Lowering the Bar

"Gary Null's Ultimate Power Meal" Almost Killed Me, Says Gary Null

In a lawsuit filed in New York on April 26, Gary Null alleges that he became severely ill after eating a dietary supplement that caused him to develop a number of painful symptoms.  In fact, Gary Null alleges, "Gary Null's Ultimate Power Meal" almost killed Gary Null.

Gary Null is a "nutrition guru" who has been highly critical of the medical establishment and is an advocate of "alternative medicine and natural healing."  He is skeptical about things like vaccines and has consistently argued that HIV does not cause AIDS.  He has a Ph.D., which he got through a correspondence course.  Also, he writes many books and sells lots and lots of other interesting things, including dietary supplements. One of which almost killed him.

To be fair, he is not suing himself, which unfortunately means I can't add him to my small but growing list of people who have actually done that.  He claims a contractor that mixes the powdered supplement for him did not follow the right recipe.  Still, although the product itself may not be deadly, the fact that a batch of it almost killed its inventor does not speak volumes for Gary Null's ultimate quality control.

Or for his alternative-medicine ideas. Apparently, he did not go to an actual medical doctor for as long as a month after he began to have symptoms (it's not clear how long he had been eating the stuff). These symptoms included "excruciating fatigue along with bodily pain" -- which I think should really be "excruciating pain and bodily fatigue," but I'll let that slide; he's been through a lot -- as well as cracked and bleeding feet.  "[Gary] Null had to be in bed with his feet elevated," the complaint alleges, "because it was so painful he did not have the strength to walk," but rather than try to get to a doctor he kept eating Gary Null's Ultimate Power Meal, evidently thinking that it would cure him.  It did not.

When he finally did seek professional help, he learned that his batch of Gary Null's Ultimate Power Meal contained way more Vitamin D than it was supposed to, and so did Gary Null.  Instead of taking 2,000 IU of Vitamin D per day (the recommended upper limit), he had been wolfing down about two million.  It is actually very difficult to overdose on Vitamin D, but two million IU a day is a good start.

The complaint alleges that when Gary Null found out what the problem was, he then "sequestered himself and fasted, only consuming massive amounts of water, as he was told that there was no medical treatment to lower the amount of Vitamin D in his system."  That sounds a little like Gary Null is trying to take credit for saving his own life with his new program, Gary Null's Staying Home and Drinking a Huge Amount of Water Plan, rather than just following sensible medical advice to eat no more of his tainted product and let Gary Null's kidneys get rid of the stuff.

The bad batch of Gary Null's Ultimate Power Meal has apparently been recalled, but please do some checking if you are eating any of this and your feet begin to bleed.  A number of consumers have reported similar problems, and so there might be more lawsuits in Gary Null's future.

Say, here's something else to not use -- Gary Null's Magnetic Chi-Belt:

Magnetic Chi-Belt 

Qi (energy) belt is designed to facilitate the use of magnets in the area of the prostate, colon, ovaries, uterus and reproductive organs (groin). Remove magnets before washing.

One size fits all.

I guess that doesn't technically claim that the magnets will actually do anything for your reproductive organs (which, in case you've been wondering about this, are located in the groin area).  But if you decide you want to magnetize them, then Gary Null is ready to sell you the magnetic underpants to do it.

Link: New York Post
Link: NY Daily News

Spider-Man Arrested for Battery

Many have rightly praised Spider-Man for foiling that comic-book-store robbery in Australia last week (with the aid of a few super-friends), but some still question whether his brand of vigilante justice is always a good thing.

The robbery story reminded me of one from last November, when Spider-Man was arrested in Los Angeles after allegedly hitting a man on Hollywood Boulevard.  On that occasion, the masked crimefighter attempted to blend into the crowd after the assault.  That's not as far-fetched as it sounds, given that Hollywood Boulevard is probably one of the few places in the world where somebody could blend in while wearing a Spider-Man outfit.

 

A rare photo of Spider-Man and Evil Spider-Man together.

Even rarer: both are wearing fanny packs. 

More specifically, police did not have trouble finding Spider-Man, but they did have trouble finding the right Spider-Man -- when they arrived, they found at least four Spider-Men lurking among the crowd of costumed characters that works the boulevard hoping for tips from tourists.  The second one they unmasked was the suspect.

Police said that the victim decided not to press charges, but Spider-Man was booked anyway because it turned out there were existing warrants out for his arrest.  Bail for Spider-Man was set at $5,500.

According to the report, the crowd of celebrity/character impersonators normally gets along reasonably well, but tempers have flared from time to time.  "A few years ago," the report said, "the police had a 'super-hero' summit to try to reduce tensions."

