You have to read this to believe it. Only in Hollywood:

Sounds like David O. Russell truly is flirting with disaster.

According to a police report obtained by The Smoking Gun,  Russell’s transsexual, 19-year-old nephew, Nicholas Peloquin — the son of Russell’s adoptive sister, Barbara Jane Peloquin — alleges that “The Fighter” director inappropriately groped Peloquin during a super-awkward exchange at a Florida gym on Friday.

Somehow it gets better:

Peloquin – who has not yet undergone male-to-female gender-reassignment surgery — described “the hormones to increase his breasts” to Russell, at which point the director slipped his hands under Peloquin’s shirt “and felt both breasts,” the police report (see below) reads.

Peloquin told the deputy that he felt uncomfortable during the groping, but did not tell Russell to stop. He did, however, subsequently tell his mother that Russell put the moves on him in the gym.

And now for the best part:

Russell confirmed the exchange during his own interview with the detective, claiming that Peloquin was “acting very provocative toward him” during their workout, and that Peloquin invited him to feel his breasts.

Russell told police that he was “curious about the breast enhancement.”

At the very least, Russell is admitting he fondled the breasts of his… transsexual… teenage… nephew.

Better pack. Jesus will be here any minute.

Variety reports Brown signed a bill late Sunday, the legislation’s final day of eligibility, extending California’s film production incentive program for another year.

Assembly Bill 1069 will provide a one-year $100 million extension to California’s 3-year-old Film and Television Tax Credit Program. In its three-year history, the California program has allocated credits totaling $400 million and will allocate its final $100 million by next July.

The bill, authored by Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, received a 77-1 approval in the Assembly in June when it provided for a five-year extension.

“I’d like to applaud Governor Brown’s leadership in signing AB 1069 today,” Fuentes said in a statement early Monday. “By creating tens of thousands of jobs and pumping billions into our economy, the film and television tax credit program has truly been a statewide economic stimulus package.”

A recent study by the Los Angeles Economic Development Corp. showed that the first two years of the program has generated $3.8 billion dollars in economic activity statewide, created more than 20,000 jobs and over $200 million dollars in tax revenues.

Sounds like those hygienically challenged Occupy Wall Street types have a new front in their battle against The Man and his fat cat friends.

UWS theater professor Dr. James Miller is relatively new to the short-lived, now cult hit TV series “Firefly.”  Some of his students are loyal fans and asked Dr. Miller to check it out for himself. He liked it enough to hang a Firefly poster on his office door. Given its remote location in the theater wing, where mostly only theater students would see it, who would have expected the poster to cause such a firestorm?

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) reports:

On September 12, 2011, Professor Miller posted on his office door an image of Nathan Fillion in Joss Whedon’s sci-fi series Firefly and a line from an episode: “You don’t know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you’ll be awake. You’ll be facing me. And you’ll be armed.” On September 16, UWS Chief of Police Lisa A. Walter notified Miller that she had removed the poster because it “refer[s] to killing.” After Miller replied, “respect my first amendment rights,” Walter wrote that “the poster can be interpreted as a threat.” Walter also threatened Miller with criminal charges: “If you choose to repost the article or something similar to it, it will be removed and you could face charges of disorderly conduct.”

In response to Walter’s censorship, Miller placed a new poster on his office door on the 16th. The poster read “Warning: Fascism” and mocked, “Fascism can cause blunt head trauma and/or violent death. Keep fascism away from children and pets.”

Walter escalated the absurdity. On September 20, she wrote that this poster, too, had been censored because it “depicts violence and mentions violence and death” and was expected to “be constituted as a threat.” She added that UWS’s “threat assessment team,” in consultation with the university general counsel’s office, had made the decision. College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Interim Dean Raymond Hayes then scheduled a meeting with Miller about “the concerns raised by the campus threat assessment team.”

The university has since canceled the meeting as of last Friday, but it hasn’t backed off its position.

Sorensen, however, dug a deeper hole. Together with Provost Julie Furst-Bowe and Vice Chancellor Ed Nieskes, Sorensen defended UWS’s censorship in an email to all faculty and staff on September 27. The three administrators wrote that “the posters in question constituted an implied threat of violence. That is why they were removed.”

