Navigation & Music Control
 [ BACK]  [NEXT]                       Issue #322 - 10/13/2002

NOT WELL SUITED

Lawsuits In Odd-Lot Styles...

Dear Fellow Court Observers,
     You don't have to throw a torte very far these days to hit
someone who says they hate lawyers.  Ever notice, though, that
it's those SAME people who seem most likely to sue when things
don't go exactly their way?  Their hatred of lawyers seems to
come mostly from having to pay them.  I suppose the rest of us
should be happy that they resort to the courts instead of actions
more dangerous or antisocial.
     While many people worldwide are sued for a wide variety of
frivolous reasons, the stupid suit is largely a US phenomenon. 
This is because of the egalitarian nature of US law, where all
parties in a civil action need only cover their own legal
expenses, no matter how uncivil the outcome.  In many other
countries, the losing side pays all court and legal costs for
both sides.  That's why one would think two or three times before
suing McDonald's in, say, Britain.  I have no idea how much
McDonald's lawyers are paid, but I've seen their cars around the
corporate headquarters outside Chicago, and their wheels cost
approximately as much as my net worth.
     We have already looked at some of the fake suits circulated
around the Web over the years as the "Stella Awards" (See:  SUNFUN
#301, WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR REALITY CHECK BOUNCES from
05/19/2002).  That list of lawsuits is clearly a hoax, and a
politically motivated one at that.  Why do folks distribute such
pseudo suits when there are enough real legal proceedings silly
enough to suit anyone?  All of the legal actions in this edition
of Funnies are the real deal, and include the details in case
you're the kind who just has to check.  Most of the more bean-
brained actions never get past the first judge, and are thrown
out as frivolous or without cause.  And some of the claimants are
even sued themselves for bringing false suit and wasting the
court's time, which is a crime - if it can be proved.  Regardless
that these suits are without merit, irrelevant, incompetent and
all that other legal mumbo-jumbo for stupid, we can't ignore that
the loony legal actions do have a certain entertainment value.
     Among the folks with legal standing in the SUNFUN court, we
include this week's contributors:  Jerry Taff, Jack Gervais,
Michael Fagan, The Petersons, Kerry Miller, Chuck Maray, Jan
Michalski, Charles Beckman, Mike & R.J. Tully and Tim McChain. 
If I've left anyone out, it's been that kind of crazy week.  So
sue me.
     Ummm...  Forget I said that, OK?
     Have An Upstanding In Court Week,

--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

THE SOUNDS OF SILENCE - THE LAWSUIT...
-----------------------------------
     No, it isn't about the old Simon & Garfunkel tune, this is a
truly quiet lawsuit from England.  The case involves a copyright
dispute between the works of two extremely avant-garde composers.
     Edition Peters, publishers of the late composer John Cage,
claims that rival music-maker Mike Batt plagiarized a passage
from Cage's ground-breaking composition, 4'33," which was first
performed nearly half a century ago.
     Having heard them both, I have to confess that the Cage
composition and the track from Batt's album "Classical Graffiti"
are strikingly similar, at least to this musically untrained
observer.  Far closer than the famous "My Sweet Lord" / "He's So
Fine" music controversy, anyway.  Even closer than "Make 'Em
Laugh" and "Be A Clown."
     It would help you to know that both compositions are
completely and utterly silent, the John Cage piece for 4 minutes
and 33 second and the Batt composition for only 1 minute.  4'33"
is something of a musical joke, as it is described as a piano
composition in three movements.  Given the silence of the piece,
those three movements must be closing the keyboard cover, doing
your nails and opening the keyboard cover.
     Earlier this year, the parties in the suit attempted to
prove their points by staging performances of their imaginary
music.  The result was, perhaps not surprisingly, inconclusive.
     Despite this, the parties were able to come to a happy
conclusion without a judge hearing the silent suit.  Nicholas
Riddle, managing director of Cage's music publisher, said that
Batt had paid an "adequate sum" to the John Cage Trust by way of
settlement.  (Reuters)
          [ More proof that silence is golden?  Or
          would you call that hush money? ]


