Lowering the Bar

Indiana Jones and the Bogus Lawsuit

The Hollywood Reporter's excellent legal blog reports on a lawsuit filed by the Director of the Institute of Archaeology in Belize, demanding the return of "Belize's most notable Crystal Skull."

Not only is this crystal skull allegedly the most notable of that country's crystal skulls, it is said to have great cultural significance. The plaintiff alleges it was stolen from a temple and illegally taken out of the country decades ago. Worst of all, he says, this very same skull was featured in the 2008 film, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," which grossed almost $800 million worldwide, of which Belize has received exactly zero dollars. The plaintiff is therefore suing not only the current possessor of the skull and the estate of those who stole it, but also LucasFilm, Walt Disney and Paramount, seeking not only the return of the skull but also an accounting of profits and so forth and so on.

The lawsuit may or may not be related to the fact that the Institute appears to be promoting trips to Belize (right) to celebrate the ending of the Mayan calendar cycle on December 21.

According to the complaint, while today "archaeologists, anthropologists and tourists alike are drawn to destinations such as Xunantunich in the name of discovery," with great package deals probably available now, 100 years ago it "was coveted for slightly different reasons." Specifically, people wanted to come steal Mayan artifacts. More specifically, F.A. Mitchell-Hedges and his daughter Anna wanted to steal them. In 1924, so the story goes, they found a crystal skull buried under an altar, "a fact [his daughter] would disclose in a documentary produced by NBC ... and aired on the 'SciFi' cable network in 2008." What she disclosed in this documentary—undoubtedly fully vetted by a team of experts at SciFi, the network that brought you "Mansquito"—was that they did indeed find and export the skull and that she had inherited it after her father's death. She died in 2007, according to the complaint, and the "Mitchell-Hedges Skull" now resides with her husband in Chesterton, Indiana.

So what's with the skull? Well, a crystal skull is a crystal that has been carved into the shape of a skull. Not impressed yet? "These artifacts are attributed to Maya origin." Still not impressed? "Associated in today's popular culture with having magical or other supernatural powers"—and that right there is where the bullshit starts to deepen—"each of the four known Crystal Skulls holds tremendous value not only for its rarity but also as a semi-precious stone. There are only three Crystal Skulls on public display worldwide," the complaint alleges, housed at the British Museum, the Smithsonian, and the Musee du Quai Branly in Paris. One of the defendants has the fourth.

I also have one on my shelf, but let's keep that between us for now.

Are these items indeed magic alien crania or Mayan psychic doodads with remarkable powers? Are they priceless Belizian cultural heirlooms? Click below for the surprising answer!

Threatening Snowglobe Administration Lifts Some Restrictions

Good news! As Bruce Carton reports, the TSA has decided to modify its existing snow-globe policy to make it easier for the traveling public to transport its snow globes this holiday season.

Since at least 2009, as I mentioned here, the TSA has not allowed anyone to carry a snow globe through an airport security checkpoint, citing concerns about the amount of liquid such globes may contain. When it was pointed out that each traveler is allowed to carry up to three ounces of liquid anyway, the TSA took the position that its screeners had no way to figure out "how many ounces are in there" (although people who do understand math could and did), and so globes were out across the board. But it now appears that the threat level has been reduced to Stupid, and so some snow globes will be permitted in carry-on baggage.

Let's consider for just a second how utterly dumb it is to worry about snow globes to begin with. Any group of terrorists who wanted to smuggle liquid explosives onto a plane three ounces at a time is hardly going to choose snow globes as the preferred method. There would be any number of other ways to do this, such as using a bunch of cigarette lighters, which the TSA has permitted since 2007 after suddenly deciding they "no longer pose[d] a significant threat." Apparently they once did. But then they didn't. Or maybe the TSA's concerned somebody would try to batter his way into the cockpit with a snow globe. We must consider all possibilities.

Probably not appropriate

If you were a terrorist, would you bother with snow globes? Please.

Unless you could put little tiny terrorists inside them.

Anyway, those of you who would like to carry a snow globe with you onto a plane should feel free to do that now, so long as said globe "appear[s] to contain less than 3.4 ounces" of liquid. (TSA screeners now paralyzed with math fear can relax; "approximately tennis-ball size" is considered an acceptable benchmark.) The globe must also be able to fit within the same one-quart plastic bag in which all other gels and liquids must fit, because ... oh, who the hell knows.

How to Finally Get Some Work Done: Kidnap a Handyman

I guess it was more the false imprisonment that got the work done. The kidnapping per se didn't happen until the end of his "shift."

