Lowering the Bar

Italian Supreme Court Further Limits Groping Rights of Italian Men

The New York Times reports today that the long-cherished right of Italian men to grope freely, already under siege, has been further limited by an Italian Supreme Court decision.  The ruling, which appears to have been issued recently although the NYT did not provide a date (or citation), affirmed a man's 2006 conviction on public-indecency charges; specifically, for "ostentatiously touching his genitals through his clothing."

The ruling thus rejected the defense lawyer's contention that his client simply "had a problem with his overalls."

It is not clear from the disappointingly brief NYT report what actually prompted the ostentatious self-gropery, though we know it wasn't defective overalls.  It seems to have been a response to some sort of sign believed to be bad luck, like a passing hearse, because the report says that the opinion "struck against a broader practice: a tradition among some Italian men of warding off bad luck by grabbing [one's own] crotch."

This, the court stated, "has to be regarded as an act contrary to public decency, a concept including that nexus of socio-ethical behavioral rules requiring everyone to abstain from conduct potentially offensive to collectively held feelings of decorum."  (I assume that sounds a lot better in the original Italian.)  As a result, Italian men will now either have to find another way to ward off bad luck, or do their warding in private.

In 2005, the Italian high court, which clearly chooses to intervene only in the most important issues of the day, upheld the assault conviction of a 40-year-old man who pinched a woman's buttocks as she used a public phone.  (Women who have visited Italy may be familiar with this charming custom, by which Italian men communicate that they would like to become better acquainted with you, or at least your buttocks.)  The man received a 14-month prison sentence (suspended) for the assault.  Italian newspapers called the result "severe," and the defendant said he had become disillusioned.  "I don't believe in justice anymore," he said.

It is unclear whether there are further cases in the pipeline that may further restrict the groping rights of Italian men.

Link: New York Times (on the self-groping decision)
Link: New York Times (on the 2005 decision)

City Sues to Force Alleged Recycler to Keep Trash Service

Eddie House of San Carlos, California, was sued on January 22 by the city of San Carlos, California, for municipal code violations related to garbage.  The problem is apparently that Mr. House doesn't generate any.  Garbage, that is.

House, who claims to "care" about the so-called "environment," says he recycles virtually everything he uses and disposes of what little is left over in ways that makes it unnecessary for him to have his garbage picked up by the city.  So he canceled that service about a year ago.  "It's just me and my dog," he said, "so I don't have a whole lot of garbage to begin with and I recycle everything."

As a result, the city is suing House to force him to maintain trash service, whether he needs it or not.

According to the report, the lawsuit alleges that House's failure to pay for the pickup of trash he doesn't generate is a violation of the municipal code, which requires everyone to contract with the Allied Waste company for pickup at least once a week, or more, possibly, if you don't need it more often than that.  The city is seeking a permanent injunction that would force House to follow that requirement.

"I don't understand a city ordinance that requires you to fill up a can," said House.  "That's downright foolishness."

A city manager told the Examiner that the lawsuit was prompted by complaints from neighbors that House was burning some of the garbage, causing a bad smell.  (If that's true, seems like the remedy should be an order forbidding him to burn things.)  House admits the fire department has been to his home several times, but says that each time he was only burning (evil-smelling?) firewood.  He believes the lawsuit is retaliation for his own complaints about the building next door, a charge the city manager denies.

"We don't go out looking for these things," he said.

Link: Examiner.com

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

UPDATE: Snowball-Assault Case Dismissed "In Interest of Justice"

I wrote last week about the prosecution of Andrew Thistleton in Summit County, Colorado, for assaulting a woman with a snowball.  Over the weekend I learned that the Summit County DA's office moved on Thursday to dismiss the case in the "best interest of justice," if Thistleton agreed to write a letter of apology.  Thistleton agreed to that and the judge granted the motion, bringing this saga to an end.

