>> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> the supreme court issued several anticipated rulings. affecting everything from how we watch television to when the police can search your cell phone.

joining us from washington to talk about the high court's ruling is adam liptak. characterize this day and these decisions. >> on one level the supreme court confronted two big technological issues and you would not think they would be particularly good at this but they were fairly savvy in both cases. the bigger, more surprising one was a sweeping privacy ruling saying the police have to get a warrant before they search the cell phones of anyone they arrest. 12 million people are arrested and the search is a routine so that is a big pushback from a court that is not often sympathetic to arrested people and criminal defendants but they seem to think that the digital age is different and we need

different fourth amendment rules in the era of big data. >> it was a 9-0 decision? >> 9-0 and i got to say i did not see that coming. this is the year of unanimity. they are unanimous more than half the time and on a controversial case like this it is not what a lot of people thought was coming. >> why did the court go there? >> there seems to be a sensitivity and this is the second time they have done this. they also went 9-0 to say the police cannot put gps on your car and track your movements for month. they have come to an understanding there is something different about the digital age and the amount of data the government can collect and sift about private citizens and they are pushing back. this is in this sense a pro-privacy court. >> roberts wrote the majority opinion? >> yes. he is a very colorful writer and he made clear that he understands that smartphones are

barely phones, they are mini computers that have every aspect of your political affiliations, e-mail, photographs that allow the -- allowing the police to search your cell phone is not different from allowing them to waltz into your house and look at everything you know. >> they can be called diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers. all that. which is a profile of who they belong to. >> that is right. that language, the music of this decision suggests it is not limited to people who are arrested. this is going to inform lower courts as they think about computer searches of all kinds. the court has put its foot down and put down a marker that digital information, the vast amounts of information is different in kind for the fourth amendment. >> how will this affect law enforcement? >> the chief justice very candidly says this will exact a

cost. it will make it harder to solve some crimes that he says if you weigh that interest against personal privacy, privacy wins. he acknowledges that personal privacy has a cost. >> let's talk about the aereo case. >> the justices thought their service was too clever by half. aereo puts miniature antennas in cities and assign you your own antenna and streams over the internet live broadcast television. six justices said that is basically theft and not acceptable under the copyright laws. the three dissenting justices did not disagree for the most part. they found this practice distasteful but said the law is -- as written contains this loophole.

as you can put your rabbit ears on your tv and watch live television there is nothing different of putting up a miniature antenna miles away and watching live tv on your ipad. >> i read a press statement which said they think that will put a chilling effect on innovation. >> there is some truth in that probably and the court tried to write the decision very narrowly so it would not affect other cloud computing services but this particular thing was too much for them to swallow and the broadcast industry really thought they would be in deep trouble if materials, copyrighted materials that they get paid large fees for by cable and satellite companies are available free to people. it could cause that cable package to come unbundled, which would terrify broadcasters. >> this is a decision that will kill a business. aereo will go out of business.

>> that is probably the outcome. there is a suggestion that live streaming is different from stored streaming which you can look at. i think the short of it is that aereo's days are numbered. >> so sum up the supreme court as you have watched it. >> the court is still divided on campaign-finance, on religion, on race, but this has been a term in which the nine justices have come together and as able lawyers as they are found common ground and in many cases issued 9-0 decisions which is not the story we in the press usually tell about the court but it is the story this year. >> does that say something about the leadership of john roberts?

>> it cannot help but say that. but we're in mind he gets one vote. he does have the power to assign the majority opinion but that is his only special power. it may have something to do with the fact that they have lived together for four years and they know each other a little bit better and they get to choose their own cases. they had two huge terms, one over health care and the other over same-sex marriage. this current term is not as big so in lower profile cases they get together and try to work together. >> thank you for joining us. back in a moment. stay with us. laurence tribe is here. he has taught constitutional law for more than four decades. he has argued dozens of cases before the justices including bush vs. gore. his new oak is called -- book is called "uncertain justice." ted olson writes --

i am pleased to have laurence tribe back at this table. ted olson, very nice praise. >> he is an evenhanded and fair guy. >> justice roberts will be there for a long time. >> he has been there for nine years and you can see not in the standards divisions of 5-4 but the under currents, some important trends about privacy, about race, about gender, about sexual orientation, about the way we lead our lives and i thought it was time to make those things more understandable for a general audience. not just for specialists. and to get beyond the simplified stereotypes of right versus left