To understand the importance of this as a First Amendment issue, one needs to closely examine what happened.  A university’s Chief of Police/Parking Enforcement Officer, ignorant of the context of the quote, took it upon herself to remove not one but two posters without ever asking their context or purpose.  The professor honestly expected his First Amendment rights would not be infringed, but the school’s Chancellor cowered behind bureaucratic zero tolerance policies and did just that.

Whether or not you agree with how the professor responded, the police chief clearly overreacted to something she misinterpreted.  You can read the full exchange of those emails at FIRE.  Nothing about the poster of a fictional TV Space Captain is intended to “cause others to fear for their safety”; in fact, it is the opposite of a threat.

Dr. Miller sent the administration the relevant clip from Firefly’s pilot episode Serenity.  The context of the quote is an homage to fair play and a code of honor that obviously prefers non-violence.

This is precisely the issue with freedom of speech; words are subjective and can be interpreted differently by separate individuals.  Sometimes this is done unintentionally, sometimes with malice, which is why the act of deciding what’s NOT free speech is ripe for abuse.  The UWS administration’s stated desire to “promote a campus environment that is free from threats of any kind—both direct and implied” may be well-meaning, but its meaning amounts to nothing.  How does one set a universal standard to determine what is an implied threat or in what context speech may “refer to violence and/or harm”?  As Dr. Miller pointed out in his email response to police chief Lisa Walter, would this also apply to “a poster from Hamlet? Or a news clipping about Hockey players that commit violent murder?”

When asked if he knew of any other examples of such posters or signs on campus, Dr. Miller replied that while he wasn’t aware of any prior attempts at censorship, a “Kill Bill” poster from the popular Quentin Tarantino film was prevalent on campus earlier in the year.  Some quick research finds the poster was actually a parody of the Kill Bill movie, as part of a campus-wide protest held in February against Governor Scott Walker’s budget bill.

Oddly enough, police chief Walter was not at all concerned with the reference to killing or to the weapon of violence depicted in those posters.  In fact, she was quoted in this article at the time as being rather complimentary of the activities.

“The neat part of working in a university is that folks get to have their voices heard, and we try to make sure that it’s done in a manner that’s orderly and doesn’t disrupt the rest of the operations too much,” she said.

Walter also pointed out that the university’s union officers are not included in the exemption Walker provided to other law enforcement officers, firefighters and the State Patrol.

“He did not exempt UW police, Capitol police and, I believe, DNR wardens,” she said. “They will lose their ability to negotiate and have a union negotiate other work-related — other than salary. If the bill goes through, they will be without a contract — and without a union — on March 15.”

Is this because the police chief was not only overseeing security at the protest but also voicing her vested political interest in the highly controversial issue at hand? It seems clear that she was immersed in the context of that poster.

Words are subjective, indeed.

American Universities and colleges today are now, by design, overwhelmingly leftist in their belief systems and political activities.  Students and faculty alike frequently glorify monstrous leftists like Mao Tse-tung and Che Guevara.  To some, they are socialist revolutionary heroes, while to others their image alone is testimony of mass murder and oppression.

When Ward Churchill was fired from his job as Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2007 for engaging in research misconduct, scholars insisted that Churchill was singled out for his political views, most notably his statements about 9/11 in which he “referred to the ‘technocrats’ working at the World Trade Center as ‘little Eichmanns.‘” There continues to be an outpouring of support for Churchill from the academic community, many of whom have stressed that Academic Freedom must be staunchly defended.

Whither tolerance and intellectual diversity?

The University of Wisconsin-Madison was recently ordered by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to pay nearly $500,000 in legal costs to a student group that claimed its First Amendment rights were violated when the student government rejected a portion of its funds because they were earmarked for religious worship. Badger Catholic, a student Catholic group that conducts various religious and spiritual activities on and off campus, sued the university, which claimed that funding some of the group’s activities would “amount to an illegal endorsement of religion.” The Appeals Court disagreed with the University and the Supreme Court recently declined to hear the case. It’s been hailed as a victory for freedom of speech and religious expression on college campuses.  $500K was lost because, rather than protecting the fundamental rights of its students, the school chose to discriminate against their activities purely because of the group’s religious beliefs.

