http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/breakfast-club-closed-manhattan-lawyer-sues-posh-spa-yanking-morning-cereal-yogurt-ends-egg-face-article-1.1083484
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Remember when I told you spell-check does not work on all caps?
and that's not the worst part: check out the third cause of action!
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0507_travolta.pdf
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0507_travolta.pdf
Monday, April 30, 2012
I know you think I might be a tad old fashioned
(and it IS Florida), but does this not offend you?
http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/8-press-releases/7-why-social-media-for-george-zimmerman
http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/8-press-releases/7-why-social-media-for-george-zimmerman
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Where Do These People Go to Law School #1053?
Demand Letter:
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0417_3stooges_parody_TMZ.pdf
The case the letter cites:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6376074772628774470&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
(See how the cited case has nothing to do with the demand letter?)
Another, and perhaps even worse, demand letter:
http://gawker.com/inside-fox-news/
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0417_3stooges_parody_TMZ.pdf
The case the letter cites:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6376074772628774470&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
(See how the cited case has nothing to do with the demand letter?)
Another, and perhaps even worse, demand letter:
http://gawker.com/inside-fox-news/
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Is This Not Commercial Appropriation?
Woman Sues Vodka Company for Using Likeness in 'Rape' Ad
LOS ANGELES (KTLA) -- A vodka company is apologizing for a controversial ad that appears to show a woman about to be date-raped.
But the apology is not enough for the woman pictured in the ad. She's suing Belvedere Vodka for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and misappropriation of likeness.
Alicyn Packard is a vocal actress living in Los Angeles whose likeness was used in the Belvedere ad.
The ad seems to show her fighting off the advances of a would-be suitor, with the ad line superimposed: Unlike Some People, Belvedere Always Goes Down Smoothly.
Packard never gave her permission for her likeness to be used.
In fact, the image of her was stolen from a comic on-line video by her production company, Strictly Viral Productions.
"The repercussions have been huge," Packard told KTLA in a phone interview. "It's been a really terrible experience. The whole thing."
Belvedere has apologized for the ad. The president of the company has been quoted as saying about the ad, "It never should have happened."
But Packard said the company has not apologized to her -- and even if it did, that would hardly be adequate.
"To be affiliated with an ad that's so offensive to so many has just been horrible," Packard said. "I just want to distance myself from the ad as much as possible."
But the apology is not enough for the woman pictured in the ad. She's suing Belvedere Vodka for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and misappropriation of likeness.
Alicyn Packard is a vocal actress living in Los Angeles whose likeness was used in the Belvedere ad.
The ad seems to show her fighting off the advances of a would-be suitor, with the ad line superimposed: Unlike Some People, Belvedere Always Goes Down Smoothly.
Packard never gave her permission for her likeness to be used.
In fact, the image of her was stolen from a comic on-line video by her production company, Strictly Viral Productions.
"The repercussions have been huge," Packard told KTLA in a phone interview. "It's been a really terrible experience. The whole thing."
Belvedere has apologized for the ad. The president of the company has been quoted as saying about the ad, "It never should have happened."
But Packard said the company has not apologized to her -- and even if it did, that would hardly be adequate.
"To be affiliated with an ad that's so offensive to so many has just been horrible," Packard said. "I just want to distance myself from the ad as much as possible."
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-woman-sues-vodka-ad,0,179639.story?hpt=ju_bn6
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
That's One Hell of a Way to Make a Rhetorical Point
Judge Pulls Gun In Courtroom: David Barrett Under Investigation In North Georgia
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/judge-pulls-gun-in-courtroom-georgia_n_1306758.html?ref=weird-news
Huffington Post
02/28/2012
Andy Campbell
Some judges pack a gavel -- this judge was packing heat.
A Georgia judge is under fire after he allegedly pulled his pistol in a courtroom in an apparent attempt to drive a point home to a sexual assault victim.
Lumpkin County Superior Court Judge David Barrett wasn't angry, but making "a poor rhetorical point" when he flashed the piece this week, District Attorney Jeff Langley told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Barrett was presiding over a sexual assault case in which a woman brought charges of rape and aggravated assault against Scott Sugarman, a former Hall County sheriff's deputy.
But when the victim took the stand to testify, Barrett told her that she was "killing her case" -- allegedly because she wasn't cooperating -- pulled out his gat and pretended to hand it her way.
"[Barrett said] 'You might as well shoot your lawyer,'" Langley told the paper.
The woman -- whose name is being withheld because she may be the victim of a sexual crime -- wasn't shocked and "thought it was a test" by Barrett to gauge her reaction. Langley claims that he objected and approached the bench to tell Barrett to put the gun down.