because that is not where it is at. >> it is all these labels we tend to put. >> journalists are busy and they have their own lives. they're beginning to realize that the court's decision affect their lives and they want some easy answers, but what i tried to show in this book is that although the answers are interesting they are not easy. hl mencken once said that every complicated problem has an easy answer and it is usually wrong. in fact the answer that these justices are just alterations in robes is just wrong. they have serious philosophies. their philosophies are not those of just umpires calling balls and strikes as the chief justice once said. but they are not philosophies about how can i make my political party stronger than the other guy's political party. >> let's go through the things in which you say they have clear trends. privacy. >> the court is looking at the impact of new technology. more of the justices including

sotomayor and scalia. to take an example of someone who is thought as a liberal and conservative, realize that there are serious threats from new technology to privacy. they have different approaches to those threats and interestingly, breyer is to the right of scalia. the trend is one of grappling with new problems. the court does not have a left-right commitment on privacy. >> can you predict how they might come down on a case? when i study a case closely what -- i said the chief justice would cast the decisive vote based on the taxing power. i do not claim to be unique. i do not say that i have a crystal ball.

the issues we need to study are beneath the service. they are deeper than that. >> they are understanding the deeply thought, well studied philosophy of an individual judge? >> each has life experience and a philosophy about the role of the states versus the federal government. about the power of the government to coerce individuals and to bribe them. there are a lot of issues that have not been surfaced yet that are important in the supreme court's decision. >> they are earnest and trying to find the answers during the questioning period and take their role seriously. >> they are often testing their views against one another. they often use the lawyers simply as target practice. the use the lawyers to bounce their ideas off because they do not have nearly as much dialogue

within the court as some people might wish. i think in preparation for each case, i think every justice including justice thomas who thinks in silence, thinks about the case deeply, take something like affirmative action where you could not have more different views than that of thomas and soto mayor. they're both views that when you read the opinions including sotomayor's view, they grow out of personal experience. they both said affirmative action made a huge difference in their lives but it was a different difference. thomas said it proved that you should not look to people to give you favors because of your race. because then you will never know whether you really belong. everyone will doubt your achievements. sotomayor said i do not doubt my achievements. i might not have gotten here without a leg up.

>> race was one of the things in which you said you can get a sense of the court. >> court is moving toward the view that we have gotten the racial problems largely behind us. i think that is a mistake but when they decide a case like shelby county saying that there has been a lot of progress, we no longer need to have the preclearance procedures in the justice department, justice ginsburg said it best in her dissent which is it is like saying that we have stayed dry in a storm so we might as well give the umbrella away. it is not a very rational response. i do not think it helps to pile on. a lot of liberals look at a decision like shelby county and get a lot of joy out of castigating the court and saying it is blind. what good does that do? they have the votes but what we need to do is understand what is

driving them. what are the possible levers and what are the motivations? sometimes the answer is there's nothing we can do short of an eventual change in judicial personnel and that will depend on a lot of things beyond theory. it will depend on who wins the next residential election and who controls the senate. when we have another opening on the supreme court. we might as well understand it realistically rather than self congratulatorily attack the court when we agree with it or or praise the court when we agree with it. there are more than enough points of view to merit expression. most of the arguments about these things are arguments where there is no right answer. the country is divided about a lot of these issues like reproductive rights and race

because they are tough issues. they are competing values. >> is reproductive rights a case where you can see a clear trend? >> the court is ready to cut back further but not ready to overrule it. we will see more when we see the case involving the 35 foot buffer zone around clinics in massachusetts. there are values of free speech on one side and reproductive rights in the other. the court, though it reaffirmed roe v wade in 1992, probably ready to give more leeway to those who believe that the unborn have rights of their own. the court has not taken a serious look at the abortion problem for number of years but that is my sense of where the justices are. >> and on gender issues? >> the court has been silent partly because it has not had new opportunities. when it interprets statutes like the interpretation that made it harder for women to sue unless they sue quickly when they first discover any sign of discrimination. congress has come back and corrected it in the lilly ledbetter act.

