Lowering the Bar

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

Good Reason to Kill [or Wound], #58

Because your friend changed the channel.

According to police in Seattle, two women in their 60s were watching TV last Thursday morning, but began arguing after one of them changed the channel to a religious program.  Such arguments are common; settling them via stabbing is less common.  Police spokesperson Renee Witt said that the woman offended by the channel-change grabbed a six-inch kitchen knife and stabbed the channel-changer.  The wounded woman was rushed to a local hospital with serious injuries.

Witt said the nature of the TV dispute was not yet clear.  "I don't know what they were originally watching," she said, "but it must have been something really good."

Link: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Perry Mason Summarized

This is the essay I was looking for.  James Lileks does a review of the new Perry Mason DVD box set and reminds you that you don't really need to get it because every show was basically the same.

Link: LILEKS.com

Andy Griffith Running for Sheriff in Wisconsin

In what seems like an unfair move -- how could you not vote for "Andy Griffith" to be your sheriff? -- a music store owner in Grant County, Wisconsin, changed his name from "William Fenrick" to "Andy Griffith" upon entering the race as an independent.  He is running against incumbent "Keith Govier" and Democratic challenger "Doug Vesperman," each of whom has over a decade of experience but are stuck with boring, non-famous names that probably leave them with no chance at all against the pseudo-Griffithian juggernaut.

Griffith, 42, said his goal was to draw attention to a race that would otherwise get little of it.  "Nobody knows who's running or what the issues are, if there are any issues, or how the people differ," Griffith said.  I note that the AP report did not say what the issues are, if there are any issues, or how the people differ, but at least we do now know who's running for sheriff in Grant County, Wisconsin.

New Griffith may or may not be aware that the fictional sheriff of Mayberry, R.F.D., was actually named "Andy Taylor," although of course the show was called "The Andy Griffith Show" after the star.  I was hoping there would be another layer here resulting from "Andy Griffith" being a pseudonym in the first place, but that appears to have been his real name -- "Andy Samuel Griffith."  I guess it was a simpler time.

Link: AP via My Way News
Link: Wikipedia article on Andy Griffith

How Law Evolves in Serbia

According to Judge Omer Hadziomerovic of the Belgrade District Court, Serbian legal culture has a long way to go, but TV is helping:

We have a low level of legal culture . . . . There is little understanding of law and the rule of law.  We once had a defendant plead the Fifth Amendment, which we do not have by such a name, because he saw it on "Law and Order."

ABA Journal (Oct. 2005) at p. 51).

Next up for Serbia: learning about peaceful dispute-resolution procedures and equitable divisions of property through repeated viewings of "Gilligan's Island."

Family Drops Plan to Sue Cable Company for Making It Fat and Lazy

Timothy Dumouchel of West Bend, Wisconsin, threatened to sue his cable company in 2004 on the grounds that it had negligently supplied him with free cable TV, resulting in an addiction to cable that made his family fat and lazy.

Police were called to the local office of Charter Communications on December 23, 2003, after Dumouchel showed up there with a small-claims complaint form and allegedly made threats to employees. According to the police report, Dumouchel gave an employee five minutes to get a supervisor or he would be "in the ocean with the sharks."

He said this in Wisconsin.

Dumouchel claimed he had asked to have his cable canceled four years ago, but Charter didn't turn it off. The family was then allegedly unable to stop watching the free programming, which Dumouchel called "addictive." He blamed this cable addiction for a variety of problems. "I believe that the reason I smoke and drink every day and my wife is overweight is because we watched TV every day for the last four years," he said in a written statement. "[T]he reason I am suing Charter is they did not let me make a decision as to what was best for myself and my family and [they have been] keeping cable [coming] into my home for four years after I asked them to turn it off." He claimed he had called Charter several times and asked them to turn off the free cable, but they continued to flood his home with its addictive goodness. He specifically distinguished between Charter's addicting him to cable and his free choice to buy and smoke cigarettes: "I have the choice not to smoke these [cigarettes]," he told reporters. "Yet I choose to go to the store and buy them. The cable company did not give me the choice."

Dumouchel said his wife had gained 50 pounds from her TV addiction, and that his children had become "lazy channel surfers."

Charter's director of public relations in eastern Wisconsin did not miss the opportunity for spin: "Even though we consider our services to be a very powerful entertainment product," he told a newspaper, "I don't think it's reached a medical level yet where it could be considered addictive."

Later, after negative publicity, Dumouchel called a press conference to say he was dropping the case. He said the only reason he called a press conference about it was to deny that he had ever said his children were "lazy." (He did say that.) He wanted to set the record straight because, he said, his children were hurt by the false laziness charges.

