Lowering the Bar

Pilots: Please Enunciate When Saying "There's a Mom on Board"

Because it sounds a little like "there's a bomb on board," which is very different.

The pilot of a Southwest Airlines flight learned this the other day when he managed to panic a number of passengers when trying to wish someone's "mom" a happy birthday. Passengers who thought they heard him say "there's a bomb on board" (or maybe, "we have a bomb on board") freaked out, although it's not clear to me why they thought the pilot would be wishing the bomb a happy birthday. How would he even know when the bomb's birthday was? Most bombs don't live more than a year anyway, do they? If one did, seems safe to say it would've failed to do the one thing for which it was created, and it probably wouldn't want anybody to call attention to that, really. Spare it the public birthday greetings and just let it drink in peace, is that so much to ask? Jesus.

The real point, of course, is that people really should try to relax at least a little and think briefly before they panic. Even if he did say "there's a bomb on board," how is panicking going to help? If freaking out and running up and down the aisle could help defuse a bomb, then I've been defusing bombs the wrong way, that's for sure.

On the other hand, I guess I've found unreasoning plane panic very amusing in the past:

Passengers who have just been told to "assume crash positions."

Two of the panicky passengers on the Southwest flight complained after the plane landed, but the FAA has said it is "not investigating the pilot or the flight crew" for the failure to enunciate.

Although he may have gotten it from me via Twitter, I'll still go ahead and credit Bruce Carton at Legal Blog Watch, who included this in Volume 13 of his important series, "Things You Can't Do on a Plane."

UPDATE: Wyoming No Longer Considering Buying an Aircraft Carrier

It appears that, on reflection, the Wyoming House of Representatives has decided the risk of invasion by its neighbors is remote enough that it can do without its own armed forces for now, and in particular does not need to consider whether an aircraft carrier might come in handy. I was informed, I think by Rep. Brown himself, that the bill was "defeated on third reading and exists no more."

Sadly, that is indeed the case. Turns out this bill had a very short lifespan, having been introduced just a couple of weeks ago. It did pass an initial vote (43-17), although that may be pretty common. But trouble appeared on the 24th, when the amount appropriated was cut in half. The armed-forces amendment was adopted just yesterday (Feb. 27), but appears to have been deleted by a later amendment, either later in the day or this morning. Even without the aircraft-carrier language, though, the bill itself failed today on the third reading, though only by three votes (27-30), with three abstaining (or "excused") from the vote.

Note that I do check these things out; if I was off on this one, it was only by a few hours (and even if I was, it was still worth reporting).

Rep. Brown was not a sponsor of the bill, although he does seem to have voted for it on the first reading; he later offered the aircraft-carrier amendment, and then voted against the whole thing today. So, although he hasn't confirmed it yet, it does look like he may be one of those relatively rare legislators with both a sense of humor and the will to express it in a piece of legislation (which he knew would be deleted). It's nice to be able to get humor out of a legislature this way for once.

Wyoming to Consider Buying an Aircraft Carrier

Wyoming House Bill 85 calls for the establishment of a state "continuity task force" that would study the possibility that the United States of America may disintegrate, leaving Wyoming to fend for itself. You may think that's not a healthy preoccupation, but Rep. Lorraine Quarberg is here to tell you what's healthy and what ain't:

"I don’t think there’s anyone in this room today what [sic] would come up here and say that this country is in good shape, that the world is stable and in good shape — because that is clearly not the case," state Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, R-Thermopolis, said. "To put your head in the sand and think that nothing bad’s going to happen, and that we have no obligation to the citizens of the state of Wyoming to at least have the discussion, is not healthy."

Granted, we aren't in especially good shape right now, and something bad is going to happen, sooner or later. Maybe in November. But Wyoming's concerns still seem a little apocalyptic. The task force is to study the potential impacts of a variety of potential federal disruptions, including (but not limited to) a rapid decline of the dollar, a disruption in food or energy distribution, an unspecified "constitutional crisis," or, even more ominously, the "potential effects of a situation in which the federal government has no effective power or authority over the people of the United States."

Come get some, Montana!

Hm. Not sure what they're getting at there. If the federal government had no power (and so presumably little if any authority), that'd mean things were pretty damn bad. If it had no authority, but did have power, there'd be those what would say that calls for secession. (Not that I'm a fan of the feds exceeding their authority.)

Is Wyoming planning to secede? If so, it'd probably need some armed forces. Maybe that's why Rep. Kermit Brown offered an amendment (which was adopted) requiring the task force also to look into the "conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier." Emphasis added.

Surely, I thought, this means that at least somebody has a sense of humor about this project. Even if Wyoming were going to be independent, either by choice or because the other 49 states just quit inviting it to things, it's not very likely to need an aircraft carrier. But Brown had previously voted in favor of moving the bill forward, and so it's hard to see why he would then add an amendment making fun of the whole project, let alone why the majority would have agreed to it. (So far, he hasn't responded to my request for comment, but I'm sure somebody will.)