most of what it has done on gender in recent years has been in terms of statutory interpretation. it is pretty much established that lines drawn along gender are lines that are probably unconstitutional. sexual orientation is an area where there is also a clear trend. justice kennedy is leading the charge and i think that having struck down the defense of marriage act, the court is probably ready in one of these cases from the lower courts to take the next step and say that states cannot give second-class citizenship to same-sex couples. >> people who are arguing states rights, the court will argue it is not. >> states rights never completely trump individual human rights and dignity and liberty, equality. a guy like kennedy has said the whole point of states rights is to protect liberty. to make government closer to the people so they can take a participatory role in

government. i do not think you will allow the tail to wag the dog and say states rights trump personal rights. >> who has been the most influential thinker including justices on you in the way you see the law? >> a great question. i would say probably justice brennan some years ago. his architectural sense of how the law fits together has influenced me a lot. he and justice o'connor dissented when the supreme court said that states that do not raise their drinking age to 21 will lose 5% of their highway funds. now you do not think of brennan as a states rights advocate normally. but like o'connor, he realize that when the government has the power to use its enormous fiscal leverage not just to tell states and individuals how to spend its money but had to spend their own

-- but how to spend their own money, how to make their own policies, that we are putting rights on the auction block. there is a chapter in here called rights for sale that talks about the limits on government's power not just to coerce people but to bribe them, in effect, into giving up their rights in a thing brennan saw that that is a seamless web. you cannot give government the power to manipulate and bribed without limit. in respect to states rights, without losing a lot of principles with respect to individual rights. >> these are my curiosity questions. who among all the justices and who among all the justices and

opinions was the most brilliant writer? >> robert jackson. you could say john marshall but it is an earlier style and it is hard to appreciate. early 19th-century writing but robert jackson was extraordinary. when he said that compulsory unanimity produces only the unanimity of the graveyard, he said in a few words what few have been able to say in entire books. >> will we be better off, there is a similarity to the supreme court in terms of their education, ivy league. >> all 9 went to harvard or yale. >> exactly. >> i do not have anything against harvard or yale but that is crazy. >> and all of them -- you do not have to be a lawyer to be on the supreme court. >> the only job where you have to be a lawyer is solicitor general. >> you don't have to be a judge. >> you look at the court that decided brown. it was former senators, former governors, that kind of life

experience makes a difference. it was a great court. when o'connor was on the court the fact that she had been a state court judge and a state legislator brought something to the proceedings because the court is a mix. it is a chemical composition of the court which has changed dramatically if you suddenly do not have anyone there who has the experience of politics. >> let's assume that hillary clinton decides to run and let's assume she is elected. might she consider barack obama as a possible supreme court nominee? >> there have been presidents who became chief justice. >> william howard taft. i guess he is the only one. it is not inconceivable. he would make quite a good judge. >> he is your student. >> he was my student and was my

research assistant. for two and a half years. he was great. but what it takes to be a great president is different from what it takes to be a great judge. i do think he might be a better judge. it is too early to say how good a president he has been. there are things i wish you might have done early. he has had some major accomplishments. >> he does have this quality to see all sides. >> it is important that you come to closure. >> and you have a principle that you have studied. when you look at the court today and the decisions it faces, what are the great issues that have not come to the court that will come to the court? >> issues about bioengineering, the meaning of personhood. not only at what point does a fetus become a person but is a chimpanzee a person, artificial

intelligence. you need a lot of fermentation and you need legislatures to weigh-in and lower courts. eventually as lincoln said we cannot be a country half free and half slave. we cannot have person mean one thing in mississippi and another thing in california or new york. eventually the basic concepts of what are human beings, what are the rights of persons have to be decided in a way that although it can be changed by amendment has to be decided by the supreme court. >> is there a justice who you disagree with philosophically but when you read his opinions or her opinions and you say, damn. >> scalia. i love his opinions. they capture the essence of a point. even when i disagree with him strongly. he is great. there are several great writers on the current court.

kagan is remarkable, and sotomayor. and the clarity of roberts. they are so clear they can be understood by ordinary human beings, which matters. one of the principles of the book we wrote is the constitution and the interpretation is not a matter for just experts. this is a matter for national discussion, for national conversation. i think we underestimate the intelligence of the american people if we assume you have to talk legalese and jargon all the time. that is why like the simplicity of the roberts opinions. they come to the point and they are concise and clear. >> i should mention joshua is a former student. >> he was my chief teaching fellow in an undergraduate course and he will be clerking for justice kennedy starting

july. he is clerking for steve reinhardt on the ninth circuit. he is a very brilliant kid with a great future. we worked together seamlessly. he really deserves lots of credit for helping me write this. >> how do you think you're shaping the minds of these young lawyers? >> if i knew that i might go into psychology or some other field. i do not know. i think i help them see -- >> what is the difference between when they come in and when they leave? >> i think they see more sides of every issue. they recognize that things are not advanced by just planting your feet in the sand and sticking to a position. that the best way to understand something is to put yourself in someone else's mind. when i talk about gun rights in the chapter on guns in this book i do not demonize the national rifle association. it does turn out that when

