Bill Bickel’s Crimeweek

An Arkansas couple is suing McDonald’s for $3 million after the husband left his cell phone – containing nude photos of his wife – in one of their restaurants. He called the restaurant manager and was assured the phone would be held for him until he could come and get it, later to discover that the photos had been posted (along with the couple’s names, address and phone number) on the Internet.

The wife began receiving offensive phone calls and text messages, and the couple eventually had to move. The lawsuit claims they suffered emotional distress, embarrassment and damage to their reputations, and they also contend that McDonald’s should pay for their moving expenses.

Every newspaper account I’ve seen includes the couple’s full names and town. I’m of two minds about this: On one hand, this moves their embarrassment to a national level. On the other hand, they made the decision to sue McDonald’s over a situation for which they were primarily at fault, and that’s what made teh story newsworthy.

The photos were removed from the web site but, because of the nature of the Internet, they have already spread to countless other sites and will likely remain available forever.

A Nebraska judge has throw out State Senator Ernie Chambers’s lawsuit against God. Chambers had sought a permanent injunction against Him, charging that God had made terroristic threats against his constituents, as well a causing “widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants.”

The judge’s grounds for throwing out the suit: God wasn’t properly served because of His unlisted address.

Chambers sees ground for appeal, though: “The court itself acknowledges the existence of God. A consequence of that acknowledgment is a recognition of God’s omniscience.” Therefore, “God knows everything. God has notice of this lawsuit.”

How’s this for an alternate idea – the rest of us file a lawsuit against Senator Chambers an everybody else who wastes the court’s time and taxpayers’ money filing ridiculous lawsuits?

At a hearing today, Judge Roger Beauchesne set a May 27, 2009 date for the civil lawsuit against Scott Peterson for the wrongful death of his wife Laci, brought by Laci’s biological parents (a distinction worth mentioning because Dennis Rocha apparently was a minor paternal figure in her life at best; that role was filled by Ron Grantski, though he and Laci’s mother Sharon are not married). The trial is expected to take about 5 weeks.

When the lawsuit was originally filed, the Rochas were asking for $25 million. The amount they’re asking for now is undisclosed, but their attorney has said Scott Peterson can settle the lawsuit by admitting his guilt and agreeing to a payment of $10 million.

This is hardly likely, especially since Peterson has no money anyway: ten million, twenty-five million, it’s pretty much all the same to him. The Rochas admit that the lawsuit is largely symbolic, mostly to make sure Peterson never sells his story.

Though this is something anybody is likely to confirm, I would imagine that the Rochas’ attorney is being paid an hourly rate: There doesn’t seem to be much profit in earning one-third of a symbolic award.

“Playing blackjack, roulette or the slots bears no likeness to dumping toxic waste… She spent money on the bona fide chance that she might win more money. In short, she gambled.” U.S. District Court Judge Renee Bumb, in a ruling issued Friday, dismissing Arelia Taveras’s $20 million lawsuit against seven casinos (six in Atlantic City and one in Las Vegas)

Taveras, at the time a New York attorney, lost almost one million dollars over a two-year period and claimed that gambling is a “hazardous endeavor worthy of special protections” and that the casinos, aware of her obsessive gambling, had a duty to stop her.

Teveras had “borrowed” from her clients’ escrow accounts to help support her gambling habit, for which she was disbarred last year and still faces criminal charges.

Teveras plans to appeal Friday’s ruling: Like her fellow litigious officer of the court, former judge Roy Pearson of the $54 million lost-pants lawsuit, she might as well keep fighting, because she has little left to lose.

• Casinos Had a Duty to Take Care of Me: Previous update

Remember last year’s blatant abuse of the legal system — sorry, I mean “lawsuit — when Washinton DC administrative court judge Roy Pearson sought $54 million from a dry cleaning shop because they’d allegedly lost a pair of his pants and then compounded the offense by violating the promise of their “satisfaction guaranteed” sign (which Pearson interpreted to mean they should have paid to replace his pants even if they hadn’t lost them, because that’s what would have satisfied their customer)?

A judge ruled against Pearson in June of 2007 and ordered Pearson to pay the shop owners’ expenses.  But now an appellate court has agreed to hear Pearson’s appeal.

