Lord Draegon
Awoken
Gambler Says Casinos Allowed Him to Lose a Million While Drunk.
A California man is suing the Las Vegas Hilton and Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino, claiming the casinos were negligent in allowing him to gamble away more than $1 million while he was intoxicated.
According to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, executives of the Las Vegas Hilton and Mandalay Bay supposedly knew Stephen Roel was drunk as a skunk and yet extended him hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit anyway.
Roel claims in his suit that he had been a customer of the Hilton for more than 15 years in September 1999 when he made arrangements for a weekend at the casino.
Among other odds and ends, the lawsuit states the following:
In exchange for his gambling at the casino, Hilton executives agreed to pay for his roundtrip flight from San Diego, his lodging, food and beverages,
Roel, who was known to be a skilled and knowledgeable player, had a $50,000 credit line at the casino, which he rarely went over,
However, on the weekend of Sept. 29-30, Roel was drinking heavily and betting "irrationally and erratically" from the time he walked in the door with $117,000 and dumped it all on a blackjack table,
Despite the fact that executives should have known or knew Roel was drunk, they extended him a credit line of about $840,000, and finally (big surprise),
Hilton executives' behavior violated their own policy and the regulations of the Nevada Gaming Commission.
According to the lawsuit, someone affliated with Mandalay Bay arranged for Roel to stay at that hotel-casino the same weekend. Once he was there, executives extended him a line of credit despite knowing he was drunk. That credit line was for more than $100,000, the lawsuit states.
Mandalay Bay executives continued to extend Roel credit after his wife and sister flew in and asked them not to accept his bets, extend his credit line or serve him drinks, the lawsuit states.
Roel, who entered a treatment center since that weekend, is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, recovery of the money he bet that weekend and forgiveness of the debts. He also wants the Hilton and the Mandalay Bay to be precluded from seeking criminal prosecution and from reporting him to TRW.
Come on, Stephen, did you also stumble into the casino? And if you would have won a million dollars in your drunken stupor, would you have given it back? Fat chance.
Can You Copyright a Toilet Flush?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I had heard it all. Or I guess it's what I DIDN'T hear. Some news from the British music industry may have some copyright lawyers wringing their hands and cackling with glee.
Apparently, silence can be copyrighted.
I'll bet you're gaping, open-mouthed in stunned silence, as you read this. Yes, silence can be copyrighted. And by gaping silently at these words, you're violating that copyright right now.
Okay, that last part isn't true. But creating a silent track on your own CD can actually land you in some legal hot water, as Mike Batt, former member of the UK band The Wombles, is finding out. He's facing a potential lawsuit for copying silence from avant-garde composer John Cage ("avant-garde,"from the French meaning "No one cares except a bunch of black turtle-neck-wearing-ramble-on-about-existentialism coffee house barflies.")
According to the London Independent (official motto: "You're Not the Boss of Me!"), Batt received a letter from the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society, the British organization charged with collecting royalties for composers and publishers.
The MCPS sent him a standard license form for his Postmodern composition, "A One Minute Silence," because he listed Cage as a composer, and supposedly demanded royalty payments for his own 60 seconds of non-sound.
"Postmodern" is German for "avant-garde."
The MCPS claims Batt used a quotation from Cage's piece "4 minutes, 33 seconds," a composition composed entirely of four minutes and 33 seconds of dead silence. Cage, being the clever avant-garde artist, named the piece to match it's length. It should have been titled "Truly Pointless and Stupid" so it could have matched the concept instead.
But Batt says this isn't true. "My silence is original silence," he told the Independent, "not a quotation from his silence." And as he said in a National Public Radio interview this week, the composition is also original, ". . . because it's digital."
Oh well, if it's digital, then what's all the fuss?
The problem started when Batt gave credit to "Batt/Cage" on the composition (he said he did it "for a laugh"). But according to Andante Magazine, Gene Caprioglio, a representative of Cage's American publisher, says that Batt listed Cage on the credits for "obvious reasons. . . to evoke Cage's provocative 1952 composition."