charlton heston first learned he was then head of the nra that i was coming around thinking people do have rights with respect to guns, he called me up and he said why don't you meet me in my private plane now that we are on the same side and i said, whoa, wait a minute. i still think you can regulate guns and that was the end of that conversation. i said i admired "planet of the apes." what i teach my students and they tell me that i have shown them that there is more there than initially meets the eye and if you think hard about what makes the other guy tick and why people have these views that you think are wrong, you will both be more effective as an advocate and have a deeper wisdom. >> i think it is that and the other thing is the idea of how

to think. you come out of the experience of a rigorous education. i have nothing to do with the law but i did have a law school education. it is a way to think about issues and that is an important thing that you can carry for the rest of your life. you can forget every case you have ever read. but you know how to think about things. >> people think about learning to think like a lawyer. >> i mean learning to think, period. like a wise human being. >> history and mathematics can help you. >> you should not get a legal education unless you want to be a lawyer? >> no, it will help a lot. it is not the only path to wisdom. >> are you worried about citizens united? >> they do worry me.

i think that people who assume that you could just remove them from the landscape with a simple constitutional amendment are fooling themselves. money is so pervasive in lobbying and throughout politics that to fix it requires something much more radical than anybody has considered. simply handing the power to the people that you think are bought and paid for under the present system and saying, you designed the system of campaign finance regulation and we will rubberstamp it does not make a lot of sense. the problems are very deep, very systemic. and i am worried about how influential money is in politics but i think given the state of first amendment law, citizens united and mccutchen were probably rightly decided. that shocks most of my liberal friends and i am critical of the role of money. it is not that money is speech. it takes money to amplify your

speech and reach people. these people in citizens united were publishing a movie. an anti-hillary movie. it could have been an anti-mccain movie or anti-anybody else movie but are we going to say because a corporation is spending a lot of money on a politically influential movie or book that because it is a corporation, we can say no, we shut it off? that is a very dangerous power to give government. >> where have you changed your opinions about big issues, anywhere? >> i have thought that affirmative action is a more complicated problem. i used to think that what helps minorities is not a problem. what helps and what hurts is a bigger problem and what stigmatizes is harder to predict so i think affirmative action is an area where i am much more ambivalent. i do think that assuming we have solved all our racial problems is wrong. i now think affirmative action

is an area where we have to go slow and where we have to be careful. >> the danger is? >> that we will perpetuate racial divisiveness. >> what was it justice roberts said? >> it is a little simplistic. it is a nice bumper sticker, the way to end discrimination based on race is to end discriminating based on race. you cannot make wave a magic wand. he has this example -- >> the first article is likely to be the influence of immanuel kant on evidentiary approaches. it is not much help to the bar.

>> when i look at titles people are getting pretty desperate for esoterica. >> the ripples moving on, -- esoterica. >> the ripples moving on, attached to the next pool which the first pool feeds. >> there is a kind of ripple effect. the supreme court decides a case and it changes the world and the world changes the court. we cannot treat these things as though they were a stable and fixed for all time. even if we are originalists. >> it was great to see you. >> great to see you. >> laurence tribe, the book is called "uncertain justice." ♪

>> shep gordon is a man you probably have not heard of but he is one of hollywood's insiders. he has managed the careers of music artists such as alice cooper and the late teddy pendergrass. he is the subject of a new movie. here is the trailer. >> i drove into los angeles and it was a hollywood landmark. the girl said she was janis joplin and she introduced me to jimi hendrix. he said are you jewish? he said you should be a manager. i said who should i manage? >> alice cooper. >> she is a protector. he keeps the wolf from the door. >> if someone asked me who invented the celebrity chef?

shep gordon. >> he wrote the book. >> get the money, always remember to get the money, never forget to always remember to get the money. >> that is something new and let's stick with it. >> we tried to do as many outrageous things as possible. everybody went wild. >> he navigated us through this rough passage. >> i was so over my head. there is nothing about fame that sells it. the ones who rose to the top got hurt the worst. i felt the stress of l.a. i had spent my life living other people's lives and it wanted to see what my life was. i never really developed a family.

i am making up work. shep gordon is the nicest person i've ever met hands down. >> what is important is doing compassionate business. there are no winners and losers. it is only winners. >> they all end up in shep's kitchen. >> he tells the best stories. i have told shep things i haven't told anyone else, not even my wife. [laughter] >> joining us is mike myers and shep gordon. how long have you known him? >> 23 years. >> how long have you been trying to get him? to allow you to make a movie about him? >> 20 years.

