My wife has been asking me if I like licorice for years. Now, she's buying feathers like mad, telling me I'll be about to fly off of our high perched deck.

She keeps saying I need to think about licorice. What the hell does licorice have to do with flying? Well, she's convinced it will work, and she keeps telling me that I will be able to get above the clouds and get close enough to the sun to feel its warmth.

I jump this afternoon. The best news is I've learned to love licorice so much that it has become my wife's nickname for me. After this works, no more $12 a gallon charges.

Licorice Rules!

[quote=harborknight]If a crisis or disaster occurs, and the price of gas (or other supplies) rises, that is called price gouging, and it is illegal, and prosecuted with vigor. [quote]

Unfortunately, price gouging in a time of disaster is not prosecuted vigorously, at least not here. The State, through the Governor, has some ability to deal with price gouging in a time of disaster, but I can't remember that power being exercised in my lifetime. RCW 43.06.220:

1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting:

(a) Any person being on the public streets, or in the public parks, or at any other public place during the hours declared by the governor to be a period of curfew;

(b) Any number of persons, as designated by the governor, from assembling or gathering on the public streets, parks, or other open areas of this state, either public or private;

(c) The manufacture, transfer, use, possession or transportation of a molotov cocktail or any other device, instrument or object designed to explode or produce uncontained combustion;

(d) The transporting, possessing or using of gasoline, kerosene, or combustible, flammable, or explosive liquids or materials in a glass or uncapped container of any kind except in connection with the normal operation of motor vehicles, normal home use or legitimate commercial use;

(e) The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person's place of residence or business;

(f) The sale, purchase or dispensing of alcoholic beverages;

(g) The sale, purchase or dispensing of other commodities or goods, as he or she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life, health, property or the public peace;

(h) The use of certain streets, highways or public ways by the public; and

(i) Such other activities as he or she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life, health, property or the public peace.

I could buy this if the charges for the fuel truck were detailed on the invoices. Not so much when the gas is just charged at $12/gallon. Any bookkeeper worth their salt should know how to detail that out appropriately...especially when they're being paid $50k for a few weeks of work.

And don't forget that the bookkeeper was his wife, and supposedly, he had never charged the PUD for his wife's bookkeeping services before.

Okay, you are right, and I was completely wrong on this one. Washington appears to be the ONLY state where price gouging is apparently legal.



http://www.shell.us/home/content/usa/abo...ce_gouging.html

"During the trial the PUD was restricted by the court from presenting arguments related to the rates charged by Spradlin Rock, which was critical to the PUD’s argument."


Did this come as a surprise to the PUD after start of the trial, or was this known prior to the start? And why would the court make such a restriction? Did the court error in this regard? Is there any reason to think any such restriction would not be made in the appeals process?

It's my understanding that the court's decision to restrict the evidence was made during a motion for summary judgment or a motion in limine prior to the start of the trial. At that point, I am sure that the PUD's lawyers knew that they were in trouble and would have to appeal.

My understanding is the ruling by McCauley came in Pre-Trial motions. It appears the PUD lawyers think the the ruling is in error. Once the flawed ruling was made, the trial would have been just playing for the appeal, imo. Most appeals are made with the assumption, or at least hope that the Appeals Court will agree with you.

I'm not sure that you are totally wrong. The last subsection of the RCW I cited seems to give the Governor, at least arguably, the authority to deal with price gouging during an emergency:

"1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting:

"(i) Such other activities as he or she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life, health, property or the public peace."

I just don't know that this authority has ever been exercised in the past in Washington.

How odd. You take someone to court for over-charging but you're not allowed to give examples of over-charging?

Does anybody know what legal basis ws given for this decision? It sure doesn't make sense to me.