Afterward, DA Mark Hurlbert claimed that the letter-for-dismissal offer had actually been on the table for 10 months, and suggested that defense attorney Lisa Moses had taken a hard line on the case only after it began to attract publicity.  Moses denied that, saying she was "appalled" by the suggestion.

Either way, Thistleton was very happy about the outcome.  "It's just a never-ending nightmare," he said, "but now it's finally over."  Now that the never-ending nightmare has ended, Thistleton and his mother have flown home to Australia, where it will be much easier for them to avoid being reminded of snow.

Link: Summit Daily 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

UPDATE: Battle Over Cat Jurisdiction Enters Fifth Year

Back in July, I reported on a dispute between federal and local authorities as to who had jurisdiction over the descendants of Ernest Hemingway's mutant six-toed cat.  (See Legal Battle Rages Over Future of Hemingway's Mutant Cats, July 19, 2007.)  I'm pleased to say it's back in the news.

An allegedly disgruntled former volunteer seems to have complained to the Department of Agriculture that the cats, which have roamed the grounds of Hemingway's former home for the past 40 years or so, were not being treated properly.  This caused the USDA to spring into action.  (Did they ever find that guy who mailed the anthrax?  Maybe I missed it.)  The USDA argued that the cats were "on exhibit" and so needed the protection of federal laws that apply to zoos and circuses.  Attorneys for the Hemingway Home and Museum attorneys have said the cats are just fine and that they are local cats, not a federal concern.  "They're not sold, they're not transferred, they're not moved, they're not disrupted, they're not eaten," said Cara Higgins, representing the museum and in charge of listing things not being done to the cats.  "I can't imagine," she continued, "why the USDA, why the federal government, would have an interest in a handful of local cats."  Or the power to do anything about it, unless the cats are somehow involved in interstate commerce.  (It's a National Historic Landmark, but still.)

But the USDA wanted the cats rounded up and caged every night, said another HH&M representative, Mike Morawski, despite the fact that they have been free-range felines all their lives.  "Our vet," said Morawski, "who comes on the property weekly, thought [the caging would be] extremely traumatic for any of our cats, much less the cats that have lived on this property the last 10 to 15 years of their life."  More traumatic: being the intern whose job it is to round up 40 six-toed, 24-clawed cats every night and force them all into cages.

In July, the Feds were considering sending a cat inspector over there from the University of Florida to make sure everything was okay.  According to a recent CBS News report, the university's cat expert found that the animals were in fact "well cared for, healthy and content."  But according to the report, the battle continues.

CBS attempted to estimate how many federal tax dollars have been spent in the government's attempts to police cat conditions in Key West, but the USDA would not respond to its requests for information.  CBS was able to determine that the dispute, which has been pending in one way or another for five years, has involved at least 270 person-hours by three government lawyers, four inspectors, six veterinarians, and 14 field trips by one or more USDA personnel to Key West, during some of which the agents actually went undercover.  "They pose as tourists and get pictures and surreptitiously tape the cats," said Higgins.

Pictures and video of Hemingway Home & Museum and its cats are available by going to the museum's website, but you probably can get better shots undercover.

Has all this been a little silly? CBS asked Morawski.  "It's been a lot silly."

Link: CBS News
Link: The Ernest Hemingway Home and Museum

Elvis Shop and Beatles Museum Settle Lawsuit

The BBC reports that Sid Shaw, who runs "Elvisly Yours," a memorabilia shop in central London, and Harold Cohen, who runs the Beatles museum next door, have settled their legal dispute over the use of the Elvisly Yours basement.

The settlement clears the way for Shaw to start a new business in that space, which will operate Elvis-themed karaoke tours featuring open-topped tour buses staffed by singing Elvis impersonators.  And just in time for the holidays.

