Lowering the Bar

Robber Sues Store Employees After Beating

Dana Buckman of Rochester, New York, is suing AutoZone and two of its employees for personal injury and emotional distress after a beating he suffered at the hands of the employees.  He was not deterred from suing by the fact that he was robbing the store at the time of the beating.

Mr. Buckman had the tables turned on him although he was carrying a gun.  The employees beat him with a pipe and managed to get the gun away from him.  He escaped, but now claims that the men chased him out of the store and continued to beat him as he fled.  He was arrested a week later and was convicted of armed robbery.  Now he's suing.

According to his lawyer, the employees had no right to beat Mr. Buckman once the robbery proper had ceased.  "The danger was past," said the lawyer, Philip Hurwitz.  "These two employees took it upon themselves to go after Mr. Buckman after he left the store."  The defendants' lawyer was unfazed.  "In some respects, you wonder if a case like this even needs a defense," he said.  "It speaks for itself."

Link: AP via MyWay News

Seven-Foot Green Attorney Smashes Opponent

I was very happy to learn recently (and I honestly can't remember where I learned this) that Jennifer Walters, also known by her Marvel superhero name of "She-Hulk," is an attorney.

Finally, a flattering depiction of attorneys in the media.

Apparently, Walters is the cousin of the He-Hulk, Bruce Banner, and gained some of his powers when he gave her a blood transfusion after an accident.  She was a member of both the Avengers and the Fantastic Four before devoting herself more fully to her legal career.  (Those prior jobs probably looked good on her resume.)

According to the Wikipedia summary, which I have no reason to doubt, She-Hulk went to the UCLA School of Law and was a member of the Order of the Coif.  She was eventually recruited by the law firm of Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway to work in their Superhuman Law division.  She is described as an "extremely intelligent and highly skilled attorney" who can lift approximately 100 tons of law books.

Goodman, Lieber's Superhuman Law division represents superheros in a wide variety of disputes.  They represented Spider-Man in a libel lawsuit against publisher Jonah Jameson, and defended Hercules against a $168 million claim by The Constrictor.  They also occasionally represent villains, which presents potential conflicts of interest for She-Hulk, as you can imagine.

It appears that in the legal milieu of the intra-comic world, past issues of Marvel Comics can be cited as legal precedent, and the library of Goodman, Lieber is full of them (although they had to restock the library in a trade-paperback format after the law offices were destroyed recently.  See 11 She-Hulk 26, 29 (Marvel CCR Mar. 2005); but see 276 Fantastic Four 13, 22 (Marvel CCR Jan. 2006) (suggesting that the earlier volumes can still be cited).

Link: Wikipedia article on She-Hulk
Link: Wikipedia article on Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway
Link: Marvel.com

Meat Loaf Sues Over "Bat Out of Hell"

The artist formerly (and still) known as Meat Loaf, whose real name is the less tasty Michael Aday,  is suing his former collaborator Jim Steinman for $50 million over the rights to the phrase "Bat Out of Hell."  That was the title of Meat Loaf's 1977 album containing such hits as "Paradise by the Dashboard Light," and . . . some others.  Loaf alleges that Steinman is wrongly claiming ownership of the phrase, and that although Steinman wrote the song "Bat Out of Hell" in the first place, the title phrase has been associated with Loaf for almost thirty years and he should be the only one allowed to use it now.

Steinman wrote "Bat Out of Hell" for the album "Bat Out of Hell."  He also wrote and produced Loaf's second album, called "Bat Out of Hell," in 1993, but the two have since parted ways.  This dispute arises now because Loaf is about to release his third album, which will be called "Bat Out of Hell," and Loaf alleges that Steinman is trying to interfere with that release by wrongly claiming that he owns the phrase "Bat Out of Hell."

I hope this dispute does not drag on so long that it interferes with the release of "Bat Out of Hell VI: Like a Bat Out of Hell," which we apparently can expect sometime around the year 2048.

Link: AP via FindLaw.com

Canadians Pass $204 Billion Spending Bill by Accident

Bloomberg News reports this week that the Canadian government's $204 billion budget package was passed in the House of Commons by accident, after legislators of the opposition parties forgot to stand up to debate it.

