Lowering the Bar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link: New York Times

Hair Salon's Reign of Terror Finally Ended

The Baolou International Beauty Salon in the city of Zhengzhou, China, has finally been closed by authorities.  The salon had apparently been terrorizing local residents, who cited a number of incidents in which unsuspecting hair-growers had been vastly overcharged for haircuts and were then held hostage until they agreed to pay the exorbitant fee.  This seems to have gone on for at least six months.

The last straw for Baolou International, which despite its name probably does not attract that many international clients, was an incident in which two college students had expected to pay the advertised rate, 38 yuan apiece.  That would have equalled a reasonable $10.84 for both haircuts.  Instead, they were eventually presented with a slightly larger bill, for 12,000 yuan ($1,700).  Although, to be fair, this did include a wash and blow-dry.

When the students couldn't pay, they were not allowed to leave, and were reduced to trying to borrow money from strangers and classmates in order to appease the evil stylists.  "After borrowing from 16 people," the Beijing News reported, "the two were only able to come up with 9,800 yuan, and it wasn't until after 10 pm that they were allowed to leave the hair salon."

It was not clear why no one called police to report the hostage crisis, or for that matter how the salon got away with this for at least several months.  One report said that the salon charged one customer 4,776 yuan for a haircut last September, and charged another one 5,670 yuan last December.  That customer, though, had opted for the 68-yuan cut to begin with, so he or she clearly had yuan to burn.

According to one report, nearly 100 citizens showed up to witness the closing of the salon, applauding the end of its reign of terror.  The Xinhua News Agency later reported that officials had fined the salon the maximum 500,000 yuan ($71,225), which comes out to 13,157 haircuts (at the advertised rate).

Link: Reuters
Link: Xinhua News Agency via China.org.cn

Lawsuit Appears Likely Against Collection Agency For Letter Addressed to "Mr. S__t Face"

Attorney Kenneth Hiller of Buffalo, New York, says his client plans to sue Nationwide Collections Inc. based on a letter he received in October 2007.  The agency was trying to collect an unpaid Columbia House record club membership fee of $16.96, and despite the low amount the letter began somewhat aggressively by addressing the recipient as "Dear S__t."  (The envelope was addressed to a "Mr. S__t Face.")

It is illegal to use profanity or threats to collect a debt, which is what has Mr. Hiller so worked up.  "I've never seen anything quite so brazen," he cried, which suggests he has not been paying a lot of attention over the last forty years or so.  There's been a fair amount of brazenness since you were frozen during the Eisenhower administration, sir, I'm sorry to say.

But this could only be "brazen" if it had been deliberate, and Nationwide's president, at least, says it wasn't.  Phillip McGarvey said that the letter had been generated automatically after the agency bought 350,000 delinquent Columbia House accounts.  He explained that the letter was simply sent to "Mr. S__t Face" because that is the name under which the account was opened.  "It looks bad to the observer who is not familiar with the industry," McGarvey said, "but anybody who understands the volume [of letters involved] would understand how this could happen. . . . You've also got people filling in famous people's names."  McGarvey did not explain why a registration coupon for "Mr. S___ Face" would have been processed in the first place.

Hiller says his client has signed an affidavit stating that he did not sign himself up for a membership posing as any member of the Face family, let alone this one.  He said they would be filing a complaint against Nationwide next week.

Link: AP via SFGate.com
Link: Turning the tables on Columbia House (from McSweeney's)

Consumer Advocate Successfully De-Taxes Toilet Paper in Pennsylvania

Not too many tax cases make the cut here, but this one seems important.  On November 29, 2007, Mary Bach struck a blow for all Pennsylvania consumers when a judge agreed with her that, in that state, toilet paper is not taxable.

Bach sued Kmart after the company collected sales tax from her -- twice! -- on the purchase of a 12-roll package of toilet paper.  The packages cost $3.99, so Bach was unlawfully charged a total of 56 cents.  At some point, however, she learned that unlike most paper goods, toilet paper is nontaxable in Pennsylvania.  (Most reports do not say how she learned this, but it was not too hard to discover that she is a fairly well-known consumer advocate who, for example, is currently the chair of an AARP consumer task force.  So it is her business to know such things.)

For future reference, other butt-related items that are not taxable if sold in Pennsylvania include disposable diapers, premoistened wipes, incontinence products, and (possibly, depending on how they are used) newspapers of general circulation and the Pennsylvania state flag.  Also exempt: food, water, coal, caskets, "wearing apparel" (except, strangely, for "clothing"), wrapping supplies if their use is incidental to a delivery, and the residential use of steam.

Pennsylvanians who get taxed on such necessities can now cite Bach v. Kmart as precedent.  She sued under the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law -- a kind of law that is often misused (see prior coverage of $65-million-pants case), but as this case shows, sometimes is actually used primarily to benefit consumers.  Ms. Bach apparently did not bring the claim as a class action (which I am pretty sure the PA UTPCPL would allow), hoping to collect millions for herself or her organization based on a 56-cent overcharge.  As a result, she will collect $100 (the statutory penalty) plus court costs.

She also refused to accept an out-of-court settlement offered by Kmart just before the hearing, on the grounds that it would have required a confidentiality agreement.  No way, said Bach.  "I want consumers as they shop during the important holiday to be aware of what is and isn't taxable," she said afterwards.  "I would lose my ability to spread that message if I were gagged."

A Kmart spokesman said that the problem was being corrected.  "We don't want to fight with our customers," she said, although it appears that they did on this issue at least for a while.  "We apologize for the inconvenience and the problem is being corrected."

Kmart said it would not appeal.

