated.
                  If you do invest, follow up with hope that the wealthy don’t gerrymander your state, spend big bucks advertising for their politicians and then, pray like hell that they don’t think a new way to suppress your vote.

                2. Karen S. said, “The top 10% earners pay more in taxes than the entire population combined.”

                  Karen, don’t be upset, but I’m afraid I will require an explanation for your statement quoted above. Perhaps you meant to say the top 10% of income-earners pay more in income-taxes than the bottom 90% of income-earners. That would seem far likelier than the formal impossibility that you posted.

              3. “Let’s hear your rationalization about the 1,000,000 Irish allowed to die because the rich in England shared your economic views?”

                Well, again, that would be the result of judging someone on the basis of class, so this proved my point. Class warfare leads to death, suffering, and ruin. That is the inherent value in equal, robust, individual rights. No government has the right to oppress you, no rich person would have unequal application of the law, and no poor mob could seize your land and property and turn the country into an egalitarian starvation zone where everyone scrabbles over toilet paper.

                1. You need to rework your causal relationships, Karen. “Death, suffering and ruin” cause class warfare. The Irish weren’t “judged based on class”. They starved to death.
                  BTW- That ship sailed, the one where the U.S. isn’t ruled by the rich. Citizens United was left in its place.

                  1. If you believe that the poor and those “in trade” were not judged and suppressed based on class, in countries without robust individual rights, throughout history, then you are ill informed.

                    The Irish starved in the potato famine, but they also faced prejudice. The Corn Laws imposed high tariffs on imported grain, which increased the cost of food, especially for the poor. Massive unemployment led most of the country to depend on a single staple for food – the potato. And any number of extinct species can tell you that when you depend upon one single food source, you are vulnerable. The potato is quite nutrient poor, and merely provides simple carbohydrate calories. Therefore, the nation would have poor nutrition and would be prone towards disease. Tenant farmer plots were usually so small, around an acre, that only potato could produce enough calories for the space. Catholics had been discriminated against severely, and were not allowed to lease or own land until mere decades before the famine. Landlords were largely absent and rent collectors squeezed the population. No one really seemed to care about them, because they were poor, and thus of a lower caste. Tenants had absolutely no rights at all (you do recall my point about robust individual rights?)

                    England most decidedly did not share our own Constitutionally protected individual rights, rights we are even now fighting to protect against Big Government. Ireland did not have proper representation, and therefore did not receive the support from the Crown during the famine that it should have. John Mitchel, who savagely criticized England for its abhorrent and prejudicial treatment of the Irish was charged with sedition, there being no free speech. The land snatching Gregory Clause of the Poor Law requiring landlords to fight the famine barred any food relief to anyone who owned 1/4 of an acre or more. Therefore, many Irish were driven off of tiny plots of land in order to go to a soup kitchen. The Potato Famine would not have played out as it did if there were equal representation, as well as are speech and strong individual rights.

                    “Death, suffering, and ruin” did not cause today’s class warfare. The failure of Progressive policies which damaged the economy, destroyed the nuclear family among minorities, and ruined many of their prospects led to suffering and high crime, and Progressive talking points blamed the wealthy for all of their problems. Massive unemployment, no upward mobility, few rights, no freedom of speech, and prejudice against the poor were largely to blame for the perfect storm that created the Potato Famine.

                    Progressives would create a Big Government to rule by fiat. Their policies hamper the economy and create more unemployment. The economy is experiencing a surge right now, but we will have to see if it can sustain itself as politicians quarrel over policy. Progressives campaign against free speech, especially on college campuses. They exhibit severe prejudice against the wealthy, and oftentimes the middle class, especially the business owner. Anyone upwardly mobile is deemed the enemy. They would see people quarrel with each other for no other reason than the color of their skin, as white is deemed the enemy. We have seen how such politics play out. Pray we do not need to repeat this experiment to learn our lesson. It would be a shame to ruin the land where we enjoy more freedoms than anywhere else in the world.

                  2. Linda – if you don’t think the Irish were treated based on their .class you need to read an English history book written before 1940.

                    1. Schulte-
                      You’ve taken the time to emphasize that the starving were “judged as a class” before they died? If only they had been told that by Fox, it would have helped them understand why so many of them were hungry.

                2. Karen S. said, “Class warfare leads to death, suffering, and ruin.”

                  The original class warfare went by the name of Manorialism on The British Isles and Feudalism on the Continent. It was class warfare waged by the landed gentry against The Commons who were, by law, defenseless against their landlords. Oddly enough, a great many of the early, colonial immigrants to America had been driven off the land at the point of a bayonet and their crops burned by The Redcoats, too, during the clearances and the inclosures. A curious thing about potatoes is that The Redcoats couldn’t burn them while they were still in the ground. And that’s how the potato monoculture got started all across Europe–not just in Ireland.

                  In any case, Colonial Americans roundly rejected Manorialism. And The American Revolution led to the demise of Manorialism in The British Isles and, later, Continental Europe, as well. As such, I would surmise that Linda rightly fears an atavistic resumption of Manorialism as an eventual outcome from the globalization of the world economy. We are all currently living in an Age of Atavism. And Trump just so happens to be Exhibit A in the case for, and against, American Atavism.

  9. It happens — when you lure an addict to your home with the promise of more substance, but all you have to offer is you, a big house and Warhol paintings. How do you win big awards and not win a decent woman?

Comments are closed.