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE - WAY, WAY OUT THERE
-------------------------------------------
     In 1999, a Canadian judge in Toronto dismissed a claim that
Defense Minister Art Eggleton, Citibank and several drug-store
chains were part of a conspiracy to kill a complainant named Rene
Joly.  Serious charges, if true.  The reason all those folks were
out to make Mr. Joly less than jolly?
     He's a Martian.
     Well, that's what he claims in his suit.
     Joly began the action by contending that the Shopper's Drug
Mart chain had sold him poison instead of medication, that
Canadian troops in Germany had implanted a microchip in his brain
and that Citibank had perpetrated a credit card fraud - all in a
bid to further U.S. assassination attempts on his life.
     The thirty-four-year-old Joly, a college-educated sales
manager, began his crusade way back in 1996 and ably represented
himself before the courts.  Joly maintains he is cloned from
material recovered in the 1960s by NASA from Mars. 
Unfortunately, he can't prove this because records revealing his
DNA have been falsified.  That's part of the conspiracy, you see.
     "Genetically speaking, I'm a Martian, yes," Joly told the
media.  "The American government, and its accomplices in Canada,
are trying to eliminate me because I am a Martian and they do
want to get their hands on my body," he stated calmly.
     A platoon of lawyers from the companies being sued requested
that the judge dismiss the suits in total as being completely
without merit.
     "Mr. Joly himself is not unusual, he's very well-spoken,
very well-dressed, he eloquently stated his own case, he's not
your typical Martian," said lawyer Diana Groskaufmanis, who
represented Citibank.  "That being said," she admitted, "I think
Mr. Joly has watched too many episodes of the 'X-Files'."
     An Ontario Superior Court judge, obviously nobody's fool,
refused to be drawn in by the claims of either side.  He
dismissed the "vexatious" case on the grounds that Mr. Joly, as a
Martian, claimed not to be human and therefore had no status
before the courts.  (Reuters)
          [ Mr. Joly is from Mars, of course, but his
          wife is from Venus. ]


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

WHEN A BODY MEETS A BODY...
------------------------
     We all know that "reality TV" is all the rage, but maybe
there is some good reason for that rage.
     In a modern, meaner version of the old "Candid Camera" TV
show, MTV found themselves exposed to a little more reality than
they might have wished - real-life lawsuit.  James and Laurie Ann
Ryan, of Washington, D.C., also named the Hard Rock Hotel in Las
Vegas in the suit, which accuses the resort and the cable TV
network of invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress
and fraud, among other things.
     The suit, originally filed in Los Angeles in April of this
year but later moved to federal court, claims that the couple
became unwitting participants last January in a practical joke
filmed for a series under development at MTV called "Harassment"
while they were on vacation. 
     Upon entering the hotel room, the Ryans "discovered what
appeared to be a dead human body covered and surrounded by blood,
evidently the victim of a homicide," as hidden cameras recorded
their shock, the suit says.
     As the couple tried to flee, two actors posing as security
guards blocked their way, and a third individual in the guise of
a paramedic entered the room.
     The show's host and co-producer, Ashton Kutcher then finally
emerged to reveal the prank.
     Some joke, huh?  The Ryans were not amused.  In fact, they
are not amused to the tune of $10 million in compensatory damages
which they are seeking from MTV, the Hard Rock Hotel and Kutcher,
said their lawyer, Daniel Rozansky.
     This isn't MTV's only real reality suit, by the way.  The
cable TV network was already in litigation with two girls over
the memorable performance of some folks known as "The Shower
Rangers."  SUNFUN being a family publication, we'll leave out
just what these morons did, as some of you might be eating.  It
might help to explain if you know that the TV show this happened
on was the charmingly whimsical "Dude, This Sucks."  (Reuters)
          [ They're probably right...  For once. ]


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

THE LEGAL WORD...
--------------
     Insult someone in public and they might just sue you.  But
only if they can prove what those insulting words meant.
     In a ruling that had lawyers arguing from dictionaries of
obscure insults, a California state appeals court ruled earlier
this year that it is not libel to call someone a "skank" or even
a "big skank" on the radio - describing the word legally as "a
derogatory slang term of recent vintage that has no generally
recognized meaning."
     One of the 50 contestants from the Fox TV Show disaster,
"Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire,", sued two morning
disc-jockeys at a San Francisco radio station.  The reason was
that they called her a "local loser," a "chicken-butt" and a
"skank" for declining an invitation to appear on their obviously
elegant and uplifting radio show.  Jennifer Seelig, not amused by
the loose talk of the radio loudmouths, sued the disc jerkeys,
their producer and the radio station owner, Infinity
Broadcasting.  She cited slander, invasion of privacy and
infliction of emotional distress as causes for the suit.
     In a move that kill participation in reality TV shows faster
than a ratings drop, she lost.  The state's 1st Court of Appeals
ruled that participants in the "Millionaire" program "voluntarily
subjected themselves to inevitable scrutiny and potential
ridicule by the public and the media."  (Reuters)
          [ Makes you wonder how the "Gong Show"
          avoided these problems, doesn't it? ]