Link: MSNBC.com

Trekkie Sues Auction House Claiming Trek Prop Is Fake

The Associated Press reported Friday that a Star Trek fan who paid $6,000 for what he believed to be a poker visor worn by the android "Data" on "Star Trek: The Next Generation" is now suing, claiming it is a fake.  Ted Moustakis of Towaco, New Jersey, filed suit in New York state court against Christie's auction house, demanding a refund for the visor as well as a table ($6,600) and uniform ($11,400) that he bought in the same auction.

Surprisingly, Moustakis is also demanding millions in punitive damages.

Moustakis claims that he brought the visor to a Star Trek convention in August to have it autographed by Brent Spiner, who played Data in the TV show.  Spiner allegedly then told Moustakis that the visor could not be the real thing because he (Spiner) had sold the real one years ago.  Moustakis said he felt "humiliated" after the android's revelation and that the pride he felt for getting such a "great piece of memorabilia" was dissipated.

Upon close examination, Moustakis said, the table and uniform did not seem authentic to him, either.

In a post reprinted on the excellent stupid-news blog SNAFU-ed, Wil Wheaton (who played "Wesley Crusher" on the show), said that Moustakis's story did not ring true in some ways based on his experience in the show (such as the fact that they did not have "one-of-a-kind" costumes as Moustakis apparently alleges).  In another post, "James Tiberius Kirk" comments that, if Moustakis has $24,000 to spend on Star Trek props, maybe he can afford to go ahead and move out of his mom's basement.

Link: International Herald Tribune
Link: SNAFU-ed

UPDATED: Patriots and Belichick Sued for "Violating Integrity of the Game"

A Jets season-ticket holder has filed a $184-million class-action suit against the New England Patriots and their coach, Bill Belichick, based on the penalties assessed against them for videotaping their opponents' signals in the season opener, in violation of league rules.  (The Patriots beat the Jets in that game 38-14.)

Carl Mayer, represented by Bruce Afran (Mayer is also an attorney), claims that the defendants "deceived customers" by their actions -- essentially arguing that the games were "fraudulent" because fans were led to believe they would be played according to the rules.  "They were deceiving customers," said Mayer.  "You can't deceive customers."  Afran agreed that it was a "type of misrepresentation," and one that "violated the integrity of the game."  In the language of the complaint, the actions violated the "expectations and rights" of Jets ticket holders to "observe an honest match played in compliance with all laws and regulations."  Yes, every football fan has the right to expect all league rules to be followed without exception in each match.  Why those men are out there negligently dropping flags all over the field, I have no idea.  We'll deal with them next.

The $184-million demand is apparently based on the total ticket value that fans paid to watch the eight "fraudulent" games that the Patriots have played against the Jets in Giants Stadium since Belichick became the Patriots' head coach in 2000.  Plaintiff calculates that amount at $61.6 million, which he wants tripled under RICO and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  That seems a bit much -- surely Jets fans got some value out of these games, and since the Jets have compiled a sparkling 59-56 record since 2000, plaintiff may be overestimating the value to Jets season-ticket holders in the first place.  Frankly, if this lawsuit goes anywhere, I may sue the Jets and their quarterback, Chad Pennington, for a series of crappy performances that have violated the integrity of my fantasy-football team and disappointed the valid expectations I had when I drafted them.  That has "RICO violation" written all over it.

According to the Associated Press, Mayer and Afran are "public interest lawyers" who are well-known in the state "but generally have had little success in their causes."  Both have not been elected to public office, and Mayer also helped the Nader campaign not succeed.  They did not successfully get a special election to replace former Governor James McGreevey in 2004, were not able to block Governor Corzine's appointment of someone else to fill his Senate seat, and did not persuade a federal prosecutor to launch a probe into gifts Corzine made to a former girlfriend.  It appears that the Patriots are next.

After I first reported on the Patriots' legal woes, I learned that star pro se litigant Jonathan Lee Riches had also gotten involved.  Riches, the inmate who has heroically sued defendants including Michael Vick, the CIA, Barry Bonds, the Mossad, and so forth, has filed his own suit against Belichick and the Patriots organization based on the videotaping scandal.  Among the new allegations, Riches claims that the Patriots organization also videotaped patrons in the men's bathroom and had a monthly contract to sell the footage to Idaho Senator Larry Craig.

That's pretty good stuff, actually.  It's a shame Riches is wasting his talent on felonies.

Link: Boston.com (Boston Globe)
Link: The Smoking Gun

Federal Court Dismisses 15-Count Lawsuit Alleging That Plaintiff Was Unfairly Given a "C"

All of us have likely had an issue with grading "on the curve" at one time or another, but what is one to do if "the empirical data was quite clear and convincing to any reasonable mind that [one's] performance was well within a higher range" than reflected in one's final grade?  One's course is clear.

In January, Brian Marquis, a student at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, filed a 15-count class-action lawsuit in federal court after he got a C instead of the A- he thought he deserved in his political philosophy class.  In the suit, Marquis, acting on behalf of himself and Does 1-25,000 (all of whom apparently agree that Brian should have gotten a better grade), alleges that the practice of grading on the curve, as implemented by defendant and teaching assistant Jeremy Cushing, violated the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-83, 1985, and 1986; 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy to do the foregoing); the Massachusetts consumer protection law; and common-law doctrines including promissory estoppel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Coincidentally, Marquis is a paralegal who has returned to college to get a degree in legal studies.