Isn't that what the Democrats say happened on Iraq?  Well, it's good to know this kind of thing happens in other countries, too.  I think.

The opposition lawmakers said they had been expecting one more member of the Conservative Party to talk in support of the spending plan, but that person did not show up, and so they were not ready and remained seated when the opportunity to debate arrived.  Seeing no opposition, the Speaker of the House moved on to the next item, and presto, legislation was born.

In fact, it was "unanimous," the government finance minister told reporters later.  Sort of.

Canada's governing party needs support from at least one opposition group to get a bill through, and so any objection could have defeated the budget.  Under Canadian rules, apparently, a defeated budget would be grounds for entirely new parliamentary elections, which were averted by the failure to stand up and say anything.

"Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill," said Bill Graham, leader of one of the two snoring opposition parties.  "We oppose the budget.  [Sitting there on our butts was] an unfortunate error, but it doesn't change anything."  I guess he's referring to the fact that they will have another chance in the Senate, which as in most bicameral systems is designed to be the legislative body that pays slightly more attention to what it's doing.

Link: Bloomberg.com

Rock, Paper, Scissors Match to Resolve Discovery Dispute

While trial by combat is unfortunately no longer a part (officially) of our legal system, a form of it was revived on June 6 by the Honorable Greg Presnell of the Middle District of Florida.  The parties in Avista Management v. Wausau Underwriters apparently could not agree on where to hold a 30(b)(6) deposition, which the court in frustration described as "the latest in a series of Gordian knots that the parties have been unable to untangle without enlisting the assistance of the federal courts."  The lawyers involved have offices four floors apart in the same building, but still could not agree.  Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion asking the court to make the decision.  It was denied.

Instead, counsel for the parties will be meeting at 4 PM on Friday, June 30, at a neutral site, each being permitted one attendant, to engage in one (1) game of "rock, paper, scissors."  The winner of the match is entitled to select the location at which the deposition will be held.

I for one would vote that this option be codified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, although I think that ordering it falls well within the inherent power of any court to control its docket and so forth.

The most interesting part of this to me is that the court provides that "[i]f either party disputes the outcome of this engagement, an appeal may be filed" that will be heard by Judge Presnell on July 7.  I think we are in uncharted territory here as to the rules and/or standard of review that would apply to the appeal of a rock-paper-scissors match.  (Maybe you would just do best two out of three?)  In an effort to help resolve this, I would refer the parties and the court to the World Rock Paper Scissors Society, the organization charged with setting standards for international match play.

I would also be available to help handle the appeal (if any).

Lawsuit Claims Contract Written in Blood Should Be Extra-Enforceable

The AP reported this week on a new contract suit filed in Orange County Superior Court in California.  The lawsuit involves an alleged agreement to settle a dispute over $170,000 that Jinsoo Kim had invested in a Korean corporation owned by the defendant, Stephen Son.  Son's attorney admits that he signed a repayment promise in 2004 when Son and Kim were discussing their dispute in a bar (always the best place to transact legal business).  But Son disputes (among other things) the validity of the contract.

Kim's attorney, on the other hand, argues not only that the contract is valid but that it should be especially valid because it was written in blood.  "It just seems ironic," he said, "that when they go beyond the usual ink and laser printer [they would then] turn around and say, 'I didn't really mean it.'"  I think that's a great idea, because then we could have all kinds of contracts differing in strength because of what they were written with or on, disputes that would have to be resolved in lengthy court battles for hundreds of dollars an hour.  "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you, what kind of man makes a promise on such flimsy paper?  The law demands no less than 20-pound bond, preferably with those fancy edges and some kind of stamp or something."

But boring legal experts said that the contract did not have any "extra legal power" just because it was written in blood.  "You can write it in stone; you can make it orally," said Joe Perillo, author of the famous contract textbooks, probably printed with that annoying ink that comes off on your hands, but it doesn't matter how it's written.  But Prof. Perillo said despite 40 years of reading contracts cases, he had "never seen one" involving a contract written in blood.  So.  There's still room for argument.