Is the whole project (or at least the amendment) just intended to call attention to Wyoming's displeasure with the federal government? Or does Wyoming really need a navy with strike capability? And is that even possible? 

The state does not have a whole hell of a lot of water, to be honest. It appears that its largest lake is Yellowstone Lake, which on average is about 140 feet deep. (Yes, it's in a national park now, but that wouldn't matter, would it?) The draft of a Midway-class carrier, which you can probably find on eBay for cheap, was only 33 feet; even the biggest carrier available (Nimitz-class) only needs about 40 feet of water to float. So yes, assuming they could find one and figure out a way to get it in there, the people of Wyoming could potentially have their own aircraft carrier. It might not have much room to putt around in, but still.

I wouldn't get too cocky, though, even then. Dry as they are, most if not all the neighboring states seem to have at least one lake that could float a carrier, and since Wyoming has the fewest people of any U.S. state, it'd be heavily outnumbered, too.

Although it's too bad Vermont isn't closer. They'd probably still kick Vermont's ass.

Warranty Coverage for Space-Invasion Damage Now Unclear

As several sources reported last week, the ASUS computer company had been offering a special extended warranty program that looked pretty good except for the express exclusion of coverage for "damage caused by natural disaster, intentional or unintentional misuse, acts of war, space invasions, abuse, neglect, improper maintenance, or use under abnormal conditions."

Click to enlarge, O ye of little faith

Emphasis added. Obviously this raises all sorts of questions about how the exclusion should be interpreted. If there's already an exclusion for "acts of war," why also separately exclude acts of war by aliens (or humans attacking from space)? Could there be space invasions that would not constitute "acts of war"? Seems like there must be, or the two terms would be redundant. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers was not too warlike, but people still seemed to have strong feelings about it (at first). So maybe the point is to clarify that computer damage caused by (inter alia) body snatchers would not be covered, whether said snatching qualified as an "act of war" or not.

I suppose that might also be "use under abnormal conditions," assuming body snatching is an unusual event, and I guess we don't really know if that's true, do we? Or do you?

Now, though, we have a whole other set of questions, because I checked the company's website and the warranty has apparently since been amended to remove the words "space invasions." Well, now I'm thoroughly confused. Which version is binding, the one that existed until recently or the new one? Can they change the warranty just by amending the website? Seems doubtful. Also, if there was previously a specific exclusion for space-invasion damage, and it's now been removed, then doesn't that confirm that they do intend to cover such damage? 

Maybe ASUS decided to quietly tweak its warranty and just hope there aren't any space invasions in the near future that might lead to a rash of computer-damage claims. Fair enough, but this is the kind of thing that can come back to bite you.

Feds Guilty of Backwards-Correct-Syntaxing-Modification-Fraud, Plaintiff Alleges

Believe it or not, the plaintiff who filed this is complaining about somebody else's grammar:

This was filed by one of those people subscribing to the "sovereign citizen" nonsense, which involves a variety of legal arguments that have failed repeatedly over the years, if "failed" is the right word to apply to arguments that are pretty much incomprehensible. See also "Florida Couple Secedes," Lowering the Bar (Oct. 15, 2008). In this variant of the nonsense, words only have legal meaning if rendered in exactly the correct way, including the "correct" grammar, syntax, and even punctuation, according to a series of bizarre rules that, surprisingly, only the proponents appear to know. (See the full complaint for examples.) Since the government's not doing it right, they argue, the charges against them (often tax fraud) must be dismissed.

In this complaint, David-Russell:: Myrland (as he writes it), who is currently serving three years for threatening public officials, charges prosecutors and DHS officials with (among many other things) "backwards-correct-syntaxing-modification fraud," whatever that might be. To be fair, he also charges them with "babbling-collusion-threats" and "grammar-second-grade-writing-level-fraud," and I might be willing to agree that DHS does those things if only Myrland had hyphenated correctly. As it stands, though, there's nothing I can do. Which is a relief, because now I don't have to read the rest of his complaint.

Via Language Log, TPM, and the excellent "Headline of the Day" email (to which you can subscribe here) by Tom Harrison of Lawyers Weekly.

Norwegian Legal Update

It appears to be illegal to transport reindeer in your car, even in Norway, at least without special permission. According to this report (via Dave Barry), police in Lapland noticed antlers inside a Subaru Forester, and found three live reindeer in the back seat, with two more somehow fit into the luggage compartment. The ones in the back seat don't look too uncomfortable, but I can't imagine the others were enjoying the ride. The driver reportedly claimed he had received clearance from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority to transport five of his reindeer to another town about 60 miles away, from which I'm inferring that it's otherwise illegal to do this. The report doesn't say whether or not he told the NFSA exactly how he planned to transport the animals.