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that a couple in Santa Clara (south of SF) was arrested this week "on suspicion of kidnapping and assaulting a San Jose handyman, holding him hostage for eight hours and forcing him to do home repairs before he finally escaped." The handyman had repaired a water heater in October, but had never been paid for his labor. This led to a "back-and-forth exchange" over the dispute that was not resolved until last week.

The handyman thought it was going to be resolved by another visit to the home, where he would be paid the money he was owed and also get the opportunity to do some additional repair work. That's what the couple told him. And I guess he did get the opportunity to do some additional repair work, but he did not get paid. Instead, he got punched in the face. The couple did not brandish any weapons but threatened to kill him unless he complied with their repair demands.

I assume this means they thought he had overcharged them for labor, and were just trying to get their money's worth.

The couple forced the man to repair their dishwasher, fix a broken door and do "other household work" during what was apparently a seven-hour ordeal. There may have been a lot to do, because one report states that the couple lives in a "sprawling" five-bedroom home that includes a pool, tennis courts, and a beach-volleyball court, making it especially odd that they went to the dark side over the cost of a water-heater repair. But even then they weren't satisfied, and ordered him to drive them over to a relative's house where he would be doing additional work.

Unfortunately for them, they decided to stop for gas and snacks at a nearby Chevron station, and after instructing the handyman to wait in the van, they both went inside. Strangely enough, he chose to disobey these instructions, and ran to a nearby house where he called police. They seem to have arrived pretty quickly, because according to one report "[o]fficers arrived at the Chevron to find [the couple] still in the snack aisle."

The couple has been charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment, carjacking, criminal threats, conspiracy and assault with a deadly weapon. That last one is not going to stick, because these people did not have any weapons and as I've mentioned before, unless you are Chuck Norris your hands are not "weapons." Punching someone is certainly assault (and battery), but it isn't assault with a weapon, deadly or otherwise. It just isn't, and while I still don't understand why it took the Ninth Circuit nine pages to address that issue, it did agree with me in the end.

The other charges seem legit. My only issue there (see first sentence above) was the difference between "false imprisonment" and "kidnapping" and when each took place. California's kidnapping statute is plagued by the Legislature's love of run-on sentences, but that offense appears to require transporting the victim somewhere, so again I think the kidnapping per se did not begin until they got in the van.

It ended, of course, when they went to buy snacks.

If I Am Captured, This Blog Will Continue

If I am captured, this blog will continue. I have pre-written enough material to keep this blog alive for at least a year. In addition, the administrator, Chad, will continue to monitor comments. He will administer the reward and post any information received. In truth my continued involvement from this point is irrelevant.

In the event that I am captured, please continue to support this cause. It is a just cause and it needs international attention.

Thank you.

I sort of wish that message was coming from me, because it'd mean that things were about to get a lot more exciting, however briefly. (Also it would mean that I had an "administrator," though one unfortunately named "Chad.") I'd also like to be able to say it was written by Donald Trump, because that would be great for several reasons. But in fact those are the words of John McAfee, once the king of anti-virus software but now more or less the Col. Kurtz of his own upstream mental empire. That image is fairly appropriate since he has been living in the jungle (or in Belize, anyway, where they have jungle), has been getting increasingly loony, and finally was accused of going so far off the reservation that something finally needed to be done about him.

McAfee's behavior has reportedly become increasingly erratic (that's actually a pretty serious understatement), and as you have probably heard he has been on the run for the last few weeks because he is suspected of being involved in a murder. According to him, the charges are part of a massive conspiracy against him, which includes the Prime Minister of Belize among many others (who has called the claims "bonkers"). The quote above was posted on November 19 on McAfee's blog, previously known as "Who is McAfee?" but now jazzed up somewhat and called The Hinterland. 

Well, it is now being administered by Chad, because McAfee has indeed been captured.

Earlier reports of his arrest were apparently exaggerated (he claimed on his blog that police had arrested a "double"), but the more recent ones aren't. McAfee was reportedly arrested in Guatemala, where he had fled (in disguise); he asked for asylum but the Guatemalans have shown zero interest in that. His latest blog post asks his supporters to tweet the President of Guatemala, so maybe a surge of tweets will change the political landscape.

The most recent reports in this ever-changing story are saying that McAfee has been taken to the hospital with a possible heart attack, but for all we know right now that could be another one of his doppelgangers.

