Lowering the Bar

Dog Fetches at Wrong Time

Training your dog well can come back to haunt you, as Matt Porter of Richland Hills, Texas, found out on Monday. Porter, his friend Micah Hays, and another man had been stopped by Officer Cris Brichetto on Monday afternoon at the Bear Creek Park Frisbee Golf Course, after Officer Brichetto smelled marijuana.

As you know, studies have shown that most serious crimes are committed by pot-smokers during Frisbee golf matches at approximately 4:30 on Monday afternoons, so the Frisbee-golf-course sweep was an excellent use of police resources.

Anyway, either Porter or Hays evidently threw a bag of marijuana into a nearby body of water when they saw Officer Brichetto approaching. And as the officer was questioning the men and checking to see whether they were wanted on any outstanding warrants (like for unlicensed hacky-sack or something), J.D., Porter's faithful Labrador retriever, helpfully retrieved the bag and brought it back to his owner. Porter admitted it was his dog, and Hays admitted it was his bag. Both were arrested.

The third man was released, and is probably home right now trying to teach J.D. to not fetch.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Update: Virginia Low-Pants Legislation Dies in Senate

Sadly, the Virginia Senate has already killed the low-pants legislation that passed the state House on Tuesday. After a standing-room-only hearing, a Senate committee voted unanimously to kill the bill, apparently having been embarrassed by news reports about it.

Committee chair Sen. Kenneth Stolle called the bill "a distraction." Sen. Thomas K. Norment said that news reports made it seem like lawmakers were preoccupied with the low-pants issue, and commented, "I find that an indignation, which dampens my humor." Excuse me? Was that Sen. Thomas K. Norment, or Sen. Foghorn Leghorn? "It dampens my -- I say it dampens my humor, boy."

CBS News
More Foghorn Leghorn

L.A. Jury's Mistake A Mere $1.8 Billion

The latest reason to perhaps tinker with the jury system a bit comes to you (again) from sunny Los Angeles, where a jury awarded $1.8 billion (and change) to class members who had sued a Manhattan Beach man for fraud.

Ben Waldrep had decided to move out of his home in 2000, and planned to offer the house as the prize in an essay contest rather than sell it outright. Entrants would pay $195 to participate, and Waldrep received 1,812 entries. In 2001, he announced the winner: David McNair, of British Columbia.

But then McNair didn't want the house. At least, that's what Waldrep said. He also claimed that four people were tied for second, and that the contest rules (his contest rules) didn't specify what happened if the winner forfeited and then there was a tie for second. So Waldrep kept the house and sold it himself, for $1.2 million. He also kept the entry fees, which totaled about $360,000.

Unsurprisingly, one of the losers felt there was something funny about this. (Apart from the fishy result, he also thought the winning entry sucked.) Eventually, he brought a class action on behalf of himself and the other entrants, claiming that Waldrep had rigged the whole thing in order to defraud them out of the entry money. Last week, a Los Angeles jury agreed. (McNair did not show up to explain, and Waldrep's lawyer noted that as a Canadian, McNair was outside the subpoena power of the California court).

The real fun started, though, when the jury came back for the punitive damages phase on Monday. Apparently, they meant to award $1 million dollars in order to punish Waldrep in roughly the amount that he got from the sale. But somehow, they awarded $1 million to each of the 1,812 class members, for a grand total of $1.812 billion dollars. Jurors seem to have discovered the mistake whilst chatting with attorneys after the trial, and I would have enjoyed seeing the various attorney expressions during that discussion. They tried to notify the judge of the error but were informed that they had been officially dismissed and could not amend their verdict form.

There is some suspicion that a post-trial motion may follow, whereupon said judge may reduce said punitive award slightly. Waldrep's attorney says it doesn't matter, because the money is all "long gone" anyway.

Los Angeles Times

Virginia Joins Assault on Low-Riding Pants

Last year I (among many others) reported on the Louisiana low-pants legislation, which would have criminalized the wearing of pants that ride low enough to expose underwear. Actually, the exact definition of the offense went through a variety of iterations, not surprisingly, before that bill finally died.

But it was such a great idea that Virginia has now jumped on the bandwagon. Virginia House Bill 1981, which passed the Virginia House of Delegates on Tuesday, would impose a $50 fine on anyone "who, while in a public place, intentionally wears and displays his below-waist undergarments, intended to cover a person's intimate parts, in a lewd and indecent manner."

As with the Louisiana bill, the language is inartful enough to pose a number of questions right off the bat. For example, could one defend such a charge by arguing that he or she had worn below-waist undergarments unintentionally? Are there below-waist undergarments that are not intended to cover a person's intimate parts, and if there are (okay, there are), why would it be okay to display those but not to display more conservative below-waist undergarments?

Look for more amendments to this bill as the story unfolds.

In the debate on Tuesday, Delegate Lionell Spruill opposed the bill and pleaded with his colleagues to remember how they had dressed as youngsters. (The report did not elaborate.) He called the measure unconstitutional and said "[t]his is a foolish bill, Mr. Speaker, because it will hurt so many."

The bill was approved 60-34 and now goes to the state Senate.

AP via SFGate.com
Link to Virginia House Bill 1981

Valiant Legal Defense Fails to Save McMuffin Hurler

Scott Rodgers was convicted Thursday in Holland, Michigan, of misdemeanor assault and battery for an incident in October in which he threw an Egg McMuffin at a McDonald's restaurant manager.  (Assault for threatening with the McMuffin, and battery for hitting the target.)