Link: UPI.com

Snoopy, Accomplice in Custody After Failed Prison-Break Attempt

"It's not every day you see a giant cartoon dog go on the rampage after trying to break into a prison," said a prison spokesman of the incident on May 1.  Nor is it often that a story beginning with a quote like that one gets better, but today is apparently a special day.

 The giant cartoon dog in question was Snoopy, and he was reportedly trying to break into the prison on the Isle of Wight in the UK in order to spring one of his relatives.  Two men were involved in the break-in attempt, and while the other one should have been dressed as Woodstock, so far there is no evidence of that.  Nor is there any explanation yet for the Snoopy costume itself, although it seems clear that it was not intended to help the pair keep a low profile.

"They weren't exactly inconspicuous," the spokesman said of the two men who tried to break down a door while one was wearing a Snoopy costume, "but they were taken seriously because they appeared to have a gun.  They caused a real commotion," he continued, "and it was only later they were found to be armed with a water pistol."

When the two were unable to accomplish the break-in, the report said, they went on to "hurl concrete missiles" at prison officers' cars.  Whatever that means, exactly, it did not help accomplish their goal.

 Not that they were going to accomplish that goal anyway, because it turned out that they had the wrong prison, or at least the wrong unit.  The man's relative was in a different facility a few hundred meters away.  "This has got to rank as one of the worst attempted jail breaks ever," the spokesperson added unnecessarily.

Police said the two men, ages 43 and 21, were arrested and were being held on suspicion of "criminal damage."  The report did not say of the two men was wearing the Snoopy outfit.

Link: Telegraph

Judge Who Lost Pants Forced to Rely on Briefs

Whenever Roy Pearson, Jr. is in the news, it's like seeing an old friend.  At least, if you have an old friend who you have frequently ridiculed in front of thousands of people, it would be like that.

When we last saw Roy, in July 2009, he was losing his wrongful-termination case against the District of Columbia, his former boss, and others, a case he filed after he was not reappointed to another term as a D.C. administrative law judge.  See "Judge Who Lost Pants Loses Another Suit," Lowering the Bar (July 31, 2009).  The decision not to reappoint him may or may not have had something to do with Pearson's valiant years-long battle with his dry cleaners over an allegedly lost pair of pants, which made national headlines largely due to Pearson's demand for 65 million dollars in compensation.  He always insisted it was not about the pants, and later reduced his demand to $54 million, apparently in order to make that point.  See "Judge Drops Pants; Suit Still On," Lowering the Bar (June 6, 2007).  He lost anyway.

But a loss has never deterred Roy Pearson, Jr., and the more he loses the more not-deterred he seems to be.  Today's report involves his appeal in the wrongful-termination case, which was dismissed by the lower court.  That is not going to change on appeal, an opinion that I think is reinforced by the D.C. Circuit's cancellation of the scheduled oral argument, which was to have taken place tomorrow (May 11).  The court said it had decided that oral argument in the matter was unnecessary, and that it would decide the appeal based on the briefs.  This is generally a bad sign for the party with the weaker argument, which in this case, as in pretty much every case, is Roy Pearson.

It is unclear whether Pearson will pursue further appeals, to the U.S. Supreme Court or, as I keep hoping we will see him try one day, to the International Court of Justice, where he might finally get a fair hearing.  Frankly, although he has provided a lot of great material over the years, I would have mixed emotions about seeing him continue, as there is probably a limit on the number of decent (if childish) pants-based headlines I can generate.

Link: National Law Journal

San Francisco Docket

From today's report of newly filed cases:

Eric Miller v. The Army Review Boards Agency, No. CGC-10-499631 (San Francisco Super. Ct. May 7, 2010)

Contract action. The plaintiff was fired the wrong way and he suffered turf toe, a sports related injury. $26,000. (In Pro Per)

We always advise our clients to fire people the right way so they don't open themselves up to possible turf-toe claims.  You can't be too careful.

"Plaintiff Has No Recollection of What Transpired in the Private Room"

In January, Gerard Wall sued a business in New York for allegedly overcharging his credit card.  The complaint is roughly 15 pages long, but I think I've successfully condensed it by selecting just the following eight sentences from various parts of the document:

On Friday, December 12, 2008, Plaintiff WALL entered the premises at about 8:30 p.m.

At the aforementioned time and place, he was approached by a dancer who invited him to have a private lap dance in a separate room from the bar area.

At no time did Plaintiff willfully submit his Discover card to the Defendant.

