Lowering the Bar

Everything's Bigger in Texas -- Including Bad Checks

Saying he was planning to start a record company, Charles Fuller tried to cash a large check at a bank in Fort Worth last week.  Problems with this story included:

1. One does not normally start record companies using cash; and
2. The amount of cash he asked for would have been difficult to carry; because
3. He was trying to cash a check for 360 billion dollars.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Printing and Engraving, the agency that produced all the currency Mr. Fuller didn't get, every note weighs about one gram.  There are 454 grams to a pound, so assuming the bank had been able to cash the check and that Fuller had asked for $100 bills, he would have been instantly crushed under nearly 8 million pounds of money.

Luckily for him, this didn't happen.  Sharp-eyed bank employees, possibly noticing the ten zeros on the personal check Fuller presented, contacted the account's owner just to see if there was anything wrong.  "Hi, this is the bank calling.  Say, did you by chance write anyone a check for a third of a trillion dollars recently?  No?  Okay, thank you for your time.  No, no problem with your account.  Just asking."

Fuller, who in a quest for extra bonus points had taken the check from his girlfriend's mother, was arrested for forgery.

Link: CBS News

Hand-Held Lie Detector Deployed: Now We're Completely Safe

If you have been taking any comfort in the idea that our strategy in the War on Terror can't get any worse, cut it out.  MSNBC reported recently that the Pentagon has spent $2.5 million to date on a project that will provide hand-held lie detectors to U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.  While that may seem like an expensive and stupid idea, according to a professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences study on polygraphs the project is now ready for deployment:

"I don't understand how anybody could think that this is ready for deployment," said statistics professor Stephen E. Fienberg, who headed a 2003 study by the National Academy of Sciences that found insufficient scientific evidence to support using polygraphs for national security. "Sending these instruments into the field in Iraq and Afghanistan without serious scientific assessment, and for use by untrained personnel, is a mockery of what we advocated in our report."

Well, maybe I read that wrong.

The "Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System," or PCASS, is a sort of mini-polygraph with sensors strapped to the subject's hand, and a hand-held readout.  Unlike the polygraph's complex, multivariable graph that must be interpreted by a trained user, the PCASS offers this:

If you guessed that "Red" means the subject is lying, congratulations!  You are now a fully qualified interrogator.

Actually, according to something called the "Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment," there is a little more to it than that.  PCASS operators must have a full week of training and, if possible, a high-school diploma.  By contrast, polygraph operators must have college degrees, experience in law enforcement, pass a 13-week course in the device and do a six-month internship before being allowed to use their unreliable device.  But then training is less important now: "the Defense Department says PCASS is simple to operate, because judgment of truthfulness is left to the computer."  With humans out of the loop, you see, there is nothing to worry about.

To find terrorists, a PCASS operator simply asks the detainee a series of "20 or so questions in Persian, Arabic, or Pashto" (if he speaks any of those), such as the following:

• "Do you intend to answer my questions truthfully?"
• "Are the lights on in this room?"
• "Are you a member of the Taliban?"

That should cover it.  Red = possible terrorist.  Green = definite non-terrorist.  Yellow = "inconclusive."  According to studies, there are many yellow readings, although the Pentagon helpfully excluded them when calculating the alleged accuracy rate of the device.

The report did not say what the other 17 or so questions were, but here are some guesses:

• "When did you stop being a terrorist?"
• "How much do you hate America?"
• "Do you know where Osama bin Laden is not hiding?"
• "Today is backwards day. Are you a member of the Taliban?"

The device's sponsors admit the thing is not perfect, and say it wasn't intended to be.  According to Donald Krapohl of the DACA, it's intended only for preliminary assessments, and even if its accuracy is, say, only around 60 percent, that is still better than relying on the alternative, human intuition.  "[L]et's get rid of the PCASS because it makes errors, and go back to the approach we're currently using, which has less accuracy?  As you can see, that's really quite untenable."  Think about that when you are getting ready for your next jury trial.

Stephen Feinberg,  the freedom-hating professor quoted above, claimed that he, too, wants to find terrorists and to protect American troops.  But, he says, the troops "need devices that work.  And if they rely on things that really don't work, and act as if they do, we will have a greater disaster on our hands than we already do in the field in Iraq."

Speaking of things that really don't work, and act as if they do, Congress was told in November that the PCASS had been approved for field use, but no hearings on the matter have ever been held.

Link:  MSNBC.com

New Video Questions Dupre's Claim

Welcome back to the case that poses the following legal questions, among others:

1. Is it possible to have less than zero credibility, and
2. What happens if both parties to a lawsuit suffer from that handicap?

I think the answer to the first question is yes -- if a credibility level of zero means that no one believes anything you say, then negative credibility would mean that, just because you say something, people are more likely to believe the opposite is true.  In legal terms, we would call that an inference or possibly a rebuttable presumption of falsity as to any fact to which the witness might testify.

