An interesting unpublished decision, handed down Monday. The court’s opinion strikes me as clearly correct, both in rejecting the plaintiff’s unsound constitutional tension method argument and in more broadly rejecting the defamation claim and related tort claims. As the court concludes, “Residents of a community seeking to express their disagreement with what they perceive to be objectionable conduct by a fellow resident ought not be dissuaded by threat of litigation.” It’s too bad that the neighbors had to go through all the hassle, though fortunately the anti-SLAPP statute will require the Beach Club to pay the owners’ attorney fees. Here’s a longish excerpt:
In 2007, appellant Beach Club remodeled and enlarged a single-family residence at 5277 Austin Road in Santa Barbara. The residence, now 6,600 square feet, is an ocean-front property on a bluff with unobstructed views of the Santa Barbara coast and Pacific Ocean. The property is in a subdivision that is governed by a declaration of conditions and restrictions (C&R’s). One such restriction is that “[e]ach residential dwelling in the tract shall be designed, built, maintained and used for the primary purpose of a single family residence ….” …In July 2007, respondents Bonnie and Fred Freeman, whose home is also located on Austin Road, learned that the Beach Club was advertising “fractional ownerships” in its property. Several neighborhood meetings were held to discuss the issue. The Association, which comprises approximately 100 homeowners, sent a letter to its County supervisor in September 2007 protesting the sales. The Association also sent letters to the Beach Club stating that selling fractional ownerships in the property would violate the C&R’s. The Beach Club disagreed and continued its marketing efforts to sell six fractional shares in the residence for approximately $2 million each.
Several weeks later, the Freemans and several other residents of the neighborhood, including respondents Michael and Terry Fealy and Joan Myers (collectively “the homeowners”), posted two-foot by two-foot signs on the front lawns of their residences. Each sign states:
“Say No To:
Fractional Ownership
Timeshare Ownership
Beach Club Ownership
In Our More Mesa Shores Neighborhood.”The Beach Club threatened the homeowners with litigation if the signs were not removed. Several of the residents removed their signs. Freeman, Fealy and Myers did not.
On July 25, 2008, the Beach Club filed a first amended complaint for nuisance, slander of title, and interference with prospective economic advantage. The complaint seeks an injunction and damages and alleges that the signs are defamatory and have interfered with the Beach Club’s “constitutional right to sell its property.”
The Freemans filed a motion to strike pursuant to section 425.16 [the California anti-SLAPP statute] in which the Fealys and Myers joined…. [T]he trial court issued an order granting the motion.
On appeal, the Beach Club contends the homeowners have not met their burden of showing that the signs are speech protected by the First Amendment because they are defamatory, are not posted in a public forum, and do not concern an issue of public interest. It also asserts it has met its burden of showing a probability of prevailing on the merits because it has a “constitutional right to sell its property.”
The Beach Club further contends that, if section 425.16 requires the court to accord a presumption of validity to the signs, it is unconstitutional. It asserts that the court must engage in a weighing process balancing the competing constitutional rights of the parties, without according the signs a presumption of validity, in determining whether to grant or deny the motion to strike….
A SLAPP suit (strategic lawsuit against public participation) is a lawsuit brought primarily to chill a party’s constitutional right of petition or free speech. The anti-SLAPP statute was enacted to prevent and deter lawsuits that chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances and provides “an efficient procedural mechanism to obtain an early and inexpensive dismissal of nonmeritorious claims” arising from the exercise of those constitutional rights.
Section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1), states: “A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”
Section 425.16, subdivision (e), defines acts in furtherance of free speech or petition rights in connection with a public issue as follows: “As used in this section, ‘act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue’ includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; [or] (4) …any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” …
The consideration of an anti-SLAPP motion is a two-step process. “First, the court decides whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity.” “If the court finds such a showing has been made, it then determines whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim.” …
Beach Club asserts that, to the extent the anti-SLAPP statute “exalts one [constitutional] right over another,” it is unconstitutional on its face. The premise is faulty and the claim fails. The statute does not exalt First Amendment rights over property rights. The statute merely establishes a procedure requiring a plaintiff who challenges the exercise of First Amendment rights to make an evidentiary showing at the outset of litigation that his complaint has substantive merit. Prior decisions have found no merit to similar constitutional challenges….