Authorities said Rodgers became angry after he and his son had stopped to get Egg McMuffins with ham, but instead received one with sausage.  According to county prosecutor Craig Bunce, when the shift manager asked Rodgers to give the McMuffin back, he threw it at her through the service window, striking her in the head and leaving her "picking egg out of her hair."

It is unclear from the report as to whether or not Rodgers plea-bargained or fought the charges in court.  He appears to have fought it out, because the report states that he was convicted, and also (and here's the good part) his attorney was defiant, with what may be the first great legal defense of 2005: the attorney said his client "did not throw the sandwich, but rather returned it quickly" (emphasis added).

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client was simply doing what he had been asked to do -- return the sandwich.  In fact, he went beyond what was asked of him, by returning it even more quickly than could have been expected.  After 9/11, don't we need more quick action in this country, not less?  I thank you."

Rodgers was fined $600, given three days in a work program and probation, and is banned from the McDonald's.

ABC News

Alcohol May Have Played a Role in Parrot Beheading

A Florida firefighter was placed on administrative leave Monday after he was charged with biting the head off a parrot. Witnesses said that Lt. Bruce Coates of the Edgewater fire department was at a party on Sunday when he grabbed the parrot off someone's shoulder, put the bird's head in his mouth, and bit it off.

What the bird might have said to provoke the assault was not reported.

The parrot's owner called the sheriff's office. Coates told officers he had been drinking alcohol (always a surprise in these kinds of incidents) and could not remember exactly what had happened. "However, he was apologetic and offered to replace the parrot."

The Edgewater fire chief told reporters that Coates had come to him on Sunday and told him about the incident, which raises the interesting question of exactly how one might broach a subject like that. "Hey, Chief. What's up? Listen, you remember that Super Bowl party I told you I was going to this weekend? Yeah, good game. No, I don't like the Eagles either. Hey, speaking of birds . . . ."

Coates is on leave with pay pending the outcome of the investigation, although frankly it doesn't sound like it will be a particularly complicated investigation.

The New York Times

Healthy Woman Evicted from Hospital Bed After Year-Long Stay

A Marin Superior Court judge ruled on Wednesday that Sarah Nome could be legally evicted from the hospital bed she has been occupying since January 2004. Nome, who is 82, was admitted to the Kaiser Permanente facility in San Rafael, California, for an undisclosed ailment on January 22 of last year. She was discharged a week later but refused to go. She has been in the bed ever since, and at the standard rates for custodial care has run up a bill of $1.15 million.

It does not appear that Nome is still sick in any way, and a psychiatrist testified that he had examined her repeatedly and did not believe that she suffered from any psychiatric disorder that rendered her unable to get up and leave. A social worker testified that Nome had told her that she simply "liked it there and was quite satisfied to stay." Eventually, Kaiser filed a lawsuit seeking to have Nome evicted from the bed.

Nome did not appear to contest the charges on Wednesday, and was not represented by counsel. In a statement to reporters, she claimed to have been kidnapped and brought to Kaiser "for billing purposes." She said she has not been out of the bed for her entire stay, and that she planned to stay right there until Kaiser finds an equivalent place to which she can move. "It's dreadful," she said, "but I guess you have to think it's God's plan for this life."

Marin Independent Journal - Marin

Man Who Tried to Kill Pope Wishes Pope Swift Recovery

Mehmet Ali Agca, who shot Pope John Paul II in 1981, sent the Pope a letter this week wishing him a quick recovery from his recent breathing problems. Agca was writing from a jail cell in Turkey, where he was sent to serve a sentence for other crimes after he was pardoned in 2000 for the papal assault.

Here's what he wrote: "You and I, [but mostly you], have both suffered in trying to spread religion around the world. [Right now, I can't really remember why I thought shooting you would help spread religion around the world, but it seems like I had a good reason at the time.] I hope you regain your health in the near future. We are approaching the end of the world[, but my concern about that has nothing to do with why I am writing you with good wishes right now.] . . . I hope God grants you strength and health."

Reuters.com

How to Turn a $250 Job Into $15.6 Million

Sue in L.A. County, that's how. In the latest (relatively) monstrous verdict from that jurisdiction, an L.A. jury awarded Russell Christoff $15.6 million dollars for the unauthorized use of his face on Taster's Choice jars for seven years. Christoff had been paid $250 for a photo shoot in 1986 but did not know Nestle had actually used his likeness until he saw himself on a jar in a drug store in 2002. "I looked at it and said, 'expletive, that's me!'" he recalled.

I hope he really does go around saying, "expletive!" but I bet he doesn't.

Lawyers for Nestle claimed that a Canadian employee of the company had unknowingly pulled the photo, thinking they had consent to use it, and that Nestle USA had brought it back to the States in 1997. The amount of damages was likely the only issue in the case. Christoff was paid $250 and was promised $2000 if the image were used in Canada, as it eventually was. The company offered him $100,000 to settle, to which he countered with $8.5 million. The jury's $15.6 million verdict apparently represents 5 percent of Nestle's entire profits from Taster's Choice while Christoff's face was on the jars, which certainly seems like a reasonable valuation to me.

Oddly, Nestle's lawyers said the company plans to appeal.

AP via SFGate.com