While the flap over the Firefly poster may seem trivial, it is anything but.  This incident and UWS’s ego-driven, bureaucratic response provides a teachable moment.  It should make us pause and think about how easily our freedoms can erode, in the arbitrary name of protecting others’ feelings.

It’s one thing to ensure that students and faculty are physically safe, but when we surrender to the Wordsmiths what may or may not offend someone or make them uncomfortable, we are helping to pave our own Road to Hell.

“Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.” – Mal Reynolds, Captain: Space Boat Serenity

The absurdity of his proposal was the point: “For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public as a part of the Martel-Harper Challenge.”

In Swift’s time, the average person in Ireland was poor and destitute, children were unwanted and a lot of pregnancies ended in barbaric abortions. Petty crime and thievery and moral decay was rampant due to the existing circumstances that forced children and adolescents to fend for themselves. The wealthy nobility languished over the sorry state of affairs, but only offered criticism and scorn for the savages instead of reform to help aid their condition.

[I]t is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for [the mothers] in such a manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, [the children] shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands. … I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

If you take the Hollywood theme to heart, Swift’s time and our own have converged. How many tear-jerking interviews over the years have we read or watched from liberal celebrities? They often like to repeat many profound statements such as, “The American dream is turning out to be and American nightmare.” They discuss with much candor the ills, greed, and selfish nature of American society. Meanwhile, many of the top celebrities are worth more than a $100 million. They live in gated communities; reside on vast compounds or islands far, far away from the society they speak so passionately about.

“And finally, I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while, I think. It’s probably a good thing. Uhm, we’re the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered. And we talked about civil rights when it wasn’t really popular. And we, uh, you know, we bring up subjects…we are the ones…this Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I’m proud to be a part of this Academy. I’m proud to be part of this community. I’m proud to be out of touch. And I thank you so much for this” (George Clooney’s Smug Speech).

So why not eat Hollywood, then? Not literally of course. Besides, I don’t think they would make a tasty or even a healthy meal. All of those toxins, fake hair, and silicone implants would inevitably lead to a major recall. The FDA would go crazy. Instead, why don’t we hold their face up to the mirror just as Swift did to the British?

Glenn Reynolds offers a very modest proposal that would do just that. “Why the GOP should give Obama the higher taxes he wants”

Were I a Republican senator or representative, I would be agitating to repeal the “Eisenhower tax cut” on the movie industry and restore the excise tax. I think I would also look at imposing similar taxes on sales of DVDs, pay-per-view movies, CDs, downloadable music, and related products.

I’d also look at the tax and accounting treatment of these industries to see if they were taking advantage of any special “loopholes” that could be closed as a means of reducing “tax expenditures.” (Answer: Yes, they are.)

America, after all, is facing the largest national debt in relation to GDP that it has faced since the end of World War II, so a return to the measures deemed necessary then is surely justifiable now.

The president’s own rhetoric about revenues certainly suggests so. Perhaps the bill could be named the “Greatest Generation Tax Fairness Act” in recognition of its history.

Should legislation of this sort be passed — or even credibly threatened — I think we can expect to see Hollywood rediscover the dangers posed by “job killing tax increases,” just as pro-tax-increase Warren Buffet changed his tune once his own corporate-jet business was threatened.

And, given the entertainment industries’ role as the Democrats’ campaign finance ATM, it seems likely that the president might soon reconsider his rhetoric as well.

Fast forward to today, with such shows dominating the TV viewing audience.  “CSI” (and its many incarnations), “Law & Order” (and its many incarnations), and a myriad of homicide and courtroom dramas have conditioned us all to a few extremely misleading and dangerous mandates regarding the quest for justice.   There is an ever-growing and alarming trend in this society.  With such an increase in daily TV viewing, coupled with more and more reality-TV afoot…it is becoming more and more difficult for people to discern reality from fiction.

Thanks to television, we now have the following rules for court justice:

1)    As in a TV drama, the first and most obvious suspect NEVER is ultimately the guilty party.

2)    It’s always the one you least suspect.

3)    Police, with their erroneous and suspicious motivations, are never on target with their investigation.

4)    The DEFENSE team is always the good guys and their motivations and impulses are pure and pristine as the wind-driven snow.