At oral argument, the Beach Club asserted that the “first step” of the analysis requires that we measure the Beach Club’s protected property rights against the homeowners’ free speech rights. The claim is without merit. The first step is to determine whether “the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity.” The Beach Club’s property rights become relevant during the second step of the analysis when the court determines whether plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits….
A cause of action “arises from” protected activity if the act underlying the plaintiff’s cause of action, or the act which forms the basis for it, was itself an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech. The homeowners’ signs are a classic exercise of their right of free speech. Nonetheless, Beach Club asserts the signs are not entitled to First Amendment protection and do not fall within the ambit of section 425.16 because they are defamatory, the homeowners have not presented sufficient evidence interpreting the language of the signs, and the homeowners intend the signs to interfere with the Beach Club’s right to sell its property. The Beach Club also asserts that section 425.16 does not apply because the signs were not posted in a public forum and do not concern a matter of public interest….
Considering all of the circumstances, the signs are not defamatory. The signs were posted during a neighborhood controversy in an effort to persuade others. The phrase “Say No To,” as well as the signs as a whole, express an opinion or point of view concerning an issue that is important to the homeowners. The phrases “Fractional Ownership,” “Timeshare Ownership,” “Beach Club Ownership,” to the extent they are taken out of context, may be considered statements of fact. However, these words are not defamatory as a matter of law because they are true. The Beach Club advertised itself as offering “fractional ownerships.” “Timeshare Ownership,” in context, means the same as fractional ownership—several people owning divided shares in a residence. “Beach Club Ownership” does no more than identify the Beach Club property. “In Our More Mesa Shores Neighborhood” is simply a means of identifying the location of the controversy.
The Beach Club argues that the homeowners did not submit evidence of the meaning of the words in the signs and therefore have failed to meet their burden of proof…. [But t]he signs contain clear, simple language that requires no extrinsic evidence to aid in their interpretation. Nothing in the signs impugns the reputation of the Beach Club or insinuates that it is guilty of criminal conduct. The average reader does not have the legal sophistication to differentiate “fractional ownership” from “timeshare ownership” or the knowledge of the regulatory framework applicable to time shares, and there is no possibility that the signs contain defamatory innuendo.
The Beach Club also argues that the signs are not entitled to First Amendment protection because they merely express a dislike of the Beach Club’s sales efforts. This argument too is without merit. Defamation does not occur and First Amendment protection is not lost based on the motive of the speaker….
The Beach Club asserts that the signs are not speech subject to section 425.16 because the front lawn of the homeowners’ properties is not a public forum and the signs do not concern a matter of public interest, but rather concern a private dispute among property owners and is targeted not at the public but only to potential purchasers. We disagree…. [T]he anti-SLAPP statute protects private conversations as well as those occurring in a public forum….
The signs concern a matter of public interest. There are approximately 100 households in the Association. It actively participated in the ongoing dispute concerning use of the Beach Club property by sending letters to its members, to the Beach Club and to its governmental representative concerning the Beach Club’s use of its property. The dispute is of vital importance to each individual and the neighborhood as a whole. The manner in which the Beach Club uses its property is a matter of public interest and debate, the very type of debate that led the Legislature to enact the anti-SLAPP statute.
The homeowners’ community is smaller than the groups involved in [earlier cases] However, in light of the Legislature’s express directive to broadly construe the anti-SLAPP statute to encourage continued public participation in matters of public significance (425.16, subd. (a)), we conclude that the signs fall within the ambit of section 425.16, subdivisions (e)(3) and (4), and that the homeowners met their threshold burden….
[The court also rejected the other tort claims, saying, among other things: -EV] Claims for interference with prospective economic advantage may not be based on speech that is entitled to constitutional protection….
The facts of this case underscore the continuing wisdom of Wilcox v. Superior Court, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at page 815. Residents of a community seeking to express their disagreement with what they perceive to be objectionable conduct by a fellow resident ought not be dissuaded by threat of litigation….