very shortly after meeting him i said i would like to do a movie about you and he was like, i really do not want to. no thanks. not for me. and a few years ago he said yes. >> you were an agent for alice cooper and teddy pendergrass and then you leave and go to hawaii. you are a long way away. >> i realized that for me i was heading toward a crash. that it was just too much of everything and what's it all about. >> why have you not written a book about this? >> for the same reason i said no to mike for many years. fame is something i think is a very dangerous thing.

it is something that is necessary if you are a creative artist but it is -- mike tells it better than i do. >> if you are a creative person in many ways, fame is the industrial disease of creativity. shep has been the hazmat suit for so many people for so many years. >> i did not want to flirt with it. >> i went to hawaii and bought a house. i continued my business. >> do you surf? >> i body surf. i kept them while i was in hawaii. alice i always kept. alice is a body part. we have been together for 45 years. >> he is a fascinating guy. >> he is interesting and

interested. he is in many ways forrest gump. and when i first met him he was wearing -- he had a ponytail and a tour jacket. i had never been in a movie, i had never been on a movie set. lauren said you have to talk to shep gordon. alice cooper was in "wayne's world." i met him and i felt like a punk rocker in toronto. he said i know you want alice cooper in the movie. how about something from the new album? and i said how about no? >> i have a song. >> my heart was broken. what do you want? he was so nice about it. he said i read the script and

alice is only on stage for eight seconds and if you put "school's out" in the end credits everyone will think that is the song and it will not matter. he was right. he was so nice and protective and loving of alice cooper and i worshiped alice cooper. he is the link between the hippies and the punks. johnny lydon even said that. he sang "eighteen" on the jukebox. >> that was the toronto festival. it was called the peace festival. this was 1975 -- 1969. i don't member things too well.

>> why is that, shep? >> someone slipped something in my drink once in a while. it was the psychedelic era. >> if you remember it, you were not there. >> i was always -- alice and i were always looking to irritate people. that was the core of the career, that if we could irritate people and parents in particular, the kids would love us. and we were on a peace festival and i got alice on before john lennon and there was a chicken backstage and i said if i throw this chicken onstage something will happen that is going to be really horrible. something will happen. he took it and he thought it could fly and he threw it in the audience and the audience rigid -- ripped it apart. they were so angsted up, and it was a peace festival and we ended up getting all the headlines. it defined alice to this day. >> the masterpiece, it put him on the map.

>> if we had only known it was that easy. >> hasn't been easy to get to tell the stories -- has it been easy to tell the stories? >> there are days when shep is quite loquacious and less. at first he did not trust, where -- why are you making a movie about me and then as people showed up like sylvester stallone, michael douglas and all these people and told stories and i said, this is what they said, it took off. >> did people in hollywood say mike myers wants to make a documentary? >> no, i just made it. i have a very odd career. i just make things.

i never really had a career plan. i have these other projects i was working on but shep said yes. >> the first thing i would tell you is do not do the documentary if i was your manager. >> i had to do it. it had to get out. it is a fantastic experience. >> why? >> i financed it myself. >> why are you making the move because -- movie, because this would be a fun gig to do for a while? >> it was around the time i had my first kid. i love new york city and i hate leaving new york city. shep said yes.

i thought it was going to be john cassavetes, i would create the canadian realist of the cinematic movement. i would be john sayles, jim jarmusch, all of this combined. i ended up on "saturday night live." i did not know it would necessarily happen. for me it -- the audience has been, in toronto it was this fantastic standing ovation. people crying, people laughing. i have seen this movie with the house more than i have seen other movies i have been involved with. >> the audience loves it. >> it is a wonderful, satisfying experience. >> are you glad you did it?

>> at first i was a little embarrassed. "supermensch: the legend of shep gordon," it is way outside my wheelhouse. but i respect mike and i love the piece he made. i went to toronto really thinking this is the last time i will have to go see it and i am going to [inaudible] when the movie played, the response of the people, it touched them so deeply, people were asking where they could adopt children because i adopted four children. i saw the way mike constructed it. it touched people in a way that i do not see people getting touched. they want to be better people. >> how did you change the music industry? >> that is a big question and i think in a small way i brought theatrics into the music world. when i started with alice, the contemporary music world was a couple of amplifiers and lights. nobody telling stories. just singing songs.

