Lowering the Bar

Feuding Newport Beach Gypsy-Fortuneteller Clans Take Dispute to Court

A dispute that could be compared to the plot of a "Sopranos" season, if the Sopranos and Lupertazzis were two Gypsy families fighting over the fortunetelling business in Newport Beach, California, has finally landed in court after years of turf battles.

The Merino and Stevens clans have, according to the AP article, run numerous fortunetelling businesses in Southern California for decades.  They are among the estimated 200,000 California Gypsies, or Romani, who are said to "dominate" the fortunetelling and psychic businesses in the state.  There is fierce competition among the rival clans, apparently mediated by "a secret council of elders" and a custom of making alliances between familes by marriage.

But that ancient system was not enough to prevent open war between the Merinos and the Stevenses from breaking out about two years ago.  The Merinos wanted into Newport Beach -- Stevens territory -- but say the Stevenses demanded $500,000 up front plus $5,000 a week.  The Merinos said no but started telling fortunes anyway, which -- as they probably should have predicted -- resulted in a violent response.  The Merinos claim that members of the Stevens clan broke into Merino fortunetelling parlors, stole things and threatened to kill the Merinos if they didn't clear out.  Instead of using traditional methods, the Merinos got a restraining order.

That calmed things down until an incident at the funeral last year of George Stevens, head of the Stevens family.  Edward "Davie" Marino showed up at the funeral with a "menacingly burly chauffeur," and a traditional graveyard rumble apparently followed.  Then it was back to court.

Members of the Stevens clan claim that the Marinos are making up the allegations in an effort to take over the psychic business in Newport Beach.  "They beat themselves up," said one, "and then they testify that we hired people to come to their house and beat them up."  This statement was made by "White Bob" Stevens, who apparently uses that name to distinguish himself from his cousin "Black Bob" Stevens.  (Why he did not just use his first name, "Steve," was not explained.)  White Bob Stevens objected to the way the Merinos had characterized him and his family, as if he were a character on "The Sopranos."  "I'm a businessman," he said.  "That's all I am."

Link:  Court TV

First Santa Attack of 2007 Results in Arrest

In what I believe was the first Santa-related attack of 2007, a college student in Missoula, Montana, was charged with misdemeanor assault last Friday after he hit a shopping-mall Santa in the face with a pie.

The assaulter, a 22-year-old drama student suspiciously named "Clint Westwood," said he "lightly smooshed" the pie into Santa's face and then shouted, "What do you think of that, Santa?"  Westwood claimed he was videotaping the assault so that he could include the footage in a film he is making.  Santa's response to the question was not noted in the report, but Westwood may not have stuck around to find out what it was.  "It's a good thing [Westwood] didn't wait around," said a Missoula police officer, "because I think Santa would have laid him out."  That I'd pay to see.

Westwood probably can't use his footage anyway.  He said he had planned to ask Santa for a signature on a release form after the smooshing, but the police got there first.  Seems unlikely that Santa would have been in any mood to sign a release at that point, so my guess is that Westwood was just too much of a coward to stick around and face Santa's rage.

Based on evidence from previous years, this is only the first of many ordeals Santa will have to endure between now and December 26th.

Link: CBS News

Cartoon Characters Subpoenaed

Last Friday, a court in Naples, Italy, sent trial subpoenas to Mickey Mouse, Tweety, and Donald and Daisy Duck, in what appears to have been a clerical error.

The defendant awaiting trial there is charged with counterfeiting Disney and Warner Brothers products.  Apparently, court clerks included on the witness list not only the companies' legal representatives, but also their imaginary ones: "Topolino," "Paperino," "Paperina," and "Titti" (that's apparently Tweety in Italian).  A summons went out to each of those cartoon characters care of Disney Italia.

A Disney Italia representative said none of the characters would be appearing at trial.  "Unfortunately they cannot show up, as they are residents of Disneyland," said Fiorenza Sorotto, a vice-president of the company.  Hey, smart guy -- according to this website, the Disney characters can be easily located at Disneyland Paris, which should give a court in the European Union at least transient jurisdiction over these jokers.  If they don't want to get served, they shouldn't be walking down Main Street U.S.A. in broad daylight.

