Neighbors Sue Over Kid’s Crow Fest Mess

August 18th, 2015. By LucyC

Is it Hitchcockian—or humanitarian—well not quite humanitarian—but it does involve birds. Whatever, no one seems to know—or maybe they just don’t want to commit, publicly. So, a group of residents, neighbors of a family whose 8-year old daughter is “feeding the birds,” is suing on the grounds that the feeding thing is a health hazard, has damaged their properties and is making their lives hell. Well, they aren’t called a murder of crows for nothing… read on.

The neighbors are suing a family called the Manns, who live in a posh neighborhood in Seattle. The saga begins with an innocent feeding experiment by the Mann’s daughter, Gabi, back in 2011. She started feeding crows and pigeons who, in return for food, brought her gifts—beakable bits of refuse collected from the central Seattle neighborhood, according to the Seattle Post Intelligencer. And having paid their rent, so to speak, the birds took up residence on the street in September 2013, apparently.

You can check the gifts out online, because this being the age of the Internet and social media—the story went viral—even the BBC picked it up. And of course, the story’s on Facebook.

Ok, back to the lawsuit. According to the Manns’ neighbors, all this feeding attracts birds in large numbers. Given that what goes in must come out, the large number of birds are contributing a large amount of bird poop, a scene described by attorney Anna Johnsen as reminiscent of “The Birds.”

“No one wants to be trapped living inside an Alfred Hitchcock horror movie,” said Johnsen, who filed the lawsuit in King County Superior Court. “This is a residential neighborhood that was not designed to host a large-scale wildlife feeding operation.” (Seattle PI). Ok—what is considered large scale? While I don’t think there’s a bird count, evidently there are enough birds to cause over $200,000 worth of damage. According to the neighbors, the birds’ droppings have damaged their homes and properties, and the feeding draws rats. This just gets better and better.

Or not. Two neighbors, Matt Ashbach and Christine Yokan, filed the lawsuit in August. Not only are they looking for compensation, they also want a court order preventing the Manns from setting out more than a quarter pound of animal food each day.

Despite apparent efforts by the neighbors to get the Manns to either scale down or stop the feedings, Johnsen said, the feedings escalated. “Large numbers of birds swarm the feeding operation daily, leaving behind dirt, feathers, peanut particles and shells, feces, and urine on the surrounding properties,” the attorney said in court papers. And I thought the ubiquitous Canada Goose was bad.

Adding to their frustrations, the lawsuit reportedly claims that the neighbors went to animal control agencies at every level of government hoping to find someone to intervene, but to no avail. Fifty-one neighbors signed and filed a petition with the city of Seattle, which also failed to prompt action.

The Seattle PI reports that a Public Health – Seattle & King County investigator who visited the Manns’ home, did indeed find bird food that could attract rodents but never witnessed any rats. Health officials sent letters to the family asking them to reduce scattered food at their home. But it seems like that didn’t work so well either. Despite the county health code requiring residents prevent rats and mice from feeding on their properties, the Manns weren’t cited by investigators.

So, it falls to the neighbors’ attorney, who wrote the court stating the Manns “ignored all neighborly requests” to resolve the dispute. Lisa and Gary Mann, Johnsen said, “have refused to engage in any meaningful dialogue regarding the unsanitary conditions they have created in an urban residential environment.”

“My clients went to extraordinary lengths to resolve this issue amicably before filing a lawsuit,” she told the Seattle PI. “We hope for a reasonable and fair resolution for the safety and well-being of the wildlife and humans alike.” Yeah, I’ll bet. After all, selling in that environment could prove a little difficult.

While the neighbors might seem like the bad guys in all this, the facts are that birds can transfer diseases, including salmonella and E. coli. Rats drawn to the bird feed can also carry a host of other pathogens. Remember the bubonic plague? (Well, maybe not).

And there’s the noise. Overall, “The situation has become a public health issue, and constitutes a public nuisance under Washington law,” Johnsen said. “The threat of disease is of particular concern for children, pregnant women, and the elderly.”

How did Hitchcock’s “The Birds” end? I think they won, didn’t they?

Singing “I Shot the Sheriff” not Welcome at Work?

August 12th, 2015. By LucyC

So, what is the appropriate response to “You’re Fired!”? One guess….Come on….Yeah—you got it—“I’m Suing.”

Oh yes indeedy. And why not? After all, who’s to say you’re any crazier than your employer or colleagues—it’s likely all just a misunderstanding anyway. At least that’s Nicole Phillips’ ploy. Phillips was recently let go from a City of New York call center job for behaving, well, just a little oddly.