5)    The more obvious the case seems against the poor, hapless defendant, the more certain we are that he/she didn’t do it.

6)     Even with a preponderance of evidence of guilt, the defendant is almost always being framed, extorted, and otherwise the real victim (of the crime he/she perpetrated).

7)    Juries tend to see the defendant as the Little Guy — victimized by the huge, leviathan of the Establishment — that uncaring, unfeeling Machine that is our judicial system.

8)    Juries have come to see themselves as courageous Defenders of the Little Guy – the last vestige of hope for a poor, put-upon, flawed-but-innocent victim of police corruption and legal injustice.

9)    Prosecutors seek to put the puzzle pieces together, to connect the dots; defense attorneys seek to unravel the argument, mix it all up, plant seeds of doubt, throw mud on the wall hope something sticks.  Prosecutors seek to clarify; defense seeks to confound and confuse.

10) With the advent of high-tech CSI-style evidence gathering systems…you had better have DNA, carpet fiber, blood sample, residue forensics (as see on TV!)…all in order, establishing motive, opportunity, ability, plus video of the crime, plus a tearful breakdown on the stand of admission of guilt…and even then!… the jury may acquit.

I think we’ve all fallen for the famous words of Voltaire:  “Better to have a thousand guilty set free than have even one innocent imprisoned.”  (paraphrased)

Rubbish.  I’ll take my chances on the occasional miscarriage of justice over the prisons being opened in the name of We-Don’t-Wanna-Make-a-Mistake.

Gird your loins and man up, wussies!  If you’re on a jury, you’ve got a job to do.  Do it!  Don’t pussy-out because you miss your family, you’re worn out. and deliberations are really, really hard.  Whaaaa!  Man-up and do your duty.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” does not mean beyond any doubt.  There will always be some doubt of guilt.  Martians could have come down in the night to commit the crime.  It’s a possibility, albeit an absurdly unlikely one.  But what is the reasonable probability?   This is what jurors are reminded to consider – and act upon.  The burden of proof must be met, yes.  But as we saw in the O.J. trial… “Beyond a reasonable doubt” doesn’t work if you’re dealing with unreasonable people.  That crime was proven thirty ways to Christmas.  But that jury couldn’t see it because Furman was a racist?!  And those on the jury who could see it were too wussy to fight for the truth.  It’s tough to fight prevailing unreasonableness in court deliberations.  I know, I’ve served on three trial juries.  It’s tough – you’re tired, you want to just arrive at a verdict, be done with it and go home.

But you have to get it right.

We, as a society, need you to get it right.  Because if you don’t, if you choose instead the easy path, the expedient solution – we as a society suffer.  We are a nation of laws – but if we may break them at will and suffer no consequence, then we are no longer a nation of laws.  Folding in a jury deliberation room is like going to Congress and voting “present.”  You either have some balls and take a stand…or put your tail between your legs, cower to the consensus, and take the easy way out.

Casey Anthony lied repeatedly to police about the disappearance of her daughter, then proceeded to party her little ass off.  A young mother who played at parenthood who just wanted to be carefree again and be done with it.   If she didn’t do it… why lie to the cops?   Why invent the stories of obfuscation about this phantom baby-sitter…etc, etc, etc.   Because she was embarrassed?  She was traumatized by some vaguely-alluded-to adolescent sexual abuse?

I think most of us can figure it out.  It’s obvious.  So obvious, in fact, that she’s going walk.  You see…if was too obvious.

Anyone who’s ever watched “Law & Order” knows that.

What did California law enforcement expect when they enlisted celebrities to help warn the public of the impending closure of a major freeway?

Probably not this.

Kim Kardashian, one of several celebrities with Twitter followings in the millions, was asked by the L.A.P.D to warn her followers of the impending highway closure.

Kardashian complied, tweeting on Friday: “Remember this weekend the 405 Fwy is gonna be closed between the San Fernando Valley and the West Side!!”

Just one problem. The closure is in two weeks.

So the “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” star tried to correct her mistake, tweeting: “Remember next weekend the 405 Fwy is gonna be closed between the San Fernando Valley and the West Side!!”

Wrong again.