Marquis alleges that Cushing set forth a grading formula at the start of last semester under which, by Marquis's calculation, he should have scored a 92.5, "translating, by universally accepted standards," into an A-.  Whilst reviewing his fall 2006 grades, however, "Plaintiff noticed a grade of C in the . . . Problems in Social Thought" class.  "On or about 10 January 2007," the complaint continues, "Plaintiff e-mailed Cushing with this apparent discrepancy and ask[ed] him to reevaluate, or in the alternative, explain the method used . . . ."  Cushing responded that, by his calculations, Marquis had scored an 84, not 92.5, but that Cushing had graded on a curve in any event.  And he told Marquis that "I thought your grade (of C) was a good reflection of your work."  The school's ombudsman did not agree with Marquis that he had a grievance.

Next stop, federal court.  The key paragraph of the complaint is really paragraph 23, in which Marquis describes the harm.  Scarring his transcript with a C "has left Plaintiff's undergraduate transcript as a dismal record of non-achievement. . . . [T]he chances of any student with C letter grades seeking admission to graduate school is remote. . . . Since Plaintiff did not earn a C final letter grade, he should not have to bear the burden of carrying this beast around with him forever."

Those of you who have been worrying about "grade inflation," take note: the Scarlet Letter used to be an A.

Last week, after what the Boston Globe described as a "brief hearing," Judge Michael Ponsor dismissed the lawsuit.  Marquis later discussed the case with a reporter for the Globe, delivering the quote above as to the clear-and-convincingness of the empirical data and so forth.  (The article notes that Marquis "salts his comments with 'strike that.'")  Marquis also said that he is considering an appeal.

Link: Boston Globe
Link: Marquis v. University of Massachusetts, et al. 

Lawsuit Seeks $1 Million for Those Who Bought Full-Price iPhone

Dongmei Li, one of the many consumers who bought the original iPhone for $599 only to see the price go down to $399 two months later, has now sued Apple on behalf of herself and other "early adopters," alleging "price discrimination."

Facing a consumer backlash, Apple refunded the $200 difference for those who had bought the more expensive iPhone less than two weeks before the price cut, and offered a $100 credit to those who bought it earlier.  Still unhappy, Li has sued in federal court, saying that Apple (and AT&T) have engaged in unfair business practices.

In the lawsuit, Li apparently claims that the price reduction injured early adopters like herself because they now cannot resell their iPhones for the same profit as those who bought the phones after the price cut.  In other words -- if I understand this correctly -- those who bought an iPhone before the price cut paid more those who bought one after the price cut; and so if later buyers want to resell their phone today, they will be better off in doing so than those who, certainly through no fault of their own, were cruelly forced to buy an iPhone at the earlier, higher price; and this is unlawful price discrimination.

That settles it -- the free market is illegal.  Or maybe it's just price cuts that are illegal?  My head hurts.

Steve Jobs, shown here illegally failing to tell
consumers that iPhone prices may later be reduced.

The article doesn't make clear exactly what kind of price protection or guarantee Li claims "early adopters" were entitled to expect, given that gadget prices have historically dropped pretty quickly.  But it appears that, at least in this case, an award of approximately one million dollars would be enough to heal the wounded hearts, repair the shattered expectations, and pay the creative attorneys of those who trusted Apple not to lower the price of the iPhone, ever.

Link: MSNBC.com

Man Sues 1-800-Flowers Over Unfortunate Thank-You Note

Leroy Greer sued 1-800-Flowers last week in federal court, alleging that the company's breach of its privacy policy has caused him $1 million in damages.  Mr. Greer contacted the company in order to send a beautiful bouquet of roses along with a wonderful note:

All was well until 1-800-Flowers followed up later with a thank-you note.  Which it sent to their house.  Where his wife lived.  Who had not received any roses.  When she called with questions, the company helpfully faxed her a copy of the receipt that confirmed the purchase and the touching note that she also had not received.

This gave her an excellent reason to increase what she was asking for as part of their divorce settlement, which was apparently being negotiated at the time.  Mr. Greer's complaint admits the two were in the midst of a divorce, although his attorney described it as "amicable."  That's because he's now measuring the damages in part by the difference between the amount of the proposed amicable-divorce settlement and the significantly higher post-affair-disclosure-reduced-amicability settlement amount, which Greer is arguing he would not have had to pay if the company had helped him keep his adultery a secret.  (He looks slightly better in light of the fact that he and his wife had been separated for quite a while, but under Texas law it's still adultery until the divorce is final.  Maybe everywhere else, too, now that I think about it.)

"That thank-you note is going to cost him money," said Greer's attorney, Kennitra Foote.  And it will -- the report said that Mrs. Greer asked for an additional $300,000 after learning about the affair -- but there is probably going to be some discussion of whether it was the thank-you note or the I-love-you note that really caused the harm.

Greer says that he asked to keep his order private, and was referred to the company's privacy policy, which says customers can ask it not to share information with third parties.  He alleges that it violated this policy when it sent his wife the receipt.  But the company appears to be arguing, in part, that the wife was not legally a "third party" in this situation, since she was entitled to information about the couple's financial matters, or alternatively that she had "apparent authority" to act as his agent.  It is also possible that any privacy agreement Mr. Greer and the company might have had about this would be unenforceable because of what the parties to it were trying to keep private.

"This is not a moral issue," said Foote, the attorney for the party accused of immorality.  "The issue is, is 1-800-Flowers in the business of causing divorce or are they in the business of sending flowers and sticking to their privacy policy?"  Um, the second one?  Meanwhile, a spokesperson for 1-800-Flowers said that the company's policy was not to comment on pending litigation.  He then immediately violated that policy by stating, "We are not responsible for an individual's personal conduct."

Helpfully attached as an exhibit to Greer's complaint is a copy of the fax that his wife received, on which she wrote a note of her own, this one to Mr. Greer:  "Be a man!  If you got caught red handed then don't still lie."  I guess that is some evidence that the fax was responsible for him getting caught, but on the other hand, it is also some evidence that he is not a man.

