Lowering the Bar

Judge Bars Holocaust Float and Dancing Hitlers from Rio's Carnaval

On January 31, a judge in Rio de Janeiro issued an order telling a group not to proceed with its plans to offer a float in the city's Carnaval parade because the Holocaust-themed float depicted a heap of naked corpses and one or more dancing Adolf Hitlers.

"I think it's in terribly bad taste," was the somewhat obvious conclusion of "sociologist and Carnaval scholar" Roberto DaMatta, who explained that a group's choice of an unusual or even shocking theme might be explained by the festival's "sacrilegious origins."  He conceded, though, that this was a little outdated.  "We're not in the Middle Ages anymore," he said.  "It doesn't work in a modern society."

Besides being in bad taste, the theme also violated Brazilian laws prohibiting racism and the display of Nazi propaganda, which were the basis of the lawsuit by the Jewish Federation of Rio de Janeiro.  "It's inadmissible," said a spokesman, "that they could have a parade float depicting dead Jews and a live Hitler on top of them."  The group responsible for the float insisted that it was consistent with its overall theme, "It Gives You Goose Bumps," noting that its other floats depicted the "shock of birth," fear, and cold.  Its creative director, Paulo Barros, said he believed the float was a "very respectful" reminder of the Holocaust and was meant only as a reminder that it should not be repeated.

But the judge sided with the plaintiffs.  Saying the float was a "trivialization of barbaric events," and that Carnaval "should not be used as an instrument of hatred," she said the group would be fined if it ignored her order and proceeded with its plans.  The apparent plan to have multiple dancing Hitlers came in for special criticism.  The decision reportedly threatened fines of $113,000 if the bodies (mannequins) were displayed, plus another $28,000 "for each dancer dressed as Hitler."

The group said it had never planned to have a dancing Hitler (let alone several), but refused to comment on the reference to that effect in the official parade description of the float.

Link: AP via SFGate.com
Link: BBC News

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

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

Battle Over Custody of Leg Escalates

Last week, Shannon Whisnant bought a barbecue smoker at an auction in Maiden, North Carolina (population 3,282).  When he got home, he discovered he had gotten more than his money's worth when he found a human leg inside his new purchase.

Whisnant initially turned his prize over to police, and their investigation focused logically enough on John Wood, the owner of the storage unit where the smoker had been kept.  (The contents had been auctioned off because Wood could not pay the rent.)  Sharp-eyed investigators noticed that Wood happened to be missing a leg that fit the description of the one Whisnant had found.  It turned out that Wood's leg had been amputated just below the knee after a plane crash in 2004, but he decided to keep it so he could eventually be "buried as a whole man."  (Or, more accurately, as a man with all of his parts in the same general area.)  It is generally legal to keep your parts after an amputation (surely you don't think I haven't done this research before), and so while it may be somewhat unusual for someone to keep said parts in a barbecue smoker inside a storage unit, Wood had done nothing wrong by doing so.

And he is hardly the first man to want to keep his leg around for sentimental reasons.  The most famous example is Major General Daniel Sickles, whose leg had to be amputated after he was hit by a cannonball at Gettysburg.  Sickles not only insisted on keeping the leg, he sent it (along with the cannonball he claimed was responsible) to the Army Medical Museum in Washington, D.C., where he reportedly visited it every year on the anniversary of its detachment.  You can see it today, along with other celebrity bones, at the National Museum of Health & Medicine.

The General's Leg (Catalog # 379085)

Wood's leg will not end up in a museum, but you may be able to visit it, too.  Once police learned that they were not dealing with a "Silence of the Lambs" situation, they turned the limb over to a funeral home.  It's not clear how Wood felt about that at the time, but he has since decided that he wants to be re-reunified with his leg, which now puts him at odds with Whisnant.  According to today's reports, Whisnant (after calling every lawyer in the county looking for someone with experience in "cadaver law") has consulted a lawyer about his rights with regard to the leg.  His motive is financial.  It turns out that although Whisnant turned the leg over to authorities, he has been making good money with the empty smoker itself after putting it on display at three dollars a look (kids just $1).  At some point, a light bulb went on over Whisnant's head, or at least the filament began to glow dimly, as he realized how much more the smoker might be worth with a leg actually in it.  "It's a strange incident and Halloween's just around the corner," Whisnant told reporters.  "The price will be going up if I get the leg."

But after consulting with his attorney, Whisnant has apparently decided that his best strategy for now is to persuade Wood that this is a good idea, so that the two can share custody of the leg and the resulting profits.

