Lowering the Bar

Lawsuit Claims That Siegfried Torments Roy

A lawsuit filed on October 11 seeks emotional-distress damages based on allegations that Siegfried Fischbacher, the "Siegfried" in "Siegfried & Roy," has frightened and humiliated Roy Horn ever since Roy was attacked by one of the tigers that the duo uses in their Las Vegas act. Roy was hospitalized for months after the 2003 attack and is still in rehabilitation.

Oddly, however, Roy is not the plaintiff in this lawsuit. Rather, it was filed by Louis Mydlach, Roy's former bodyguard. Mydlach claims that Siegfried is a "tyrant" who forced Roy to take medication, refused to buy Roy new clothing, and otherwise "scared" and "tormented" his former partner. Mydlach says that this mistreatment of Roy caused him (Mydlach) such stress that he had to start taking antidepressants and was forced to leave his position. He claims to still be "haunted and distressed" by the treatment inflicted on Roy.

Now you may be thinking, why didn't Roy's bodyguard protect Roy from this mistreatment? Isn't that what bodyguards do? All I can say is, you have evidently never been around Siegfried the Tyrant when he is in the middle of one of his "loud, explosive outbursts." Certainly, it is enough to make any bodyguard weep, quit his job, and file a lawsuit for emotional distress, that's for sure.

Mydlach apparently met Siegfried and Roy years ago when they hired his father's company for security services. He says that after years of service he has a "close and almost familial relationship" with Roy. That is generally not a close enough relationship to permit emotional-distress damages for harm to someone else, which appears to constitute the bulk of the allegations in the complaint; typically a plaintiff must have witnessed harm to an actual family member before such damages can be awarded. It is entirely possible, of course, that different rules apply in Las Vegas.

CourtTV via FindLaw.com

Naked Chinese Stuntman Arrested At Niagara Falls

I know what you're thinking -- not another naked-Chinese-stuntman story. Still, I think this one is worth telling.

He Yun Chang, a 38-year-old man from Beijing, was arrested last weekend and charged with disorderly conduct and public indecency after he stripped, waded into the water, and tied himself to a rock about 40 yards from the brink of Niagara Falls. Chang, who was described both as a "stuntman" and a "performance artist" by the Buffalo News, had apparently come from China with a detailed written plan for the Niagara Falls engagement. Under the plan, he would anchor himself naked near the brink of the falls, endure the elements for 24 hours, and then somehow climb down the falls and do the same thing at the base of the falls.

That plan certainly seems foolproof, but things went wrong when the knot Chang used came untied. With no anchor, Chang was forced to try to make his way back upriver to his starting point on Goat Island. Police expressed amazement that he was able to make any progress upriver through the rapids, "being barefoot and all." A tourist called police, who rushed to the scene and pulled the naked Chang out of the water. They were unable to ask him what he was doing, however, because Chang speaks no English. "So we grabbed a tourist who happens to speak Chinese," said a police spokesman, "and he said 'He's doing an experiment.' That's the interpretation that we got."

I guess Chang's "experiment" supports the hypothesis, "A naked man who comes untied from Goat Island will not be swept over Niagara Falls to almost certain death," although I suspect further tests might call that into question. Whatever message was supposed to be conveyed by the performance, if that's what it was, was apparently completely lost on the potential audience of tourists, most of whom paid absolutely no attention. The tourist who called police did so only because he believed Chang was trying to commit suicide.

According to the Buffalo News, the "stunt that was attempted Saturday has been tried three times before," in 1860, 1864, and 1927. It was not entirely clear to me how similar these other "stunts" were, however. The two listed Civil-War-era stunts involved attempts to walk to the brink of the falls on stilts, and in 1927 the man was not wearing stilts, but rather "sneakers with spikes in them." But none of these men were Chinese, and if they were naked (apart from stilts or sneakers) the report did not mention that minor detail.

Buffalo News

Battle Is Joined Over "Milk Duds" Name

The Hershey Co., which makes the well-known and much-beloved "Milk Duds" candy, has filed a complaint with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office against a California company that Hershey alleges makes a product with a confusingly similar name.

The product, "Milkdudz," is a line of clothing designed to make breast-feeding easier.

Hershey's complaint alleges that the Milkdudz company, founded by two women in Temecula, California, in 2004, is "trying to capitalize on the name recognition of Milk Duds to avoid having to build up its own brand." But the company's founders said they intended to fight, and noted that the two products were not exactly competing in the same market, so that confusion seemed unlikely. "It's not like we'd be right next to them in the candy aisle," said Milkdudz officer Kiersten Wall. "We're in boutiques."