This doesn’t mean the original judgment is going to be thrown out: only that the case isn’t over yet and the appellate court considers Pearson’s appeal to have sufficient merit to at least be considered.

Following last year’s decision, by the way, D.C. Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges voted not to renew his contract, citing his lack of “judicial temperament.” Pearson is suing the city for $1 million (for lost wages and punitive damages) and his job back, claiming he’d been fired for exposing corruption in the Office of Administrative Hearings and that the city had used his infamous lawsuit as an excuse to get rid of him.

Earlier this summer, Atlantic City’s Borgata Casino settled a lawsuit brought by the “Borgata Babes,” the women whose job is is to dress in skimpy costumes and serve drinks to gamblers (in order to keep them on the gambling floor longer; and, if the drinks impair the gamblers’ judgment a bit, well, the casinos are okay with that as well). The babes had complained about such issues as the sexist nature of their costumes and the fact that they could be fired of they gained more than 7% of their weight when hired.Details of the settlement were not announced.Now personally, this is a lawsuit I don’t understand: What exactly do the “Babes” think they were hired for in the first place? While many of them might indeed have earned PhD’s, the PhD is not a job requirement. Look good and don’t spill the drinks. That’s really about it, and there’s never been any pretense to the contrary.

The women don’t disagree that the tips they earn are generally well above what they’d earn in any similar job.

If the whole set-up is unfair to anybody, it’s to the more minimally-endowed women who would be denied the job in the first place. Older women. Unattractive women. Men.

Before anybody decides I’m being sexist here, let me point out I also believe that when Derek Jeter can no longer hit a major league curveball (a far rarer skill than the ability to look good in a Borgata Babes outfit — but in the greater scheme of things, of no more vital importance to the universe), the Yankees should have no obligation to renew his contract.

You’re hired to do one thing, and you knew that coming in: Do it, or be prepared to move on.

• The Borgata Babes calendar (possibly Not Safe For Work)

In a July 18 decision made public yesterday, a Greek court threw out a lawsuit by three residents of the Greek Island of Lesbos, seeking to ban the Gay and Lesbian Union of Greece from using the term “Lesbian.”

(”Lesbian” in its “Gay and –” context comes from the fact that Sappho, the ancient Greek writer of love poetry, is thought to have been on Lesbos)

The Lesbian plaintiffs were ordered to pay court costs of 230 euros ($366.20).

Maybe the lesson here is to be careful what you wish for, even in church:

Matt Lincoln was praying in Knoxville, Tennessee’s Lakewind Church when he asked God for “a real experience.” He was, again in his own words, “consumed by the spirit of God,” fell, and hit his head. He laughed off the mishap at the time, but later underwent two surgeries for his injuries and is suing Lakewind Church for $2.5 million for medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering.

Judge Roger Beauchesne has postponed Scott Peterson’s wrongful death trial, scheduled to begin July 8, following a motion filed Friday seeking the delay (it’s not immediately clear whether the motion was filed by the plaintiffs or the defense). A hearing has been scheduled for July 21 to discuss a new date.

---

June 6: The civil lawsuit against Scott Peterson for the wrongful death of his wife Laci, brought by Laci’s biological parents (a distinction worth mentioning because Dennis Rocha apparently was a minor paternal figure in her life at best; that role was filled by Ron Grantski, though he and Laci’s mother Sharon are not married), is scheduled to get underway on July 8. Today, Judge Roger Beauchesne heard and turned down the Rochas’ attorney’s argument that since Scott Peterson was already found guilty in criminal court (he’s been sentenced to death, but the verdict is being appealed), they shouldn’t have to prove his guilt in the civil trial. Because of the judge’s ruling, the trial is expected to take about 5 weeks.When the lawsuit was originally filed, the Rochas were asking for $25 million. The amount they’re asking for now is undisclosed, but their attorney has said Scott Peterson can settle the lawsuit by admitting his guilt and agreeing to a payment of $10 million.

This is hardly likely, especially since Peterson has no money anyway: ten million, twenty-five million, it’s pretty much all the same to him. The Rochas admit that the lawsuit is largely symbolic, mostly to make sure Peterson never sells his story.

Though this is something anybody is likely to confirm, I would imagine that the Rochas’ attorney is being paid an hourly rate: There doesn’t seem to be much profit in earning one-third of a symbolic award.