Urso says:
I have a lot of trouble figuring out what fits under the SLAPP statute, but this is so clearly a lawsuit intended solely to chill protected speech it’s amazing the Beach Club found a lawyer willing to sign his name to it.
I love the court’s droll comment on the plaintiff’s citation to Shelley v. Kramer: “This case is inapposite.”
May 5, 2010, 3:09 pmHouston Lawyer says:
I would like to know how anyone who passed the bar exam could characterize those signs as defamatory.
May 5, 2010, 3:29 pmOrenWithAnE says:
After that, I want to understand how a sign criticizing a property owner negatively impacts their right to private property? Has the notion of private property ever included the right not to have negative things written about it or the owners?
Again, surely they have the right to sell property but what does that right have to do with the signs?!
May 5, 2010, 3:34 pmUrso says:
Reading between the lines, it seems the Beach Club was arguing the signs were defamatory because they falsely claimed that the Beach Club was selling “Time shares” while the Beach Club was actually only selling “fractional ownership.” Of course, this is a distinction that only makes a difference to a real estate lawyer – IRL, people understand the two to mean more or less the same thing. And even assuming the statement is false in some hypertechnical manner, no reasonable person would understand that it injures the Beach Club’s reputation.
A more cynical, and probably more accurate answer, is that the Beach Club and its attorneys didn’t care whether the suit was legally meritorious. They just wanted to scare the individual defendants with the threat of an expensive lawsuit and get them to take the signs down. Hence the SLAPP statute.
May 5, 2010, 3:41 pmGuy says:
Why was this even brought? Maybe the anti-SLAPP statute needs to be amended to provide treble damages on the attorney’s fees.
The court should have just printed the URL for that Onion story below as its opinion
May 5, 2010, 3:57 pmsardonic_sob says:
I would like to know how anybody who could characterize those signs as defamatory and sign their names to a court filing asserting same could stay passed. The mind, it boggles.
May 5, 2010, 4:05 pmhustol says:
Perhaps a bit off point, but I can’t believe that the home assn’s CC&R didn’t prohibit signs like that in the front yard ….
May 5, 2010, 4:11 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Why is the opinion unpublished?
May 5, 2010, 4:20 pmEH says:
Beyond that, the word “timeshare” is not tied to “Beach Club.” The sign more or less says they don’t want timeshare ownership no matter who’s doing it.
May 5, 2010, 4:43 pmRPT says:
This kind of suit is often filed by high end homeowners, very often beach front, who have an exalted view of their rights and like to use the system to punish those who disagree. Thus it is classic SLAPP. Prevailing party fees are mandatory; if the case went this far, defense fees and costs >$100K would not be surprising.
May 5, 2010, 5:07 pmLarryA says:
Could be the attorney told the client that they were looking for a SLAPP lawsuit, and the client said, “Do it anyway.” Counselors advise, they don’t make the final decision, and stupid clients are not a rare breed.
May 5, 2010, 5:11 pmSteve says:
Beyond that, the word “timeshare” is not tied to “Beach Club.” The sign more or less says they don’t want timeshare ownership no matter who’s doing it.
I think there would be a question of fact as to whether the reasonable observer would understand the sign to apply to the Beach Club property. The better defense is that it’s simply not defamatory.
May 5, 2010, 5:30 pmsk says:
EV-
Perhaps you could discuss a related issue. I am often surprised that YouTube videos that are found to be offensive to somebody are yanked from the internet because of a legal complaint (by the offended party). (the most recent was a video mocking a professor from Pennsylvania with regards to Global Warming- it was mocking ‘Hide the Decline’ with music, people in chicken outfits, etc).
The video was originally removed because of the threat of lawsuit-until some conservative activist group offered legal services, and actually aided the producers of the video (average joes with no money), when the video was restored.
In this and other, similar cases, it appears to me that the videos in question are no different from a video one might see on Saturday Night Live-mocking, funny (or not), ironic, etc.
The difference, of course, is that the individuals who produce these videos don’t have the backing of NBC’s legal department (or potential access to NBC’s news division), and can’t afford to defend what I presume to be protected speech. Thus, the legal threat often works.
These instances seem precisely what the SLAP was designed to defend. I assume SLAP is a state law, or still requires a legal argument, so doesn’t really help individuals unless they are willing to go to court.