Wall expressed confidence that Milkdudz could win the trademark dispute on its merits, but also was concerned that the company might not be able to afford extensive legal proceedings if Hershey decided to pursue an appeal.

AP via MyWay.com

Drinking Problem Suspected for Drunk Attorney

On Monday, a 59-year-old attorney was jailed for lawyering while intoxicated.  The court found the man in contempt of court for showing up drunk, and ordered him held without bail at least until Thursday, when he is scheduled to appear in court on an unrelated matter.

The drunk attorney was in court on Monday to appeal a conviction on drunk-driving charges.  That particular appeal is on his second conviction so far out of four pending counts.  The basis for the appeal was not stated in the article, but was probably not strengthened by Monday's appearance.

AP via SFGate.com

President's Counsel Writes The Onion to Demand Seal be Removed

The New York Times reported this week that Grant Dixton, associate counsel to the President of the United States, wrote the editors of The Onion in September to demand that they remove the presidential seal from the newspaper's website.  The seal appears on a page where The Onion posts parodies of the president's weekly radio address.

"It has come to my attention that The Onion is using the presidential seal on its Web site," Dixton wrote.  He noted that federal law prohibits the use of the seal "in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement."  The Onion's lawyers responded that it seemed unlikely that anyone would really think President Bush was supporting or endorsing their well-known (and free) satirical website, which after all recently ran a story entitled "Bush to Appoint Someone to Be in Charge of Country."

Other recent not-Bush-supported-or-endorsed stories have included "CIA Asks Bush to Discontinue Blog," and the headline story on the day Harriet Myers withdrew her name from consideration for the Supreme Court, "Bush to Nominate Next Person Who Walks Through Door."  The Times noted that Mr. Dixton found time to write his letter in late September, at a time when his office was supposed to be helping the president find someone to replace Justice O'Connor.  Myers (Dixton's boss) was nominated a few days later.

The Onion's editor-in-chief also responded, expressing his surprise that the president "deems it wise to spend taxpayer money for his lawyer to write letters to The Onion."  He suggested the money could be put to better use by funding tax breaks for satirists.

The presidential seal still appears on the web page in question.

Thanks to presidential historian Rob Bogen for spotting this item.

New York Times

Tip for Travelers: Nude Bathing in Holy Lakes is Frowned Upon

I wanted to get this story posted ASAP so that those of you who may be traveling to India will be aware of that country's harsh obscenity laws. So if you were planning to do any nude bathing in the local holy lakes and then walk back to your hotel naked, be aware that the local authorities take a dim view of this.

This is based on the recent experience of a female tourist from Finland who has been charged under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes indecency and obscenity. She took a dip in a lake while visiting the town of Pushkar, which is a popular pilgrimage destination because of a temple dedicated to the Hindu god Brahma.

There is also an annual camel fair.

The Finnish tourist apparently strolled back to her hotel after her bath, still naked, which angered "several local people and priests," according to the report. The charges carry a possible sentence of three months in jail, although the woman is expected to get away with a fine. That was the penalty imposed on an Israeli couple last month, who were actually charged and prosecuted under Section 294 for kissing during their wedding ceremony, which they held for some reason in Pushkar.

Still, their brazen kiss was less offensive than what happened last October, when residents complained that a group of female tourists (also Israeli, oddly enough) had danced naked in the desert near Pushkar.

Maybe they should change their tourism slogan, "What Happens in Pushkar Stays in Pushkar."

Reuters via MyWay.com

Australian Group Calls for Law to Prevent Rabbit Molestation

As the media circus continued to swirl around Brendan McMahon's rabbit-molestation trial, the president of the Australian Companion Rabbit Society called for a law or policy that would require pet stores to be more vigilant with regard to men who buy rabbits with intent to molest them.

Maybe I should back up for a second.

Brendan Francis McMahon, formerly a finance executive in New Zealand, was arrested in August and charged with one count of bestiality with a rabbit and 18 counts of aggravated cruelty involving rabbits and a guinea pig.  The arrest came after a three-week surveillance operation to collect evidence that McMahon was, um, mistreating the rodents.  McMahon was arraigned but released without bail, which prompted the ACRS president to speak out.

"I would be very surprised if he was not out there in pet shops looking for victims in about ten minutes," said Lara Nettle, ACRS president.  She begged pet shop owners to be on the lookout.  McMahon has admitted to a drug addiction but Nettle expressed doubt that drugs were solely to blame.  "It didn't happen overnight," she said.  "You don't take a drug and go 'Mmm, rabbits.'"