The same site also reports that the Norwegian Marketing Council recently upheld a ruling that beer makers cannot review or recommend beers on their own websites, link to other editorial material about beer or even show pictures of beer. The agencies involved were also not amused by this response from the Norwegian Brewery Association --

-- and said it too was a violation. The association said it supports existing restrictions on alcohol advertising in general but thinks this is going too far, calling the website ban "surreal."

Other stories at the site:

• "Movie buzz mounts for woman with cow's tail"
• "Researcher: Repel railway elk with human waste"
• "Topless tobogganists crave national arena"

and, maybe less surprisingly,

• "Norwegian skiers 100 times better than Danes"

Defense Lawyer Objects to Testimony of Genie Expert

According to this report (via Overlawyered), in 2010 a Saudi defense lawyer demanded that a genie be summoned to testify in open court if the state intended to use its testimony against his client. The lawyer was concerned by the court's willingness to hear instead from a genie expert who said he had talked to the genie and would provide a report.

Not much information is available on this, at least in English, nor is it clear why it's making the rounds now although it allegedly happened over a year ago. The story is mentioned on at least one English-language Saudi website, but I couldn't find any more recent information. Still, it seems important to discuss this in case any of you encounter a similar issue.

The case involved a judge who was one of several defendants arrested on bribery and corruption charges. The accused judge told investigators it wasn't his fault because at the time of his allegedly corrupt rulings he had been possessed by a spirit ("jinn" or "genie" in English) summoned by one of the other defendants. The presiding judge then did the logical thing and called in a genie expert.

The expert, a "well-known cleric" and exorcist "believed to have the powers of speaking to jinn," later confirmed he had successfully contacted the jinn and would be presenting a full report:

Kathami told Okaz [a Saudi newspaper] that the judge ... asked him to include in his report "every word said by the jinn" during the questioning session....

"The judge also asked me to question the jinn about all the offences committed by the accused judge and other defendant who is at large," Kathami said.

"The jinn told me all I want through the accused judge.... I have written all what the jinn said about the judge's life and the other defendant.... I will write a full report and present it to the court, proving this judge has been under a spell."

Emphasis added. The accused judge must have been on pins and needles wondering whether the jinn speaking out of his mouth would back up his story.

Hang on a second, said the lawyer for the other guy (who wisely appears to have fled). This exorcist "has not presented any real evidence that the accused judge has been possessed by jinn," he said, arguing that a sentence cannot be based on "jinn's allegations." At least not if it's jinn hearsay, I guess, because the lawyer seems to have insisted that the jinn itself be called to testify. That's weird, because why would a jinn be any more truthful in court? It's almost like he didn't think they could actually produce the witness.

Sadly, I haven't been able to find out what ultimately happened, although either way I assume somebody got beheaded.

It is clear both that genies are routinely blamed for all kinds of things in Saudi Arabia and that there are Saudi skeptics. In this more recent story, for example, two brothers reported that genies burned their house down (twice); the fire department suspected arson, but police agreed it had to be genies since they hadn't found another cause.

We know, of course, that this sort of thing would never happen in a modern country like the US, or at least we do until we Google it. In 1981, a defense attorney in Connecticut argued that his client was not guilty by reason of demonic possession. According to the theory, the defendant stabbed his landlord to death not because of mental illness but because a devil jumped into him during an exorcism. The family of the defendant's fiancee had reportedly been convinced that their son was possessed, and had called in the same "demonologists" involved in the "Amityville Horror" case. Supposedly Catholic priests had also been called, but the diocese denied participating in any exorcism. Whatever happened, it didn't go well, and they ended up with two possessed people (but, on the bright side, also great material for a book).

In that case, the judge refused to allow the "demonic possession" defense, and the killer was convicted of manslaughter. That's good, although just how far ahead we are of the Saudi court system is still debatable.

Assorted Stupidity #34

• "I am doing this to show my parents that I can make it on my own," said a 21-year-old Washington man, explaining to detectives why he had forged a pair of stolen checks. I've thought about this, and I think the only explanation is that his parents are professional forgers.

• Is there a First Amendment right to describe your English teacher as "tall, blond, and stacked"? We may find out, now that a student at Oakland University in Michigan has been suspended for three semesters for doing that in a journal he was assigned to keep. The teacher said she felt unsafe, and the school called it a "student-conduct" issue, but no actual conduct other than speech seems to be involved. "The university has no leg to stand on," said a free-speech group supporting the student. "It's not against the law to be perceived as creepy."