Also, I'm a little suspicious of "Goofy Father Christmas," but I guess he hasn't been indicted yet.

Sorotto continued, "It certainly pleased us that the characters were considered real, because that's what we try to do."  Really?  You try to convince Italians that a six-foot duck wearing a top hat is real?  Well, then, congratulations.

A Disney lawyer said that the summons would have to be reissued, delaying the trial.  She expressed confidence that none of the characters would be prosecuted for failure to appear.

Link: CBS News

Ninth Circuit Applies "Slubby Mass" Rule to Dismiss Appeal

On November 29, the Ninth Circuit again applied the Slubby Mass Rule to reject an appellant's brief and dismiss the appeal.  In case you did not learn this one in law school, this rule provides that any pleading presented to an appellate court that constitutes "a slubby mass of words rather than a true brief" will be rejected.  See, e.g., N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 127 F.3d 1145, 1146 (9th Cir. 1997).  The Slubby Mass Rule is apparently a corollary to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28, which governs briefing requirements, and the corresponding Ninth Circuit rules.

The court was considering the appellant's brief in Sekiya v. Gates, a disability-discrimination case originally filed in Hawaii.  And that seems to have been about all the court could glean about the case from Sekiya's brief, which:

• made "virtually no legal arguments" (not a good start);
• did not state the applicable standard of review;
• did not include a table of contents;
• did not include a table of authorities -- not that surprising since it
• did not cite any authority;
• did not include accurate citations to the record; and
• didn't explain why Sekiya thought she should win.  (She did say she "disagree[d]" with the lower court's ruling, but the court was looking for something more.)

Each of those violates a specific part of FRAP 28, but the court also invoked the Slubby Mass Rule.  In the N/S Corp. case, in which the Rule was developed, the Ninth Circuit declared that "[i]n order to give fair consideration to those who call upon us for justice, we must insist that parties not clog the system by presenting us with a slubby mass of words rather than a true brief."  N/S Corp., 127 F.3d at 1146 ("the violations are legion); see also id. ("Enough is enough").  The rule was next applied five years later.  See In re O'Brien, 312 F.3d 1135, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2002) (declaring brief "inadequate" and partly "unintelligible").  In all three cases the court proceeded to address the merits of the case, to the extent it could tell what they were, but ruled against the appellant anyway.  It published its opinions "as a reminder that [crappy legal work] undermine[s] the administration of justice and cannot be tolerated."

The remaining question you may have is "what the hell does 'slubby' mean?"  And you are right to ask.  The only other report I've seen try to answer this question first speculated that "slubby" was a combination of "sloppy" and "stubby," but found through further research that a "slub" is a "lump or thick place in yarn or thread."  The only problem with these definitions is that they make no sense.  Since you read Lowering the Bar, you don't need to bother with that pointless trivia because here you get accurate pointless trivia.  A "slub" is also defined as "thick sludgy mud; mire, ooze," as in:

1610 W. FOLKINGHAM Art of Survey I. x. 24 Ouer-flowing them with Fords or Land-flouds, affording a fatte and slimie substance or slubbe.

Similarly, something that is "slubby" is "muddy; sticky or slippery with mud."  So, a "slubby mass of words" is a thick, muddy, sludgy, fatte, slimie mass of words that is difficult to trudge through and instead should be avoided; for if one is on the "slub . . . his situation is not to be envied."

Link: "Slub, n.," Oxford English Dictionary Online
Link: Sekiya v. Gates, 2007 WL 4198172 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2007).

Good Reason to Kill [or Wound], #58

Because your friend changed the channel.

According to police in Seattle, two women in their 60s were watching TV last Thursday morning, but began arguing after one of them changed the channel to a religious program.  Such arguments are common; settling them via stabbing is less common.  Police spokesperson Renee Witt said that the woman offended by the channel-change grabbed a six-inch kitchen knife and stabbed the channel-changer.  The wounded woman was rushed to a local hospital with serious injuries.

Witt said the nature of the TV dispute was not yet clear.  "I don't know what they were originally watching," she said, "but it must have been something really good."

Link: Seattle Post-Intelligencer