Shaw and Cohen have a joint lease for the space, which is on Baker Street and so probably not too far from some type of Sherlock Holmes nonsense.  Shaw contended that Cohen's Beatles store was not paying its share of the rent and that Cohen had breached the terms of an agreement to remodel the basement of the Elvis store.  He wanted Cohen out in time for the 30th anniversary of Elvis's death, so that Shaw could have a party there for that occasion as well as to commemorate his wife, who apparently died earlier this year.  But a judge denied Shaw's motion for an injunction, so his Elvis/dead-wife commemoration party had to go forward in the regular Elvisly Yours space in August.

The report this week is that the case settled on the day of trial, after Cohen agreed to vacate the basement and instead use a location across the street.  The remaining terms of the settlement were confidential.

Shaw, who reportedly wore actual blue suede shoes for court appearances, told the BBC that "perhaps Mr. Cohen is 'all shook up.'  Hopefully now he'll 'let it be.'"  In my mind, he was then immediately struck and killed by an open-topped tour bus shaped like a yellow submarine and staffed by Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band impersonators.

UPDATE: I was right about the Sherlock Holmes thing.

Link: BBC News (Oct. 23, 2007)
Link: BBC News (Aug. 13, 2007)
Link: Elvisly Yours -- Legal News

Judge In $54 Million Pants Case Soon to Be Former Judge in $54 Million Pants Case

Sources report that the D.C. Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges has voted not to reappoint Roy Pearson for another term as an administrative law judge.

Pearson caused both outrage and (among amateur legal humorists) delight by suing his local dry cleaners for $65 million dollars in a claim based on a pair of lost pants and a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign.  (Pearson later said he would not claim damages for the pants, which reduced the stated value of his claim to only $54 million.)  Pearson lost, but is appealing.  The dry cleaners has since closed.

The commission members declined to comment after their 90-minute meeting on Monday, but sources "who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case" confirmed that the vote had gone against Pearson.  The decision is not final until the commission drafts a letter formally notifying Pearson, a letter that sources said might go out early next week.

Pearson, of course, can be expected to appeal an adverse decision.  That case would likely be consolidated in the D.C. Court of Appeals with Pearson's appeal of his loss in the dry-cleaning case.

Link:  Washington Post
Earlier: Lawyer Seeking $65 Million for Pants-Related Fraud
Earlier: How the Damages Were Calculated
Earlier: Judge Who Lost Pants Loses Case

Activist Convicted of Pelting School Board Members With Grapes

Agnes Hitchcock says she has made her point and will no longer disrupt school-board meetings, now that her act of civil disobedience on April 4 has served its purpose of allowing her to talk about mismanagement of the Detroit-area school district.  Hitchcock was prosecuted, convicted, and fined for pelting school board members with grapes during a meeting at which the board voted (6-5) to close 34 city schools.

Hitchcock was lucky not to have been charged with assault and battery, given that she successfully beaned at least one board member with one of the fruity missiles.  She was also lucky not to have been charged under the PATRIOT Act, given that there is not very much you can't be charged with under the PATRIOT Act.

The report did not say whether Hitchcock had assaulted the board with relatively benign green table grapes (probably Thompson Seedless) or a more threatening variety such as Bastardo or Canadian Moonseed.  Much more serious penalties would probably have been imposed had she used one of the harsh German varietals such as Blaufrankisch or even Gewurztraminer, let alone something like Black Monukka or the notorious Preto de Mortagua, normally spoken of only in hushed voices.  Few know that the Croatian autochthonous varietal Crljenak Kastelanski was involved in the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, sparking World War I.  Speaking of sparking, some research suggests that even common seedless grapes can be made to "combust spectacularly" if properly prepared, something that likely brings the PATRIOT Act back into the picture.

Whatever Hitchcock used, board president Jimmy Womack took the traumatic assault quite seriously.  He told reporters that he was glad Hitchcock had been punished.  "This shows there are consequences to the actions we take," he said. "It's just regrettable [Hitchcock] has no remorse for attacking school board members [with grapes]."