The second question is harder, but it's clearly at issue in the case filed on April 28 by Ashley Dupre (a.k.a. "Kristen") against "Girls Gone Wild" founder Joe Francis.  Dupre's allegation that she had no idea what "Girls Gone Wild" was all about did not really have the ring of truth, but then neither did Francis's comment that he was shocked, shocked, to discover there was drinking going on and that he personally put Dupre on a bus home as soon as he learned this deeply disturbing fact.

At that point, it looked like this credibility battle was already at the Rocky-II-Finale stage, in which both fighters are laying on the canvas and neither one should get up but you figure one probably will at the end if only because Burgess Meredith won't shut up otherwise.  But the next day, Francis got in another punch.  Late on Tuesday, April 29, he released a video that he said proved the falsity of Dupre's allegations that she had not consented.  Maybe -- you be the judge:

Complaint, Paragraphs 13 and 14 (emphasis added):

13.   At no time did Plaintiff consent to any use of her likeness or image in any manner or to be used for the advertisement or commercial gain of the Defendants.

14.  It is the regular business practice of Defendants . . . to induce unsuspecting young girls to perform for their cameras.

Video released today:

Q: Do you know what "Girls Gone Wild" is?

A: [laughs] Yes, I do.

Q: Can I use this on "Girls Gone Wild"?

A: Of course you can.

The video also shows Dupre displaying a fake ID.  That of course does not prove that Francis didn't know he was dealing with underage girls, or that a 17-year-old's consent would be legally valid.  But it does tend to undermine Paragraphs 13 and 14.

Really, both parties ought to stand down at this point, before they reach critical mass and form a credibility black hole from which no truthful statement would ever be able to emerge.  Though I'm concerned it may already be too late.

Link:  MSNBC.com

Client 9's Playmate Sues Over "Girls Gone Wild" Video

Ashley Alexandra Dupre, well into her 14th minute of fame due to her affiliation with Eliot Spitzer, has sued "Girls Gone Wild" founder Joe Francis for allegedly taking advantage of her youth and vulnerability by once filming her sans T-shirt.

Why does it seem like these two may be perfect for each other?

In the complaint, filed on April 28 in the Southern District of Florida, Dupre alleges that she encountered "agents and representatives" of Defendant and his production company in 2003, when she was 17 and just trying to stay out of trouble while on spring break:

10.  On said date, Plaintiff was socializing with friends at the Chesterfield Hotel when she was approached by [said agents and representatives].  They offered Plaintiff alcoholic drinks.  After Plaintiff became drunk, they induced her into [sic] exposing her breasts while being filmed.  While drunk, Plaintiff was told to sign a "release." . . .

11.  At the time of these events, Plaintiff did not understand the magnitude of her actions nor that her image and likeness would be displayed in videos and DVDs produced and distributed by Defendants.

12.  Likewise, at the time Plaintiff signed the "release," Plaintiff did not and could not foresee that she would later have sex with a famous person for money, thus herself becoming famous and therefore acquiring a valuable legal claim.

Okay, I made up Paragraph 12, but Dupre does allege that the defendants have profited by means of advertising designed to capitalize on Plaintiff's "fame and notoriety," which, if I'm not mistaken, is due to having had sex with a famous person for money.

According to the Miami Herald, Francis's version of the Paragraph 10 events is very different.  As he tells it, Ms. Dupre was completely sober while going wild, and he personally -- personally, mind you -- put her on a bus home after catching her with a beer.  As you know, drinking is strictly against "Girls Gone Wild" policy.

Dupre's complaint contains eight counts, including unjust enrichment, Lanham Act claims, state-law false advertising and unfair competition claims, unauthorized publication of Plaintiff's likeness, and, of all things, cybersquatting.  The complaint seeks damages of not less than $10,000,000.  That is likely to pose some proof problems, especially as to the Lanham Act allegation that defendants' acts "have cause[d] substantial and irreparable injury . . . to the Plaintiff's business, reputation and good will."   I doubt that the reputation of someone who [disturbing phrase deleted] with Eliot Spitzer while [matter redacted due to protective order] and also putting [sanitized for your protection], not once, but [illegible], while in Washington, D.C., has been harmed that much by an ad for "Girls Gone Wild."

Joe Francis, who has made millions from the GGW videos and who, according to this month's issue of Scientific American, is an utter sleazebag, paid someone to come up with a pretty good line.  "I think it's ironic," he told CNN, "that she charged Gov. Spitzer $2,000 for sex and she wants to charge me $10 million for taking some naked pictures of her."  Not bad, and a lot better than the line he tried out after being held in contempt in 2007, also in Florida; that, Francis announced, was a case of a "judge gone wild."  A little more effort, please.