Nettle called for all Australian pet shops to be required to follow the lead of one shop in Sydney (described as having been "central to the investigation"), which has introduced a policy requiring men purchasing rabbits to show identification and fill out ownership papers.  "I applaud that shop," said Nettle, noting that under current law "[n]obody raises their eyebrows when a man buys three rabbits at a time and then comes back a week later for three more."  To be fair to the shop owners, it does seem that maybe the possibility of rabbit-molestation would not immediately have entered their minds based only on multiple purchases.  And apparently it did not -- the report stated that McMahon was put under surveillance only after pet shop staff noticed he had marks "consistent with rabbit scratches" on his face.

McMahon is due back in court on November 10.

If the contributor of this story would like credit, please let me know.  Maybe you would prefer to remain unnamed.

New Zealand Press Agency (via stuff.co.nz)

"Mental Incident" Defense Gains Probation for Pantsless American

Richard Simmons (no relation to the fitness guru, if that's what you call that Richard Simmons) was arrested in July in Pocatello, Idaho, after he pointed a gun at another driver and then exposed himself to police officers.  According to police, Simmons was driving his truck when he aimed a gun "with a small flag sticking out of the barrel" at a passing motorist.  He then got out of his truck and began walking in the roadway.  When police arrived, they told him to drop the gun and he complied.  He then announced "I am an American," and dropped his pants.

Don't the freedoms we hold most dear in America include the freedom for a man to drop his pants and wave Old Glory at passing motorists?  I certainly think so, but I guess in the People's Republic of Idaho they do things a little differently.

Simmons was arrested for aggravated battery and DUI, which is a bit odd since (based on this report) he did not actually strike anyone and does not appear to have been drinking.  But these are minor details.  Eventually he was charged with inattentive driving, indecent exposure and aiming a firearm at others, to which he pleaded guilty.

Simmons' attorney raised some type of mental competency defense, although exactly which kind is hard to tell -- he was quoted as saying that his client "had a mental incident," which is not all that descriptive.  But the "mental incident defense" was evidently accepted to the extent that Simmons was sentenced only to probation, a 90-day suspended sentence, and an order to complete a mental-health treatment program.

Idaho State Journal

Saddam Hussein's Trial Begins

The long-awaited trial of Saddam Hussein began today.

The defendant was taken from his prison cell outside Baghdad, escorted under heavy guard through streets cleared of citizens and lined with soldiers, and brought to the former Baath Party headquarters building where the trial is to be held. A massive American security operation surrounded the event, which according to the New York Times included concrete blast walls, razor wire, high-tech 360-degree body-scanning machines, an American Abrams tank at the courthouse gate, and American attack helicopters and jet fighters maintaining vigil above. Iraqis everywhere gathered around their television sets, riveted by the impending spectacle of their long-time dictator finally standing trial for crimes against humanity.

The stage was set.

The trial was then continued until next month.

The defendant was then taken from the former Baath Party headquarters building where the trial is to be held, escorted under heavy guard through streets cleared of citizens and lined with soldiers, and brought to his prison cell outside Baghdad. A massive American security operation surrounded the event, which according to the New York Times included concrete blast walls, razor wire, high-tech 360-degree body-scanning machines, an American Abrams tank at the prison gate, and American attack helicopters and jet fighters maintaining vigil above. Iraqis everywhere turned off their television sets, no longer riveted by the spectacle of their long-time dictator finally standing trial for crimes against humanity.

The stage will be set again in November.

New York Times

Dog-Bite-Law Man Bitten

Last weekend, the author of New Mexico's recently-passed Dangerous Dog Act was attacked by his dog.

Bob Schwartz, an assistant to the state governor, helped push through the hotly-debated Senate Bill 432, called the "Dangerous Dog Act," which was designed to make dog owners accountable for attacks by their pets. Among other things, the act makes it unlawful for owners of a "dangerous or potentially dangerous dog" to fail to notify animal control authorities after an attack by the dog on any "human being or domestic animal," and subjects owners to felony charges if the dog "causes serious injury to a human being without provocation."

Schwartz is reportedly a human being and did sustain serious injuries in the dog attack (he was hospitalized), although he could defend against any felony charges brought against him under his law by proving that he provoked his dog into attacking him. Luckily, his failure to report his dog's attack on him to animal control is only a misdemeanor.

A state senator who had worked with Schwartz on the bill said it was designed to make owners accountable, but said "I guess when it happens in your own family, that's another story." No, when it happens in your own family, it's domestic violence.

Schwartz would have a defense if this is the first time his dog has attacked anyone, under an exception that apparently allows one free bite.

AP via FindLaw.com