The Indiana legislature turns out to have banned them and is now scrambling to fix matters (Robert King, “Heavens! Potlucks are illegal”, Indianapolis Star, Feb. 13)(via Balko). See Apr. 15, 2004.
Zwebner lawsuits on Internet posts
Michael J. Zwebner, the CEO of penny-stock holding company Universal Communication Systems , is unhappy that he’s being flamed on the RagingBull.com message board, run by Lycos. He may have a legitimate beef to some extent; the dozens of John Doe usernames he’s seeking to discover in one lawsuit are being represented by a lawyer, L. Van Stillman, who apparently pled guilty to SEC charges of “pump and dump” schemes. (Then again, UCSY has a fishy 10-K, being forced to admit that their auditors don’t think that the company can be maintained as a going concern. They’ve certainly had some bad luck: UCSY’s 2003 10-K was late “because of a fire at the building which houses the Company’s corporate headquarters”. The most recent 10-Q was late “due to a fire at the corporate accountant’s office”.)
More importantly for our purposes here, Zwebner’s litigation methods, through his lawyer John H. Faro, are questionable. He’s filed five lawsuits in federal court in Miami, against anonymous posters, against Lycos (for, among other things, “trademark violations” for naming a message board after the ticker symbol UCSY), and even a couple of purported class actions. He’s especially upset at one anonymous poster, who has the especially credible username of Wolfblitzzer0 [sic]. So, Zwebner has sued… CNN and the real-life Wolf Blitzer! It seems, according to Zwebner’s view of the world, that Blitzer is supposed to be on the lookout for anonymous posters using similar names, and should be held liable for such posters’ postings when he fails to police the use of such usernames. (Jessica M. Walker, “Executive Faces Uphill Battle in His Suits Over Anonymous Web Attacks”, Daily Business Review, Jan. 28).
A Google search shows that Zwebner seems to have had previous success intimidating posters into silence. Update: Professor Volokh comments.
Rasheed Wallace sued
Portland, Oregon, tattooist Matthew Reed doesn’t quite want an arm and a leg in his lawsuit against Rasheed Wallace, but he’s close. Reed is upset that the large Egyptian tattoo he gave Wallace in 1998 for $450 is being used in Nike advertising, and wants an injunction and damages for alleged copyright infringement. (Ashbel S. Green, “Ink is dry on tattoo but fresh on lawsuit”, The Oregonian, Feb. 15; AP/Det. News, Feb. 16 (with photo)).
My law firm has represented Nike in other litigation.
Light posting; Mencimer reply
I’ve been mostly out of commission owing to one of the bugs that’s been going around, so although there are a lot of great items in the pipeline, I expect they’ll have to wait a bit. Ted will be posting, though.
In the mean time, for readers who followed Stuart Taylor’s refutation (posted here Jan. 19, with comment) of Stephanie Mencimer’s tendentious Washington Monthly article of last October, the Washington Monthly has at length notified its online readers of Taylor’s response, and posted a (to me, very lame) defense by Mencimer of her article (Feb. 15).
Edward Fagan’s tsunami lawsuit
Nineteen German and Austrian tourists are filing a lawsuit against the government of Thailand and the French hotel chain Accor over the Indian Ocean tsunami. Naturally, the lawsuit has been filed in New York. Another defendant is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; plaintiffs complain that NOAA’s Pacific Tsunami Warning System failed to issue a warning for a tsunami in a completely different ocean. (Aside from the fact that NOAA owes no duty to vacationing Germans in Thailand, NOAA did try to notify other countries of the tsunami potential of the earthquake.) The suits against NOAA and Thailand in a US court are frivolous in the narrowest sense of the word, and will likely be quickly dismissed; Accor will probably have to spend some time and money if it can’t get out on jurisdictional grounds. Edward Fagan (Feb. 5, Aug. 13, Apr. 2, Aug. 8, 2003 and links therein) is the attorney; press coverage uncritically repeats the claim that he is “best known for filing lawsuits seeking reparations for Holocaust victims,” a self-promotion others disagree with. (Jean-Michel Stoullig, AFP/Wash. Times, Feb. 15; cf. also AP, Feb. 13; hat tip to reader D.C.). I’m curious: does Fagan sue his local news weather department if he gets wet because of an unanticipated rainstorm?