"He's making a freak show out of it," Wood said, accurately.  "He wants to go on the Tonight Show and he wants to sell it to the National Enquirer and call Ripley's Believe it or Not.  He wants to put money in his pocket with this thing."  Well, he wants to put money in both their pockets, but Wood says he is not interested.  "I just think it's despicable," he said.  "I don't mind having the 15 minutes of fame [for being the guy who kept his severed leg in a barbecue grill], but I'm not looking to really profit off this thing."  Wood has appeared in a charity golf tournament that benefited amputees, but otherwise has not exploited his leg's new-found fame.

But is he really not interested in Whisnant's idea, or just a hard bargainer?  Only time, and hopefully a very lengthy legal battle, will tell.

Link: WSOC-TV (Charlotte)
Link: Daily Telegraph (Australia) (which for some reason has much better details than the NC report)

Crazy Guy Helps O.J.'s Defense Team at Press Conference

In this outstanding clip edited from MSNBC's coverage, O.J. Simpson's attorney Yale Galanter is assisted at a press conference by a gentleman who seems to have recently joined the team.  It appears that Galanter will provide the legal talent, and New Guy will provide the moral support.

New Guy, as you may know, is actually Tony Barbieri, a comedian who plays a character named "Jake Byrd" who tries to insert himself into celebrity events like he's done here.  I know this not because I watch "Jimmy Kimmel Live," where "Jake Byrd" frequently appears, but because I research my stories, unlike, apparently, the New York Times, which got fooled by Byrd during the Michael Jackson trial, and had to run this correction:

Editor's Note: May 6, 2004, Thursday

An article on Saturday about a hearing in which the entertainer Michael Jackson pleaded not guilty to felony charges involving sexual abuse of a teenage boy described fans who came to see Mr. Jackson. They included a man who identified himself as Jake Byrd, an employee of a tropical fish store in Chino, Calif. After the article appeared, a publicist for the ABC television show ‘‘Jimmy Kimmel Live’’ said the man was actually an actor playing a recurring character, a rabid Jackson fan named Jake Byrd. The publicist would not reveal the name of the actor, known for stunts that insinuate him into news coverage.

I was hoping this was an actual crazy guy who just wanted to get on camera, but this is still pretty darn good.  Anything that increases the circus quotient of an O.J. criminal case is good news for me.

Link: Awesomeology.com
Link: New York Times, May 1, 2004

Former Sideshow Performer Says He Hopes to Become "Freak Lawyer"

Eduardo Arrocha began classes yesterday at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan, saying he had found a new calling.  Arrocha, who has spent the last 15 years eating nails as part of a Coney Island sideshow, said it was time to move on.

"Coney Island was very good to me, but it was just time to go," said Arrocha, who has been known since 1992 as "Eak the Geek."  "Eak the Geek is the performance," he said, "but I'm also a person."  And as his resume and his new ambition suggest, he is not what you might expect when you hear the words "carnival sideshow act."  While he is heavily tattooed, eats nails and walks on glass, he is also a poet and artist who has toured with a hard-core punk band.  His solo act at Coney Island "displays his many tattoos, includes a lecture on diversity and stands three audience members on his chest as he lies sandwiched between two beds of nails." (Emphasis added.)

But Arrocha has decided to do more than just lecture about diversity.  He says that he hopes to use his law degree to speak for "alternative people" like himself.  "I hope to have a little office in New York," he said, "and work with the alternative people, all the so-called riffraff, to give them legal representation that is not judgmental."  He continued, "I know it sounds weird, but I want to be a freak lawyer."

I had been considering making that my niche, too, but I would be in serious need of some street cred if I tried to compete with this guy.

So congratulations and best of luck to Eak the Geek, now faced with new challenges as he changes professions.  "I've never had to tie a tie before," he said.  I'm pretty confident that anybody who can eat nails and walk on glass can master that skill.

Link: AP via Newsvine
Link: Eak the Geek's MySpace page
Link: Thomas M. Cooley Law School

Liability Concerns Said to Be Hobbling British Clowns

A British clown (a man who makes a living as a clown, not just some guy I think is a "clown" who happens to be British) was quoted this week as saying that clients' concerns about possible liability have seriously limited his clowning options.  "Barney Baloney" told the Yorkshire Post that he was recently told by managers for a supermarket where he had been booked to appear that he could not make balloon animals for the children because one or more of them might be allergic to latex.