Provocative? What's so provocative about four minutes and 33 seconds of dead silence? The song would be provocative if it were a cover version of "Inna Gadda Davida" played on a xylophone made of herring tins, but just because it's as silent as a church on Monday morning doesn't make it provocative. It makes it BORING!
But Caprioglio was steadfast. "If Mr. Batt wants to produce a minute of silence under his own name, we would obviously have no right to the royalties."
Cage, obviously having some sort of genius' foresight that his "masterpiece" would possibly be copied by musical ne'er-do-wells, left strict instructions that allowed "4:33" to actually be any length. However, there was no word as to whether the title of the song would change as well, to say, "2:18," "17:00," or "Dear Lord, Will This Thing Never End?!"
Cage's publishers, in an allegedly greedy attempt to get the thousands of pennies earned from Batt's composition, are arguing that Batt actually copied "4:33," but since his song was 3:33 shorter, he only copied part of it.
"As my mother said when I told her, 'which part of the silence are they claiming you nicked?'" Batt told the Independent.
What about those little 4 second gaps between songs on CDs? Who owns the copyrights to those? Does Cage, since he wrote the original recorded silence? But would Batt have a shot at them, since he was the first one to record silence digitally, and CDs are a digital medium? And since they're only 12% as long as Cage's original "masterpiece," will the royalties be prorated?
One could conceivably argue that silence existed long before there was life on this planet, and therefore silence is actually public domain, just like "Happy Birthday."
But that's not all. This silence controversy came just a few months after Jamie Kellner, chairman and CEO of Turner Network, said that when we don't watch TV commercials, we're committing theft.
There's that open-mouthed gape again. Let me explain.
In an April 29 interview in Cable World, Kellner railed against TiVo, fast forward buttons on VCR remotes, and flipping through the stations for three minutes. If you use any of these devices or tricks to avoid television commercials, he says, you're committing theft.
"Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. . . (a)nytime you skip a commercial or watch the button, you're actually stealing the programming," Kellner told interviewer Stacy Kramer, without explaining what he meant by "watch the button."
"What if you have to go the bathroom or get up to get a Coke?" Kramer asked.
Kellner responded: "I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom."
Gee, thanks Jamie. I'm glad you have "a certain amount of tolerance" for me not peeing on my couch as I watch your network.
And since when do I have a contractual obligation with the network? If I'm contractually obligated to watch commercials, aren't they contractually obligated not to broadcast a load of crap? (Please make your own jokes about network programming and bathroom breaks.)
I'd be interested in watching the commercials if they weren't the only things worse than the actual shows. I mean, who wants to watch Steve Urkel on old "Family Matters" reruns, or every single Atlanta Braves game? And don't give me that nonsense about everyone having different tastes, and trying to meet the programming tastes of different viewers.
Why is it that you can't meet my programming tastes, but I have to sit through "Can you hear me now? Good!" The whole thing is enough to make me go Elvis Presley on my TV and shoot it. But I'm sure Kellner will have some reason why I can't, like it violates his Constitutional rights to make me watch commercials for feminine freshness products.
But this gives me an idea for a song I call "3:57." I'll do an extended coverremix of Mike Batt's "A One Minute Silence" interspersed with the "Can You Hear Me Now?" phrase every nine seconds. I'll call it "Avant-Garde People Are Morons For Buying This CD."
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go violate my contract with network television. But I'll make sure I don't violate John Cage's copyrights when I do.
Erik Deckers
Laughing Stalk Syndicate
Copyright 2002
Give him an A+ for effort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A high school senior says he earned an A+, not an A, and has sued to get the grade changed to bolster his chance at becoming valedictorian.
Brian Delekta, who finished 11th grade in 2002 as the top ranking student in his class, says he should have received an A+ for a work experience class in which he worked as a paralegal for his mother, Diane Delekta, in her Memphis law office.
Memphis schools recognize an A+ grade, but the county program in which Brian was enrolled recognizes an A as the highest grade.
