The Holloway case goes civil

The case of the missing American teenager Natalee Holloway has entered a new phase.
After being unsuccessful in finding their daughter and bringing the people they hold responsible to criminal justice, her parents have filed a civil lawsuit.

The wrongful-death lawsuit (filed in Manhattan's state Supreme Court) seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The court papers present a partly speculative version of what happened after the young people left the casino and went to a bar called Carlos 'n' Charlies in the early hours of May 30, 2005.
The court papers claim that an intoxicated Holloway left at 1:30 am with Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers.
Several of Holloway's friends saw her in the car with the youths and asked her to get out, which she didn’t.
They further claim that Joran a) willfully caused personal injury to Natalee as a result of his sexual assault upon her b) wrongfully, unlawfully and intentionally detained and directly restrained Natalee Holloway c) deprived her of her personal liberty through force and/or threat of force d) abducted Natalee Holloway and prevented her from returning to the custody of her parents.
As a result of this imagined sexual assault, the last hours of her life were marked “by torment, terror and debasement.”

The lawsuit includes Joran’s father since he supposedly breached his duty to Natalee by failing to take steps to prevent Joran from sexually assaulting Natalee Holloway.
According to the court papers, Paulus van der Sloot enabled his son’s violent and anti-social lifestyle since he supposedly went on the night of the disappearance with his underage son to a casino to play poker. It was at that casino that the younger Van der Sloot met Holloway, again according to the filed lawsuit.

I find the whole lawsuit rather bizarre.
First off, I feel for the parents – it must be horrible to live with the uncertainty what happened to your child.
We all feel for Beth Twitty, who is on an ongoing crusade to find out what happened to her missing daughter.
But suing Dutch citizens (who have never been indicted for a supposed crime that could have taken place in Aruba) in a New York court in order to proceed with your fact-finding missing is too much.

Since the disappearance of her beloved daughter, Mrs. Twitty has lashed out at the Aruban and Dutch authorities.
Considering all the manpower they put in it (including flying three F-16 jets from the Netherlands to Aruba to scan the island and its surrounding waters and giving all civil servants a day-off to join the search party), she should realize that you cannot always get closure in life.
Harsh comments have been made by the Twitty camp, calling the governments that were trying to help them all kinds of names.
But look at it from the other side for a moment.
A partying American teenager goes missing.
The authorities are not too worried – so many of them reappear a few days later.
Her mother and stepfather waltz into the island with a posse, demanding instant success.
With a blatant disrespect to local customs, let alone the legal system, they go on a crusade to find the culprit and bring him to justice.
Enlisting the help of the US media, that flooded the island pre-hurricane Katrina, they meddled and probed in the legal proceedings and try to force police and public prosecutor to do it “their way.”
Newsflash: Aruba is not an American territory and is ruled by the Dutch legal system.
So forget about plea bargaining, jury, etc.
The Dutch and Aruban legal proceedings follow a strict system with build-in guarantees of fair trial as well as privacy.
Therefore, no policeman, judge, public prosecutor, or trial lawyer will go to the media and talk.
It is a pity the Twitty camp was too focused (to say it politely) to realize this.
Don’t forget, the Aruban authorities let the FBI in to assist.
Would this also fly in Alabama?
If it would have been an Alabaman boy and a Dutch female victim and the scene was Birmingham, Alabama, would the local sheriff department allow Dutch officials assist?
I don’t think so – the US media would be all over it claiming that the US has a wonderful legal system (just ask OJ!) and will handle it internally.
If they had been more patient and had worked with the authorities instead of antagonizing them, the result would quite likely be different.
Now that criminal procedures are at a dead end (unless Natalee or her body turns up and/or there will be a full and substantiated confession), the Twitty camp cannot let go. Understandable, for sure, but not productive.

The civil suit will quite likely been thrown out on the technicality of lack of jurisdiction.
The parents that filed the suit are in Alabama and Mississippi.
The Van der Sloots are Dutch and the disappearance happened on Aruba.
I am pretty sure that the overworked courts in New York have better things to do than dive into this high profile case.

Funny enough, the ones that were not sued by the Twittys were the school and supervisors. I find this very strange indeed – the girl went missing during her supervised senior class graduation trip of the Mountain Brook High School. Shouldn’t they have supervised better?
So what is the deal here?
May be it’s easier to sue a bunch of foreigners than people of your hometown?