Fifty-two year old Phillips worked at NYC’s Financial Information Services Agency, for several years, I’m guessing, but was let go in June because her bosses began to fear she may be a danger to her co-workers. Either that or her superiors were suffering from a complete sense of humor failure. Either way, Phillips has lawyered up and the proceedings are underway.

What did she do? Well, the incident that got her fired from her $73,248-a-year job involved her singing, loudly allegedly, that old Bob Marley favorite—“I Shot the Sherriff”. Ok, I can see the humor in that.

Another incident involved her pouring salt all around her desk to “keep the demons down.” (Hey come on, she was working in Financial Services). Apparently Phillips also acted “in a threatening manner toward the deputy director . . . while loudly singing lyrics to herself about ‘shooting the deputy,’ ” according to a letter from her agency. Hmm. If I sat next to her, I’d be bringing in donuts every day.

Her side of the story is that she did nothing wrong—a native Jamaican, she is a born Bob Marley fan. “They play it in the club, on the radio, it’s famous,” Phillips told The New York Post. Well, she’s right. “And the lyrics are exact: ‘I did not shoot the deputy,’” she said. Yeah, jam filled donuts, with sugar on top.

And, she is claiming the salt is also a misunderstanding. Well, yes the intention isn’t immediately apparent. Could it be cultural differences? Or that she really has seen and heard too much?

All these, and likely more, rather odd behaviors are not new, though. Back in 2013 Phillips was ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination by her supervisors. Be interesting to know how that turned out.

So Phillips is suing—she wants her job back—good luck on that one—and back pay—which may be an easier win. According to her lawyer, Joel Field, her psychiatric hearing was untimely (not sure what that means) and the city used outsourced documents for her exam. According to a spokesman for the city Law Department, the lawsuit is under review.

I wonder what tune Phillips will be humming if she wins?

Taylor Swift Sued over Lucky 13 (Sexy Pics Sought!)

August 4th, 2015. By LucyC

This really is crazy—a new level of crazy. Taylor Swift, world famous pop star, is being sued by Robert Kloetzly, the owner of a California fashion chain—for her usage of the phrase “Lucky 13 “ because it also happens to be the name of Kloetzly’s Lucky 13 clothing line.

OK—on first take one would guess that it’s all about publicity. But Kloetzly appears to be ready to go the distance, and ride this out no matter what the cost. To that end, the 25 year old singer was recently bombarded with hundreds of discovery requests by his lawyers, including a request for any promotional videos or photos that show glimpses of her ‘partially visible’ breasts or bottom, the Daily Mail reports. No, I am not making this up.

The logic behind the request, apparently, is that Kloetzly’s lawyers will argue (if they get to court, which is looking quite likely) that the risqué images of Swift constitute evidence in their case—evidence that Swift uses her sex appeal to target a similar audience to his products. Ok, seriously? I’d say that’s a reach. Can you name a female pop star who doesn’t milk the honey for all it’s worth? 

Not surprisingly, Swift’s attorney’s hit back by asking for a protection order from further ‘prejudice and harassment’, stating that they considered this latest move an abuse of the legal process. Well, it’s abuse alright—but of the legal process?

‘[The] Plaintiff has escalated its harassing tactics,’ Swift’s lawyers wrote in court papers, the Daily Mail Online reports.

‘For instance, Plaintiff served a final set of written discovery on Defendants that requested irrelevant material such as … all photographs and videos of you in which your breasts are at least partially visible as well as documents reflecting, evidencing or revealing who took each such photograph and video and where and when.’ The documents make a similar demand for ‘all photographs and videos’ in which Swift’s ‘buttocks are at least partially visible’.

This lawsuit began in May 2014, when Kloetzly reportedly noticed that Swift was selling t-shirts and greetings cards with a shamrock design saying Lucky 13, a reference to her birthday and favorite number. So he sued ( I smell an opportunity) in Orange County, California seeking damages and all of her profits, contending that she had ‘confused’ the marketplace by copying the brand he launched back in 1991. I’m confused, but not for the reasons Kloetzly contends.

It is entirely possible that people may be confused by the duplicate use of the name, but Kloetzly has defined the user group by identifying videos featuring ‘fast cars, and dangerous men who drive inappropriately’, which, he alleges, provide evidence that Swift was aiming her products at the same edgy, tattooed crowd that buy his clothing, jewelry, body spray, car plates and other items.

Swift’s lawyers responded by arguing that her t-shirts were totally different and disputing suggestions the small, little-known clothing company had suffered any injury or losses. Ouch. That had to hurt…

Swift’s legal team is also claiming that Kloetzly’s attorneys have been inundating many of the companies Swift works with, heavy hitters such as Coca Cola, Toyota and Elizabeth Arden, with similarly frivolous requests for documents and information. Betting that’s not going down well.