Mrs. Delekta, who is representing her son in the lawsuit, argued Brian likely would be class valedictorian of his class if he received the A+ and ranked No. 2 or No. 3 if he received the A.
The lawsuit names the school principal, superintendent and all seven school board members as defendants. It ased to have the grade changed and to have class rankings blocked until the case is settled.
A St. Clair County judge denied the request and Brian was named salutatorian of his class.
But maybe Brian should have received the a+ grade he was seeking. After all, he certainly learned how to sue people.
The Times Herald, February 13, 2003, "Memphis releases student rankings," CBSNews.com, The Odd Truth, Feb. 6, 2003.
Haunted House Too Scary?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO - A woman suing Universal Studios contends the theme park operator´s annual Halloween Horror Nights haunted house attraction was too scary and caused her emotional distress.
The lawsuit, brought by Cleanthi Peters, 57, also seeks compensation for injuries she says she suffered when she visited the haunted house with her 10-year-old granddaughter in 1998.
Peters is seeking $15,000 in damages for extreme fear, emotional distress and mental anguish.
Would You Like Fries With That Lawsuit?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you may or may not know, a maintenance man from the Bronx named Caesar Barber claims fast-food chains are to blame for his obesity and health problems because their advertising made him think their food was good for him.
Barber, a 56 year old man tipping the scales at a svelte 272 pounds (give or take a quarter pounder or two) is now suing a number of fast food giants claiming that their food is to blame for his poor health. And were not talking just any kind of lawsuit, mind you. No, this super sized lawsuit is of the class action variety and specifically targets fast food behemoths McDonalds, Burger King, KFC and Wendys.
As predicted in our highly acclaimed book, Its Time to Wake Up and Smell the Lawyers, it was only a matter of time before Americas slithery lawsuit crazed legal community started trying to get their hands into the deep pockets of America's fast food companies.
This class action whopper of a lawsuit claims, in a nutshell, that the cited companies sell foods that are high in salt, fat, cholesterol content and sugar which ostensibly cause a myriad of health related problems, including: obesity, diabetes, coronary heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, cancers and other detrimental and adverse health effects and diseases. In other words, the fast food companies sell fast foods.
Hey Caesar, KFC is known for 11 herbs and spices, not 11 vitamins and minerals. Come on, you can't go to places where your food is sold by weight (the Quarter Pounder) or price (99-Cent Value Menu) or carries a gut-busting name (the Whopper) and think you're eating right -- or can you?
The overweight gentleman, who has been recruited as the lead plaintiff in this class action litigation shakedown, claims that eating at these the fast food chains caused a myriad of health related maladies, including obesity, diabetes and the two heart attacks he has suffered. He stated that he ate at these fast food restaurants four or five times a week out of necessity - since he was single, wasnt a very good cook, the food was cheap and the service was quick.
His lawyer points out in his allegations that the big four defendants have been irresponsible and deceptive in the posting of the nutritional information about their food. Further (heres where the lawyer and client believe the big bucks will come from), the lawyer claims that these fast food giants have created an addiction in their consumers especially among the poor and the children. These downtrodden sorts just cant help themselves. Sound familiar? It should.
It looks like the plaintiff and his lawyer are taking Burger Kings old jingle of have it your way a bit too far, doesnt it? Come on, for crying out loud, whos really being irresponsible and deceptive here?
Did these members of Big Fast Food force the plaintiff to eat at their restaurants? Of course they didnt. Is that individual, just like the rest of us in America, responsible for what he puts into his mouth? Of course he is. Are quarter pound burgers with cheese, chocolate milkshakes, Big Macs, French fries, a bucket of Colonel Sanders chicken (secret recipe and all) and the like addictive? Of course theyre not.
Maybe you like them and maybe you scarf them down like its going out of style, but addictive? Pu-leeeeeeeze -- get real. But thats precisely the problem with these kind of nonsensical lawsuits. Getting real is not going to make the lawyers rich. And getting rich is the name of the game.
