Lowering the Bar

UPDATED: Government Sued Over Racism, Cat

From the Kansas City bureau comes this report of a newly filed case:

Gabriel Robles; Bonnie Robles v. State of Missouri; State of Iowa; United States of America; Governor Matt Blunt; Governor Tom Vilsack; George Bush; Randy Rodriguez; Roseanne Kempf dba Schoolhouse Apartments
11/6/2006 4:06-cv-00915-SWH Hays (Kansas City)

Civil rights action where the defendants conspired to conceal widespread government racism and caused the plaintiffs to lose their cat.  $5 million.

Surprisingly, plaintiffs are representing themselves. My guess is, this started out as a dispute over a cat and the plaintiffs decided that, while they were at it, they might as well reform the entire United States government.

UPDATE: A review of the complaint (thanks to Al Petrofsky for sending a copy) shows that it was the other way around -- Plaintiffs were already being persecuted for their attempts to reform the entire United States government, and their incarceration led to the loss of their personal belongings and cat.  Special connection to yesterday's other top story -- the complaint reveals that the name of the now-missing cat was "Orenthal James Robles," presumably named as a gesture of support. And that certainly was a powerful gesture, but would whoever is now in possession of the cat please change its name in view of the fact that the original Orenthal has now (hypothetically) admitted guilt?

Mr. and Mrs. Robles also charge the U.S. Supreme Court with plagiarism, apparently for cribbing from some former complaints of theirs to write various opinions including Tennessee v. Lane. Shame on you, Justice Stevens.

Link: PACER docket link (login required).

O.J. to Explain How He Hypothetically Did It

According to reports today, the Fox network will run an interview with O.J. Simpson at the end of November in which he will provide details of the murders of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.

You would think this would be a bit awkward for someone who has always said he wasn't there at the time.  But according to Fox and Judith Regan, a book publisher who is (coincidentally) releasing a book by O.J. on November 30, Simpson will "hypothetically describe" in the book and interview how he would have committed the murders if he had actually committed the murders that he didn't in fact commit.

The working title for the book was given as "If I Did It, Here's How It Happened."

I don't often feel the need to point out what I am and am not making up, but I'm not making that up.

Simpson of course can't be tried again for the hypothetical murders, and he has already been found liable in a civil lawsuit by the victims' families. So he wouldn't seem to have anything else to worry about at this point if he had actually committed these murders. But he didn't. Hey, what part of "if" don't you understand? It's right there in the title. Which is why everybody should not be making such a big deal out of this interchange, reportedly from the upcoming interview:

INTERVIEWER [reading from the new book]: You wrote, "I have never seen so much blood in my life."

O.J. SIMPSON: "I don't think any two people could be murdered without everybody being covered in blood."

Sure, maybe it would have been more accurate to write, "If I had been anywhere near the scene of the crime, I would never at that point in my life have seen so much blood," but the conditional tense can be so awkward. That's why you just put the "if" in the title, so it doesn't need to be in every single sentence in the book. If you don't get that, I guess you're not a professional killer, I mean writer.

Fox executives would not comment about the show or interview but did seem to confirm that it would take place. An executive VP said in a written statement, "This is an interview that no one thought would ever happen." I can't argue with that. I certainly never saw it coming.  "It's the definitive last chapter," he continued,  "in the trial of the [previous] century." That, I doubt.

Next on the list for Fox and Regan Books: a tell-all by Elvis Presley entitled, "If I'm Alive, Here's Where I've Been Living."

Link: Reuters.com
Link: AP via Chicago Tribune

New ABA Book To Convince Kids That Lawyers are Totally Awesome

Many of you may have received an email from the American Bar Association plugging a book called Leapholes by James Grippando, who has written a number of popular novels for grownups. But Leapholes is for young readers (middle-school young, not new-associate young). Here's how the ABA blurb describes this book:

Leapholes is the fascinating story of Ryan Coolidge, a boy who hates middle school and who is in the worst kind of trouble -- trouble with the law. The one person who can help Ryan is a mysterious old African-American lawyer named Hezekiah. Hezekiah may have magical powers, or he may have the most elaborate computerized law library ever conceived. Either way, together, Ryan and Hezekiah do their legal research by zooming through "leapholes," physically entering the law books, and coming face-to-face with actual people from some of our nation's most famous cases--like Rosa Parks and Dred Scott--who will help Ryan defend himself in court.