He said that another venue had permitted him to use balloons, but told him he could not twist them into the shape of guns because that might encourage children to become violent.  (Balloon swords were, for some reason, okay.)  And he said that he had formerly used a bubble-making machine as part of his act, but had to stop because insurers said they would not cover him due to the risk that kids might slip and fall.  "At this rate," he said, "I will have no act left.  Things are going from crazy to ridiculous." Baloney did not explain how they got to crazy in the first place, though I assume they progressed from funny to zany to wacky to loony to crazy as they normally do.

"This country is going crazy with its political correctness and health and safety issues and it's making us a laughing stock," he continued, appearing to backtrack from his previous statement that things were already crazy and were in danger of becoming ridiculous.

It was also difficult to tell from the report whether he was aware of the irony connected with Baloney the Clown's expressing concern about being viewed as a laughing stock.

The supermarket chain in question stuck by its no-latex policy, saying that it was indeed a health-and-safety issue.  "We have banned balloons," said a spokesman for Tesco supermarkets, "because latex is used in the manufacture of them and this can trigger an allergic reaction in some children."

That is potentially true, although latex allergies appear to be very uncommon.  According to the British Association of Dermatologists (which seems to have embraced its unfortunate acronym, "BAD" -- its website at www.bad.org.uk has a "BAD MEDIA SECTION" and a "BAD MEMBERS' HELP SECTION"), the true rate is unknown but is probably significantly less than 1 percent.  Truly serious reactions, called anaphylaxis, are even more rare and (again according to BAD) there have been only three fatalities ever attributed to latex allergies.  It is a fact that many more people than that have actually been murdered by clowns.  But then maybe we should target that much greater risk and just ban clownery altogether.  There is also likely some risk of heart attacks among those who suffer from coulrophobia, something that I mention only as an excuse to bring up the fact that there is actually a name for the condition of having an abnormal or exaggerated fear of clowns.

Whether or not the real but relatively low risk of balloon allergies or other clown-induced injuries justifies placing restrictions on Mr. Baloney and entertainers like him, I leave for others to decide.

Link: Yahoo! News

Snakes'-Rights Activists Put Indian Snake Charmers Out of Work

Hunting or keeping snakes has been illegal in India since the passage of the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972.  That law has been widely flouted (or maybe fluted) by snake charmers who pursued their art for centuries before the WPA was around, but "growing environmental awareness" has now caused the government to crack down on the turbanned reptile exploiters.

"We now have accepted the fact that we cannot perform with snakes," said Hawa Singh Nath, a 68-year-old New Delhi resident who evidently speaks for all of India's snake charmers.  (Maybe he's head of the union.)  This may be sort of a mixed bag, however, since although a lot of snake charmers are now out of a job, the job they are out of seems to have sucked to begin with.  "At the best of times," said the report, "snake charming is not a profitable profession," and the charmers tend to "live in squalid settlements on the outskirts of cities . . . ."  Nath confirmed that under the new regime, "[w]e are hardly earning half of what we used to earn before," which has presumably doubled the squalidity quotent of charmer settlements.

But there's no stopping the resourceful snake charmers of Rajasthan [or insert your favorite Indian state].  Having accepted the new snakes'-rights agenda, they are turning to other jobs to survive, primarily involving their skills with the flute.  Many now do weddings or birthday parties, or just perform their ancient music sans reptile.  Nath himself performed at the Dubai Film Festival in 2005.  Other charmers have reinvented themselves as guides at animal centers or forestry offices, where they tell visitors about their revered snakes (typically cobras), which appear in Hindu texts, often associated with the deity Shiva.

In the movie version of this story, the millions of now-uncharmed snakes lurking around India will start carrying off children and cows, and possibly even infiltrate airplanes (although that seems very unlikely and would certainly make for a stupid movie).  Eventually, the last of the Indian snake charmers will come out of retirement and flute the country back to safety.  It sort of sounds like Rocky Balboa, except with millions of snakes and no Sylvester Stallone.

Link: Reuters via Yahoo! News

Colorado Judge Rules "Hacky-Sack" Is Not Juggling

Just last week (or the week before), we got some clarity in the ongoing debate over whether a burrito is a sandwich (it isn't). This week, a ruling on whether playing "hacky-sack" is juggling. As you might expect, this story came in from the Boulder office.