Link: ABC News
Link: On Point Legal News (with link to full complaint)

Fundraiser Held for Defendants in the Pants Lawsuit

A fundraiser was held in D.C. last night for the Chungs, who were the defendants in the $65-million-pants lawsuit filed (and lost) by Roy Pearson.  It took place at the US Chamber of Commerce building and was co-hosted by the Chamber and by the American Tort Reform Association.  (Full disclosure: my firm represents both of these entities.)  The fundraiser added to the $64,000 collected to date in order to help offset the Chungs' legal bills, now $83,000 and counting.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a press conference was held during which Mr. Chung "stood stoically next to the podium, eyes downcast, holding the offending pair of now-neatly-pressed pants firmly in front of him" as his attorney spoke about how the lawsuit had turned the "American Dream" into the "American Nightmare."  Others spoke as well.

An eyewitness account from a colleague:

Sherman Joyce, President of ATRA, raised awareness of how the District's consumer-protection law allowed the value of a misplaced pair of pants to grow to $54 million, nearly driving the Chungs out of business and causing them great anguish over the course of two years of litigation. Joyce called for the DC Council to learn from this situation and reform the District's law so that others are not subject to this abuse. Lisa Rickard, President of the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform, called attention to the impact of frivolous litigation on small businesses.

The entire Chung family was present. When called to address the crowd, the Chungs each offered a very humble and brief thank you to the hundreds (not sure of the total tally -- would guess it was about 200-300) in attendance for their support. The Chungs' daughter in law, who helped as an interpreter during the litigation, discussed the impact of the ordeal on the family.

The $54 million pants were displayed in prominent fashion at the podium throughout the event for all to view, guarded by the watchful eye of a patrolman with a shiny gold badge. He never left their side during the entirety of the event. I wouldn't be surprised if they arrived and departed the event by armored truck.

Yes, The Pants themselves were in attendance, guarded closely by a security guard charged with ensuring that their future value to the Smithsonian is carefully preserved.  The guard would likely have taken a dim view of another colleague's idea that even more money could be raised if the Chungs allowed people to try on the Pants and have their picture taken wearing them.  "I'd pay good cash money for that," he said.  I would too, but then I'd also like to sign my own name on the Declaration of Independence.  We can't treat our cultural heirlooms that way, at least not if we're likely to get caught.

The WSJ also posted a copy of Plaintiff's Exhibit 13(c), a flyer that Pearson posted all over his neighborhood seeking support for his claims against the cleaners.  It doesn't appear that he got too much support -- although he did have a few (somewhat confused) witnesses show up at trial -- but the Chungs said they believe the flyers harmed their business.  Should Pearson try the flyer tactic again in future cases, which I don't recommend, I would suggest that he use the same font throughout, which has the advantage of making you look somewhat less crazy than you actually are.

Today should be the last day for Pearson to file an appeal, if he is really going to do that.  It appears that the relevant commission still has not decided whether Pearson will be reappointed to the administrative law bench for a second (and this time ten-year) term.  Nor has it yet explained why that decision is even mildly difficult.

Link: WSJ Law Blog

Judge Pearson Ignores Standing Eight-Count, Staggers Back Into Ring

Apparently unable to live without being mocked daily, and desperate to not be reappointed as a D.C. administrative law judge, Roy Pearson has now asked Judge Judith Bartnoff to reconsider her dismissal of his $54-million-pants lawsuit.  In his motion for reconsideration, which is comprised of no fewer than 35 pages (longer than most briefs and much too long for a virtually-always-futile motion for reconsideration), he accuses Judge Bartnoff of a "fundamental legal error":

The court effectively substituted a guarantee of satisfaction with "reasonable" limits and preconditions for the unconditional and unambiguous guarantee of satisfaction the defendant-merchant chose to advertise for seven years.  That was a fundamental legal error.

How does somebody who can't understand that the statement "Satisfaction Guaranteed" should be interpreted "reasonably" by a court even get a driver's license, let alone an appointment to a judgeship?  I guess if they unconditionally guaranteed his unreasonable satisfaction, they have to be his slaves for life, or until Roy Pearson feels satisfied, whichever comes first.  Hard to argue with that logic.  Roy, I know -- why don't you make them sew you the world's biggest pair of pants?  Wouldn't that feel satisfying?  Maybe your ego could wear them.  Yes, have your new slaves make you the world's biggest pair of pants, and then have your ego stomp around in them with your slaves peeking out of the monstrous cuffs as it lays waste to the District of Columbia, in brutal revenge for the District's failure to recognize the legal genius of its master, Roy Pearson.  Only then shall the wrong done you be truly avenged.

Roy hasn't thought of that yet, or at least it's not in his motion.  What is in the motion, apparently as a reply to the cleaners' motion last week asking that Pearson pay the $83,000 legal fees they incurred because of his lawsuit, is this astonishing claim:

Plaintiff [Pearson] therefore seeks reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $425,000 for excellent legal work performed under extremely trying circumstances - including holding down a more than full time job.

A statement proving that (1) as noted above, Roy Pearson doesn't know what "reasonable" means, (2) he also doesn't know what "excellent" means, and (3) being a dummy of this caliber is not something you can achieve on a part-time basis.  You have to be willing to work overtime.

Link: Washington Post (Marc Fisher)
Link: CBS News

Judge Who Lost Pants Loses Case

Wasting no time this morning, Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled in favor of Custom Cleaners, saying they had not violated the D.C. Consumer Protection Act by failing to satisfy Judge Roy Pearson as to the whereabouts of his pants, despite having posted a sign reading "Satisfaction Guaranteed."  Pearson will receive approximately zero of the 65 million dollars he originally claimed.