The big winners in this case are the networks.
It’s a TV station’s dream: pretty, blue-eyed blonde ravished by a tall, dark (and Caucasian) foreigner on a tropical island.
Let’s face it – the average viewer doesn’t want to hear or see any of the numerous missing Afro-American and Hispanic teenagers (especially male ones!).
What sells for the networks are images of pretty Natalee wearing her cheerleader outfit and the circumstances that could be lifted from a cheap murder mystery.
Fox, NBC, CBS and Dr. Phil (who launched his own farfetched theory about what happened during an interview with Jay Leno) have all joined the media circus, milking the story to the hilt.
Will the truth ever been known?
Not likely, and the civil proceeding (sadly enough) will not change that as well.
In the mean time, the island of Aruba has been victimized.
As one fed up Aruban said (voicing the general Aruban and Dutch public opinion): “she was just not worth all the trouble.”

Doing it too Brown –a (legal) tale of biblical proportions

I wonder if there is anyone out there who didn’t read (or at least heard of) the religious thriller “The Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown.

The book is a blend of historical conspiracy and murder mystery evolving around the theme that the bloodline from a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene married into the Merovingian line of French kings and survived by being protected by a secret society based in France.

Random House published the novel that was described by Salman Rushdie as "a book so bad it makes bad books look good."
Nonetheless, it sold 40 million copies in about 40 languages since 2003 and it’s being turned into a Hollywood blockbuster with Tom Hanks as the dashing lead.

So far, so good.
But our multi-millionaire author is now being sued for allegedly ripping off the work of two biblical sleuths in order to provide the basis for his bestseller.
Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent are (two of the three) authors of “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail” in which they construct the theory that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and left a traceable bloodline.
They therefore claim that Brown infringed copyright by lifting the central premise of their “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail” epos and used it as the main plot for his “The Da Vinci Code”.

Although the legal proceedings are against Random House, Brown’s UK publisher, Hollywood is getting pretty nervous as well.
The movie is set to open in May 2006 and the whole PR machine is already in full force.
If the claim has merit, the opening of the movie would be threatened.
Random House is not amused.
They argued that “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail”(2 million copies sold) was one of numerous sources consulted by Mr Brown and his, who is an art historian wife Blythe.

Jonathan Rayner James QC represents Leigh and Baigent. He makes a compelling case. He states that Brown had ripped off the very specific thesis of is clients’ work to save time and effort of independent research and to give “The Da Vinci Code” "plausibility.”

A closer look reveals the following:

• The "central theme" of “The Da Vinci Code” - the bloodline from a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene survives today - is the key theory of “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.”
• The chief villain of Brown's book is Leigh Teabing. Mr Brown is accused of deliberately forming the name from an anagram of the surnames of the two authors of “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.”
• Jacques Sauniere, the curator of the Louvre found murdered in the “The Da Vinci Code”, has the same surname as Berenger Sauniere, a monk mentioned extensively in “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.”
• The Da Vinci Code mentions specific historical events - the Council of Nicea, which "voted" on the status of Jesus as a deity, and the connection between Godfroi de Bouillon and the bloodline of Jesus - which allegedly appear only in “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.”

If successful, the claimants could be awarded a share of the profits from the four million copies of The Da Vinci Code sold in Britain and a proportion of future sales.
The case is expected to last two weeks.

It’s not the first time Mr. Brown has been accused of plagiarism.
In August 2005, Brown ended up in a New York City court, when Lewis Perdue claimed that Brown had used sections from two of his novels (“The Da Vinci Legacy” (1983) and “Daughter Of God” (2000).
Perdue sued for $150 million in damages as well as an injunction blocking further distribution of Brown's book and the forthcoming movie adaptation.
Judge George Daniels, presiding at New York District Court, ruled that any similarity between the works of fiction was based on unprotectable ideas, since a reasonable average lay observer would not conclude that The Da Vinci Code is substantially similar to Daughter of God. Furthermore, the court declared any slightly similar elements on the level of generalized or otherwise unprotectable ideas.

The UK proceedings are a lawyer’s dream come true.
If the court rules in favor of the authors of “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail”, it could open a floodgate of litigation for people who have had their ideas been lifted or stolen.
It would also force authors to be careful where they get their inspiration from and be meticulous in their research.

No matter what the outcome will be, it already has all the makings of a great courtroom thriller…

A thought for President's Day

A group of presidential historians have rated the 10 worse mistakes US Presidents have made.

On top of the list is President James Buchanan, for failing to avert the Civil War.
Enough said.