Here's some background. Technically, "Hacky Sack" is a brand name for a particular brand of "footbag," which is the generic term for a small bean-filled bag that is kicked from player to player in a circle of "hackers." It is one of that (to me) mystifying category of foreign games in which you can't use your hands. (What did those things allegedly evolve for, anyway?) At least, it was originally foreign.  According to the Internet, which is never wrong, it allegedly originated in "China, Thailand, Native America, and nearly every country," although that is way too many places for something to originate. But the non-native American version was invented in 1972 by "two athlete dudes" from Oregon, who later sold the rights to Wham-O. The official and generic term for the sport is apparently "footbag," at least according to the International Footbag Association, but the Boulder Daily Camera calls it "Hacky Sacking," which is a verb I'm not going to use anytime soon.

Apparently, Kallen Ford, a senior at Boulder High, was ticketed in October for -- oh, okay -- Hacky-Sacking on the Pearl Street pedestrian mall in Boulder with a friend. The ticket charged Ford with "releasing projectiles on the mall," a post-9/11 charge if I've ever heard one, and one that carries a $250 fine. The friend apparently was not charged.

Because I know you're curious, I will tell you that the definitional issue arose because of the following Boulder city ordinance:

Section 5-6-9 (Projectiles on Mall):

(a) No person shall cast, throw, or propel any projectile on the mall. This prohibition includes, without limitation, throwing balls, boomerangs, bottles, darts, frisbees and other like devices, model airplanes, rocks, snowballs, and sticks.

(b) This section does not apply to a juggler if the juggler does not cast, throw, or propel a knife, including, without limitation, a knife with a blade three and one-half inches in length or less, or burning projectile or if the juggler is acting within the terms of a special entertainment permit . . . .

Thus, there is a total ban on using projectiles in any manner except to juggle them, unless the objects to be juggled are knives and/or on fire, and even then the city may issue a permit for said juggling. First, I think it is a little odd to have an ordinance that lets you have any number of extremely dangerous projectiles on the mall as long as they aren't (1) knives or (2) on fire, so long as you are juggling them. I have this vision of Osama bin Laden strolling down the Boulder mall juggling hand grenades, with the cops following along just waiting for him to drop one. But setting that aside, no definition of "juggling" is provided. And the dictionary definition does not rule out juggling single items:

To toss and catch several objects continuously, keeping at least one of them in the air while handling the others. Also, to toss an object, etc., from hand to hand with dexterity; (of two or more persons) to toss an object, etc., back and forth between them.

Oxford English Dictionary (1997) (emphasis added). Construing "juggling" to include Hacky-Sacking is also consistent with the purpose of the statute, which is drafted so as to broadly permit the tossing of non-dangerous items within a defined and relatively finite space. Yet Judge Jeff Cain sided with the city, although the fine was reduced to $40 or seven hours of community service. The rationale for the judge's decision was not given.

Kallen, who acted as his own attorney, commented after the hearing on the imponderabilities of our legal system and the outcome of his particular dispute. "It sucks," he opined. He alluded to the possibility of another test case, which he would generate by juggling (by hand) some Hacky Sacks on the mall. It is through the cumulative action of modest patriots like these that our freedom is perpetually renewed.

Link: Boulder Daily Camera
Link: About.com: Hacky Sack
Link: The International Footbag Players' Association
Link: Boulder Revised Code (1981)

Clown Suit Threatened

Happy the Clown and other Bay Area clowns received threatening letters last week from Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams and Sheppard LLP, a New York firm, telling the clowns to cease and desist from wearing costumes that look too much like characters to which Cowan's clients have the rights.  Purple dinosaurs, red dogs, train conductors and others are within the scope of the scary letter, which states that "Plaintiffs will not tolerate costume infringement," and threatens the entertainers with a lawsuit unless they surrender the infringing costumes, pay $100,000 each and agree never to use said characters again.

If I had known there were clowns out there with $100,000 in their pockets, I would be robbing a lot more clowns, I can tell you that.

"I was crying," said the ironically named Happy the Clown, who runs some kind of clown business in Boulder Creek, California.  "One clown threatened suicide, but we talked him out of it."  That was Depresso the Suicidal Clown, though, so you can't really blame that on the litigation.  Other area clowns were also distraught, some claiming that they make just enough money to survive anyway and others saying that they had to adapt to what children wanted to see.  "Parents don't always want to hire a clown or pirate," said one.  She said the problem began when characters such as Barney, Clifford the Dog and Bob the Builder led children to demand non-clown characters at parties, and so parents had no option but to comply because "[t]hey want to please their children."

This clown was employing a common litigation strategy called "Blame the Children."  Works every time.