At least Fagan isn’t claiming that his lawsuit will stop tsunamis. This site does make that claim for its “lawsuit”; it’s possible that it’s a tongue-in-cheek art project, but the smart money is betting that it’s the work of a full-fledged self-parodying moonbat. It’s not clear if there’s an actual lawsuit; lawsuits by the deranged tend to be more entertaining than socially problematic, except for district court judges unfortunate enough to be in the Ninth Circuit.
Georgia: Watch what you say on the phone
A Georgia prosecutor is arguing to the state supreme court that the state has the right to regulate and prosecute “lascivious” talk on the telephone–even between spouses. The justices seem appropriately skeptical. (Jonathan Ringel, “No X-Rated Phone Talk, Justice Told, Not Even on Valentine’s Day”, Fulton County Daily Report, Feb. 16).
Lawyer spends $1M advertising for one massive case
If yours isn’t worth a cool billion, Mr. Snyder of Baltimore doesn’t want to hear from you. We’ve come a long way from the taxi-hire model of lawyer service to the public, that’s for sure. (Jonathan D. Glater, “Advertising: Lawyer Spends a Million Dollars in Quest for a Verdict”, New York Times, Feb. 15). More: Feb. 20.
Latest newsletter
The latest installment of our free periodic newsletter went out this afternoon to its c. 2300 subscribers, covering the last two or three weeks’ worth of postings in cryptic, occasionally droll style. It’s a great way to keep up with items you may have missed; when you’re finished, pass on the email to let a friend know about the site. Sign up today, right here.
McDonald’s settles trans fat claim
The fast-food chain has agreed to settle charges arising from its having missed a self-announced deadline for reducing the use of trans fats in its cooking oil. It will pay $7 million to the American Heart Association for an educational campaign, $1.5 million to publicize its future progress in the quest for better fats, and unspecified attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs. The “chain said it had issued a news release in February 2003 saying its plans had been delayed,” but Stephen Joseph, a San Francisco attorney who runs a pressure group called BanTransFats.com, sued contending that the restaurant chain did not adequately publicize the setback. (Joe Garofali, “$7 million for suit on trans fats”, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 12). For attorney Joseph’s earlier suit demanding unsuccessfully that the sale of Oreo cookies to kids be banned, see May 13, 2003.
Foodmakers say the use of trans fats is the only practicable way left to avoid the prospect of limp and off-flavored French fries and donuts, in part because earlier campaigns succeeded in demonizing butter, animal and tropical fats, though some of those fats are now considered less harmful than their replacements. Many nutritionists
had made their careers telling people to eat margarine instead of butter,” said Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health and one of a handful of medical researchers who have led the fight against trans fat. “When I was a physician in the 1980’s, that’s what I was telling people to do and unfortunately we were often sending them to their graves prematurely.”
That certainly inspires confidence in the idea of giving nutritionists access to the coercive machinery of government to enforce their recommendations, doesn’t it? (Kim Severson and Melanie Warner, “Fat Substitute Is Pushed Out of the Kitchen”, New York Times, Feb. 13).
Town won’t accept racy calendar proceeds
Since the 1999 sensation over England’s “Ladies of Rylstone”, the fad has spread around the world of charity fundraising calendars displaying the unclothed (but strategically obscured) bodies of middle-aged and elderly townspeople. In Carmel, Calif., however, the city is refusing to accept $40,000 in proceeds from the Carmel Fire Belles calendar, which features local women aged 51 to 84 posing behind firefighting equipment. City attorney Donald Freeman “said that under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, accepting the money could make the city liable for a sexual-harassment lawsuit. He says the city has already received numerous complaints from city workers.” An outside law firm offered the same opinion, Freeman said. (Nicholas Shields, “Fearing Lawsuits Because of Birthday Suits, City Shuns a Gift”, Feb. 7).