In 2nd place is Andrew Johnson, who (just after the Civil War ended) decided to side with Southern whites and oppose improvements in justice for Southern blacks beyond abolishing slavery.
“We continue to pay for Johnson's errors,” wrote Michael Les Benedict, an Ohio State University history professor emeritus.

A well-deserved 3rd place goes to Lyndon Johnson for allowing the Vietnam War to intensify.
Legions of Americans are still paying the price.

Woodrow Wilson's refusal to compromise on the Treaty of Versailles after World War I (or the Great War as the Brits call it) ranks him 4th in this list.
Not sure about the historical implication here - it seems that the Krauts were upset.

The 5th place goes to Richard Nixon for his involvement in the Watergate cover-up .
The sad thing is – he would have won anyway.

Number 6 is President James Madison failed to keep the United States out of the War of 1812 with Britain – big mistake, never get involved in any bellicose activities.

Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807 ranks 7.
It was a self-imposed prohibition on trade with Europe during the Napoleonic Wars.
Looks like a Dumb Move to me – I am sure that the little Corsair didn’t give a damn one way or the other.

John F. Kennedy ranks 8 for allowing the Bay of Pigs Invasion that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
That was one scary episode that nearly started another world war.

Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair occupy the 9th place for the effort to sell arms to Iran and use the money to finance an armed anti-communist group in Nicaragua.
I know, it sounds like a bad storyline in a B-movie.
But what do you expect from a C-list actor?

And our charming Bill Clinton is ranked at 10 for his Monica Lewinsky involvement.
I find this quite surprising.
Let’s face it– the presidents ranking 1-9 blatantly disregarded human rights, went to war, harmed the economy, threatened world peace and committed felonies.
All Bill did was engage in some extra-matrimonial activities that the person most harmed by it (his wife) publicly forgave him.
So what’s the big deal? He was even able to stay in office.
Will history even remember the Clinton Scandal? I doubt it since it didn't have an impact on American history or its people.
May be in another 300 years, a filmmaker will produce some racy miniseries about this colorful President.
In the mean time, I rank Clinton as a President that didn’t go to war, boosted the economy and could charm the birds from the trees.
Let’s see if the other Clinton will be able to follow in her hubby’s footsteps…..

Happy President's Day

De Bello Birkenstocko

War is raging in the Birkenstock family. So what? you might say.
Well, it’s not just a family tiff – big bucks are involved.
You see, the Birkenstock family has been producing footwear since 1774.
Over the last decades, the current generation of Birkenstocks were able to turn padded, hippie footwear into a multi-million dollar business.

As always, it’s a case of cherchez la femme – in this case Susanne Birkenstock, who married Christian Birkenstock at the age of 18 in the late 1990s, produced two children and then started divorce procedures.
Our Susanne is a hard-nosed businesswoman who spent seven years in the family's garage developing her own line of orthopedic shoes. (Since the family home is a castle, we can safely assume that the garage was big enough to do some serious shoe tinkering.)
Since a girl has to make a living, separated (and heading for divorce) Suzy started producing her own sandals, promoting them on talk shows. Since she has blond good looks, more money than the average high-tech startup and a well-known family name, the talk show circuit just loves her.
Her own Beautystep sandals boast a specially designed sole “mimicking the effect of a foot stretching out as it sinks into fine sand.”
The sandals are positioned to help the wearer to burn fat and reduce cellulite.

Needless to say, the original Birkenstocks (Christian and his two brothers, not the hippie wear) were breathing fire when they found out.
They screamed that Susanne is using the Birkenstock name to market her scientifically questionable product.
They demanded that she stops using the family name for any product endorsement.
“Humbug” retorted the enterprising near-divorcee.
“Birkenstock is my legal name and that of my children. I have been a Birkenstock for half of my life.”
For sure, the name Birkenstock helped to sell the more than 35,000 pairs of sandals in Germany, Austria and Switzerland since Beautystep was launched in 2004.

The B. brothers took aggressive action – they had their marketing executive sent a letter to all Birkenstock retailers and distributors, accusing Susanne Birkenstock of profiting from her married name.
They also petitioned a German court to stop her from using it in marketing.