He did confirm that his wife had gained a lot of weight.

Dumouchel refused to admit he had no case, though, saying he was dropping the suit only because he "did not want to hurt the cable company."

Link: Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
Link: San Francisco Business Journal
Also: Fond du Lac Reporter, Jan. 7, 2004; West Bend Daily News, Jan. 9, 2004)

"Citizens" Know More About Simpsons Than About First Amendment

A study commissioned by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum, a new institution that claims to be dedicated to helping visitors understand the First Amendment but is clearly a Communist front organization, has found that Americans know more about the Simpsons television family than they do about the freedoms contained in the First Amendment.

The study found that only one in four Americans could name two or more of the five freedoms protected by that amendment, but more than half could name two or more of the five Simpsons.

Twenty-two percent of Americans could name all five Simpsons.  Able to name all five First Amendment freedoms: one in 1,000.  Similarly, more people could name all three American Idol judges than could name three of the First Amendment freedoms.

Thirty-eight percent mistakenly thought that the right against self-incrimination was part of the First Amendment, which is not too disturbing given that "Fifth" and "First" sound so similar, although now that I think about it, given how often people "take the Fifth" on TV, that actually is disturbing.  What "Fifth" do the other 62 percent think people are taking?

One out of every five people thinks the First Amendment protects the right to own a pet.  Obviously, that is one of our Ninth Amendment freedoms.  (Hey, the Ninth has to do something, right.)

You, of course, are easily able to name all five First Amendment freedoms off the top of your head, without even looking at some sample lists such as those provided for this survey that appears in the MSNBC article.  Based on the (unscientific) poll results, only 75 percent of respondents chose the correct list of five, after reading an article on the issue in which the link appears.

Maybe they didn't scroll all the way to the bottom of the article.  Don't you cheat, though.

MSNBC.com

"CSI" Fans Possibly Better at Crime

For years, police and prosecutors have complained about the effect of law-and-order shows (like -- well, like "Law and Order") on juries.  They say that having watched the shows, jurors expect certain things from the attorneys at trial, and in particular that having watched shows like "CSI" that deal with forensic evidence, jurors are reluctant to convict if such evidence is not presented.

Apparently, these shows are popular with criminals, too.  The AP quoted experts who said that, for example, before the shows started it was "virtually unheard of" for a killer to use bleach to clean up blood.  (I shouldn't tell you this, but it destroys DNA.)  Now they describe that tactic as "not unusual."  Said one expert from the LA County Sheriff's Department."They're actually educating these potential killers even more . . . I believe it may [] encourage them . . . ."

It may have encouraged Jermaine "Maniac" McKinney, described as a "CSI fan," who police say broke into a house, killed two people and then used bleach to destroy evidence.  He also picked up his cigarette butts and lined his car with blankets,  tactics he had seen on the show.  He also threw some evidence, including a murder weapon, into a lake.  Or at least he tried -- in a twist apparently not covered on the show, the lake was frozen.  Police recovered that evidence and McKinney now faces the death penalty.

Next week's story ripped from the headlines: try not to have the nickname "Maniac."

Larry Pozner, former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, discounted the effect of the shows.  "Most people who commit crimes are not very bright," he said of his clients, "and don't take many precautions.  CSI and all the other crime shows will make no difference."

Findlaw

David Letterman Fights TRO Granted to Crazy Lady

Here's how easy it is to get a temporary restraining order -- a woman in Santa Fe has been granted a TRO against David Letterman apparently based on claims that Letterman has caused her mental cruelty and sleep deprivation for the past ten years through the use of code words, gestures and eye expressions to convey messages to her.

If I ever need a TRO and can't get one, please kill me.

The woman, Colleen Nestler, claimed in her TRO application that she started sending Letterman "thoughts of love" in 1993, and that he responded, in code, asking her to come to New York and be his wife and co-host. The code for his marriage proposal was allegedly Letterman's on-air statement, "Marry me, Oprah."

Nestler says that "Oprah" was the first of many code names Letterman used to refer to her.

If Nestler's request was granted in full, and it appears that it was, the order requires Letterman to stay at least three yards away from Nestler at all times (although he is in New York and she is in Santa Fe anyway), to not think about Nestler, and to release her from his "mental harassment and hammering."

Letterman's attorneys contend that the order is without merit and have asked that it be quashed. Their motion points out that the New Mexico court has no jurisdiction over Letterman, that Nestler never served him with papers as required, and likely at some point uses a legalism for the term "nutbag."

A hearing on whether the TRO will become permanent is set for January 12.

AP via Yahoo.com
Thanks to Rob Bogen for spotting this.