Hitchcock remained defiant.  "It was worth the risk in order to be able to talk about these things in court," she told the Detroit Free Press, although it was unclear how many people were there to listen.  The judge imposed a $250 fine and Hitchcock must serve six months unsupervised probation.

Link: CBS News
Link: Learn about grapes at Wikipedia and
        The Super Gigantic Winegrape Glossary

Architect Pursues Rival Beyond the Grave

According to a report on Monday, a Pennsylvania architect challenging the license of a rival architect recently appealed his case to the state's highest court.  This means Mark Altman is still trying to get Michael Molnar's license revoked even though Molnar is not likely to be doing any more architecting, given that he died in May.

Neither report I found on this case explained exactly how this dispute got started.  Molnar seems to have worked briefly for Altman's father decades ago, becoming licensed here in 1960 after fleeing the Soviet invasion of Hungary.  He said he had studied architecture in his home country but had been unfairly denied a license by the communist regime.  The state examiner accepted his testimony, and Molnar got a license and then practiced without incident for 46 years.

But at some point Mark Altman, still suspicious, and really pissed about something, followed Molnar's trail to Budapest and found that the college there had no records of him.  He challenged Molnar's license, but it appears that the state board again accepted Molnar's testimony that he had earned his degree and that the Communists had lost the records.  That was affirmed on appeal.

Altman's counsel (his brother Gary) said that their family still believed that Molnar had lied, and was stunned by the result.  He said, "You mean, if I'm a brain surgeon for 50 years, and after all these years they learn I'm an auto mechanic, I still can keep operating?  That's fascinating to me."  Well, if an auto mechanic has successfully done brain surgery for 50 years, then yes, I think I might rather have him working on me as opposed to some brand-new guy who happens to have a license.  I might ask him what the jumper cables were for, but I'd be prepared to listen.  Oh, also, Mr. Molnar can't keep operating now because he's DEAD.

And, again, neither report I found explained exactly why the Altmans were still going after Molnar's license now that he is an ex-architect.  No one else seemed to know, either.  "If the goal of the litigation is to stop Mike Molnar from practicing architecture, the good Lord has done that," a local attorney was quoted as saying.

Largely for that reason, the attorney for Molnar's estate has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.  "Petitioner is, it seems, motivated by some unexplained quest for revenge that he simply cannot end," wrote Robert Hoffman.  He called  Altman "heartless" for suggesting that, if Molnar's license wasn't valid in the first place, the estate should give back all the fees he ever collected, which would likely be unpleasant for Molnar's widow.  Hoffman compared the complaint to "Inspector Javert's hunting of Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo's 'Les Miserables,'" which, translated, seems to be something like how Magneto won't leave the X-Men alone.

Link: CBS News
Link: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Legal Battle Rages Over Future of Hemingway's Mutant Cats

Reuters News reported this week that the federal government and the local authorities in charge of the Ernest Hemingway Home & Museum in Key West, Florida, are battling over the future status of dozens of cats that roam the grounds of the writer's former home.  Hemingway wrote all or part of many of his most famous works, such as "A Farewell to Arms," at the house, which has been a museum since 1961, a National Historic Landmark since 1968, and is also one of the Keys' major tourist attractions.

It's also up to its @%# in cats.

The cats, which actually are heavily promoted as a tourist attraction by the museum, are mostly descendants of Snowball, a cat given to Hemingway as a gift by a mysterious sea captain.  At least, that's the story the museum tells.  The Reuters report refers to a book claiming that they are actually descended from a neighbor's pet cat Hemingway shot in the head.  He was allegedly trying to put it out of its misery after it had been hit by a car; the cat is said to have lost an eye but survived.  All in all, a slightly less romantic story than the official tale, and it would certainly be a little disappointing to think that Ernest Hemingway, avid sportsman, hunter, safari participant, and author of such manly works as "For Whom the Bell Tolls," was not successful in any sort of battle with the neighbor's cat.  So let's go with the sea captain tale.  In fact, perhaps this was the very same man on whom Hemingway modeled the hero of "The Old Man and the Sea"!  You can't prove it wasn't.