"A Rhesus Monkey Could Have Beaten Orly Taitz"

The other quote you may see in reports of this incident is: "You should know that evidence is not stuff printed from the Internet." That's also pretty good, although technically stuff printed from the Internet could be evidence, assuming you could authenticate it and convince a judge it's admissible. Most likely, though, the person hearing this from a judge (that's who said it) has not bothered to follow the rules of evidence. Since the judge was saying it to Orly Taitz, you can be sure that's what was going on.

As you may recall, I got sued not too long ago by Orly Taitz, although it would be more accurate to say that my name appeared on a piece of paper she said was a complaint and mailed to a bunch of people. That lasted a couple of weeks. See "Orly Taitz Is Trying to Sue Me, I Think," and "Orly Taitz Now 0-158," Lowering the Bar (Oct. 1 & 18, 2012). Taitz, of course, is the notorious Moldovan-American lawyer-dentist who has led the crusade to prove that Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and so cannot legally be president. Like most of the actual Crusades, this one involves a bunch of people milling around and doing a lot of damage but never getting any closer to a goal that was pretty stupid to begin with. As I mentioned later on, the birthers do not appear to have ever won even a single court ruling and have lost somewhere around 260 times (it's a moving target).

Taitz added at least one to the number of losses in November, this time in an effort to force Occidental College in California to turn over Obama's college records to her. She sued the college (among others), and served a subpoena demanding the records. According to The Occidental Weekly, the college's general counsel contacted Taitz the day before a scheduled hearing, explained his view that the case was frivolous and asked her to withdraw it. In response, she claimed he was trying to intimidate her and also accused him of treason, apparently for daring to oppose her:

Your opposition will constitute Obstruction of Justice, Aiding and Abetting in the elections fraud in forgery and treason in allowing a foreign citizen to usurp the U.S. Presidency with an aid of forged IDs and usurp the civil rights of the U.S. citizens.... At any rate your opposition and your attempt of intimidation and your allegiance or lack of allegiance to the United States of America is duly noted.

(Also duly noted: her grammar is not so good.) If the email exchange she posted on her own website is accurate, there was nothing at all intimidating about his message.

Had she heeded it, she'd have saved four thousand dollars. That's the amount that Judge Charles Marginis sanctioned her after finding her arguments frivolous and unsupported by evidence, although as noted it was supported by "stuff printed from the Internet."

That brings us back to the title quote, which came from Jay Ritt, Occidental's attorney. "I would like to take credit for a spectacular job preparing papers and going down to the Orange County Superior Court and arguing this case and getting sanctions," he said in a podcast later, "but I honestly believe a rhesus monkey could have beaten Ms. Taitz and got a sanction award based on the awful lack of merit to the subpoena itself."

Sure we can talk, but remember this is costing you 300 bananas an hour

Could a rhesus monkey have actually beaten Orly Taitz? Well, yes and no. The rhesus is a highly intelligent animal (for a monkey) that is capable of complex vocal and non-vocal communication, but there is no evidence one has ever practiced law. Orly Taitz, on the other hand, somehow managed to pass the California Bar (although I haven't actually seen her written answers, which makes me a little suspicious). So I think we have to concede that, all else being equal, a rhesus monkey could not beat Orly Taitz in a legal battle.

On the other hand, all else was not equal in this case. Sometimes the law and facts weigh against one side to the extent that even the best possible lawyer for that side couldn't win, and if that's true, it follows that the worst possible lawyer for the other side couldn't lose. If Taitz's arguments were anything like the ones she usually makes, they had no chance of winning (they never have), and so in that sense it is probably true that Occidental could literally have rented a rhesus monkey to appear for it in court and still prevailed. That would not really be a case of the monkey defeating Taitz, though, just another case of her defeating herself.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned the monkeys, because I'm pretty sure their billing rates are a lot less than mine.

Assorted Stupidity #46

• Yes, it's frustrating when the bank teller screws up a simple request—"give me $20,000," for example—but you shouldn't really complain about being shortchanged if the money you demanded wasn't yours. A 28-year-old man was arrested in October after he demanded that amount from a teller in Syracuse, New York, and then left the bank, only to return after realizing she had not given him the full $20k. He arrived at the (now locked) front door of the bank about the same time police did.

• Still in prison: William Jefferson, the former congressman from Louisiana who had difficulty explaining the $90,000 that FBI agents found in his freezer. Jefferson was convicted of bribery in 2009 for taking money to promote certain ventures using his position on the House Ways and Means Committee. (The donor of the $90,000 turned out to be an FBI informant, so I guess they already had an explanation.) The Supreme Court recently turned down his last appeal, so Jefferson, who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1972, will be leaving federal custody in 2023.