Plaintiff has no recollection of what transpired after he was led from the bar area into the private room.

[and again a couple of pages later:] Plaintiff has absolutely no recollection of what transpired once he left the bar area and entered the private room.

[Plaintiff's credit cards were] charged an aggregate amount of $21,620.60.

Plaintiff did not receive Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Dollars and Sixty Cents ($21,620.60) worth of alcoholic beverages and/or other services throughout the evening.

By way of the foregoing, Defendant has been and continues to be unjustly enriched.

I realize that could have been shortened by at least one sentence, but it appears that Plaintiff wishes to emphasize that he has no recollection of what transpired once he entered the private room, and so I've sought to preserve that.

Link: Wall v. 12th Street-New York d/b/a Larry Flynt's Hustler Club

Hopefully Safer Pint Glasses Entering Test Phase in Britain

Last September I alerted you to the fact that the British government was considering redesigning or banning the traditional pint glass, in an effort to keep British people from trying to kill each other with them.  As one report put it, "British pubgoers have an alarming tendency to smash their pint glasses and use [the broken shards] as weapons."  That report quoted a National Health Service estimate that 87,000 attacks of this kind occur every year in Britain, costing the country $4 billion in health-care and (probably) beer-replacement costs.

Something is odd there, since the statistics I saw last year said that a mere 5,500 people are attacked this way every year in England and Wales.  At the time, I speculated there might be a lot more pub attacks in Scotland, and so maybe I was much more right than I knew.  Or maybe each of these people gets attacked an average of 15.8 times a year.

Whatever the number is, the British are determined to lower it, and held a competition to design safer pint glasses for that purpose.  Home Secretary Alan Johnson unveiled the winning designs in February.  "Glassing causes horrific injuries and has a lasting and devastating impact on victims and their families," said Johnson on that occasion.  "I hope these designs will help bring an end to such attacks."

Also horrific: calling it "glassing."  Last time I checked, the English language had plenty of perfectly good words suitable for describing the many ways we try to kill each other.  "Stabbing," "slashing," and "cutting" come to mind here, for example, or maybe just "fighting."  Having to come up with a new word for every weapon we use on each other would take a lot of valuable time away from coming up with new weapons, it seems to me, so let's stick with the words we already have when they work.

Besides, the point here, I think, is that redesigning and deploying new pint glasses is going to cost a lot of money, which would be fine if it would cut down on injuries.  But it probably won't.  It might cut down on glassings, but won't do anything about chairings, dartings, poolcueings, poolballings, tableleggings or barstoolings, let alone gunnings or swordings (which also seem surprisingly popular over there).  I suppose it is better than banning, let's say, alcohol, which may have something to do with this problem.

The new designs are (1) "Twin Wall," which has two ultra-thin layers of bonded glass, like the safety glass in your windshield; and (2) "Glass Plus," which is basically a regular pint glass with a special coating on it.  Another report described this as a "thin bioresin coating," which hopefully is a highly advanced compound and not just what you get if you don't wash the glass for a while.

Link: directgov (Official UK government website)

Paying $60K to Attend Trump University Was a "Big Mistake," Plaintiff Now Realizes

I knew the Donald had put his name on many things, but I did not know until recently that he had bestowed his awesomeness on a university. Actually, "Trump University" may not be called that for very long, not because Trump is dropping it but because the state says he can't call it a "university." Apparently, the New York Education Department frowns on for-profit, unaccredited institutions using that term, and Trump U. is very much both of those things.

Especially the for-profit part, according to a new lawsuit.

A plaintiff recently sued the company in the Southern District of California, alleging that it had promised her (and other similarly situated persons, of course) a "mentorship" in real-estate investing, telling consumers that signing up will be the "next best thing to being Donald Trump's next 'Apprentice.'" But the "primary lesson Trump University teaches its students," she alleges, "is how to spend more money buying more Trump seminars."

That lesson, at least, she took to heart, because she alleges she spent upwards of $60,000 on "Trump University seminars" over the course of one year.

Plaintiff compares TU's introductory seminar to an "infomercial" at which students are encouraged to buy a three-day "workshop" for the low, low price of $1,495. The workshop is allegedly designed to persuade attendees to sign up for "Trump Gold Elite" status, which can be had for a mere $34,995. (Plaintiff alleges that one of the things people learn during the workshop is how to raise their credit limit.) She was "reluctant" to sign up for this, she alleges, but did so because of the Trump name and promises of "guaranteed success." The "mentorship" was not quite what she had expected, though—instead of getting "priceless insight from expert mentors," the future class members spent two days looking at properties (which you can do for free) and half a day at Home Depot. (Free lunch, though, so it wasn't completely worthless.) Surprisingly, plaintiff never did make any money at real estate, and now describes her enrollment with TU as a "big mistake."