Anyway, however he got the cat, it is likely that many of the current inhabitants are descended from it, because it is known to have had six toes on each foot and about half of the 60 cats there today are also polydactyl.  (Polydactyls?  Polydactylic?  Multi-toed.)  So, the former home of Nobel-Prize-winning author Ernest Hemingway is infested with a bunch of multi-toed mutant cats.  You may be able to see some of them if you tune in to the Hemingway Home Cat Cam.  If so, look to see if any of them look abused, because the SPCA has filed a complaint claiming that they are not treated well, and that some of them have been injured or killed on or near the property.  An inspection report stated that "[I]n 2005 alone, there were 12 occasions when cats left the property; in two of these cases, Hemingway cats were killed by cars."  Well, cats do leave property from time to time, and they don't always cross with the light, but I'm not sure that shows they're being abused.  To tell you the truth, it doesn't sound like it was all that safe for them when Papa was still there.

But the U.S. Department of Agriculture, arguing that the museum is subject to federal regulations, says the house needs a federal Animal Welfare License to keep the cats, as if it was running a circus or zoo.  It is sending an expert from the University of Florida there on July 23 to "observe the cats' mental state and physical condition."  (I'm not sure how you test a cat's "mental state," but I'm not the expert.)  Officials that run the property say that the cats are treated well and point out that they have spent nearly $200,000 to improve cat conditions on the property.  "It's kind of sad," said one, "that a government agency would be spending taxpayers' money on this.  We're against caging them because they're not used to it."  The local government says the feds should butt out, and a federal judge has ordered the parties to "work out their differences."

The museum's website has (besides the Cat Cam) some fun facts about the animals, which for the most part appear to be named after writers or actors.  Some have even written their own messages to you, such as "Emily Dickinson":

A healthy cat with dilute calico fur, I am named for a poetess who lived during the 1800's. Coincidentally she wrote about 1800 poems during her lifetime. She was recluse but I am not. I spend my time sprawled near the guest house so people can see me and admire my extra toes.

Sounds to me like she is doing fine.

Link: Reuters via Yahoo! News
Link: The Ernest Hemingway Home & Museum
Link: Some of Its Cats, and Also One Rooster
Link: The Hemingway Home Cat Cam

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

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

Jackass Testifies

The AP reported on Wednesday that the first witness called in a lawsuit between two Dallas neighbors "walked to the bench and stared at the jury."  This is not normally something you would encourage a witness to do, but in this case it was exactly what the party wanted.

The witness was Buddy, a donkey that belongs to attorney Gregory Shamoun.  Shamoun was involved in a dispute with his neighbor, John Cantrell, who complained about a storage shed Shamoun was building in his backyard.  Cantrell alleged that Shamoun then retaliated by bringing Buddy from his ranch and putting him in the backyard, to irritate Cantrell.  "They bray a lot any time day or night," Cantrell said.  "You never know when they're going to cut loose."

Shamoun decided on the risky tactic of actually bringing Buddy to court and letting the jurors hear, or not hear, from him directly.  (Not since O.J. tried on the bloody glove has such a daring courtroom tactic been employed.)  And Shamoun got away with it, apparently, since Buddy (who was more likely an "exhibit" than a "witness") was described as "the picture of a gentle, well-mannered creature and not the loud, aggressive animal he had been accused of being."

Buddy prepares for his dramatic testimony.
(Note patriotic American-flag bandanna.)

Nor did Exhibit A leave any Exhibit Bs behind on the courtroom floor, which probably also helped.

Shamoun's claim was that Buddy was at his home not to irritate Cantrell, but to serve as a surrogate mother for a calf that needed to be bottle-fed.  The article did not explain why the calf was there in the first place.

It is unclear whether Buddy's courtroom demeanor carried the day, because the case settled while the jury was still deliberating.  Shamoun agreed to buy some of Cantrell's land, and Cantrell dropped his complaint.