A California man is suing the Las Vegas Hilton and Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino, claiming the casinos were negligent in allowing him to gamble away more than $1 million while he was intoxicated.
According to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, executives of the Las Vegas Hilton and Mandalay Bay supposedly knew Stephen Roel was drunk as a skunk and yet extended him hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit anyway.
Roel claims in his suit that he had been a customer of the Hilton for more than 15 years in September 1999 when he made arrangements for a weekend at the casino.
Among other odds and ends, the lawsuit states the following:
In exchange for his gambling at the casino, Hilton executives agreed to pay for his roundtrip flight from San Diego, his lodging, food and beverages,
Roel, who was known to be a skilled and knowledgeable player, had a $50,000 credit line at the casino, which he rarely went over,
However, on the weekend of Sept. 29-30, Roel was drinking heavily and betting "irrationally and erratically" from the time he walked in the door with $117,000 and dumped it all on a blackjack table,
Despite the fact that executives should have known or knew Roel was drunk, they extended him a credit line of about $840,000, and finally (big surprise),
Hilton executives' behavior violated their own policy and the regulations of the Nevada Gaming Commission.
According to the lawsuit, someone affliated with Mandalay Bay arranged for Roel to stay at that hotel-casino the same weekend. Once he was there, executives extended him a line of credit despite knowing he was drunk. That credit line was for more than $100,000, the lawsuit states.
Mandalay Bay executives continued to extend Roel credit after his wife and sister flew in and asked them not to accept his bets, extend his credit line or serve him drinks, the lawsuit states.
Roel, who entered a treatment center since that weekend, is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, recovery of the money he bet that weekend and forgiveness of the debts. He also wants the Hilton and the Mandalay Bay to be precluded from seeking criminal prosecution and from reporting him to TRW.
Come on, Stephen, did you also stumble into the casino? And if you would have won a million dollars in your drunken stupor, would you have given it back? Fat chance.
Can You Copyright a Toilet Flush?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I had heard it all. Or I guess it's what I DIDN'T hear. Some news from the British music industry may have some copyright lawyers wringing their hands and cackling with glee.
Apparently, silence can be copyrighted.
I'll bet you're gaping, open-mouthed in stunned silence, as you read this. Yes, silence can be copyrighted. And by gaping silently at these words, you're violating that copyright right now.
Okay, that last part isn't true. But creating a silent track on your own CD can actually land you in some legal hot water, as Mike Batt, former member of the UK band The Wombles, is finding out. He's facing a potential lawsuit for copying silence from avant-garde composer John Cage ("avant-garde,"from the French meaning "No one cares except a bunch of black turtle-neck-wearing-ramble-on-about-existentialism coffee house barflies.")
According to the London Independent (official motto: "You're Not the Boss of Me!"), Batt received a letter from the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society, the British organization charged with collecting royalties for composers and publishers.
The MCPS sent him a standard license form for his Postmodern composition, "A One Minute Silence," because he listed Cage as a composer, and supposedly demanded royalty payments for his own 60 seconds of non-sound.
"Postmodern" is German for "avant-garde."
The MCPS claims Batt used a quotation from Cage's piece "4 minutes, 33 seconds," a composition composed entirely of four minutes and 33 seconds of dead silence. Cage, being the clever avant-garde artist, named the piece to match it's length. It should have been titled "Truly Pointless and Stupid" so it could have matched the concept instead.
But Batt says this isn't true. "My silence is original silence," he told the Independent, "not a quotation from his silence." And as he said in a National Public Radio interview this week, the composition is also original, ". . . because it's digital."
Oh well, if it's digital, then what's all the fuss?
The problem started when Batt gave credit to "Batt/Cage" on the composition (he said he did it "for a laugh"). But according to Andante Magazine, Gene Caprioglio, a representative of Cage's American publisher, says that Batt listed Cage on the credits for "obvious reasons. . . to evoke Cage's provocative 1952 composition."