I understand how important it is that kids learn about the Dred Scott case, but I'm not really sure that Ryan and Hezekiah actually want Dred to help in court. Hey, Dred, we're proud to have you here with us at the table, but why don't you let Hezekiah do the talking, okay?

The mysterious Hezekiah, who I assume will be played by Morgan Freeman in the movie version of Leapholes, must be pretty damn mysterious if it is that hard to tell whether he has magical powers or just a really "elaborate computerized law library." I would guess it's the former because our library is pretty good but this kind of thing never happens to me. Although with most of the cases I have to read, I don't even want to be near the book, let alone come face-to-face with anybody involved in the case. I can think of a few cases for which the line to use the leaphole would be pretty long, I suppose.

Westlaw and Lexis, what do you guys think about people physically entering your law books? And did these two pay by the minute like I have to?

Anyway, this probably is a great book for middle-schoolers, and maybe it will (eventually) help with the public image of the profession.  Order it for $15.95 from the ABA link below, or just leap into it if your library is good enough.

Link: ABA "Best Sellers"

Fraternity Members Sue After Being Depicted as Drunken Sexist Morons

Two members of a South Carolina fraternity have sued the makers of "Borat," last week's number one movie, over a scene in which the men make insulting comments about women and minorities after drinking heavily with someone they believed was "Borat the hitchhiker." "Borat," of course, is the alter ego of comic Sacha Baron Cohen, who poses as a journalist from Kazakhstan.

In the lawsuit, the men, who are identified only as "John Doe 1" and "John Doe 2," claim that the production crew  took them to a bar to drink and "loosen up" before appearing in a foreign documentary that they were told would never be shown in the United States. Certainly there's nothing about that would raise any suspicions. The men got roaring drunk and were filmed in an RV, having "picked up" Borat by the side of the road. They continued to drink and then said things on camera that they now allege have "made plaintiffs the object of ridicule, humiliation, mental anguish and emotional and physical distress, loss of reputation, goodwill and standing in the community."

The men did sign a release form, but say they were drunk and that they were told the form "had something to do with reliability issues with being in the RV." The report did not say whether the men had actually read the form.

Studio spokesman Gregg Brilliant (which, by the way, is a great name for a spokesman) said the lawsuit "has no merit."

Link: FindLaw.com
Link: TMZ.com (copy of complaint)

Ostriches May Have Last Laugh on Halloween Assailants

On Halloween in San Mateo County, California, an encounter between a gang of men and a herd of ostriches turned deadly, resulting in one dead and two behind bars. Sadly, the ostriches' lack of opposable thumbs, or any thumbs at all, frankly, again resulted in an ostrich becoming a casualty.

The men and some friends were drinking, it will surprise you to know, and decided to trespass on a local ranch late on Halloween night. This ranch was home to an ostrich herd, among other things, and according to the report "one of the birds apparently grew incensed and attacked the group and injured both men." Angered by their injuries, the men returned later with a rifle and shotgun and killed their assailant. Yes, they returned to take revenge on a bird.

Hopefully the revenge was sweet, because the men were arrested and have been charged with animal cruelty. Adding to the genius of the bird murder is the fact that one of the men is a felon who is not supposed to have any firearms at all to begin with, let alone use them to kill things.

The two ostrich-killers remain in custody on $25,000 bond. Their preliminary hearing is scheduled for November 21. The ostrich is survived by a bunch of other ostriches.

Link: AP via My Way News

Woman Sues Over Negligent Jiggling Contest

A New Jersey woman who was injured while participating in the "Shake-It-Like-Shakira" contest at Calico Jack's Cantina in New York City has sued, alleging that the cantina's owners and operators should have known the dance contest was "dangerous and likely to lead to injury." Participants, on the other hand, would have had no idea that attempting to shake it like Shakira while dancing on top of the bar while drinking might lead to injury.

This participant fell off the bar and now alleges that she suffered a torn knee ligament that required surgery. She and about ten other women had paid $35 each to participate in the contest, which offered $250 for first prize.  Plus the chance to make much more money through possible lawsuits. Plaintiff alleges that, in addition to knowing of the dangers, was negligent in "permitting the bar area to become and remain wet and otherwise in an unsafe condition, and by failing to warn customers of the hazards presented" by getting up on a wet platform and undulating. The suit demands unspecified damages.

A man at Calico Jack's who identified himself as "Tom the Manager" refused to comment.