In South Carolina Yesterday (June 19), Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a federal lawsuit (on behalf of two Christian pastors, a humanist pastor and a rabbi) to prevent the stat’s Department of Motor Vehicles from issuing “I BELIEVE” license plates (featuring a crucifix against the background of a stained glass window) on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment.

Rhetoric runs high: a Methodist pastor said, “this license plate is really divisive and creates… religious discord.” South Carolina House Speaker Bobby Harrell said opposition to the plate “has less to do with the First Amendment and more to do with their disdain for religion generally.”

Because, you know, disdain for religion is what you’d expect from pastors and rabbis.

In principle, I’d side with the pro-plate people: after all, here are thousand of special-interest plates out there, showing support for disease research, alma maters, square dancing, identifying the driver as a Newark, New Jersey firefighter, and apparently nobody’s rights have been seriously violated.

But here’s the thing: The AUSCS has no objection to the license plate per se, only the fact that it was proposed by the Legislature. Under South Carolina law, any private group can have a specialty plate made up as long as they can either guarantee 400 prepaid orders or raise a $4,000 deposit (which will be returned once the state has sold enough plates to cover its expenses).

So are the legislative advocates for the plate stepping aside, letting the private sector (perhaps, I don’t know, maybe churches?) sponsor it, to save the state well more than $4,000 in legal bills? Apparently not, because this is a matter of principle. Or election-year political pandering, whatever.

This is taking place in Canada – specifically Ontario – but it could just as easily be happening in the United States: Thousands of gamblers have filed a $3.5 billion class action lawsuit against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, charging that they weren’t barred from entering casinos despite having signed up for the province’s “self-exclusion” program.

Under this program, which exists in a number of American states and Canadian provinces, problem gamblers agree to be banned from casinos for either a period of a year or several years or for life — placing on file their names, addresses, photos and other identifying information – and can actually be arrested for criminal trespass if they try to enter.

The only problem with this lawsuit is that the program puts restrictions on the gamblers and sets out penalties for their non-compliance; but while the casinos “must” refuse to allow them to enter, they suffer no consequences if they fail to do so.

Seriously, would you expect anything different from organizations whose raison d’etre is assuring that in the end, the house always wins?

But wait, it gets better: This is taken verbatim from Pennsylvania’s self-exclusion application, which is typical: “If you gamble while on the self-exclusion list, you may not collect in any manner or in any proceeding any winnings or recover any losses arising as a result of any gaming activity.” In other words, you can lose but you can’t win.

In a Greek courtroom today, attorneys for three citizens of the island of Lesbos and for the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece submitted written arguments in for former’s lawsuit against the latter, demanding that they change their organization’s name insults them by equating in the public’s mind their home island with homosexuality. The Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece, for it’s part, branded the lawsuit “an aggressive act against gay women.”

A decision is expected around the end of the year.

The civil lawsuit against Scott Peterson for the wrongful death of his wife Laci, brought by Laci’s biological parents (a distinction worth mentioning because Dennis Rocha apparently was a minor paternal figure in her life at best; that role was filled by Ron Grantski, though he and Laci’s mother Sharon are not married), is scheduled to get underway on July 8.

Today, Judge Roger Beauchesne heard and turned down the Rochas’ attorney’s argument that since Scott Peterson was already found guilty in criminal court (he’s been sentenced to death, but the verdict is being appealed), they shouldn’t have to prove his guilt in the civil trial. Because of the judge’s ruling, the trial is expected to take about 5 weeks.

When the lawsuit was originally filed, the Rochas were asking for $25 million. The amount they’re asking for now is undisclosed, but their attorney has said Scott Peterson can settle the lawsuit by admitting his guilt and agreeing to a payment of $10 million.

This is hardly likely, especially since Peterson has no money anyway: ten million, twenty-five million, it’s pretty much all the same to him. The Rochas admit that the lawsuit is largely symbolic, mostly to make sure Peterson never sells his story.

Though this is something anybody is likely to confirm, I would imagine that the Rochas’ attorney is being paid an hourly rate: There doesn’t seem to be much profit in earning one-third of a symbolic award.

A judge today turned down a motion by Jeffrey Borer, the owner of (the now-defunct) XtraJet Inc. for a new trial. In March, attorney Mark Geragos was awarded $18 million because Borer and an associate videotaped Geragos and his client Michael Jackson during a 2003 chartered flight, with the intent of selling the tape to the media.