Kardashian erased both initial Twitter messages and finally got it right: “Stay away from the 405 Fwy the weekend of July 16 & 17, it will be closed btwn the 10 Fwy and 101 Fwy North & South!”

Oh. My. Gawd.

My data isn’t fresh on this, but there was a time not long ago where the stretch of 405 freeway between the 10 and 101 was the single most trafficked road in the United States.  Shutting that down for a couple of days is like blocking off L.A.’s pulmonary artery; it just can’t function without it.  So, if the city is going to try to temporarily block it off, they can’t afford any mistakes.

One of the main theses of Big Hollywood is that more often than not, pop culture trumps politics; in other words, Hollywood has as much, if not more influence over the way we live our lives than those who are literally in power.  One of the best illustrations of this is twitter, where most of our country’s greatest thinkers are followed by a few thousand people while reality television stars and pop singers are followed by millions.  Kardashian, for example, who was catapulted to fame when a bootleg sex tape she made with rapper Ray-J was leaked to the public, is followed by over eight million people. By virtue of that fact, the LA City government entrusted her to disseminate vital information to help keep one of the country’s largest municipalities moving at it’s already lumbering pace.  Naturally, she wasn’t up to the task.

But I don’t blame Kim Kardashian; she makes a living having her butt x-rayed. I blame all of us who have been suckered into the cult of celebrity and vote for the people who run this city so horribly.  The taxes are too high, our schools are unusable, and even the public restroom toilet seats have gang inscriptions carved into them.  And don’t try and drive anywhere in L.A., either, because if you don’t pop a tire on one of the countless potholes, I can only conceptualize an L.A. traffic jam as the preview for Hell.  The city is run by a goof-ball Mayor who changed his name from Tony Villar to Antonio Villaraigosa (no doubt to pander to the Latin community) and failed the Bar Exam all four times he took it.  When he’s not on top of a Telemundo reporter (no wonder he’s happy to turn the key of the city over to an amateur porn star) he’s court-side at a Laker game or violating a local variance.  This is the guy we democratically elected to be in charge, so we deserve whatever we get from him.

We now have a city that has been left to the most incompetent people in the country (reality television stars) by the second most incompetent people in the country (left-wing politicians).

Needless to say, it’s a bit of hyperbole to blame this twitter mishap on our failure of a Mayor; he may not have had much to do with any of this.  But someone was elected to run this city–it ain’t one of the Kardashians–and the buck stops with him.

I love Los Angeles for a number of reasons, but the combination of Hollywood nonsense and a left-wing government can be a heavy burden to bear.  If you want to understand why our John Nolte left L.A., look no further than Kim Kardashian’s twitter feed.

“Targets Down“ (B&H Publishing), my second novel in the Matt Hogan series is now available. Publisher’s Weekly called my debut novel, “Enemies Among Us,” ”a page-turning roller coaster that feels like Jack Bauer’s 24 without sailing over the top.” Actor/producer Jack Scalia read an advance copy of TARGETS DOWN and liked it so much he optioned it. Mark Roemmich of Noble House Entertainment Pictures is writing the screenplay.

Much of my career was spent undercover so it makes sense Matt Hogan, my alter-ego, would be an undercover FBI agent…only younger, better looking, and with more hair than I have. Although fiction, I want to give the reader a realistic look at the FBI and what undercover work really entails. Hollywood seldom gets it right and too often our perception is only what we see on the big screen. 

As in many undercover assignments, where you begin is not where you finish. As I’ve discussed at Big Peace, I was undercover for three years in Operation Smoking Dragon. It began with Chinese manufactured counterfeit cigarettes but lead to nearly pure crystal meth, ecstasy, the North Korean Super Note, a $60 million surface-to-air missile deal, even former Russian intelligence agents selling me stolen cars. In TARGETS DOWN, Matt finds twists and turns as he seeks to find who killed two people and critically wounded an FBI agent’s wife.

Here’s chapter one, I hope you enjoy it…

TARGETS DOWN: CHAPTER ONE 

The powerful hand gripped the silenced Russian-made weapon and the tattooed arm straightened. As the teenager talked to the killer’s two associates in the darkened parking lot, she had no idea she was about to be erased by the threat behind her. It was all so impersonal, but career criminals operated on a different plain. Morality was never an issue; expediency was. The Ukrainian girl was a liability and thus expendable.