Link: AP via My Way News

NFL QB Demands Mom Stop Using Him in Campaign Commercials

On October 20th, Saints quarterback Drew Brees (or his agents, anyway) sent his mom a letter demanding that she cease and desist using his name and likeness in a TV commercial. Mina Brees is running for a spot on the Texas Court of Appeals.

In the commercial, Mina Brees notes that she is the mother of Drew Brees, the sister of former Texas quarterback Marty Akins, and the daughter of longtime high school football coach Ray Akins. She says that the commercial is intended to identify her with her sports-oriented family, which she says taught her the value of preparation and hard work.

They apparently didn't talk much about intellectual-property law around the dinner table, though, or at least that's what CCA Sports and its attorneys implied with their letter. "The unauthorized misappropriation of an individual's indicia (picture, name, etc.) for this current purpose is an infringement of his personal rights, property rights and common law trademark rights," the letter states. Probably a standard form letter that they have to send out to everyone who mentions Drew, but maybe one of our IP readers can clarify whether a trademark can really be diluted just because your mom uses your "indicia."

Mina Brees agreed to stop using the spot. Her media consultants were to have new spots ready on October 30. They will feature a different son, Reid, who is presumably not trademarked.

The incumbent judge, David Puryear, declined to comment, saying that the focus "should be on the qualifications of the candidates." Refreshing, but not really part of the game plan this time of year, as the chairman of the Travis County GOP made clear in a written statement. He called for Brees to withdraw from the race because of her shocking conduct. "Her failure to act appropriately and inform media outlets of her wrongful use of Drew Brees' indicia subjects her to litigation and demonstrates her morally rudderless political opportunism," the statement said.

Well, that's okay, but not great. Let's see if we can punch it up a little bit.  How about something like this:

Until this moment, Ms. Brees, I think I never really gauged your cruelty, or your recklessness. Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to your own son's indicia. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your morally rudderless political opportunism, I would do so. I like to think I'm a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me. Let us not assassinate this lad's indicia further, Ms. Brees. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, ma'am, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Yeah, that's more like it.

Link: Law.com (reprinted from Texas Lawyer)
Link: "No sense of decency"

Captain of the U.S.A. v. Bush

Here's an "October Surprise" for you. On October 6, Leon Gay, Jr., filed suit against George W. Bush, currently President of the United States, in the federal court for the Northern District of Alabama. It seems that Mr. Gay's investigation has concluded that Mr. Bush is not a particularly good president, and so the former has sued the latter seeking a number of remedies, including having the two men switch places.

This would be a much better deal for Mr. Gay, since the President lives in a mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., and Mr. Gay lives in a van across from Wholesale Transmission on Green Springs Road in Birmingham, Alabama.

In his form complaint, the plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, cites Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 1 as authorizing the lawsuit. Those chapters do both relate in part to the selection of leaders for the people, so there is likely to be a difficult choice-of-law analysis in store for an Alabama federal judge.  The factual basis for the claim is as follows: "9/11 and the loss of life around the World would not have happened if George W. Bush and his Dad had rendered honor where honor was due." A number of other Biblical provisions are then cited in support, but now that I am limiting myself to reading two books of the Bible per day I can't very well follow up on that research.

In a letter that is attached in support of the complaint, Mr. Gay notes that he has been trying to get the Bushes to do the right thing since Operation Desert Shield, when he first sent letters to them describing what they should be doing. He recalls the late Ann Richards' convention speech in which she said of Bush Sr. that he had been "born with a silver foot in his mouth," and notes that Bush later sent Richards a silver foot, which I think was a nice gesture. But Gay has distilled a more important principle from this, I think: "This was the same principal [sic] I used on him," he writes.  "Previously" -- after Desert Storm -- "I had sent him a quart of oil. . . . [Then] Bush was accused of taking candy and milk from Saddamn [sic] Husseins country. So I sent a box of candy to Saddamn Hussein." This doesn't seem to have worked, whatever it was trying to achieve. Saddamn probably just gave the candy to Uday and Qusay anyway.

In addition to switching jobs and living arrangements with the current president, the plaintiff demands the following relief:

• an increase in benefits from the Veterans' Administration;
• a name change from "Leon Gay" to "Captain of the U.S.A.";
• the "necessary licences and permits" to launch a campaign for president, which I guess would make him "President Captain of the U.S.A. of the U.S.A.";
• two more picture IDs;
• unlimited long-distance cell-phone capability;
• a place to live and transportation;
• getting his van fixed (which might solve both problems above);
• all the oil, money, businesses and assets that President Bush now possesses.