Borer’s attorneys claimed that the recording didn’t compromise attorney-client privilege because the sound recording didn’t work — but Geragos had claimed that the fact of the recording itself had cause him harm (see earlier article, below).

Borer plans to appeal the verdict.

---

March 7, 2008: November of 2003 wasn’t the start of a good year for high-profile attorney Mark Geragos — he was representing both Michael Jackson on child molestation charges and Scott Peterson on murder charges, but was subsequently fired by Jackson for not spending enough time on his case and oversaw Peterson’s murder conviction and death sentence — but he’s about to receive a huge payoff:Prior to a November 20, 2003 flight by Geragos, an associate and Jackson, Jeffrey Borer, owner of XTraJet, Inc., ordered video cameras installed in the plane, intending to sell recordings of attorneys and client discussing the case to the highest bidder. This past Friday a judge awarded Geragos $18 million (and his associate Pat Harris $2 million).

Geragos and Harris had claimed that the surveillance, in addition to being an invasion of privacy, made them “the butt of jokes in the media” and was part of the reason Jackson fired Geragos five months later.

In Greece, three natives of the island of Lesbos are suing to force the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece to change their name, claiming it “insults the identity” of the island’s population, also called “Lesbians.”

A spokesperson for the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece calls the suit “a joke in bad taste that borders on discrimination,” though one of the plaintiffs points out that the “lesbian” designation for female homosexuals has only been used for several decades, while “we have been Lesbians for thousands of years.”

Remember Roy Pearson, the administrative court judge who last year sued a Washington, DC dry cleaners for $67 million after they allegedly lost a pair of his pants (if not, scroll down for a reprint of an earlier article)? Pearson lost the case, the dry cleaner filed a motion against him to recover $83,000 in legal fees (later dropped after donations covered the expense), and the D.C. Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges voted not to renew his contract, citing his lack of “judicial temperament.”

Now he’s suing the city: He wants $1 million (for lost wages and punitive damages) and his job back, claiming he’d been fired for exposing corruption in the Office of Administrative Hearings and that the city had used his infamous lawsuit as an excuse to get rid of him. (more…)

Two men are seeking a restraining order against the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN), the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, to keep CERN from activating their $8 billion Large Hadron Collider this summer. The Collider will collide protons, recreating conditions existing a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.

Walter Wagner (an attorney with a physics background) and Luis Sancho (an author and researcher “on time theory”) claim that CERN scientists have not adequately considered the possibility that this experiment could create a black hole capable of destroying the Earth. Possibly the entire universe.

While CERN wouldn’t be bound by any restraining order — the suit was filed with the US. District Court, and CERN is based in Switzerland — the project couldn’t continue without the support of the American co-defendants. A scheduling meeting has been scheduled for June 16.

Even Wagner and Sancho don’t believe this ultimate doomsday scenario is likely — but they want more studies done before the Collider is activated.

And we all know what happens when scientists foolishly refuse to heed warnings not to experiment with new life forms, build power plants fueled by untested forms of energy, or put SkyNet online.

The inevitable other shoe has dropped: Ellen “Treffly” Coyne is suing the police officers who arrested her for child endangerment, claiming false arrest and malicious prosecution. (more…)

A New Jersey state appellate court ruled today that the owners of bars and restaurants (with liquor licenses) can be held accountable for drunk driving accidents caused by their patrons even if their establishments didn’t serve them any drinks, saying that the owners and employees of a bar or restaurant have “a duty to protect [an intoxicated customer] from foreseeable injury” by assuring that he doesn’t drive or ride as a passenger with a similarly intoxicated customer.” It was unclear what said owner or employee can actually, physically do to discharge this duty.

The ruling reinstates a lawsuit (previously dismissed by a trial judge) by the family of James A. Hanby, who was killed in an automobile accident in September of 2003 (Frederick Nesbitt III, who was driving, survived the accident and is serving a 5-year prison term for vehicular homicide). Their attorneys contend that the C View Inn, in Cape May, had “an obligation, when they see obvious intoxication, to do something.”