Link: Yahoo! News

Libel Suit Against Food Critic Alleges Steak Sandwich Misclassified

Adam Liptak of the New York Times writes today (March 7) about restaurants filing libel lawsuits against food critics.  The lawsuits are not uncommon, although, as Liptak writes, they are virtually never successful.

The most recent example is a new lawsuit against Craig LaBan of the Philadelphia Inquirer, alleging that LaBan's description of the strip steak at Chops restaurant as "miserably tough and fatty" constituted libel.  Chops doesn't challenge that description, but argues that the item being reviewed was not a "strip steak" at all, but rather a "steak sandwich without bread."  This is a different cut of meat, Chops argues, and says LaBan therefore should not have compared it to a strip steak and that he doesn't even know what the strip steak at Chops tastes like.  Or in legal terms, LaBan "had, and has, no personal knowledge of the quality of the Chops strip steak."

Okay -- but he may well have personal knowledge, apparently, that a Chops steak sandwich without bread is miserably tough and fatty.  (His words, not mine.)

Liptak writes that there are numerous examples, at least in American courts, of rulings that even harshly worded reviews are protected opinion.  Some good ones:

• "The fish on the Key West platter tasted like old ski boots."  Ruled obvious hyperbole and not an actual comparison of fish to old ski boots the reviewer had once eaten.
• "Bring a can of Raid if you plan to eat here."  Ruled to be protected "techniques of humor and ridicule."
• Description of a seafood dish as "Trout a la green plague."  The court: "An ordinarily informed person would not infer that these entrees were actually carriers of communicable diseases."

The article also quotes a legendary review by Matthew Norman of the London Sunday Telegraph Magazine, in 2004, of the London restaurant Shepherds.  His review described Shepherds as "among the very worst restaurants in Christendom," serving "meals of crescendoing monstrosity."  It appears to be one of the few restaurant reviews to compare a dish (the crab and brandy soup) to WMD: "Were it found today in a canister buried in the Iraqi desert," Norman wrote, "it would save Tony Blair's skin."  And for dessert -- the yellowcake?

Lawyer Victorious After Two-Year Legal Battle Over $3.76

Adam Goodmann's shoplifting conviction was reversed by New Jersey's Appellate Division on February 2, bringing to an end a two-year legal battle that began with a dispute over a $3.76 charge for film developing.

Goodmann was charged with shoplifting in 2005 after he refused to pay Walgreens for a set of prints.  He pointed out that Walgreens had screwed up his order the first time anyway, and that he was entitled to double prints for $5.99.  The store insisted he could only get single prints for $9.75.  The stage was set for a titanic legal battle.

Goodmann refused to pay and said he was going to take his pictures anyway.  Assistant manager John Evans, defending his turf, said he would call the police and charge Goodmann with shoplifting if he did that.  Goodmann responded, "Do what you can," wrote his name, address, and "will settle this in court" on a piece of paper, and left.  The authorities were duly informed.  Goodmann was convicted in municipal court of shoplifting, fined $150 plus having to pay the $9.75, and also got 10 days of community service.  He appealed.

The Superior Court affirmed his sentence, but the Appellate Division (which is superior to the Superior Court) reversed, noting that the New Jersey shoplifting statute covers the taking of "merchandise."   The pictures weren't "merchandise," it said -- Goodmann took them and they belonged to him.  (Evidently there are a surprising number of cases about the legal status of developed pictures, usually when a professional photographer's pictures have been lost or ruined.  You'll be pleased to know that your amateur photos, according to this court, have no value.)  Walgreens might have a claim as the "bailee" of the pictures, but on these facts, Goodmann wasn't a shoplifter.

Prosecutors said they would not appeal any further.  They declined to estimate how much had been spent on attempts to uphold the criminal conviction in this important matter.

Link: MSNBC.com
Link: New Jersey v. Goodmann