According to Post reporter Marc Fisher, Judge Bartoff's ruling (which I haven't personally read yet) is "extremely cautious and detailed," spanning some 23 pages.  While she seems to have been very restrained and not particularly critical of Judge Pearson, she did award the defendants their costs in the case and will decide later whether to award them their attorney fees, which seem to have been considerable.

Basically, Judge Bartoff ruled that "Satisfaction Guaranteed" does not create an absolute, unconditional guarantee.  Instead, she held, any unfair-trade-practice claim alleging a failure to meet expectations is measured by the expectations of a reasonable person.  Her rejection of the proposed whatever-it-takes-to-satisfy-Roy-Pearson legal standard is something of a setback for Roy Pearson, but a step forward for common sense.

Link: CBS News
Link: Washington Post (with link to decision)
Link: Marc Fisher (Washington Post)

Decisions Loom in $54-Million-Pants Case

According to Washington Post bloggers, a decision in the Pants Case is expected by Monday, possibly this afternoon.  With any luck, the court's opinion will be available for immediate posting and review.

Also, Marc Fisher reported this week on the status of Roy Pearson's bid to be reappointed to another term as a D.C. administrative law judge notwithstanding the furor surrounding his antics in the lost-pants extravaganza.  Pearson's initial two-year term expired on April 30, but the three-member commission that decides whether to reappoint judges still has not made a decision in his case.  Apparently that is because it doesn't currently have three members -- one member's term expired at the end of April and the mayor hasn't appointed anyone new yet.  Probably says something about District government that they can't get around to appointing anyone to the appointment panel that will decide whether to reappoint the man who is now the most famous administrative law judge in the history of administrative law judging, and not for good reasons.

Note that a reappointment would be for a ten-year term, not just another two, which is only the duration of an initial term.  The commission can remove an ALJ during his or her term, but still.

The D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings helpfully provides a link to the 2001 statute that established it and that now sets forth the standards for appointing ALJs.  It appears that, when the law was passed,

Administrative adjudication in the District of Columbia [suffered] from the general perception, and in some cases the reality, of unqualified hearing officers who lack[ed] the qualifications to fairly and properly adjudicate the cases before them.

Obviously, the law instantly rendered that a thing of the past.

Shall Judge Roy Pearson be appointed to a full ten-year term as ALJ?  You decide.  Among other requirements, the 2001 statute provides as follows:

Sec. 11. Administrative Law Judges.

(a) Administrative Law Judges shall be accountable and responsible for the fair, impartial, effective, and efficient disposition of cases to which they are assigned by the Chief Administrative Law Judge.

* * *

(d) To be eligible for appointment, an Administrative Law Judge shall:

(1) At the time of appointment, be a member in good standing of the District of Columbia Bar and remain in good standing throughout his or her tenure . . .Sec. 12. Powers, duties, and liability of Administrative Law Judges.

* * *

(5) Possess judicial temperament, expertise, experience, and analytical and other skills necessary and desirable for an Administrative Law Judge . . . .

Seems to me that Section 11(d)(5) is the show-stopper here.  Unless valuing a lost-pants case at $65 million (subsequently revised to $54 million) demonstrates the analytical skills "necessary and desirable" for an ALJ in the District, this alone ought to make Pearson not eligible for reappointment.

In the meantime, Fisher reports, Pearson is still drawing a six-figure salary although he is not currently performing any duties other than making the District of Columbia look ridiculous.

Link: Raw Fisher
Link: OFF/beat

Live-Blogging From the Pants Trial

Not me, unfortunately, but at least someone is doing it.  Emil Steiner of the Washington Post is live at the trial of Pearson v. Custom Cleaners, which did in fact go to trial this morning and may or may not conclude today.

As of 3:35 PM Eastern time, Plaintiff had called no fewer than eight witnesses, including an 89-year-old wheelchair-bound WWII veteran who compared the actions of the Custom Cleaners proprietors to "what the Nazis did during the Holocaust."  Finally, Pearson himself took the stand -- only to break down in tears when telling his story.  Highlight: Pearson "did not want to litigate, he said, but he felt that D.C. consumer protection laws gave him no choice."

At last report, at 3:55 PM ET, Pearson finished his testimony and "proceeded to dive into the exhibits."  That suggests that the case will not finish today, unless the defense just rests to get this farce over with.

Link: Emil Steiner, OFF/beat (Washington Post).

Trial of Judge's Lost-Pants Claim Set to Begin

According to the website of the firm representing Custom Cleaners, the trial of Judge Roy Pearson's $54-million-dollar lost-pants claims is set to begin today or tomorrow in District of Columbia Superior Court.  Apparently Judge Judith Bartnoff is presiding over another trial that is running longer than expected, one that someone apparently thinks is more important than getting closure on the pants allegations.

To date, I've been unable to determine whether Pearson was reappointed to another ten-year term as an administrative-law judge.  That appointment was to be considered recently, but, some would say, the pants dispute (for my Spanish readers, el ensayo de los pantalones) has cast some doubt on Pearson's objectivity and common sense.  If anyone knows whether he was reappointed, please let me know.

Updates to follow.

Link: Manning & Sossamon

Judge Drops Pants; Suit Still On

New developments this week in the lawsuit by D.C. administrative law judge Roy Pearson against his local dry cleaners, alleging a diabolical pants-related scheme.  As you may recall, Pearson sued under the D.C. consumer-protection statute after the cleaners allegedly lost a pair of pants, applying the statutory scheme to calculate a demand of nearly $65 million.  The news today is that, in a pre-trial brief he filed yesterday, Pearson lowered his demand to a mere $54 million, and apparently focuses now on the allegedly misleading signs used by Custom Cleaners, as opposed to the allegations of damages stemming from the loss of Pearson's pants.