But back to the request for photos of body parts…according  to Kloetzly’s attorneys, the request for photos of Swift’s buttocks and cleavage was merely to demonstrate she was tapping into the same market as Lucky 13. He added: ‘One of their positions is that the demographics are very different and that the edgy-looking image and the models we use for the Lucky 13 brand are not congruent with Miss Swift’s image.

‘Unfortunately we’re being forced to counter that by showing that in her public appearances she is transitioning towards a more adult, alternative demographic.’ I’m confused.

Well, they’re all headed to court in November, in attempt to sort this out. BUT—Swift’s lawyers have stated that the pop star will not attend or provide evidence. I guess we’ll find out who really is “Lucky.”

Crazy but True: It’s Legal to Listen in on a Pocket Dial

July 28th, 2015. By LucyC

How many times have you answered your phone only to find out that someone has ‘pocket dialed’ you by accident. Suddenly you find yourself privy to a conversation that really is none of your business…but you listen because…heh—you’re human! And you’re wondering the whole time, “could I go to jail for this?” Ok, not really, but you clearly feel like you’re eavesdropping…

Well, the law’s a funny thing, at the risk of stating the obvious. Take the recent case of an executive, one James Huff, who accidentally called his assistant and for the next 90 minutes not only did she listen to the call, she took notes. When Huff found out he sued her but the law ruled in her favor…finding that Huff did know how to prevent this kind of thing from happening and therefore had no expectation of privacy. What? Seriously?

Ok, the backstory, short version—well, shortish—in October 2013, Huff traveled to Bologna, Italy for a work conference along with his wife Bertha, and a colleague. At the time, Huff was chairman of a local board that oversees the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG). At some point on their trip the two men went out onto a hotel balcony to discuss work-related issues and personnel matters. Huff calls his executive assistant Carol Spaw, on her cellphone, to ask her to make dinner reservations. (Wouldn’t an email have been a better idea—on a number of fronts?) The call didn’t go through so Huff calls Spaw on her office phone. All good there. BUT—a few moments later Spaw’s cell phone goes off and low and behold it’s Huff’s phone, which redialed the number and got through. That call was 91 minutes, and Huff was not aware of it—at all.

Spaw listened to the entire conversation (not a busy day I’m guessing) Huff was having with his colleague. Oh—BTW—Spaw realized her boss had no idea he’d redialed her and the call had gone through. Her interest got piqued when she heard the two men discussing the possible replacement of Spaw’s boss. Oh great.

Spaw believed that the conversation illustrated the two men’s attempt to unlawfully discriminate against her boss, and she felt that it was her duty to take handwritten notes of the call. She instructed another colleague to do the same. Wow.

About 70 minutes later the balcony meeting between the two men ended and Huff, still blissfully unaware that his cell phone is broadcasting his every word and deed, goes back to his hotel room and has a conversation with his wife. (Thank god that’s all they had). Huff and his wife discussed the conversation Huff had just had with his colleague and some personal matters as well. Spaw—still on other end back in Kentucky, managed to record the last four minutes of the conversation on an iPhone that was brought to her. She then shared the notes and the recording with other board members. Oh holy sh*tty sh*t sh*t!

Now, I would have thought that Spaw had violated the law but apparently not. Cut to a couple of months down the road and the proverbial sh*t hits the fan back in Kentucky. The Huffs sued Spaw for unlawfully intentionally intercepting the call and disclosing those interceptions, an alleged breach of the 1968 wiretap law known as “Title III.”

Are you sitting down? Spaw won summary judgment in January 2014. Predictably, the Huffs appealed. The District Court in Kentucky found that the Huffs did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that circumstance.

The court found that Huff could not sue Spaw for violating a federal wiretap law, largely due to the fact that he was aware of steps that he could have taken to prevent a pocket dial, such as locking the phone, which he failed to do.

“James Huff did not employ any of these measures,” the court concluded. “He is no different from the person who exposes in-home activities by leaving drapes open or a webcam on and therefore has not exhibited an expectation of privacy.” That seems a little far-fetched to me.

Interestingly, the Sixth Circuit overturned the portion of the suit pertaining specifically to Bertha Huff.

“Because Bertha Huff made statements in the privacy of her hotel room, was not responsible for exposing those statements to an outside audience, and was (until perhaps the final two minutes) unaware of the exposure, she exhibited an expectation of privacy,” the judges found.

The appellate court agreed with the portion of the lawsuit pertaining to James Huff (dismissing it), but it reversed the lower court’s decision and sent back Bertha Huff’s portion for review.