Link: AP via SFGate.com

Executioner Wanted: Must Have Own Hood

Documents released Thursday by Britain's National Archives discussed the search for a proper hangman in the late 1930s after Thomas Pierrepoint, described as "one of Britain's longest-serving hangmen," neared retirement age.  Apparently, officials found it more difficult than you might think to find a candidate qualified to put somebody to death.

One applicant was too "nerve-strained," and another was rejected for being "a man of loose morals," apparently something to be avoided when searching for an executioner.  Another was criticized for having a "somewhat morbid interest in the work, aroused through having a friend who carried out many executions in Arabia."  I thought interest in your work was a good thing.  Well, he'd have been disappointed anyway -- in Arabia they use the sword, which is so much more exciting than just pulling some lever.  And another candidate was rejected for being "too talkative when drunk," as he was described by the assistant executioner who was filling out the evaluation form.  Sounds like maybe somebody wanted a promotion, but that's probably the right result.  You really don't want the last words you hear to be some drunk executioner blabbing on about the last soccer game he saw.

Mr. Pierrepont was not voluntarily retiring; questions had been raised about his work.  70 years old, he had been hanging for 37 years at a rate of about one dangler per month.  A report from one prison in 1940 suggested he was no longer fit for duty, as "he was uncertain and it was doubtful whether his sight was good."  He was kept on the job, however, partly because of the difficulty of finding anybody else, especially after WWII started.  "The Commissioners are inclined to allow Mr. Pierrepoint to continue to act," said the commissioners, but "particular attention should be paid to his technique."

Link: Reuters via My Way News

How They Filibuster in Taiwan

A fight broke out (yes, again) in Taiwan's parliament on Tuesday over an opposition party's proposal to reinstate direct air and sea transit links with mainland China.  In a weak democracy like the United States, such a proposal might die in committee or be indefinitely tabled, or something decadent like that.  In Taiwan, they still do it the old-fashioned way.

When the proposal was brought up for review, members of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party charged the podium and "protested noisily," causing pandemonium in the chamber.  One legislator spat on another one ("She spat saliva!" yelled Hun Hsiu-chu, accurately describing what had been spat), and as others battled, DPP deputy Wang Shu-hui grabbed the draft document from the speaker and tried to eat it.

CSPAN, are you reading this?  This would do more for your ratings even than Stephen Colbert.

Wang was immediately set on by Nationalist Party delegates, who tried to get her to cough up the bill by shouting and pulling her hair.  Wang stuck it out, though, and later spat out the document and tore it up.  According to Reuters, this was the third time that "filibustering by the DPP had prevented a vote" on the measure.

That kind of "filibustering" hasn't been seen in the United States since Strom Thurmond ate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Luckily, somebody had a copy.

Link: Reuters via My Way.com

Dutch Pedophiles Organize to Protect the Right to Molest

I really have no idea what category to put this one in.

Earlier this week, a new political party was registered in the Netherlands by a group of Dutch pedophiles, who evidently feel oppressed by the fact that even in the Netherlands their conduct is considered a pretty heinous crime.  One of the party's founders, Ad van den Berg, said that pedophiles were tired of being "hushed up" and that they were misunderstood.

Well, you decide for yourself.  The party's platform includes such marvelous planks as:

• Reducing the age of consent to 12, and eventually having no limit at all;
• Reducing the age for acting as a prostitute or in adult films to 16;
• Decriminalizing sex with animals;
• Allowing pornography to be shown on TV any time of day;
• Allowing the private possession of child pornography;
• No bans on public nudity;
• Sex education for toddlers; and
• Free public transit for all.

Hard to see why any of that should be controversial.  I know some of you are nauseated by the idea of free public transit, but try to keep an open mind.

Seriously -- "free public transit"?  How'd that get in there?  Did somebody say at a meeting, "Guys, we've got to have something with broader public appeal in our platform, or people won't take us seriously"?  And others will say, "well, they advocate sex with toddlers and animals, but we won't have to carry around change for the bus"?

Of course, the new party is called the "Charity, Freedom and Diversity Party," because really, what else would you call it?

Reuters via Yahoo! News