Hambly might or might not have been legally drunk, but Nesbitt’s blood alcohol limit was .199 (the legal limit in New Jersey is currently .08 but before 2004, it was .10, still placing Nesbitt at almost twice the limit).

The C View Inn might appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

Arelia Margarita Taveras is suing seven casinos – six in Atlantic City and one in Las Vegas – for $20 million, claiming they had an obligation to notice she had a gambling problem and cut her off: “They knew I was going for days without eating or sleeping… I would pass out at the tables. They had a duty of care to me.”

Taveras was an attorney until she was disbarred (and faces criminal charges) for using almost $100,000 of clients’ money to pay off some of her gambling debts. Her million dollars worth of losses cost her her home and her apartment, and she owes the IRS over $150,000.

According to her suit filed this week in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, she would play 7 hands of blackjack at a time in order to have the table to herself, losing up to $5000 in an hour.

Victoria McArthur, a Michigan woman, is suing candymaker Mars, Inc. because their Starburst Fruit Chews were too chewy: She claims Mars was negligent for not having a notice on the label warning that the candies might be too difficult for denture wearers to handle, and says that after “maybe about 3 chews … it literally locked my jaw … and it just literally pulled my jaw out of joint.” She wants $25,000 to compensate her for permanent damage to her jaw, difficulty sleeping, humiliation, and mental anguish.

November of 2003 wasn’t the start of a good year for high-profile attorney Mark Geragos — he was representing both Michael Jackson on child molestation charges and Scott Peterson on murder charges, but was subsequently fired by Jackson for not spending enough time on his case and oversaw Peterson’s murder conviction and death sentence — but he’s about to receive a huge payoff:

Prior to a November 20, 2003 flight by Geragos, an associate and Jackson, Jeffrey Borer, owner of XTraJet, Inc., ordered video cameras installed in the plane, intending to sell recordings of attorneys and client discussing the case to the highest bidder. This past Friday a judge awarded Geragos $18 million (and his associate Pat Harris $2 million).

Geragos and Harris had claimed that the surveillance, in addition to being an invasion of privacy, made them “the butt of jokes in the media” and was part of the reason Jackson fired Geragos five months later.

• external article

Last Tuesday (February 19), an attorney representing Jessica Lunsford’s father filed a pre-suit notice that Mark Lunsford would be suing Citrus County, Florida, where in 2005 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford was abducted and murdered. John Couey, a registered sex offender with about two dozen previous arrests, was convicted of the crimes and is now on Florida’s Death Row.

Lunford will allege that Sheriffs Office negligence “directly and indirectly led to the death of Jessica Lunsford.”

Details about the lawsuit are expected to be revealed in a press conference tomorrow (February 26), but the likely grounds are that the county didn’t do an adequate job of monitoring Couey, and that police didn’t completely search Couey’s home when they first questioned him. Couey claimed, after his arrest, “If deputies would have come in, they could have caught her in my closet.”

Jessica was subsequently buried alive, so of course she would have been alive during this questioning.

Jessica’s death led to a number of new laws in Florida and elsewhere relating to child safety and restrictions on registered sex offenders, including a Florida law mandating that registered sex offenders have their status prominently printed on their driver’s licenses (see related story).

Some quick fallout from last week’s announcement: Local police withdrew their plan to offer an escort for this past Saturday’s Jessica Lunsford Foundation’s “Jessie’ Ride” fundraiser.

---

Update: “The truth is Jessica did not have to die. She could have been saved” - Lawyer Mark Gelman, attorney for Mark Lunsford

In a Fox News interview today, Lundsford’s attorneys confirmed that the focus of the lawsuit will be that Couey had held Jessica for between three and six days before killing her, and that police missed several opportunities to find her alive.

When interviewed for an article that appeared in Scotland’s Daily Record December 23, actor Will Smith said, “Even Hitler didn’t wake up going, ‘let me do the most evil thing I can do today.’ I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good.’ ”

The reporter saw fit to precede this quote with “Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good” and the accompanying headline, Smith: Hitler Was a Good Person, was reprinted around the world.

Not one of journalism’s finest moments to be sure, and the other newspapers and media outlets that picked up the story based on the headline — without examining it critically — didn’t do themselves very proud either.

The Record apologized almost immediately, but Smith filed a civil lawsuit that was settled today for an undisclosed amount of money (which Smith says he will donate to charity).