While it is definitely part of the fine print, the enrollment form the plaintiff signed does have a disclaimer stating that TU is not making a guarantee or promise of success. It also says that by signing, she acknowledged that "none of the Principals is engaged in rendering financial, legal, accounting, or other professional services or advice," and that if such services or advice are required, students should "seek the services of a competent professional." (Note to self: do not pay $34,995 for a seminar given by people who tell you to look elsewhere for "competent professionals.")

Well, there are not going to be any heroes in this one. If the allegations are true, people did not get much if anything for their money, but on the other hand, maybe they should have known better. After all, almost everybody who is on "The Apprentice" gets fired, don't they?  Not a great track record of success.

Link: New York Daily News
Link: The Apprentice (Wikipedia)

Louisiana May Criminalize Embarrassing Emails

The Louisiana legislature, always on the lookout for important problems to solve, appears likely to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense to send an electronic message with the intent to "harass" or "embarrass" any person under 17, whether or not the message actually has any effect.  The new law would provide as follows:

R.S. 14:40.7  Cyberbullying

A. Cyberbullying is the transmission of any electronic textual, visual, written, or oral communication with the intent to coerce, abuse, torment, intimidate, harass, embarrass, or cause emotional distress to a person under the age of seventeen.

B. For purposes of this Section,"electronic textual, visual, written, or oral communication" means any communication of any kind made through the use of a computer online service, Internet service, or any other means of electronic communication, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chat room, electronic mail, or online messaging service.

Penalties start at $500/six months in jail, and those convicted of three or more cyberbullyings could be fined up to $5,000 and jailed for up to three years.

The chances that this law would be constitutional I would estimate at approximately zero percent.  Even limited to communications targeting persons under 17 (rather than, as it originally provided, messages to "any person"), the law is vastly overbroad.  It applies to "any means of electronic communication" and to such vague categories of messages that it would criminalize even, let's say, blog posts stating that Louisiana teenagers should be ashamed of their state or stating that they are wussies if they don't immediately take a road trip to Baton Rouge to leave a giant flaming bag of poop on the legislature's doorstep.  (Do it, losers.)

More importantly, since the law is clearly intended at least in part to deter potential cyberbullies who are under 17, and because it would be posted online, the law itself would be an "electronic written communication" made with the specific intent to "coerce" or "intimidate" young people into not being cyberbullies. So passing the law against cyberbullying would itself be a criminal act of cyberbullying.  

I think I am now willing to support this bill, but only if the legislature agrees to immediately prosecute itself if the bill passes.

Link: HB 1259 bill status
Link: The Volokh Conspiracy

O.J.'s "Acquittal Suit" to Go On Display in Washington

Sources report that the suit O.J. Simpson was wearing when he was acquitted of murder will be going on display at the Newseum in Washington, D.C.  Officials said they hoped the tan Armani suit would be ready for display by October, which would be the 15th anniversary of the acquittal.

The suit has been in the custody of Simpson's former manager, Mike Gilbert, for almost the entire 15 years, and was the subject of a years-long legal battle between Gilbert, Simpson, and Fred Goldman, the father of one of the two people Simpson officially did not kill.  Apparently, the three finally agreed that the suit should be donated to a museum.

As you may recall, they first offered the suit to the Smithsonian Institution, and officials there pretended to spend almost a day thinking about the offer before declining.  But the Newseum, which you will be surprised to learn is a "museum of news," was pleased to accept the item.  There, it will join exhibits dealing with subjects ranging from the Berlin Wall and 9/11 to "First Dogs: American Presidents and Their Pets."  (It seems Calvin Coolidge had 12 dogs and a pair of raccoons.)

The Newseum also previously hosted the Unabomber's cabin, which the government had confiscated, along with bomb-making materials and Ted Kaczynski himself, in 1996.  Mr. K unsuccessfully objected to that exhibit about the same time he unsuccessfully tried to get back the rest of his stuff, a request the government denied for the excellent reason that some of it might still blow up.

According to Newseum vice president Susan Bennett, O.J.'s outfit will be in a collection that includes press passes, newspapers, and "the mute button that Superior Court Judge Lance Ito used when he wanted to shut off the microphone in court so lawyers could talk privately during the trial." I'd get in line for tickets right now because the line to see that mute button is going to stretch around the block.

Simpson himself remains on display at a public facility in Nevada.

Link: CBS News