The experts are concerned about this ruling, specifically about the role technology will play in civil liberties violations going forward, and how much onus is placed on the individual to protect their rights to privacy.

Regardless, the bottom line is Huff could have taken less than a minute to lock his phone and the whole thing would never have happened. While technology is changing our lives, we haven’t changed with it and human nature is—well—predictable—most people would probably listen in.

As for the Huffs pursuing any further action, their attorney, Aaron VanderLaan, wrote:  “We have not made a final decision as to seek further review by an en banc panel of the Sixth Circuit, and we are not aware of whether Ms. Spaw will seek further review.”

Now, where’s that lock function on my phone…

Murder, Suicide, Money and One Last Argument over Smoking

July 23rd, 2015. By LucyC

A family affair, and a tragic one at that, is keeping the Fischler family attorneys busy. One murder, one suicide and two lawsuits, if I’ve got it right. The whole mess reads like a Greek tragedy. In fact, Daniel Gotlin, defense attorney for Jonathan Schwartz, the oldest son and alleged murderer of philanthropist Barbara Weiden Schwartz ­told the press, “This is a family tragedy.” That’s putting it mildly, I think.

The public saga began in 2011, when Barbara Weiden Schwartz Fischler was allegedly stabbed to death with a kitchen knife by Jonathan, who happens to be schizophrenic. Shortly thereafter, Schwartz–Fischler’s second husband (that would be Fischler) almost obliterated her $5.8 million estate on risky short-sales (is there such a thing as a safe short sale?) Then, a little while later, her second son committed suicide.

Recently, Jonathan was recommitted to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene after results from his psychological testing showed he is not well enough to stand trial for the murder of his mother. “He has a history of psychological illness,” said Gotlin. In March, the 44-year old son was sentenced to an upstate psychiatric hospital after a jury found him “not criminally responsible by reason of mental disease” for the murder.

According to media reports, mother and son got into a row over his smoking habit. Out came the kitchen knife, which Jonathan apparently used to repeatedly stab his mother.

Now, Jonathan’s father, Steven Schwartz, is suing his son, The New York Post reports. Schwartz, who divorced Fischler years ago, is also suing on behalf of the second, deceased son, Kenneth Schwartz, who committed suicide in 2013 after learning that his stepfather, Burton Fischler, had nearly wiped them off the financial map. FYI—Barbara was the daughter of Norman Weiden, a financial guru who ran a charity which his daughter took over after his death.

Still with me?

By 2013, only about $700,000 was left in Barbara’s estate. Looks like somebody else made a killing here.

Last year, the management of Barbara’s estate was removed from the care of 63-year old Burton M. Fischler to husband number one. Steven Schwartz is a retired Merrill Lynch executive so one may hope he knows better. If all goes according to plan, the civil suit will provide Steven Schwartz with the younger son’s share of whatever money he may be awarded in his lawsuit against son number one.

Oh—there’s more.

Kenneth Schwartz committed suicide at 39, beside himself over his potential financial situation and grief, presumably. “For the last decade of her life, my mother generously paid all my bills and was my sole source of financial support, so much so that I rarely received mail at my own apartment,” he stated in his lawsuit against his stepfather.

“Believing that I would probably inherit a few million dollars from my mother, reassured me that in the midst of the tragedy, I would at least have enough money to live on,” he stated in the suit.

In January 2013, about six months after learning that he could no longer count on his mother’s support, Kenneth killed himself.  “I had lost both my brother and my mother to an act of unspeakable violence that I will never understand,” Kenneth wrote to the court six months before he committed suicide.

Adding to all this misery is the fact that Barbara was “almost completely housebound and largely bedridden with many health problems, including battles against addiction to the many painkillers she was prescribed for her medical problems,” according to Kenneth’s lawsuit.

Prior to killing his mother, Jonathan lived down the hall in the family’s luxury apartment. According to his brother, he was a total recluse, remaining locked in his room even when Kenneth came to visit.

The stepfather also had his problems. “Burt worked as a wealth management advisor, had been married twice before, and had relatively few financial resources of his own,” Kenneth stated. His stepfather approached Kenneth just days after Barbara’s death, asking him to relinquish control of his mother’s estate, which, against his better judgement and his deceased mother’s wishes, he did. Now the picture gets a little clearer. Barbara had signed a post-nuptial agreement with Burton that prevented him from overseeing her finances after her death.

According to court documents, Burton claimed that his wife “wanted to take higher than average risk” and said he was playing the market with a “long-term strategy.” And now there’s no one left to disprove that.

Ah but for the best laid plans of mice and men, and for the attorneys who must make sense of it all.