Provocative? What's so provocative about four minutes and 33 seconds of dead silence? The song would be provocative if it were a cover version of "Inna Gadda Davida" played on a xylophone made of herring tins, but just because it's as silent as a church on Monday morning doesn't make it provocative. It makes it BORING!
But Caprioglio was steadfast. "If Mr. Batt wants to produce a minute of silence under his own name, we would obviously have no right to the royalties."
Cage, obviously having some sort of genius' foresight that his "masterpiece" would possibly be copied by musical ne'er-do-wells, left strict instructions that allowed "4:33" to actually be any length. However, there was no word as to whether the title of the song would change as well, to say, "2:18," "17:00," or "Dear Lord, Will This Thing Never End?!"
Cage's publishers, in an allegedly greedy attempt to get the thousands of pennies earned from Batt's composition, are arguing that Batt actually copied "4:33," but since his song was 3:33 shorter, he only copied part of it.
"As my mother said when I told her, 'which part of the silence are they claiming you nicked?'" Batt told the Independent.
What about those little 4 second gaps between songs on CDs? Who owns the copyrights to those? Does Cage, since he wrote the original recorded silence? But would Batt have a shot at them, since he was the first one to record silence digitally, and CDs are a digital medium? And since they're only 12% as long as Cage's original "masterpiece," will the royalties be prorated?
One could conceivably argue that silence existed long before there was life on this planet, and therefore silence is actually public domain, just like "Happy Birthday."
But that's not all. This silence controversy came just a few months after Jamie Kellner, chairman and CEO of Turner Network, said that when we don't watch TV commercials, we're committing theft.
There's that open-mouthed gape again. Let me explain.
In an April 29 interview in Cable World, Kellner railed against TiVo, fast forward buttons on VCR remotes, and flipping through the stations for three minutes. If you use any of these devices or tricks to avoid television commercials, he says, you're committing theft.
"Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. . . (a)nytime you skip a commercial or watch the button, you're actually stealing the programming," Kellner told interviewer Stacy Kramer, without explaining what he meant by "watch the button."
"What if you have to go the bathroom or get up to get a Coke?" Kramer asked.
Kellner responded: "I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom."
Gee, thanks Jamie. I'm glad you have "a certain amount of tolerance" for me not peeing on my couch as I watch your network.
And since when do I have a contractual obligation with the network? If I'm contractually obligated to watch commercials, aren't they contractually obligated not to broadcast a load of crap? (Please make your own jokes about network programming and bathroom breaks.)
I'd be interested in watching the commercials if they weren't the only things worse than the actual shows. I mean, who wants to watch Steve Urkel on old "Family Matters" reruns, or every single Atlanta Braves game? And don't give me that nonsense about everyone having different tastes, and trying to meet the programming tastes of different viewers.
Why is it that you can't meet my programming tastes, but I have to sit through "Can you hear me now? Good!" The whole thing is enough to make me go Elvis Presley on my TV and shoot it. But I'm sure Kellner will have some reason why I can't, like it violates his Constitutional rights to make me watch commercials for feminine freshness products.
But this gives me an idea for a song I call "3:57." I'll do an extended coverremix of Mike Batt's "A One Minute Silence" interspersed with the "Can You Hear Me Now?" phrase every nine seconds. I'll call it "Avant-Garde People Are Morons For Buying This CD."
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go violate my contract with network television. But I'll make sure I don't violate John Cage's copyrights when I do.
Erik Deckers
Laughing Stalk Syndicate
Copyright 2002
Give him an A+ for effort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A high school senior says he earned an A+, not an A, and has sued to get the grade changed to bolster his chance at becoming valedictorian.
Brian Delekta, who finished 11th grade in 2002 as the top ranking student in his class, says he should have received an A+ for a work experience class in which he worked as a paralegal for his mother, Diane Delekta, in her Memphis law office.
Memphis schools recognize an A+ grade, but the county program in which Brian was enrolled recognizes an A as the highest grade.