Perhaps you could consider/discuss the 1st Amendment implications of this type of situation: the threat of lawsuit is enough to stifle speech (specifically, on the internet)-but only for people without clout. After all, the 1st Amendment really isn’t doing its job (protecting speech) if the legal system is so expensive or onerous, that only wealthy folks can afford to prove that they warrant its protection (This may not be a constitutional, but rather a societal issue, perhaps).
Sk
May 5, 2010, 5:35 pmCornellian says:
Seems to me that this is exactly the kind of abusive lawsuit California’s anti-SLAPP law was designed to eliminate. Nice to see it working as intended.
May 5, 2010, 5:45 pmSoronel Haetir says:
I figure because the result is entirely unremarkable.
May 5, 2010, 6:32 pmElliot says:
Hourly legal fees?
May 5, 2010, 6:33 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
The only thing certain in the law, is the expense…And the lawyers always win – jurys don’t convict the attorneys.
May 5, 2010, 6:54 pmIsabel1130 says:
“Perhaps a bit off point, but I can’t believe that the home assn’s CC&R didn’t prohibit signs like that in the front yard ….”
. If they did, the HOA themselves would most likely be in violation for the first amendment.
May 5, 2010, 7:00 pmAlso what about “For Sale Signs”? I live in a pretty restrictive neighborhood with several pages of covenants. I can’t put up a billboard but small temporary signs are ok for all the appropriate reasons including the constitutional ones.
Dunstan says:
SK — the YouTube context is a little different, because you don’t have a First Amendment right to make someone else publish your video (or letter to the editor, etc.). And YouTube isn’t really interested in defending its users’ free speech, so when YouTube gets threatened with a defamation action, it’s likely to cave and take the video down.
It’s different with threats of copyright action, because the user does have the option of submitting a counter-notice to a DMCA takedown.
May 5, 2010, 7:28 pmcityduck says:
Smart and ethical attorneys make the final decision, by firing their clients if they have to, rather than bring lawsuits that are not supported by probable cause.
May 5, 2010, 7:42 pmShelbyC says:
No but you have a first amendment right not to have the govt punish 3rd parties for publishing your video, and that’s kinda what’s happening when someone threatens legal action.
May 5, 2010, 8:01 pmNobody At All says:
Unsurprising in light of the recent SCOTUS decision. Justice Breyer’s concurrence, in particular, strikes a hard line against this.
May 5, 2010, 8:22 pmNobody At All says:
(unsurprisingly, Eugene already posted it. sorry, all.)
May 5, 2010, 9:24 pmChris says:
Youtube has safe harbor under the DMCA. They can tell anyone who threatens a defamation action ‘It’s not our problem,
May 5, 2010, 10:31 pmtalk to the guy who posted it.’
neurodoc says:
Not exactly correct.
Neither attorneys, nor anyone else who is not a defendant in a criminal prosecution is ever “convicted” by a jury.
And when a client whose attorney has taken their case on a contingency fee basis loses, the attorney loses, sometimes in out-of-pocket expenses as well as the time they put into the case.
Also, attorneys can be losers whether their clients prevail or not, if they go about their representation in such a way as to cause a court to sanction them.
So, yes, the attorneys usually come out ahead no matter how their clients fare, but that is not always true.
May 5, 2010, 10:49 pmneurodoc says:
Given the facts of this case and the applicable law, it’s hard to imagine how these defendants could have lost. But had the unimaginable happened and the defendants lost, making them responsible for the plaintiff’s damages and their own legal expenses, what is the likelihood that their homeowners and/or excess liability policies would have covered some of it? Do some/most homeowners and/or excess liability policies cover the policyholder for losses under circumstances like these?
[PS: I wonder what happened with the property after the Beach Club lost the defamation case. Did they get to go ahead and sell those six fractional interests at $2M each, or did they have to make a course correction so as to comply with the subdivisions C&Rs?]
May 5, 2010, 11:06 pmneurodoc says:
“The HOA themselves would most likely be in violation for the first amendment”?! I thought that only the government could violate one’s First Amendment rights.