Plaintiff notes that as he is a reasonable man, Bush "can keep his Loving supportive wife and kids.  I do not want them.  HA! HA! HA! HA!"  See Complaint Ex. A at p. 5 (HA!s in original).

Plaintiff further challenges the president to "as many debates as it takes until the whole truth comes out" -- which could take a while at this point -- the first debate to take place with plaintiff's van as a backdrop.

Link: Captain of the U.S.A. v. George W. Bush (complaint)

Orange-Jumpsuit Halloween Costume Causes Problems

A New York man got in some trouble on Halloween when he dressed up as a prison inmate, complete with an orange prisoner's jumpsuit, to take his daughter trick-or-treating. It was a very realistic costume, because it was a real prisoner's jumpsuit, which the man had received when he was a real prisoner. He was released in September after serving a sentence for violating probation, and had kept the jumpsuit, which ex-prisoners are not supposed to do.

Unfortunately for him, another parent in the same neighborhood dressed up as a county corrections officer, also a very realistic costume because it was also real. When the corrections officer spotted the orange jumpsuit, she confronted its wearer, who fled in a car (hopefully taking his daughter along).

The officer took down the man's license plate and called police, as well as calling the local jail. The jail went into lockdown until they could count all the prisoners and make sure no one had escaped. Police eventually found the man, confiscated his jumpsuit/costume and let him go, but he was arrested on Wednesday and charged with two misdemeanors for illegally taking his jumpsuit home in the first place.

An inmate wearing his own stolen inmate jumpsuit to trick-or-treat in the same neighborhood where a corrections officer was also trick-or-treating was a "bad choice of costume," a prison spokesperson correctly stated.

Link: AP via My Way News

Lawyer's Bin Laden Halloween Costume Not Popular

I was happy to learn that the guy arrested on Halloween dressed as Osama bin Laden and waving a gun around was an attorney, which brings this story within my jurisdiction.

Apparently, a number of drivers called police in South Portland, Maine, to tell them that a man in "Middle Eastern garb" and a bin Laden mask was standing along the interstate highway, carrying what looked like dynamite and waving a gun at traffic. Police rushed to the scene, where they found bin Laden still holding the gun. According to a police spokesman, they "ordered him to drop the weapon several times and he eventually complied."  The gun and the dynamite turned out to be fake.

So did the bin Laden, who turned out to be Thomas Connolly, a 49-year-old lawyer from Scarborough, Maine.  Connolly said he had been trying to protest a planned change in local tax rules, although there was no indication from this story that he had any kind of a sign, anti-planned-change-in-local-tax-rules or otherwise.  "I didn't expect to be arrested," Connolly said.  Well, the real bin Laden hasn't been arrested.  Why should this guy worry about it?  "Obviously," Connolly continued, "I touched a post-9/11 nerve."  You think?

There are several ways to go with this one:

1. People apparently being worried that Osama bin Laden might have invaded Maine for a planned operation to blow up I-295, thus cutting Ligonia off from Oakdale and bringing first Maine, then America, to their respective metaphorical knees;
2. Police rushing to the scene, with guns drawn, based on a report of a man in "Middle Eastern garb" and a bin Laden mask, on Halloween;
3. A lawyer dressed as a terrorist carrying a gun who only "eventually" complies with police orders to drop it;
4. A lawyer dressed as a terrorist carrying a gun, and dynamite, and waving the gun at traffic, who "didn't expect to be arrested"; or how about
5. the fact that Connolly was the Democratic candidate for governor in 1998?

It's too hard to choose between the above, so I'll leave it to you.  There's also the further fact that Connolly, after not becoming governor in 1998, had time in 2000 to get involved in electoral politics, which he did just before the election by releasing information about George W. Bush's 1976 drunk-driving conviction. Apparently, Connolly believed that if a guy can't operate a car safely, or run a baseball team or an oil company, he shouldn't be put in charge of a nuclear superpower. Of course, now we all know how ridiculous that kind of argument really was.

Connolly was charged with "criminal threatening" -- and personally I don't think it should be illegal to threaten criminals, but I don't want to touch any post-9/11 nerves -- and was released on bail.

Link: Reuters via My Way News