Mrs. Delekta, who is representing her son in the lawsuit, argued Brian likely would be class valedictorian of his class if he received the A+ and ranked No. 2 or No. 3 if he received the A.
The lawsuit names the school principal, superintendent and all seven school board members as defendants. It ased to have the grade changed and to have class rankings blocked until the case is settled.
A St. Clair County judge denied the request and Brian was named salutatorian of his class.
But maybe Brian should have received the a+ grade he was seeking. After all, he certainly learned how to sue people.
The Times Herald, February 13, 2003, "Memphis releases student rankings," CBSNews.com, The Odd Truth, Feb. 6, 2003.
Haunted House Too Scary?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO - A woman suing Universal Studios contends the theme park operator´s annual Halloween Horror Nights haunted house attraction was too scary and caused her emotional distress.
The lawsuit, brought by Cleanthi Peters, 57, also seeks compensation for injuries she says she suffered when she visited the haunted house with her 10-year-old granddaughter in 1998.
Peters is seeking $15,000 in damages for extreme fear, emotional distress and mental anguish.
Would You Like Fries With That Lawsuit?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you may or may not know, a maintenance man from the Bronx named Caesar Barber claims fast-food chains are to blame for his obesity and health problems because their advertising made him think their food was good for him.
Barber, a 56 year old man tipping the scales at a svelte 272 pounds (give or take a quarter pounder or two) is now suing a number of fast food giants claiming that their food is to blame for his poor health. And were not talking just any kind of lawsuit, mind you. No, this super sized lawsuit is of the class action variety and specifically targets fast food behemoths McDonalds, Burger King, KFC and Wendys.
As predicted in our highly acclaimed book, Its Time to Wake Up and Smell the Lawyers, it was only a matter of time before Americas slithery lawsuit crazed legal community started trying to get their hands into the deep pockets of America's fast food companies.
This class action whopper of a lawsuit claims, in a nutshell, that the cited companies sell foods that are high in salt, fat, cholesterol content and sugar which ostensibly cause a myriad of health related problems, including: obesity, diabetes, coronary heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, cancers and other detrimental and adverse health effects and diseases. In other words, the fast food companies sell fast foods.
Hey Caesar, KFC is known for 11 herbs and spices, not 11 vitamins and minerals. Come on, you can't go to places where your food is sold by weight (the Quarter Pounder) or price (99-Cent Value Menu) or carries a gut-busting name (the Whopper) and think you're eating right -- or can you?
The overweight gentleman, who has been recruited as the lead plaintiff in this class action litigation shakedown, claims that eating at these the fast food chains caused a myriad of health related maladies, including obesity, diabetes and the two heart attacks he has suffered. He stated that he ate at these fast food restaurants four or five times a week out of necessity - since he was single, wasnt a very good cook, the food was cheap and the service was quick.
His lawyer points out in his allegations that the big four defendants have been irresponsible and deceptive in the posting of the nutritional information about their food. Further (heres where the lawyer and client believe the big bucks will come from), the lawyer claims that these fast food giants have created an addiction in their consumers especially among the poor and the children. These downtrodden sorts just cant help themselves. Sound familiar? It should.
It looks like the plaintiff and his lawyer are taking Burger Kings old jingle of have it your way a bit too far, doesnt it? Come on, for crying out loud, whos really being irresponsible and deceptive here?
Did these members of Big Fast Food force the plaintiff to eat at their restaurants? Of course they didnt. Is that individual, just like the rest of us in America, responsible for what he puts into his mouth? Of course he is. Are quarter pound burgers with cheese, chocolate milkshakes, Big Macs, French fries, a bucket of Colonel Sanders chicken (secret recipe and all) and the like addictive? Of course theyre not.
Maybe you like them and maybe you scarf them down like its going out of style, but addictive? Pu-leeeeeeeze -- get real. But thats precisely the problem with these kind of nonsensical lawsuits. Getting real is not going to make the lawyers rich. And getting rich is the name of the game.
American Justice System at work with our tax dollars funding such worthwhile cases.