The ever-constant traffic on Ventura Boulevard masked the sounds of the two muted gunshots fired in rapid succession. From just a few feet away either shot to the back of the head was fatal. Before anyone exited the rear door to the Russian Veil, the three men threw the limp body into the bed of the pick-up truck and were gone: another anonymous victim of Los Angeles street justice, a judicial system lacking due process or fairness. Even a quest for freedom was a capital offense.

Matt Hogan stood in front of the mirror admiring his greased biker-hair look. His rugged battle-scarred features were in sharp contrast to the metrosexuals parading up and down the Sunset Strip on any Saturday evening. The undercover agent then sprayed a 70 percent solution of alcohol on the left side of his powerful neck. He carefully placed the Tinsley transfer, blotted the paper, waited a few seconds, and just as carefully removed the transfer. Satisfied with his work, he finished with a dash of baby powder to aid in drying the large prison-like tattoo. A movie studio German “SS” now complemented the stubble. But even clean shaven, Matt could be a menacing figure, a no-holds barred, man’s man.

If it’s true, the hotter the fire the stronger the steel, then Hogan was as strong as they came. A member of the FBI’s small cadre of undercover agents, he successfully played the role of contract killer, drug dealer, and when cleaned up, a sophisticated white collar criminal. A psychologist described him as a “synthesist,” a person who could void himself of his own personality and take on the characteristics, mindset, and mannerisms of whatever the part required. Matt was good, maybe too good. Sometimes even he questioned who he was.

Working undercover meant more than a fake driver’s license and a fictitious name. It was living life as a liar for hours, days, even months at a time. It meant becoming one of them without becoming one of them. Distance offered detachment but when you went undercover it became personal. It was getting close to people whom you will ultimately betray and probing the darkest side of humanity, including your own. Unlike Hollywood, there were no retakes—a botched line, a missed mark, a mistake—could mean instant death. Matt Hogan walked in the flames many times; he experienced the fire.

As he began writing the letters H-A-T-E on the fingers of his right hand, Steve Barnett walked into the Joint Terrorism Task Force locker room.

“Well, if it isn’t the Mary Kay of the FBI,” said Steve. “You enjoy putting on make-up way too much. I hope you aren’t switching sides on me.”

“Don’t ask. Don’t tell,” said Matt concentrating on his artwork.

“Why don’t you just pierce your ear and grow a ponytail, like every other undercover agent I know?”

“Caitlin won’t let me. She’s got a pretty strict dress code around the house. In fact, these biker undercover assignments keep me sleeping on the couch until I take a shower.”

“I guess that’s why she’s been spending so many nights with me at my place.”

“In your dreams big guy, I know for a fact she doesn’t date the follicly challenged with a bad weave.”

Steve pulled out a comb and began to rake his sparse locks styled in a weak comb-over. “That’s how much you know. I’m a Hair Club for Men honor graduate and she loves to run her fingers through these amber waves.”

Matt didn’t even look up, still writing on his fingers. “I’m surprised you’re awake. Isn’t this way past your bedtime?”

Steve looked in the mirror, moving his face even closer, carefully examining his skin, searching for tell-tale signs of aging, “These late nights are causing all kinds of wrinkles.”

“I’m not sure eight hours of sleep or Mary Kay will help,” said Matt without cracking a smile.

“What about Botox?”

“Yeah, that might fill in a few of those deep crevices around the eyes but you still don’t have a shot with any skirt rated higher than a three or four.”

“You’re probably right. I keep hoping my near perfect shooting scores at the Leisure World pistol range will attract some blue-hair with money, but I’m even striking out there.” Steve paused, turned serious, and then said almost in a whisper, “Dwayne said we’re ready to start the briefing, when you are.”

An FBI office is like a locker room with the requisite jock-snapping and sarcastic sniping. The thin-skinned need not apply. A sense of humor is almost a requirement, sometimes the sicker the better. Those on the outside would never understand or appreciate the need to talk or act the way grown men in law enforcement do. Those in the military understand. Those on the front lines fighting evil know the need. It brings a sense of relief from the tensions the real world throws at you everyday, the constant reminders of your mortality. It also brings a sense of camaraderie. You can’t count on judges, lawyers, law makers, or administrators. Like the combat soldier or Marine you can only count on the man next to you on the urban battlefield.