Now what might have been an interesting twist in this case is if the HOA did forbid such signs but declined to make these homeowners take theirs down. Then if the Beach Club was a member of the HOA, could it have relied on the HOA provisions to force the defendants to take down their signs?
May 5, 2010, 11:18 pmneurodoc says:
Also, I wonder why the Association only sent letters to the Beach Club advising that it would be a violation of their C&Rs to sell fractional interests in the property and didn’t seek an injunction to stop the Beach Club from going ahead with sales. Too expensive an undertaking for the Association, or fear that the Beach Club would strike back somehow, or lack of unanimity on the part of those in control of the Association, or what?
May 5, 2010, 11:23 pmBMe says:
The case is unremarkable (though worthy of mention). The system worked exactly as it should: the lawsuit got dismissed in four months, the plaintiff (who should have known better — ditto for its counsel) had to pay not only its legal fees but also those of its opponent (both in the trial court and on appeal), and others will hopefully be deterred from filing similar suits in the future. Case closed.
May 6, 2010, 12:18 amOrenWithAnE says:
I would think someone near this point, counselors must refuse to file a claim that is utterly without merit. Whether or not this claim qualifies, it’s damn close to the line.
May 6, 2010, 1:03 amPHil says:
Is it? That line in an individual case is so much clearer after the court renders its decision.
May 6, 2010, 7:16 amGoobermunch says:
The First Amendment prohibits the government from making laws restricting speech. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits you from contractually restricting your right to speak.
–G
May 6, 2010, 7:48 amsardonic_sob says:
Oh, no argument. But to me – and I am not a litigator and perhaps am a trifle idealistic even after fifteen years of practice – this is right up on the edge of filing a claim you KNOW has no merit. I mean, never mind the motivation – you can file a good claim for bad reasons and while that might make you a jerk, it doesn’t make you a bad lawyer. But here, I can barely see the argument for the merits of the case, at least the defamation claim, with a large telescope.
May 6, 2010, 8:42 amIsabel1130 says:
” “The HOA themselves would most likely be in violation for the first amendment”?! I thought that only the government could violate one’s First Amendment rights.”
If only the government can do something that violates your first amendment rights how could the court in the case possibly have thrown this case out on a first amendment basis? Beach Club was not a government actor. While I conceed that it is possible to give up some of your constitutional rights temporarily by contract, I think an HOA ban on small temporary political signs would be unlikely to be upheld in court.
May 6, 2010, 9:20 amFedya says:
They pay the protection racket, which is all bar licensing really is.
(Only partially written in sarcasm.)
May 6, 2010, 9:57 amneurodoc says:
The plaintiff was asking the court, a branch of government, to restrict the defendants’ speech. The court said the defendants’ had a First Amendment right to that particular speech and summarily dismissed the case.
Private actors are incapable of breaching the First Amendment rights of others, only an instrument of the government is capable of doing that. This follows from the simple, straightforward language of the amendment (“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”). The court told this plaintiff that they were asking for an impermissible infringement of the defendants’ rights and under California law, they could be, and would be, made to pay the defendants’ legal expenses incurred in answering their frivilous lawsuit.
May 6, 2010, 10:38 amUrso says:
Sometimes it’s not so easy for the lawyers to resist. It’s possible Beach club is a highly sucessful real estate company that has used this firm for years, paid them hundreds and thousands in fees, and they want this lawsuit filed. That’s a lot of pressure on the attorney, not only for himself but on behalf of the whole firm, to take the case rather than lose the client.
I do wonder whether this case merited a minor benchslap – perhaps a footnote saying “The court finds it difficult to believe that [Atty X] could sign this complaint in good faith, under the strictures of Rule 11 and Cal. CCP 128.7, considering the total lack of legal and factual merit.”
May 6, 2010, 11:03 amDunstan says:
Doesn’t DMCA immunity only apply to copyright claims? Still, Youtube might also have Communications Decency Act 230 immunity to a defamation claim.
May 6, 2010, 11:49 amFub says:
There seems to be a comment-eating bug in the host s/w. I’ll try to post this one more time.
Caution: I never practiced civil.
But see Cal. Code of
Civil Procedure Section 128.5(b)(2):
“Totally and completely without merit” and “for the sole purpose” make a fairly tough standard.