In February 2005, a court in Cologne ruled that Susanne Birkenstock could use her name as the designer of her shoes but imposed restrictions on how prominently it could be featured in sales materials.
Toeing this fine line meant making some changes in Beautystep’s marketing, such as abandoning a website for SB International that used her married name and relying only on the Beautystep site.
The Birk brothers were still not amused.
They kept being plagued with inquiries from retailers and wholesalers about the Beautystep brand.
Instead of doing the sensible thing, buying up Beautystep, milking it for maximum publicity and increasing sales (as well as the inheritance of Susanne’s and Christian’s offspring), the brothers decided to make lawyers happy (brandname infringement) and petiotoned a higher court to toughen the rules established by the lower court.
The Birkenstockies are mainly ticked off by the fact that Beautystep keeps being referred to as Birkenstock by distributors, television stations or journalists.

In my opinion, the Birkenstocks should have a close look at the business potential of this smart cookie – with an initial investment in 2003 of Euro 200,000; she was able to break even in 2005.
Being one smart marketer, the Birkenstock group would be wise to appoint her as its Global Chief Marketing Executive. It would also save them a bundle in legal fees.

Who would have thought that the main footwear suppliers of Woodstock, environmenatalists and micro-biotic lifestyle seekers would be so 1980s business aggressive?
O tempores, o mores......

Job evaluation and all that

All you laborforce participants had to go through the annual ritual of your annual job evaluation talks.
Yep, the Boss calls you into his office, closes the door, and looks at you like a physician who has to tell you that you have a terminal illness.
It’s a ploy, of course. You see, by looking grim and glum, Bossy can prevent you from expecting a bonus or (gasp!) asking for a raise.

“It’s a two-way street. You can also comment on my job performance,” boss-dear happily tells you. Don’t fall for it – being critical (especially when justified!) is a surefire way to be kicked out.
Just agree with how great s/he is, how much you like work, and when put on the spot, criticize something general.
(Suggestions: “there are different opinions in the company about the corporate goals and mission” or “various departments seem to have different priorities”)
No matter how good you are – don’t expect too much praise or recognition.

To pull you through this slightly painful process, I composed the following questionnaire.
You can rate your boss by answering the following 5 questions.
(I strongly suggest you do this at home and NOT on your workstation).


Your boss is:
a) intelligent b) clever, but you can outsmart him/her c) dumb as my cat

Your boss is:
a) a warm and lovely person b) OK and almost human c) a sexist pig/uptight bitch

Your boss is:
a) thinks the world of you b) give you credit for your work c) steels all you bright ideas and
pass them off as his/hers

Your boss sees him/herself as:
a) a decent human being b) superior to others c) master of the universe

Your boss sees you as:
a) a wonderful employee and person b) a good resource to be used c) a slave to be abused

If most of your answers are A:
Congratulations! You have a great job and boss, who is quite likely your spouse, lover or a family member that catapulted you into your current cushy position.
Alternatively: you lied through your teeth when answering the questions (in which case you are beyond hope and should consider a career in politics).

If most of your answers are B:
Welcome to the average work hell! You are quite likely working for the government, a financial institution or another workplace managed by zombies. Enjoy your time in your current job until you can enjoy your well(?)deserved pension.

If most of your answers are C: poor you! Your work in high-tech or (yikes)Bush/Schwarzenegger is your boss.
No matter – dig up all the dirt you can and write your memoirs once you leave your job.

And to finish this blog with a real Boss Quote:
"Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say." (Marketing executive, Citrix Corporation)

Roaming "Rome"

The TV drama series “Rome” has been hailed as amazing.
Well, it certainly did the trick of amazing me!
You see, I had the pleasure of 6 years of Latin (2 hours a day) in school and was always curious how ancient Rome and its inhabitants would have looked like.
The HBO series enticed me with a great “behind the scenes” preview explaining about the sets and costumes.
In good BBC tradition, they showed how they made copies of artifacts and outfits, only applying materials and dyes that were in use two millennia ago.
hey also meticulously build copies of Roman streets, buildings, temples and the like.

I was impressed, and looking forwards to the first episode.
I mean, any channel that produced the critically acclaimed and massively enjoyed “Claudius” series would do a great job – so I thought.

The first episode started with a very graphic and unrealistic sex scene.
It seems that if you show an actress in full frontal nudity in a historical drama, the scene will not be censored.
Probably to emphasize the historical context, slaves were waving big feather fans to cool the coupling couple.
The actress might have been completely nude, but her partner was wearing some leather straps across his torso. Not sure if this had a Symbolic Meaning, or the not-so-bright character wore them for protection.
After the lady had her merry way with him, she hopped into a bath the size of a small swimming pool under the eyes of her young son, who she happily invited to watch her while she rose from the foams. Not sure what the meaning of that was – may be showing her son that the plastic surgeon (or whatever they had in those times – no idea, my Latin textbooks mainly dealt with wars) did a great boob job?