Link: CNN.com
Link: Miami Herald
See also "'Girls Gone Wild' Founder Says Judge Has Gone Wild in Suit Filed by Girls Who Had Previously Gone Wild," Lowering the Bar (Apr. 6, 2007); and "'Girls Gone Wild' Creator, Residing in Hole, Continues to Dig," Lowering the Bar (Apr. 16, 2007).

UPDATE: "Duct Tape Bandit" Pleads Guilty

The improbably named "Kasey G. Kazee," better known to history as the "Duct Tape Bandit," pleaded guilty on April 29 to robbing a Kentucky liquor store.  The robbery failed despite the fact that Kazee had carefully prepared for the robbery by wrapping his head in duct tape.  Kazee, who was unarmed, was quickly subdued by store employees.

The penalty for second-degree robbery can be as much as 10 years, but if I were the judge I would say that Kazee paid his debt to society when they yanked off his disguise.

Link: Yahoo! News

"The Secret": Your Path to Happiness, Love, Litigation

Some of you may be familiar with "The Secret," an enormous bestseller that encourages people to follow the "law of attraction," which I thought was something that made people hang out near playgrounds but which turns out to be "an ancient principle that holds that the universe will make your wishes come true if only you really, truly believe in them."

I agree there is an ancient principle at work here, but it's one I refer to as "bullshit."

The Secret was discovered, or rediscovered, or whatever, by Rhonda Byrne, who has made millions from the book and DVD versions.  Byrne's website, which is not secret, does not state exactly what the Secret is, although you can "Own the Secret" on DVD for just $19.95, or in book form for just $16.95.  (Here's another secret -- you can get it on Amazon.com for $14.37.  But don't.)

Now there is at least some evidence that the Law of Attraction does not always deliver on its promise of unlimited happiness and prosperity, namely a federal lawsuit.  On April 25, James Heriot, the director of the movie version of "The Secret," sued Byrne and her production company in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that Byrne is not sharing the profits generated by the ancient principle as she had promised to do.  He is claiming up to half of the "Secret" profits, which he estimates at about $300 million.

Heriot wants to make clear, however, that just because the main purveyors of "The Secret" are now at each other's throats does not mean that "The Secret" isn't "The Secret" to unlimited happiness as they have been saying:

To all who have been inspired by "The Secret," [Heriot said in a statement issued through his law firm,] please know that I am not suing the universal principles of "The Secret." Rather, I am suing the corporate principals behind "The Secret," who promised at the outset that profits would be shared, and who have not kept faith with "The Secret"'s tenets of gratitude and integrity."

Got it -- universal principles not being sued, integrity of Secret unquestioned.

In fact, it seems hard to say whether this does call the validity of "The Secret" into question.  On one hand, it seems unlikely that Byrne's wishes included attracting a federal lawsuit.  On the other, isn't Heriot just following her advice by hoping that his wishes for $150 million will come true if only he really, truly believes in them and prevails in a copyright lawsuit?  Does "The Secret" describe how the ancient principle applies when two people wish for the same thing with all their hearts in federal court?  I hope the universe will provide the answers to these questions, or at least will deliver more comical "Secret"-generated lawsuit stories.

Byrne told the New York Times last year that "The Secret" was never about profit; she simply wanted to give her knowledge to the world, so that others could discover what they were intended to do with their lives as she had.  "One of the big things in discovering the secret," she said, "was discovering me."  And there is more discovery of her coming in the near future.  Byrne's deposition in a second case related to Secret profits is set for May 6, in Los Angeles.

Link: New York Times

European Union Passes Volume Limits for Bagpipes

Bagpipers across Europe are protesting new regulations that would force them to pipe quietly.  European Union officials in Brussels have ruled that, under EU health and safety laws, bagpipes cannot expose users to average noise levels of more than 85 decibels.  This is a problem because, as you probably know from your college bagpiping class, full-volume piping can reach 122 decibels, nearly as loud as a 747.

The new regulations apply to weekly average noise levels, so they do not completely forbid loud pipery, so long as loud periods are balanced by equivalent amounts of quiet time.  Pipists point out, however, that this does not help them at all.  "You can't play the pipe quietly," said Ian Hughes, leader of a Royal Air Force band in Scotland.  "They haven't got a volume switch."  Hughes said that the regulations would therefore effectively ban bagpipe playing.

Even more importantly, they could also ban rock & roll, the practitioners of which are known to use amplifiers with volume settings that rarely go below 10 and may actually go to 11.  The Who reached 126 decibels in a 1976 concert, reportedly the loudest ever until a British punk band hit 132.5 just last year.  (That beats the 747 by 2.5 decibels.)  Lemmy Kilmister, the lead singer of ear-bleeding metal band Motorhead, said his lot would not be complying.  "The essence of rock & roll is loud music," he said.  "How the hell can we be expected to enjoy ourselves if we've got to turn it down?"

Link: Times Online