• Turns out Titanic was based on the life of Princess Samantha Kennedy, according to a lawsuit filed last week in California by Princess Samantha Kennedy. Kennedy, who says her mother told her she is related to the queen of England, wants all copies of the movie destroyed and all of its profits awarded to her. As for why she is just now bringing this up, she says "I have not been in a movie theatre since 1995 and [only] recently discovered the infringement." Kennedy says she will present the court with "hundreds of pages of side by side comparisons" proving infringement, which I'm sure the court is eager to get a look at.

• Q: When does everyone wish that a thief had stolen more than he did? A: When it was a naked 300-pound thief who only stole socks.

• Finally, after yesterday's post on the Salahi case, it was brought to my attention that Mr. Salahi's lawsuit followed the release of a new Journey music video in which Mrs. Salahi and her new boyfriend, guitarist Neal Schon, apparently stroll on the beach and roll around in the surf together. I dislike everyone involved too much to actually watch the video, so I'm going to just pretend that at the end of it, they are washed out to sea and are never heard from again. 

 

White House Party Crashers Now Suing Each Other

Probably not since the people responsible for The Secret all sued each other have I been this happy to hear that former friends are now at each others' throats (legally).

Buffoon v. Buffoon (Photo: nvdaily.com)

Like the rest of the country, I have not been paying much attention to Tareq and/or Michaele Salahi since 2009, when they somehow got into a party at the White House to which they had not been invited. And I only paid attention then in order to loathe them, not with the sort of loathing that really should be reserved for a Joe Francis kind of person, or Hitler, but with a loathing down at the lower end of the loathing scale, maybe more in the disdain range.

Speaking of Joe Francis, just as an aside, I got a press release the other day from his publicist saying he was considering legal action to stop the release of Madonna's new album, the first track of which is called "Girls Gone Wild." It was pretty obviously just an attempt to glom onto Super Bowl publicity, not a real legal threat, but it did make me wonder how exactly I got on that mailing list. I've mentioned the guy a number of times, but he does have a 0.0 percent favorability score here.

Anyway, the Salahis are also poor examples of human beings. Besides the party-crashing, there was a reality-TV show, and then the nonsense surrounding their divorce. In September 2011, Mr. Salahi sent what ABC called a "desperate tweet" claiming his wife had been kidnapped. "I'm scared to death for her," he desperately tweeted. "[I] hope she's not trapped in a place where someone is holding her." She was, but she wasn't trapped, and the "someone" was Neal Schon of Journey. "She wasn't being herself," he continued, describing a late-night call he got from her, "as if somebody was standing over her, as if somebody was right there so something was wrong, I could tell." Again, all probably true, but not the way he meant it. Divorce lawsuits followed.

Now, according to this report, Mr. Salahi has sued his wife, Journey (apparently the entire band) and the Salahis' former agent, saying their actions are -- if you can believe this -- a calculated attempt to make money by gaining publicity through outrageous actions. What could be more despicable?! Oh, this time it's at his expense, so it's bad.

According to the report, Salahi accuses his wife and Schon of deliberately orchestrating the affair and a subsequent campaign to defame him and "show him as a buffoon" in order to get attention and make money, harming him in the process. (Proving buffoon damages is going to be a stretch here, given that so much has already been self-inflicted.) Salahi also reportedly claims Schon intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him, accusing the guitarist of, among other things, "sending an email photo of a male sexual body part to [Mr.] Salahi on Sept. 13...." Presumably on information and belief, Salahi "believed the body part belonged to Schon."

The complaint further alleges that the plaintiff "received a phone call that evening from someone who said, 'This is Neal, I am [expletive] your wife.'" Which does seem a bit over the top.

Apparently, the rest of Journey is named because Salahi alleges they were part of a conspiracy to defame him, the motive being to revive an otherwise unsuccessful tour. (I haven't seen the complaint, though -- maybe he got another call saying "This is Journey, we are [expletive] your wife.") The defendants knew, he claims, "that a public affair would generate interest in both of them and immediate income for Neal Schon and Journey." I think everybody involved is exaggerating the amount of interest in them. "I had no interest in seeing Journey, but now that Schon's expletiving Michaele Salahi, who's got floor seats?!" Really? No.

The complaint also asserts a cause of action for unjust enrichment, likewise based on public embarrassment allegedly caused to somebody who has spent years deliberately embarrassing himself in public. Still, Mr. Salahi's lawyer said, "[m]y client's position is that the publicity is inappropriate." That's the trouble with publicity -- it doesn't always turn off when you want it to.

Nor Can the Court Order Specific Performance

[O]ne of the central recurring assertions in Washington’s pleadings is that his genitals are shrinking and prison officials are responsible for this process. Indeed, Washington’s prior complaints have, inter alia, requested that we reverse the process and restore him to his former stature, something that is plainly beyond the power of any court to achieve.

Washington v. Grace, Civ. No. 4:08-CV-1283, slip op. at 4 n.1 (M.D. Penn. Feb. 7, 2012) (explaining one of the reasons the court had decided not to grant further leave to amend).