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

OK, SO WHAT'S YOUR BEEF?
-----------------------
     Restaurants often get sued.  People slipping on the floors,
choking, having things spilled on them by clumsy waiters, getting
sick from undercooked food, and even gaining weight from eating
there.
     Yup, that's right.  Caesar Barber, 56, filed suit earlier
this year in Bronx Supreme Court, naming McDonald's, Wendy's,
Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken because he became obese
and suffered from other serious health problems from eating their
fatty cuisine.
     And there are those of you who thought the age of
responsibility was dead.
     "They said `100 percent beef.' I thought that meant it was
good for you," Barber said.  "I thought the food was OK.  Those
people in the advertisements don't really tell you what's in the
food.  It's all fat, fat and more fat.  Now I'm obese."  "...The
fast food industry has wrecked my life."
     Barber, a 5-foot-10 maintenance worker who weighs 272
pounds, had heart attacks in 1996 and 1999 and has diabetes, high
blood pressure and high cholesterol.  You might think that a diet
change a little earlier might have been in order, but whatever it
was, Caesar didn't want salad.  Barber said he ate fast food for
decades, starting in the 1950s, believing it was good for him
until his doctor cautioned him otherwise.  (AP)
          [ Will this suit make Ronald McDonald act
          more like Richard Simmons?  Will Wendy turn
          Wimpy?  Think KFC will chicken out?  Fat
          chance! ]


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

POP-TORT?
--------
     In August of 2001, according to the organization Citizens
Against Lawsuit Abuse, a New Jersey couple sued the Kellogg
Company and the Black and Decker Company for $100,000 in damages
to their home.
     The damage, they said, resulted from the explosion of a Pop-
Tart left heating unattended in their toaster while the
homeowners were out of the house.  The lady of the house left to
take her children to school with tart toasting, hoping to return
home to a warm breakfast treat.  It was.  But mostly because the
house was on fire.
     Kellogg points out that the Pop-Tarts box clearly states not
to leave the toaster unattended - a good idea when using any
heating appliance.
     "It's amazing the courts would have to deal with such
nonsense," stated Michael Vallante, Executive Director of CALA. 
"The fact that the couple's lawyer would describe a Pop-Tart as a
blowtorch tells anyone how ridiculous this lawsuit is."  "...It
looks like this couple and their lawyer want a little sweeter 
breakfast than just a Pop-Tart," said Vallante.  (CALA)
          [ Tart Trivia - Besides having about the same
          consistency as the average roof shingle, Pop-
          Tarts ARE highly flammable.  18" (1/2 meter)
          flames have been reported from a standard
          toaster in as little as 40 seconds.  Most
          experimenters agree that the frosted
          strawberry kind is the most incandescent
          flavor.  Hostess Twinkies are also said to be
          high on the flame rating. ]


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

ALL IFS AND NO BUTTS?
--------------------
     Even before publishing those photos of a topless Anna
Kournikova - the ones that turned out to be some other naked
person entirely - Penthouse had it's share of legal troubles.
     One of the more minor was a mini-flub down in Austin, Texas,
where a prison inmate sued the skin magazine over its nude layout
of Paula Jones, a central figure in the Clinton scandal.  The
lawsuit charged that the December, 2000 pictorial of Jones was
not sufficiently revealing and caused plaintiff David Joyner to
be "very mentally hurt and angered."  It sought $500,000 in
damages.
     Joyner, who is serving 14 years for robbery and assault,
wrote the lawsuit, in which he identified himself as the Minister
of Law of the Mandingo Warriors prison gang.
     Having none of the foolishness, U.S. District Judge Sam
Sparks dismissed it with a 12-line poem, which read in part:
"Twas the night before Christmas and all through the prison,
inmates were planning their new porno mission.
     "...The minute his Penthouse issue arrived, the Minister
ripped it open to see what was inside.  But what to his wondering
eyes should appear - not Paula Jones' promised privates, but only
her rear.
     "Life has its disappointments.  Some come out of the blue
but that doesn't mean a prisoner should sue," poetic Justice
Sparks concluded.
     The judge then fined Joyner $250 for filing a frivolous
legal motion.  (Reuters)
     [ That part, however, was not in rhyme, even though
     Joyner handed the line, did the crime and is doing the
     time. ]


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--
© 2002 by Bill Becwar. All Rights Reserved.