i think with alice we showed that you could tell a story. you could create an environment and you could build things and carry equipment and really set the stage and set the mood. and i think you see it now all the way through. and also i think by being bold enough to call a man alice and wear eye makeup, when you see lady gaga you can see a thread and motley crue, there is threads of alice through everyone. >> tell us about the time you were by a pool. >> i went out to california as a probation officer.

i was a recovering hippie and got beat up my first day. it was the reagan era and i was a longhair. i had some psychedelics. >> he said he went to work with criminals and say let's have a softball game and hug it out and the others were like, yeah. they left on cues. the criminals picked up the baseball bats and beat him in that is when he went -- >> and driven to l.a. and checked into a motel. i took some psychedelics. i heard a girl screaming. i ran out to separate them and the girl punched me. i went up to my room feeling like a jerk because they were making love, they were not fighting. i knew it after they punched me. she made it very clear. i went down to the pool in the morning and he was janis joplin

and jimi hendrix and jim morrison was there that day. jim was always hanging out. this is the place where everybody hung up. >> you just happened to select the motel. >> that is the mr. magoo factor. >> the mensch factor is what i instantly saw in shep. he has a fantastic face and a fantastic voice. there is a way to make a living that is human. it is a fantastic business. it doesn't often attract the healthy, happiest, and whole in our society and does not foster things like people's yes is being yes and no being no. i saw progressive capitalist, an ethical hedonist and a protector of artists and who loved the

quirk. if there is anything i love in creativity it is innovation and freshness. the first time that. the first time you hear the beatles and you go, wow. kurt vonnegut, the first time you read a kurt vonnegut novel. there are people who need to protect innovation. show business, the hollywood system and all that stuff is a great system. it makes fantastic movies. the envy of the world. if rome ruled the world with the phalanx and england with the three-masted ship, america does

with the moving image. the only thing it isn't tough when things are fresh. it requires people like shep to protect it. i am at a certain age in my career. i wanted that message, i wanted to say thank you to the protectors. that is a huge, huge thing. it was like -- harvey weinstein has been a fantastic protector. these people need the love. >> where is your life going now? >> back to hawaii. >> you are open to possibilities. >> i wake up at night and take the ride and go to sleep and see what happens in the middle. >> what is life like in hawaii? it is beautiful. some family and a lot of cooking and a lot of walking and a lot of pinching myself saying, how did i get this lucky? i cannot believe i am here. >> how did you do the celebrity chef thing?

>> i got taken to a restaurant and in there was the who's who of hollywood but no one was that comfortable in their skin. it was still a lot of smoking in those days. a lot of smoking and looking around to see who is in there. and then i started thinking of becoming -- i am becoming one of them and i had my cigarette in my mouth and my knee was sort of going and into the room walked this beautifully calm, a beautiful sunset in a white cooking jacket and white here. -- white hair. you can see that he was the power guy. it was the chef. i went and asked if i could be his grasshopper.

in the "kung fu" series there was a character who sat by the master's feet and learned. he did not know what i was talking about. mike has proven to me, picasso had died two years before. >> i am watching the rushes and -- oh, no. >> he made it all up. >> maybe that's what this is. >> one of my favorite moments is when i say i was with picasso he said it was not true. picasso was dead and shep was very high. he allowed me to be his grasshopper. >> i met him on "wayne's world."

he has that same quality so he followed the chef. >> this is the story about his cat and cary grant. >> i started to make some money so i bought several houses. one of the homes i had had a miniature train. you use to get these people ringing the doorbell. i realized alice's house had been put on the star map. i wrote a sign that said alice does not live here anymore. go get a refund. the cat went missing and someone told me he went into cary grant's house. i rang the bell and his assistant opened the door.

i said that is my cat and she said, you cannot take the cat. we agreed on joint custody of the cat. >> it was true. a small nuance to the story. i first put up signs on telephone poles. my cat is missing. i got a phone call from someone who said he was carried grant's -- cary grant's housekeeper and they had found the cat. i was at a town so i said i -- out of town so i said i would come back and pick up the cat. i called three days or four days and no one answered. i went down to the house and rang the doorbell. the door answers but on the floor is cary grant on a fur carpet, a sterling silver bowl, the sensitive one there and looks up at me and says, do not blow this for me. i can hear him talking to me. >> thank you.

great to have you here. >> thank you. >> "supermensch: the legend of shep gordon" is out in limited release. see you next time. ♪

>> the following is a paid advertisement from star vista. ♪ somewhere beyond the sea somewhere waiting for me ♪ >> frank