The scene suddenly switched to the battlefields in Gaul.
Oy, that brought back hours of “De Bello Gallico”!
A Roman soldier was heavily whipped and seemed to enjoy it.
Ah well, to each his own, I assume…

Scene in the Roman Senate – Cato shouted at Cicero who shouted at Pompey who shouted at everyone else.
Didn’t make a lot of sense – maybe Caligula was not that crazy when he made his favorite horse a senator.

Back to the Lustful Lady who sent her young son on a horse to Gaul.
The horse was a gift for Caesar.
Obviously the wench wanted to butter him up for something or other.
She looked definitely Alexis Carrington-like when she sent the boy off.

More scenes with blood, torture and all that.
I lost the jest of the story at that point, so I cannot relate much of the storyline from here on - also because I was too distracted by the actors.
You see, the costumes and the set are gorgeous, no doubt about it.
As far as I remember, especially the outfits of the soldiers are accurate to the smallest details.
But the cast…. brrrrr.

I understand that it’s hard to find native Latin-speaking actors and let’s face it, Americans also refuse to read subtitles.
But what makes them think that an upperclass/public school English accent will do the trick?
But even more pathetic are the looks of the actors.
Not only do they look Anglo-Saxon, most of them have distinctive Celtic looks.
Don’t get me wrong; Kevin McKidd is goodlooking and a fine actor, but no Lucius Voranus.
The actor that plays Cato not only has a typical British army officer face, but the slightly crooked underbite teeth that go with it.

Young Octavian, with his angelic blond curls, blue eyes and lily-white complexion, should shine in a Harry Potter movie.
None of the ladies have the strong classical features, dark hair and eyes, and the olive complexion that sat so well on the Roman matrons of old.
Both Atia and Servilia are Irish-looking with ivory skin, red hair and blue eyes – they would do better in a Jane Austin movie than roaming the mean streets of ancient Rome.
The horses looked OK though…

I have to admit that I only saw 30 minutes of the first episode – I fell asleep when the Romans started crucifying Gauls. (Something to do with the Eagle Standard and money changing hands – made me think of the Presidential elections).

If Rome is your cup of wine (they hadn’t tea or coffee yet, which might explain the excessive violence), fine by me.
Personally, I prefer Roman Holiday to Rome….

The three most stupid quotes in 2006

It's 2006 and we can look back at an inventful 2005, filled with lots of stupid quotes by clever, dumb and dangerous people.
Needless to say, the two chief clowns of US media circus win top places.
Just to make sure to point out that stupidity is not limited to nationality, age or gender, I also put it a great quote from an anchorperson (F).

I am sure that we can look forwards to a new year full of even more bizarre quotes.
But for now, enjoy these ones.....

"They are like leaches, I am so sick of them"

Following Michael Jackson's much-publicized trial and subsequent departure for Bahrain, it seemed the world would get some peace and quiet from the former king of pop.
But this remark proved he just cannot stay away from the limelight, and that he just doesn’t like Jews. After he realized that his former advisor filed a USD 64 million lawsuit against him, Jackson decided to leave him a voicemail message:
"I am so sick of them… they make so much money, they made me broke.. It’s a plot.
The Jews are doing this intentionally."
This message was eventually heard around the world. Jackson did not bother to reply to the criticisms and accusations of anti-Semitism.
His advisors were satisfied with a laconic response that the conversation was recorded illegally, and without Jackson’s consent.
Please remember that Adolf H. started out as a democratically elected leader….

God told me: George, go on and fight the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq"

President Bush was furious over the leak and strongly denied ever making those remarks, but that’s what Palestinian minister Nabil Shaath said Bush told him.
Shaath said that in a conversation with the American president, Bush revealed the real reason he led Americans into war in Iraq and Afghanistan:
"God told me: George, go on and put an end to tyranny in Iraq, and so I did.
And now, once again, I feel the words of God come to me: go on and get the Palestinians their own country, give the Israelis their security and bring peace to the Middle East.
And in God’s name that’s what I’ll do."
Move over, Joan of Arc…

"It’s been 11 days since two African-American teenagers were killed, electrocuted during a police chase, which prompted all of this."

American anchorperson Carol Lin covered the riots that broke out in Paris and quickly spread to other French cities (as well as other countries).
The two teenagers mentioned were French citizens of Tunisian descent (and would be classified in the US as Caucasian).
They definitely never were Americans.
Flunked your geography and history tests in high school, dear one?