Matt blew on his fingers to accelerate the drying time of the ink from the tattoo make-up pen and followed Steve to the room at the end of the long hallway.

—–

Ed. Note: You can read Mark Tapson’s review of “Targets Down” here.

UPDATE: As of 3:30 pm an appeal has already been filed.

The provocative headlines you’ll see on the Internet this weekend will state that Jennifer Lopez’s ex-husband has won a court battle allowing him to release an intimate videotape featuring himself and the Grammy-winning mega-star.  That’s not it at all.  What really happened is much less salacious and a lot more significant.  What you won’t read about is the unbelievably arrogant and unconstitutional lengths Lopez’ attorneys went to to not just squelch her ex but ANYBODY from saying ANYTHING derogatory about her.  Seriously:  ANYBODY.  Including you.

It is a story of the arrogance of power within Hollywood, and how a team of Los Angeles lawyers including Big Hollywood’s own Kurt Schlichter, and a judge who understands the law and American values, helped stop it.

Ojani Noa came to the United States from Cuba with nothing except good looks and ambition – a classic American story.  He met and fell in love with a rising star, Jennifer Lopez, and for a time they were married.  But happy endings are rarer in Hollywood than monogamy in the Kennedy compound; their divorce turned bitter and the newly-minted mega-star turned the full force of her Hollywood big gun lawyers on Noa.

Noa, who at one time was once represented by a man who later served time for impersonating a lawyer, was hit with an injunction that prevented him from taking a number of actions regarding Jennifer Lopez, including speaking about her in a derogatory fashion.  Except the restraining order was not just focused on Noa – by its own terms, this order (which was drafted by Lopez’s high-priced counsel at Lavely & Singer, recently in the news as the sharks retained by Charlie Sheen), applied to every person with knowledge of it.

It was the Hollywood celebrity dream order – an injunction that puts anyone at risk of being hauled into court for contempt should they speak words that displease a movie star.

It was also clearly unconstitutional.

A woman named Claudia Vazquez, who had made a name for herself in Hollywood as a rising producer, saw that the story of Noa and Lopez was more than just a celebrity tale but a fascinating (and potentially hilarious) meditation on the nature of celebrity as well as a celebration of the American dream.  Vazquez went forward with her own dream and attempted to pitch the story as a film project around Hollywood.  However, no one would touch the project after Lopez and her lawyers asserted that she was barred by injunctions issued against Noa.  She became, as she put it, “radioactive.”

She enlisted the help of ace attorneys Cris Armenta and Credence Sol, who along with Schlichter, fought back.  They sought to enjoin Lopez from enforcing the Noa injunctions against Vazquez; Lopez responded with a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit and seek a huge attorneys fees award against this single mother.

After a marathon hearing, Judge Ann Jones of the Los Angeles Superior Court took the matter under submission and issued her 16-page ruling on May 26th.  It is a stirring repudiation of the notion that the powerful can control the speech of regular people.  She noted that the language originally written and enforced in the injunction was unconstitutional on its face.  She rejected Lopez’s attempts to dismiss the case, finding that Vazquez had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.  The Judge then enjoined Lopez from enforcing the Noa injunctions against Vazquez.  The case will proceed to trial, with Jennifer Lopez summoned to give her videotaped deposition testimony under oath in Santa Monica on June 16th.  In the meantime, Vazquez can make her movie.  The little guy, for once, has won.

Only in Hollywood could the idea that the First Amendment came with a special exception for pop singers be even considered.  Fortunately, there are still Americans willing to fight for their rights, lawyers who will stand with them, and judges that understand that the Constitution means what it says.  Now the rest of us mere mortals can voice our opinions about the dancer turned pop star turned film star turned Puff Daddy squeeze turned American Idol judge without wondering if our next stop is the county jail.

The troubled actress didn’t admit to stealing a $2,500 necklace last February, but her no contest plea does go on her record as a conviction.