But the trial court and the 2nd DCA didn’t need to use the standard for “frivolous” to reach the same result, because the remedies for successful anti-SLAPP motion are the same.
May 6, 2010, 12:24 pmneurodoc says:
Why such a footnote? If the court thought the attorney transgressed, then wouldn’t the proper course of action be to sanction him/her for doing so? (Might the attorney then share some of the responsibility for covering the defendants’ legal expenses, or because the defendants’ were entitled to recover those expenses pursuant to the anti-SLAPP law, would it be the client’s responsibility to pay all of it no matter a Rule 11 sanction against the attorney or not?) A footnote saying the court might have sanctioned the attorney under Rule 11 but chose to cut the attorney some slack this time, doesn’t sound to me like the right way to go.
May 6, 2010, 12:58 pmDunstan says:
Section 128.5 is essentially repealed (by its own terms, it applies only to cases filed before December 31, 1994, and I doubt there are many of those kicking around still). It’s been replaced by section 128.7, which doesn’t rely on the strict “frivolous” standard you quote; it’s more analogous to FRCP 11.
May 6, 2010, 1:49 pmFub says:
Yikes! Nothing like not reading everything in sight. At least twice.
Section 128.6 “frivolous” provision appears identical to 128.5, without the date limitation of 128.5(b)(1), but 128.6 does have an additional subsection (f):
And after reading your perfectly good point, I’ve found nothing repealing 128.7, or extending or deleting repeal date of 128.7. But I haven’t made an exhaustive search of CCP either.
So, does the Section 128.6 provision apply? Just what is the operative law?
Real good thing this is just a blog comment section and nothing substantial.
May 6, 2010, 4:57 pmDunstan says:
Here’s the sequence of events as I recall it:
1. The “old” statute for frivolous litigation was CCP 128.5.
2. In 1994, the Legislature passed 128.7, which created a very different standard, to be applied to cases from 1995 on. I guess they weren’t sure that they wanted to go with this new approach, because 128.7 originally had a “sunset clause” by which it would expire on January 1, 2003. Simultaneously the Legislature enacted 128.6 (essentially a rehash of 128.5) that would spring into effect if 128.7 was sunsetted.
3. The sunset provision for 128.7 was extended in 2002 and deleted altogether in 2005.
So, pending any further legislative action, CCP 128.7 is the relevant statute in California. If there are any cases filed pre-1995 still in the system, they would be governed by the old 128.5. And poor old 128.6 was never actually in effect and never will be, though it still appears in my desk copy of the CCP.
May 6, 2010, 5:58 pmneurodoc says:
It’s the bad in CA that they can’t agree on what is and what isn’t frivolous?! Perhaps it would help if they had different standards for Northern and Southern CA.
(Fub, if no civil practice, what sort of law do you do? And if you haven’t known until now the the boundaries of “frivolous,” has it just been good sense/luck that has kept you out of trouble? I should expect those rare few who have SBs rather than BSs or BAs would be less inclined to the “frivolous,” though some might not always conform. When did you pass through the portals of 77 MA Ave?)
May 7, 2010, 3:01 amFub says:
None. Retired and went inactive years ago after a few years’ minor league crim defense. Now I just annoy people on the intarweb.
Frivolous meant “without basis in law or fact”, modulo good faith arguments on interpretation or change. Legislative machinations around CCCP 128.5 – 128.7 hadn’t happened.
Before $1500 was too damn much.
May 7, 2010, 11:18 amExAtty says:
Well, the property is currently listed for sale, at just under $12 million:
http://www.prudentialcal.com/CA/SANTA-BARBARA/93111/homes-for-sale/5277-AUSTIN-RD-48384627
Based on values in the neighborhood that seems somewhere between 3-10 times what it is worth, however. No mention of fractional interests to be found in the listing.