I am by no means the first to use something like "Judge Drops Pants From Suit" as a headline, and I struggled with that for a while, but sometimes a headline joke is just inevitable.  A variation on the theme was the best I could do.

Since I haven't seen the brief yet, it's not entirely clear whether the pants were dropped entirely, or the focus merely changed.  If they were dropped entirely and the demand reduced to $54 million, then that seems to indicate that Judge Pearson valued the pants and associated damages at $13 million.  (I apologize for earlier statements about "$65-million-dollar pants," which it seems were wildly exaggerated.)

But the suit itself is still going forward, apparently, since the report states that trial is set for June 11.  The defendants' attorney said he was "still baffled" as to why Pearson was continuing, "unless it's simply to harass and annoy my clients."  Pearson refused to comment "in light of pending litigation," which is an awfully popular no-comment excuse these days.

The suit is costing the defendants an awful lot of money, of course.  (Pearson is representing himself, and seems to be getting what he's paying for.)  You can donate to the defense cause if you like at the Custom Cleaners link below.  There's also a link to a page on this case at the site of the defense firm, Manning and Sossamon, which includes some additional details such as these:

• Mr. Pearson alleges that on May 3, 2005 he left a pair of pants with the Chungs to be altered by May 5, 2005. The pants he submitted were grey in color and were unique in that they had a succession of three belt loops very close together on each side of the front waistband of the pants.
• The Chungs offered the altered grey pants to Mr. Pearson a few days after the May 5, 2007 deadline.
• Mr. Pearson refused to accept the pants the Chungs offered even though (1) the pants had the same unique belt loop configuration as the pants he originally submitted; (2) the pants' measurements were identical to measurements he requested for the alteration; and, (3) the tag number on the pants matched his receipt.

This is the first I've heard of the unique belt-loop configuration issue, which may make it extremely difficult for Pearson to show the pants were not his, if the pants are still an issue in the case, as I expect they will be.  Stay tuned for more dramatic developments in this titanic legal battle.

Link: DC Examiner
Link: The Facts of Pearson v. Chung (at Manning & Sossamon, PLLC)
Link: Custom Cleaners Defense Fund

Dueling Lawsuits Filed Over Copyright Claim by Mental Spoonbender

Only the wealth of material last week prevented me from reporting on the suit and counter-suit recently filed by Uri Geller and Brian Sapient.

You may remember Geller as the purported psychic who claims the remarkable ability to bend spoons with his mind -- or maybe his remarkable ability is the ability to earn money by claiming to bend spoons with his mind.  Sapient is a Pennsylvania man who is a co-founder of the "Rational Response Squad," an anti-theist group that apparently also has a sideline in pseudo-psychic debunkery.  "Brian Sapient" is a pseudonym -- according to his complaint, his "controversial religious beliefs" have generated a "substantial amount of abusive correspondence, including threats of physical harm against him."  That's why he seeks to proceed as "John Doe a/k/a Brian Sapient" (although if you are already using a pseudonym I wouldn't think you would need "John Doe" anymore).

Geller sued after Sapient posted (on YouTube) a clip from "Secrets of the Psychics," a 1993 NOVA program that examined Geller's claims.  That program incorporated footage from (among other things) a 1973 "Tonight Show" appearance in which Geller failed to bend spoons that had been preselected by Johnny Carson, and a professional magician of the non-psychic variety (James Randi) who showed how easy it was to do what Geller did.   (Tip: it involves either "pre-bending" the spoon or bending it surreptitiously with what psychics call "hands.")  It also included a three-second clip of Geller at another public event, a clip to which Geller claims a copyright interest.  Geller's lawsuit, filed in Pennsylvania, was based on those three seconds.

Sapient's countersuit, filed in San Francisco federal court by attorneys with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, alleges that Geller used his abilities to cause YouTube to remove the video Sapient had posted.  (His litigation-threatening abilities, anyway, not the psychic ones.)  Sapient alleges that this was misrepresentation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because the threat is baseless.

Reached for comment, the psychic's lawyer called the other lawsuit "frivolous."

According to the often-accurate Wikipedia, Geller owns a 1976 Cadillac "adorned with thousands of pieces of bent tableware given to him by celebrities or otherwise having historical or other significance," including spoons used by John Lennon, the Spice Girls, Winston Churchill and John F. Kennedy.  Wikipedia also claims, without citation, that Geller designed the logo for the band *NSYNC, but the band's website does not mention any involvement by Geller, so that seems doubtful.  This was greatly disappointing to me, but then I learned from the BBC that (and in retrospect this is not at all surprising) the best man at Geller's 2001 wedding was Michael Jackson.  That cheered me up quite a bit.

Link: cbs5.com (KPIX)
Link: Sapient v. Geller (at EFF's website)
Link: See video of Geller allegedly cheating (at www.randi.org)

Further Details Emerge on $65-Million-Pants Lawsuit

We learned more this week about the lawsuit by a D.C. administrative law judge against his diabolical neighborhood dry cleaners, who allegedly lost or stole or set fire to or irradiated or otherwise acted tortiously towards a pair of pants that he dropped off for cleaning four years ago.

WARNING: these people
want your pants

You'll recall that the bulk of the damages were calculated in a very straightforward manner under the D.C. consumer-protection statute.  Applying the simple equation

X=1500D*V*W
(where X=1500 x [number of Days violation persisted] x [number of Violations] x [(number of Wrongdoers])

yields a total of $64,800,000.  It is not clear yet how the judge derived 12 violations from one pair of pants, so assuming he is just a bit optimistic there, a more reasonable lost-pants valuation would seem to be $5.4 million.