An unholy alliance evolved over the last decade among search companies, ad serving companies, credit card companies and rogue websites.  People seeking illegal digital property use unfiltered search engines to find it, ad serving companies facilitate users by serving ads to these search pages and to rogue sites, and credit card companies facilitate the sale of illegal content subscriptions. 

The adservers and credit card companies split their revenue with the rogue sites.  Everyone makes money efficiently–except the people who create the stuff that’s being ripped off, whether its movies, music, high fashion or pharmaceuticals. This is hardly a level playing field.  But criticize the unholy alliance, and you’ll be demeaned as a shill or worse.

Missing from this cash machine?  Responsibility.  Like Sergeant Schultz, nobody sees nothing—nod nod wink wink—rogue sites are all someone else’s fault, and that someone always seems to be a couple steps outside the law in China, the Ukraine or somewhere from which they reach the valuable US market without the burden of US laws.  This unholy alliance is a serious economic attack—large commercial interests that are global, well funded and cagey.

Should online property rights be different that offline property rights?

Nobody likes the idea of the government seizing private property, but nobody likes having their property stolen, either.  The point is to help create a level playing field to encourage the launch of legitimate services which in turn support the jobs of those who produce the legitimate goods. 

I’ve worked with many technology companies and creators who struggle to play by the rules.  Some gain a toehold. But if entrepreneurs can’t enforce their rights effectively, that’s not market failure, that’s anarchy.   Many give up in despair and will not launch another business in the space or finance another independent movie.  The police investigate organized theft in the physical world, why not online?  How can this happen in America’s free market?

There is No Market Failure if There’s No Market

Creating a new market is difficult–government has largely stayed out of the Internet which is a good thing, assuming the basic legal system provides a reasonably level playing field.    

The current state of massive online theft is often referred to as a “market failure”—but it is more than a mere inefficient allocation of resources.  It is a serious indicator that property rights are under attack.  There can be no market failure without a market, and there can be no market without enforceable property rights. 

The online story is not entirely dire, but nowhere near a level playing field.  Where entrepreneurs choose to respect property rights, some firms attract investment and customers for legitimate business that pays everyone in the value chain—examples being iTunes Music Store, Amazon, Drugstore.com, and Netflix. Imagine if these entrepreneurs did not have to compete with stolen? 

Somebody Call the Cops

Unsurprisingly, Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch introduced the Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act (“COICA”) in the last Congress.  The legislation was a bipartisan effort to bring common sense to the Internet madhouse.  COICA had broad support, many co-authors and passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 19-0 vote. Senators Leahy and Hatch intend to reintroduce the bill in the 112th Congress, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings this week for the new bill.

ICE stepped up enforcement actions with court-ordered seizure orders of rogue sites whose illicit activities have exceeded the scope of the DMCA takedown notice.  ICE is not a private prosecutor for Hollywood studios as it has been portrayed in some writings–ICE Director Morton confirmed that ICE and the courts sought a court ordered seizure of about 50% of the private sector referrals–seizures subject to full due process protections for defendants.

Rogue sites—who earn revenue for themselves and adserving companies selling all manner of stolen goods–receive thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of DMCA takedown notices.  It is unrealistic to think that entrepreneurs, especially independent creators, can fight this alliance with DMCA notices alone.  The DMCA is not an alibi.

Without the help of legislation like COICA and law enforcement, this “catch me if you can” game requires 24/7 monitoring for illegal copies of everything from movies to pharmaceuticals.  Entrepreneurs and small business cannot afford 24/7 policing.

Protecting Property Rights

Not only is rampant piracy a fundamental attack on the rights of American entrepreneurs and workers, it undermines our cherished system of private property.  This problem is not just about “Hollywood” or Prada handbags—it concerns the value of many industries, small businesses and jobs to be protected by COICA and ICE, as well as our bedrock economic principles.

Both Senate action on COICA last year and the ICE seizures have already created positive effects.  On December 2, Google announced voluntary changes to its Adsense policy–to determine if Google’s Adsense partners are “bad apples.”   So it seems that carrot and stick are starting to have the desired market effect, although the final breakup of the unholy alliance has yet to be achieved.

If all government has to do to attract more entrepreneurs, investments and jobs to the online market is enforce the law against the “bad apples”, it should be done—carefully, but done.  That is, after all, one of the main reasons we have government in the first place.