|
Notices |
Legacy Archived Main Board Business chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-03-2005 | #1 |
Dreaming of a Cowboy Hat like Max Hardcore
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,812
|
This has to be the most ridiculous lawsuit ever
This is long, but worth reading.
WATCH WHILE I PULL A RABBIT OUT OF THIS HAT by Randy Cassingham Professional magicians mystify us and entertain us. From Houdini to Henning to who knows who is up-and-coming, we marvel at their slight of hand and wonder how they did it. Christopher Roller of Burnsville, Minnesota, wonders too. He wonders so much that he has sued two of the best-known names in magic demanding that they reveal their secrets to him: David Blaine and David Copperfield. Roller says that if Blaine and Copperfield show him their tricks "with scientific principals [sic] that don't defy laws of physics" -- and allow him to "imitate/copy in slow motion" as they do it -- and, if in his judgement there is a "worldly" explanation for their tricks, he will drop the suits. But he's fairly confident that they cannot do the tricks with mere worldly power, because they are surely using "godly" powers to do their tricks. And that, he says, is the basis for his suits, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota this summer. How's that? Roller argues, with apparent seriousness, that if the magicians' powers are godly, then they stole that power from him. Um, how's THAT? "I am deity," he says, "a messenger of god." And since the magicians are using, in Roller's opinion, godly powers to perform tricks, that's coming through his special channel to god (er, I guess that would be some god higher than himself) -- and they don't have his permission to do that. Thus, he says, he deserves 10 percent of their earnings because their magical ability was taken from him. "I am the guy responsible for his powers," he says, not specifying which magician he's referring to. So is Roller saying Blaine and Copperfield somehow saw him perform tricks somewhere, and stole them? Nope: Roller says he's not a magician himself, and does not perform. "I am a programmer and a writer," he admits. "I have my own Internet software I sell." But he's serious about the lawsuits. "I would not go to federal court just to pull somebody's leg," he insists. No, but he would go to federal court to pull someone's wallet: the suit against Blaine, for instance, asks for "over $2,000,000" because somehow, "David Blaine has been using my godly powers to perform his magic." Apparently Copperfield has made more money from Roller's god-powers. A lot more: Roller wants $50 million from him. In the Copperfield suit, which is similarly brief, Roller notes--- well, let me simply quote it in its entirety: David Copperfield has been using my godly powers to perform his magic. This is a labor dispute in accordance with Minn Statute 179.06 for past/future commission compensation. [My web site] explains my life and my journey to godliness. I believe David Copperfield has been using my godly powers to perform his magic. We've all seen clips of UFO videos. They dance around in the sky at the speed of thought. So we know that godly powers can coexist on planet Earth. Godly powers means using thought to control actions/results, usually defying explanation and laws of physics. I believe magicians have also been granted godly powers by me somehow, but they have been keeping it a secret and keeping the credits from me. If David has godly powers, then he must be using my powers. That, or I need detailed explanation (in person) of how he does his tricks, performed/explained in the courtroom (complete confidentiality), and I will leave him alone if I'm wrong - i.e. tricks/illusions are done conventionally. I've politely asked David, via email, to show me how his tricks are done, with no response. If godly, I want back-pay compensation - 10% past/future career earnings. Estimating 10% of past career earnings of over $50,000,000. That's the entire lawsuit. (Can you tell he wrote it himself without the aid of an attorney?) It cost Roller "like $250" to file it in Federal court, but at least he didn't do it until he "politely asked" "David" to reveal his trade secrets to a complete stranger, and didn't get a reply. If Roller is so godly and Blaine and Copperfield are using his powers to perform magic, then how come he doesn't already know how to do the tricks? Unfortunately, there's no room for common sense in his argument. Some of Copperfield's lawyers' response to the court is worthy of quotation too: Seeing as how Roller has never worked for Copperfield in any capacity anywhere ever and has no relation to Copperfield whatsoever, he has no claim currently nor could he ever have any employment or labor claim against Copperfield. Plaintiff's Complaint is best described as a claim for usurpation of Godly powers, which as this Court is aware, is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court or any court of this earth. (Keep going: it gets even better.) Defendant respectfully urges the Court to visit Plaintiff's website.... Therein Plaintiff makes the following claims including: * Plaintiff is running for President of the United States in 2008 with Bill Gates as his running mate. * Plaintiff claims he is Jesus Christ. * Plaintiff claims he is God. * Plaintiff claims that [NBC news host] Katie Couric and [singer] Celine Dion are his wives and are going to have his children. * Plaintiff claims there is a movie coming out soon about his life that stars Tom Hanks. * Plaintiff claims he has killed all of his enemies. * Plaintiff claims he will father 1,000,000 babies. While most people would simply call Roller a nutball and roll their eyes, that Just Won't Do in a court of law. Rather, they just point out a few facts and let the judge come to his own conclusion. But the formal response is indeed the time and place to ask the judge to dismiss the suit, and they do: "Accordingly," Copperfield's response concludes, "dismissal with prejudice is warranted." ("With prejudice" means Roller would be enjoined from refiling the suit again, even if he amends it.) In federal courts, there is a procedural rule about frivolous lawsuits and motions -- Rule 11. When that rule is invoked, the judge can award damages against the frivolous action. No doubt wanting to get the suit over with as soon as possible, Copperfield's attorneys have not asked for such damages, but there's a clear warning to Roller in the response: Without waiving its right to later do so, it should be noted that Defendant has not brought a Rule 11 motion at this time despite ample grounds to do so. Obviously, to the extent Plaintiff were to continue to pursue his "claim" herein, Defendant may be forced to seek sanctions under Rule 11 in order to deter Plaintiff from the repetition of such conduct. (The five-page response is interesting reading in its entirety; see the link to Source #3 below to read it on the TSA web site.) SOURCES: 1) "'God's Messenger' Sues for a Big Piece on Earth", Minneapolis Star Tribune, 14 June 2005 (this article no longer available on the newspaper's web site) 2) Lawsuit filing against David Copperfield (quoted above), date unclear. 3) "Defendant's Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss", Court Filing, 15 June 2005 (PDF document) http://StellaAwards.com/cases/copperfield-response.pdf |
11-03-2005 | #2 | |
Easy Like Sunday Morning
Want to see your own Advertising Here!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Behind a couch, somewhere in Philly
Posts: 7,628
|
Re: This has to be the most ridiculous lawsuit ever
Quote:
|
|
11-03-2005 | #3 |
Scored VIP to Anton's Piss Tank
Want to see your own Advertising Here!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 8,781
|
Re: This has to be the most ridiculous lawsuit ever
hahahahahaha....
|
Bookmarks |
|
|