A new detail is that an additional $15,000 was claimed in order to compensate the plaintiff, who obviously can no longer use this neighborhood cleaners, for the cost of having to rent a car each weekend for a ten-year period in order to go to another one.  Based on rough calculations, that comes out to just $15.64 per day, which again is a very reasonable value for car rental.

The remaining $647,500 claimed by the judge appears to be a combination of litigation expenses and time, and his "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort."  At least some of the "discomfort," however, may be due to the alternative cause of the judge's pants having become "uncomfortably tight" in the first place, damages that he could have mitigated.

Finally, the publicity over the lawsuit has led some of these unscrupulous Internet people to dig up the opinion from Judge Pearson's divorce proceedings a few years ago, in which he was demanding support from his wife.  Consistent with his current tactics, he sought sanctions at least twice, demanded the judge recuse himself, filed multiple motions to compel his wife to respond to his 248 requests for admission, and, according to the trial judge, "in good part [was] responsible for driving up" everyone's legal costs, "including threatening both the wife and her lawyer with disbarment" which created "unnecessary litigation."

No news yet on whether Judge Pearson, who is up this week for another ten-year term as an administrative law judge, will be reappointed.

Link: CNN.com
Link: Pearson v. Vanlowe (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (on FindLaw.com)

ATRA Offers to Buy Plaintiff New Pants (Presumably for Something Less Than $65 Million)

The other day I mentioned the story of the judge in D.C. who has claimed $65 million in damages in a dispute over a pair of pants.  In today's D.C. Examiner, the president of the American Tort Reform Association says ATRA has written an open letter to the D.C. Administrative Law Commission suggesting that the judge's reappointment -- to a 10-year term -- be reconsidered.

He also offers to buy the judge a new pair of pants if he will drop the lawsuit.

Actually, ATRA's gone beyond that and offered a whole new suit (business suit, not lawsuit) in exchange for a dismissal.  Full disclosure -- ATRA is a client of our firm, and its general counsel Victor Schwartz is a partner in our D.C. office.  But I think this report is consistent both with ATRA's objective of furthering the tort-reform agenda, and my personal goal of publicizing a $65 million lawsuit about a pair of pants.

In the Examiner article, Sherman Joyce of ATRA stated that the "pants were found long ago and are readily available" to Judge Pearson (whether they still fit may be another question), and that the judge's $65 million demand was "wholly outrageous and abusive."  Joyce also quoted former NLRB chief administrative law judge Melvin Welles, who wrote in a letter to the Washington Post today that Judge Pearson should be removed from his current position and should be disbarred from any bar to which he currently belongs.

Joyce warned the commission that if the lawsuit is allowed to go forward and the judge is retained, that the matter will "become fodder for late-night comics."  It's probably too late to avoid that, but maybe not too late for some damage control.

Link: Examiner.com

Lawyer Seeking $65 Million for Pants-Related Fraud

Marc Fisher wrote in the Washington Post on Thursday about a titanic legal dispute that is unfolding in our nation's capitol, where an attorney (who I will refer to here only as "Attorney" for various reasons) has been battling with a local cleaners ("Cleaners") for years now over some pants ("Pants").

It seems that in 2002, Attorney asked Cleaners to clean Pants.  Cleaners lost Pants, later admitting its error and compensating Attorney with a check for $150.  (Apparently these were high-quality Attorney Pants.)  But the dispute seems to have been acrimonious, because Cleaners told Attorney he was no longer welcome there, although this was resolved in some fashion that caused Attorney to continue to use Cleaners.

But the Pants Dispute was almost certainly still in Attorney's mind when the next Pants issue arose in 2005.  Attorney had a new job that required him to wear suits every day, so that he needed five times as many Attorney Pants ready to wear.  Attorney also found that his existing Attorney Pants had somehow become "uncomfortably tight."  Attorney returned to Cleaners with Pants on May 3, 2007 (it is unclear whether these were the same Pants, so I will refer to these as "Second Pants"), and asked Cleaners to let the waist of Second Pants out two or three inches so that he could wear them on May 6.  But Second Pants were not ready that morning.  Indeed, said pants were nowhere to be found.  Anger followed.

Have you seen these pants?

One week later, Cleaners found a pair of pants that it believed to be Second Pants.  But Attorney said Second Pants had pinstripes, whereas these ("Third Pants") were gray.  Anger increasing, Attorney pointed to representations that Cleaners made in signs posted on the premises, including "Satisfaction Guaranteed," and "Same Day Service."  Eventually, he sued, claiming the broken sign promises constituted fraud.

This has been going on for two years now, and Attorney's settlement demands have continued to escalate, along with Cleaners' attorney fees.  Originally, he demanded $1,150 for a new suit.  This was apparently rejected, but as legal bills continued to mount, Cleaners offered $3,000, then $4,600, and eventually $12,000, enough for ten new suits even at Attorney prices.  But this is no longer enough for Attorney.

Attorney now seeks damages including litigation costs, the value of the time he has had to spend on the litigation, the value of "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort," and the costs of leasing a car each weekend for the last ten years (the report did not explain that one).  Also, because Attorney is suing under the District's handy Consumer Protection Act, he also claims damages under that law's provision that imposes damages of $1,500 per violation (Attorney claims 12 "violations"), per defendant (three members of the family who run Cleaners), per day (1,200 -- probably the limitations period of the CPA).  Total damages claimed?  $65,462,500.

Oh, also some new pants.