• Still a dick: Joe Francis, who's refusing to pay $6 million he owes a St. Louis woman who won a case against him in June. Francis didn't show up for trial, but did show up for a hearing last week at which he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent several dozen times but talked constantly when he wanted to, despite being told by his own lawyers to shut up. Francis also still owes casino owner Steve Wynn $7.5 million, a judgment also awarded by default. Both plaintiffs' attorneys claim Francis is hiding assets, although somehow he still owns a couple of ginormous mansions that aren't very well hidden at all.

• Saggy pants! Sure, they look stupid and make it hard to run from the police, but they can also get you jail time for contempt of court.

• "Based upon the folk wisdom that counsels that some things are better left to the imagination, we will resist the temptation to 'go there' and explore the subtleties of 'toeballs.' The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit did not favor us with an explanation, and none readily suggests itself to us. Perhaps ... for those who understand 'toeballs,' no explanation is necessary. For those who do not understand them, no explanation is possible." Gucci America, Inc. v. Daffy's, Inc., 354 F.3d 228, 238 n.11 (3d Cir. 2003) (puzzling over a reference to "toeballs" in a citation to a case that turned out to involve Barney the Dinosaur).

Man Charged With Aggravated Weirdness

A 23-year-old man was arrested in Oregon on November 26 after "acting suspiciously" in a bank. "Acting suspiciously" is not illegal, normally, but it sounds like they are making an exception in this case. Employees said the man entered the bank wearing stick-on facial tattoos and a vest made out of sheet metal, and then took off his shoes and socks and put them in a wastebasket. He then put a small AM/FM radio on a counter, put a dog muzzle over his face, walked out of the bank and got on a bus and left.

Police said he did not make any threats, did not try to rob the bank, and that all the items he left behind were completely harmless.

Still, they arrested him for "disorderly conduct" and "menacing," which I guess is what you do when you have no clue what somebody might have been up to but they were being incredibly weird in a bank.

"Naked Rambler" Insists on Rambling Naked

The BBC reported last month that Stephen Gough had been released from prison after serving a five-month sentence for public nudity. This was not Gough's first offense by any means—it was his 18th, and he "has been in prison almost without a break since May 2006" as a result of his insistence on rambling about the UK "typically wearing only boots, socks, a rucksack and perhaps a hat."

Gough, who is known as the "Naked Rambler" for fairly obvious reasons, is deeply committed to his belief that being naked in public is a fundamental freedom and that, as the BBC puts it, "nakedness is an aspect of his personal autonomy." He has twice exercised this autonomy by choosing to walk naked "from Land's End to John O' Groats," and at first I thought that was some kind of euphemism for being stark naked but it turns out to be the traditional route for traveling the length of Great Britain, literally from Land's End in Cornwall up to John O' Groats in northeastern Scotland. On foot the route is something like 1,200 miles long, which would account for the boots and socks. But Gough rambles everywhere naked, it seems.

Scotland is said to be less tolerant than England of pantless travelers, which seems a little odd since it is the land of the kilt. But a kilt does at least cover your John O' Groats, I suppose, and Gough has been increasingly reluctant to wear any clothes at all, ever. When he was arrested in 2006 after one of his rambles, he decided he was done wearing clothes to court. On his way to Edinburgh for a hearing, he got on the plane clothed but stripped during the flight. "I knew I wanted to go to court naked," he told The Guardian, "and I suddenly thought, why not now?" (I had the same thought on Thursday, I just didn't act on it.) He also refused to wear clothes in prison, or after being released; the latter has meant that "his previous spells of freedom have often been as little as a few seconds."

At this point, though, it seems fair to say that Gough is not being deterred by prison, nor do people seem all that comfortable with locking up someone for years just for being naked in public. (The Guardian's report says Gough has had a number of psychiatric evaluations that he has passed with flying colors.) Keeping him there is also expensive, of course. The Scots are said to be "exasperated" and considering alternative approaches. Chief among them: shipping him back to England.

"On his release from Edinburgh prison in 2007," one report says, "police officers offered to take Gough to an address of his choosing in Yorkshire" and drop him off there, in somebody else's jurisdiction. (County sheriffs in England have apparently been handling him this way for years.) He declined and said he would walk there instead—and then was arrested again for doing it naked. The Scots have also asked Gough if he would like to be transferred to an English prison, but he did not consider this an "acceptable arrangement." It's not clear from the report whether they asked the English about this, or were just planning to drop him off on the doorstep and speed away.

That's an amusing thought but not likely to work. I mean, obviously the guy knows the way to Scotland by now.

In case you missed this somewhat related story, public nudity may soon be illegal even in San Francisco, unless you are in a parade.