(Just to appeal to the purient interest, zillow.com has pictures: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5277-Austin-Rd-Santa-Barbara-CA-93111/2144672326_zpid/)
May 7, 2010, 12:50 pmneurodoc says:
Oh my goodness, that was Julie Stratton’s time! You are ancient. Have you been fitted for a cardinal blazer? (I’m approaching it, but still a few years away. Can’t believe. Can remember as an undergrad looking across the street at a group coming down the steps of 77 MA Ave all bedecked in their blazers and thinking in my 19 or 20-year-old mind that I would never be that f’ing old.) What course (if I asked before, chalk it up to incipient demention) – me XIV.
May 7, 2010, 1:23 pmFub says:
VIII, just shy of double in XXI.
Suppose I should get one of those spiffy blazers sometime. Then I’d fit right in if I decided to run away and join the circus. Maybe even a brass rat too. Could be useful as knucks in a pinch.
What was XIV at the time?
IIRC D[XIV(subject,t)]/D[subject] != 0 for all t.
May 7, 2010, 2:45 pmneurodoc says:
“What was XIV at the time?” ?!
“IIRC D[XIV(subject,t)]/D[subject] != 0 for all t.” ?!?!
Hasn’t XIV always since the beginning of time been Economics? You know the department that produced Nobel Laureates (e.g., Samuelson, Solow, Stiglitz). Don’t get that cryptic last line of yours, should I?
You don’t say whether you have “matured” to the point that you might wear one of those blazers, but I take that you are either there or very close. (The tuition “riots” outside of Stratton’s residence and the chants of “$1500 is too damn much” were circa 1964 or so, weren’t they?)
You never got yourself a brass rat, then at graduation turned it around so it could do to the world what it had done to you in prior years? (I lost mine when I did my surgery rotation and took it off to scrub.) It would have held its value over the years based on the gold content.
Any particularly memorable pranks during your time at the ‘Tute?
May 7, 2010, 5:18 pmFub says:
Mostly econ by far, but IIRC there were times when psychology and some other courses were offered w/in XIV. Maybe there were other designators though, XIV-A, XIV-B and the like.
Slapdash for partial derivative of XIV wrt subject is not zero for all time.
There was a funny hack on an incoming class. Somebody (Voodoo IIRC) got hold of an admissions acceptance list and sent out questionnaires on fake letterhead. Cover letter gushed about the most brilliant incoming freshman class ever, and the grand opportunities for undergraduates to participate in research.
Questions were along the lines of “What contributions to science and technology do you plan to make while you’re here?”
Responses were hilarious, along the lines of “develop a unified field theory” and “prove Riemann’s hypothesis”.
May 7, 2010, 6:44 pmneurodoc says:
It seems to me that Political Science might have been one tract within a larger course, but I don’t think it was/is XIV (maybe XVII?) I’m pretty sure that Psychology (chaired by the most impressive and excellent teacher Hans Lucas Teuber, who during WWII was at the San Diego Naval Hospital with the great neurologist Morris Bender) was IX.
You still haven’t said with precision what class you were in, but now we are closing in fast on the answer. First, you alluded to the tuition “riots” (“$1500 is too damn much”), and mention of that Voodoo prank (does it qualify as a “hack,” perhaps) tells me we overlapped, if we were not in the same year (’67), the time of Ken Wadley, who succeeded the beloved three-finger Freddie Fascet (sp?) as dean of students.
Voodoo sent that hoax letter to incoming freshman in the name of that bogus honorary society for the most outstanding of outstanding matriculatants, Sigma Alpha Pi (or SAP, that is “sap”), and invited those responses. Small town newspapers boosted that not only did their top student get admitted to MIT, but he/she had been tapped for this special honor. While most pranks/hacks caused wonderment and/or great amusement, this one did not, at least not on the part of the otherwise pretty liberal admininistration, and some of those responsible may have gone on probation for their roles in it. (The only more serious offense was to sell pirated textbooks from Taiwan, cutting into faculty income from royalties. Telephone hacking, which was really the start of computer hacking, was frowned upon too.)
Do you recall that in the fall of ’64, Theta Chi got up in the new Earth Sciences (Greene) building and turned on the lights to spell out with the Greek letters, and the next night Baker House guys got in and spelled out their own motto for all to see, that being I-H-T-F-P?
I think at you must be only 6 or 7 years away from one of those blazers and the gray pants to compliment them. (I imagine they sell them through the Coop.)