And that's just for Attorney's own claim.  Although the case is somehow going to trial in June, a D.C. judge did at least reject Attorney's attempt to turn the case into an action on behalf of the general public (all D.C. residents).  This is a common feature of consumer-protection statutes, and while it may be beneficial in some cases it also is susceptible to abuse, which is why you get someone claiming with a straight face to be representing all members of the public in a case that is based on a pair of pants.  In rejecting that claim, the judge said that "the breathtaking magnitude of the expansion" Attorney sought had caused the court "significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith."  "Significant concerns" -- really?  Let's not rush to judgment, your Honor.

Meanwhile, it is entirely possible that the whole dispute, which you will recall began over the alleged loss of Second Pants, is completely unnecessary.  Cleaners' attorney told the Post that he has a perfectly good pair of gray wool pants hanging in his closet, bearing a tag that he says matches Attorney's receipt.  "We believe the pants are his," he said.  Whether the mysterious pants are in fact Attorney's pants will apparently be fought out in the arena of D.C. Superior Court sometime this summer.

Link: Washingtonpost.com
Link: Video report from local news

Second Japanese Toilet Manufacturer Admits Its Product Placed Buttocks at Risk

The blazing-bidet scandal continues to grow in Japan, with the country's second-largest toilet maker now joining the market leader, Toto Ltd., in admitting that it has been aware for years of defects in its "washlet" products.

INAX Corp. said today that it knew of at least seven cases of its washlets overheating, emitting smoke or catching on fire between 1991 and 2005, but did not make the incidents public.  It had recalled 30,000 washlets in 1985 for similar problems, but the seven cases obviously post-dated the recall.  INAX said that none of the seven incidents involved personal injury and that it had reported them to the appropriate government ministry.

The article did not say which government ministry would be the appropriate one to receive such a report.

Coincidentally, INAX made the incidents public only after its competitor had already publicly apologized to consumers for its own washlet problem.  Toto apologized earlier this week and said it would check and repair about 180,000 washlets to correct a defect that might potentially result in a very inconveniently timed fire.

A Toto Ltd. representative indicates
the product's "blowtorch" feature, which
she said the company would be phasing out.

Toto's spokesperson, Yasuhiko Matsumoto, said that the company had received over 100,000 telephone calls since Monday, and that it encouraged its customers to contact the company if they had any concerns.  But Matsumoto reasserted his company's commitment to the problematic extending-bidet feature, which he said had been important to the company's success and, indeed, part of its mission: "We've been promoting a culture of washing one's backside since 1980," he said, "and that's given us a 60 percent market share."  I can't find any evidence that Toto has ever actually used the slogan,

Washing One's Backside Since 1980!

but I would strongly encourage it to do so.  Does your company's mission statement promote a culture of washing one's backside?  If not, please amend it without delay.

Link: Reuters via Yahoo! News
Link: Present a Paper at the 2007 World Toilet Summit

Japanese Company Warns That Defective Toilets May Catch Fire

Toto Ltd., Japan's leading toilet manufacturer, announced today that it was offering free repairs for a defect that had been identified in its popular "Z Series" toilets.  The company said that the defect, related to the toilets' electrical systems, may cause the toilets to catch fire.  Company spokeswoman Emi Tanaka said that 29 incidents had been reported in the past year, three of which involved actual fires and the others involving large quantities of smoke.

You may remember Toto Ltd. from its prior development of "photocatalytic organic decomposition technology," though more recently it has focused on "super hydrophilic photocatalyst technology," which is way better.

It also makes toilets.

If it seems strange that a toilet would have an "electrical system" at all, you're obviously not an owner of a high-end Toto toilet, or "washlet" as it is more properly known.   The Toto Z-Series washlet (which, if the research department has done its job correctly, is sold as the "S400" in the U.S.) incorporates a number of high-tech, 21st-century features that make it so much more than your current Mark 1 Hydraulic Dung Transport Device.   In particular, the S400 features automatic flush, a "sensor-activated lid that automatically lifts as you approach the toilet and lowers as you walk away," a heated seat, an automatic air purifier, a bidet attachment that provides "front and rear washing," warm-air drying with three temperature settings, and something called a "massage feature," which I refuse to investigate any further.  While I'm glad that so many of the exhausting chores connected with elimination have finally been eliminated, there is still a lot of room for improvement.  I assume that the S401 will be able to sense when I need to go and just come get it, sparing me the time-wasting trek to the bathroom in the first place.

The bidet attachment appears to be the culprit in the recent fires, which is quite disturbing.  "At your command," according to the company website, "an integrated, self-cleaning nozzle extends to release a warm, soothing stream of aerated water to provide the ultimate in personal cleansing."  The feature is "designed to introduce you to a level of unprecedented comfort," but, it appears, may also occasionally introduce your ass to an unprecedented level of fire.

Tanaka pointed out, however, that this was only a case of a manufacturing defect, and that no one had been injured by the problem.  "Fortunately, nobody was using the toilets when the fire broke out and there were no injuries," she said.  She added, helpfully, that had you been using such a toilet when the defect manifested itself, "the fire would have been just under your buttocks."

Toto says it will repair any of the 180,000 affected units (the washlets, I mean), which were those manufactured and sold in Japan between May 1996 and December 2001.

Link: Yahoo! News
Link: Toto Ltd. (English site)

WARNING: "Welsh Dragon Sausages" May Not Contain Real Dragon

In November, the Trading Standards department for Powys County, Wales, forced a sausage manufacturer to change the label of its "Welsh Dragon"-brand spicy sausage, on the grounds that the label was misleading because the product did not contain real dragon.

It is actually made with pork.

Jon Carthew, owner of the fraudulent sausage maker, Black Mountains Smokery,  said that he had yet to receive any complaints about the absence of real dragon meat in the sausages, and believed