The San Jose Mercury News asked law professor J. Holmes Armstead (his real name, not a clown name) for comment on the letters.  Armstead opined that they would "have a chilling effect on children's birthday parties in the area," as well as on the clown companies themselves.  "These little kiddie shows typically make a hundred bucks a show," said Armstead, who should know, since he is a professor of national security decisionmaking and international law at the US Naval War College in Monterey.  "These are not folks who are capable of going into San Francisco and hiring a 100-person law firm to represent them."  Actually, these are folks who are probably capable of going into San Francisco and winning an election to seize control of its city government in order to pass clown-protection legislation, so let's not worry too much about them.  In the meantime, any takers on pro bono clown representation?

If so, you may want to contact Twinkie Dee Star, clown and director of five western states for the World Clown Association.  Star stated that she felt the lawyers and their clients were overreacting.  If anyone dresses as a popular character, she said, "it's not because they're trying to shortchange anybody.  Most clowns do this pretty much out of the goodness of their hearts."  Goodness, and the desire for 100 bucks.

Opinions in the Mercury News website's forum on the topic seemed to be split fairly evenly along pro- and anti-clown lines:

• What this article nelected [sic] to mention is that what these clowns (no pun intended) are doing is illegal whether we would like to admit it or not. Infingement [sic] is infringement. Copyright is copyright. End of story.  [Posted by "Nancy Drew"]
• I'm no legal expert, but I'd think that the clowns should join forces (even with other clowns, Elvis impersonators, etc. across the country who haven't been threatened -- you know it's only a matter of time ...), hire some lawyers and fight it.
• How on earth could anyone go after a birthday party clown for copyright infringement? The people in question are not rich...they do this to make children smile. I guess that a happy kid is worth less than a copyright on a giant red dog. Oh, and "Nancy Drew"...you are about to be served for impersonating a childhood literary and TV character. You'll be hearing from ABC's lawyers soon. Ugh.
• Once the lawyers see that the clowns they want to sue have no assets..... that'll be the end of that gouge and screw show. thats [sic] but one reason top [sic] protect yourself from any personal liability!
  What'r [sic] the lawyers gonna do reposses [sic] your nose?

Perhaps J. Holmes Armstead can use his national security decisionmaking and clown law expertise to weld the nation's clowns and Elvis impersonators into an unstoppable force that will free our beloved characters from the icy grip of Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams and Sheppard LLP.  That'll be the end of that gouge and screw show.

Link: MercuryNews.com
Link: Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams and Sheppard LLP
Link: SF Gate.com: "Let the War Crimes Trials Begin: Redressing Saddam's Persecution of Iraqi Clowns," April 9, 2003
Link: Lecture Announcement: Dr. J. Holmes Armstead, "Iraq and Afghanistan: How Clowns Got Us Into the Troubled Middle East"

Nebraska Police Searching for Stolen Juggling Equipment

Omaha police are searching for a thief who stole two bags of juggling equipment from the back seat of a visiting juggler's car.  According to the report, Justin Gramarye has lost all his "balls, rings, clubs, diablos, cigar boxes, devil sticks and shaker cups," torches, beanbags, vests, bowties, juggling axes, and a unicycle.

Gramarye and his "friend and fellow juggler" Bradley Barger, both members of Kansas University's juggling club, were in town for the Flatland Juggling Festival.  It may or may not surprise you that KU has a "juggling club" or that a juggling festival is held in Omaha.  As someone who grew up on the Great Plains, it doesn't surprise me at all.  If you lived a ten-hour drive from the nearest body of water, mountain, or other recreational site, you'd be juggling your ass off, too.

Gramarye found the bags missing when he returned to his car on the morning of June 4.  (He and some friends had been "throwing a boomerang around.")  His theory is that the thief probably did not know what was inside the bags, which is probably better than the alternative theory that someone was running around Omaha looking to score some juggling equipment.  "I really think someone opened up the bags and went 'Eh?'" Gramarye said.  He did not explain why he thinks the thief was a Canadian, but another companion, Daniel Hogan, supported the rest of Gramarye's theory, saying "The odds that this particular band of criminals are jugglers is fairly small."  Ordinarily, sure, but during a juggling festival, maybe not.

Police said they had the list of stolen items and were investigating, but as of June 30 they had no leads.  Anyone with information about the theft, such as those who may have been offered a set of devil sticks at a price too good to be true or who saw a man fleeing the scene on a unicycle, is asked to call the Omaha Police Department at (402) 444-5818, or the International Jugglers' Association at (415) 902-0097.

Link: CourtTV Online via FindLaw
Link: Lawrence Journal-World
Link: International Jugglers' Association