May 8, 2010, 12:29 amFub says:
Yeah, I think you’re right about psych and IX, though I still have some vague lingering recollection of a XIV connection for Teuber.
Yep, it got out of control once it was in the wild. A fairly early and unfortunate example of a “viral” campaign, though I think that was not Voodoo’s intention.
Taiwan textbooks wasn’t a hack so much as a straightup crime. The LSC movie scandal came along a bit later too. It was more elegant, but still makes you wonder “what were they thinking?”
There was phone hacking and then there was phone hacking. In those days it was as much social engineering as technical, and more sport than economically motivated. I think the best were never noticed, and went on to perfectly legitimate careers. I never indulged, but I did know one of the better experts years later. He’s now deceased though.
Looks like we overlapped, but I’d rather not go further in a public forum. Shrinks and crim defense folks get that way sometimes whether they need to or not. Too many fruitcakes out there.
May 8, 2010, 3:24 amneurodoc says:
I believe the Teuber came to an unfortunate end – went swimming someplace in Caribbean (Jamaica?) and never seen again. Did you ever take 9.01, psychology from an entirely physiologic approach, which was a fantastic course with Teuber lecturing?
You mean they got more attention than they had anticipated? They didn’t intend to personally embarass individuals? (I have some vague recollection of Voodoo with a booth and big poster set up in the main corridor for all to see the questionnaire responses of those incoming freshmen who wanted to join SAP. Don’t know that I ever looked at the publication, which was pretty puerile, though I still chuckle at their “definition” of a Tech coed.)
It seemed more entrepenurial than criminal at the time. (I never purchased any “Taiwan textbooks.”) The term “intellectual property” would have meant nothing to me back then.
Please remind me of the details, since I have only a vague recollection. Thought those running it were just indulging themselves in the good life, e.g., taking guest lecturers to Lochovers for a fine dining experience. There was something “elegant” involved?
Social engineering? No personal knowledge of “blue boxes” and the like, only what I read later (maybe an article in Esquire) of the genesis of computer hacking. Some story of an Institute phone that was always engaged and when school security checked it out, they discovered that the phone was connected to a computer that was programmed to dial numbers and see if those were Ma Bell lines that could be used for free longdistance calling, which in those days could be expensive. (Was it an MIT person who discovered that the whistle included in boxes of Captain Crunch cereal created just the right tone to fool the phone into giving one a free line?)
BTW, I will now confess what only a few knew at the time, that is that I was personally responsible for a bit of mischief that could be characterized as a prank, not hack. It made the front page of the Harvard Crimson (yes, reported there.)
You weren’t 100% successful at it and some of your clients served time which might have caused them to harbor lingering grudges? You didn’t limit your practice to otherwise respectable (and non-violence prone) types, e.g., white collar crooks?
One last one, since you said you were Course VIII person – did you know Dave Schramm, who was so accomplished and who died so young?
May 8, 2010, 6:55 amFub says:
In the sense that they didn’t anticipate news media involvement.
Not in their local papers. I think they intended an “in” joke among students. They misunderestimated human vanity and misoverestimated the fact-checking inclinations of reporters.
CC was not one, was much later, and discovered nothing that wasn’t public knowledge if you knew where to look. I was working (briefly) in the industry when CC surfaced. Anyone familiar with telephony then knew how inband signaling worked. It was also rapidly disappearing.
Social engineering was what phone phreaks did before and after compromising signaling. Telephony is very different now, and has been for several decades.
No undertaking is 100% successful, and people besides defendants are involved in any case. Somebody is always displeased, and some of them aren’t paradigms of mental stability or even human decency.
I don’t think so. Sorry.
May 8, 2010, 1:46 pm“California Court Rejects Santa Barbara Beach Club’s Attempts to Suppress Criticism” says:
[...] Free speech wins one in a neighborhood dispute. [Eugene Volokh] [...]
May 14, 2010, 10:36 amMark Preston says:
Dear Sir: This is California. That is the answer.
May 14, 2010, 11:01 amneurodoc says:
Isn’t the California bar supposed to be one of the harder to pass? Or is it that once admitted, the CA zeitgist takes hold?
May 18, 2010, 10:10 pm