Now Barrett is under investigation by the state Judicial Qualifications Commission, which probes judge misconduct, the Associated Press reported. Georgia law allows judges to carry concealed handguns in the courtroom, but it's a crime to point a gun at another person if there's no reason to do so.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/judge-pulls-gun-in-courtroom-georgia_n_1306758.html?ref=weird-news
Monday, February 27, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Travel Channel Wins Lawsuit Over Filming at Racy Hot Dog Stand
The plaintiff showed up at a Chicago's Wiener's Circle and endured the foul-mouthed insults of staff, but did she have to accept reality TV cameras filming the abuse? A judge says yes.
A federal judge in Illinois has rejected a $1 billion (yes, $1 billion) class action lawsuit alleging the Travel Channel violated the publicity rights of individuals shown at a popular Chicago hot dog restaurant. The plaintiffs claimed that the the show, Extreme Fast Food, never obtained consent to show the Wiener's Circle customers on the receiving end of insults, but the judge has determined that the plaintiffs' lawsuit wasn't garnished with enough mustard to overcome the taste of the First Amendment.
Zglobicki showed up at the restaurant and endured the racy insults, but did she have to accept the reality TV cameras from the Travel Channel and the show's producer, Sharp Entertainment, filming the abuse? She didn't think so, asserting a claim under Illinois' Right of Publicity Act.The lawsuit was filed last August by an Illinois resident named Jennifer Zglobicki on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. She alleged that she was filmed at Wiener's Circle, which, according to one travel book, is "famous not just for its hot dogs but also for the abrasive nature of the staff who are, shall we say, not the sort of people you would take home for tea."
In his decision earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Norgle says that although the IRPA provides the "right to control and choose whether and how to use an individual's identity for commercial purposes," it provides no such protection for non-commercial purposes, such as any news or public affairs broadcast.
Judge Norgle says that despite the woman's arguments that her image was "incidental" to the gathering and distribution of footage, a television show that features a Chicago restaurant nevertheless is a "subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."
As such, the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by First Amendment rights of the Travel Channel, which was represented by Blaine Kimrey at Lathrop & Gage.
The judge ends his opinion with a wise word of caution to everyone out there who might find themselves part of a reality TV show spectacle. To live life is to expose oneself. "The risk of this exposure is an essential incident of life in a society which places a primary value of freedom of speech and of press," he writes.
E-mail: eriqgardner@yahoo.com
Monday, February 13, 2012
Court Sanctions Lawyers Behind September 11 Conspiracy Case
By Terry Baynes
Feb 2, 2012
(Reuters) - A federal appeals court sanctioned two California lawyers on Thursday over a lawsuit they filed, dismissed as frivolous, that accused former officials in the Bush administration of allowing the September 11 Pentagon attack to occur as part of a broad conspiracy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordered the two lawyers to pay $15,000 total in sanctions in addition to double an unspecified amount the government spent defending the case.
Three attorneys -- Dennis Cunningham, William Veale and Mustapha Ndanusa -- filed the lawsuit in 2008 on behalf of April Gallop, a member of the U.S. Army injured in the Pentagon attack on September 11, 2001.
The lawyers accused then-Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of allowing the Pentagon attack to occur through inaction, despite having what the suit described as real-time information that a hijacked plane was approaching.
The suit, which also questioned the nature of the attacks, said the inaction rose to the level of conspiracy to create a political atmosphere that would allow the U.S. government to pursue domestic and international policy objectives.
The suit accused the men and others of conspiracy to cause death and bodily harm and a violation of the Antiterrorism Act.
The September 11 attacks, carried out by 19 hijackers from the global militant network al Qaeda, led U.S. forces to invade Afghanistan to topple the Taliban rulers who had harbored al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
That war served as a precursor to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, which the administration chiefly justified by citing intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons were subsequently found.
U.S. District Judge Denny Chin dismissed the case in 2010, ruling that the complaint was frivolous and a product of "cynical delusion and fantasy." A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld that decision, imposing $15,000 in sanctions on the three lawyers for filing the suit. All three appealed.
In requesting a rehearing, the lawyers asked the court to disqualify the three-judge panel "and any like-minded colleagues" from participating in the decision to grant review, accusing the panel of "severe bias, based in active personal emotions arising from the 9/11 attack."
But the 2nd Circuit took exception to the request, concluding no attorney would make such a demand in good faith.
The court upheld sanctions against Veale and Cunningham but reversed them against Ndanusa, who only served a minor role as local counsel. Ndanusa said all of the lawyers acted in good faith in bringing the lawsuit.
The court also ordered Cunningham, who described himself as "the decider" in developing the case, to inform other federal courts in circuit of the sanctions order for the next year.
"We are not delusional by any means. We have the facts, and they cannot be explained," said Veale, a former chief assistant public defender for Contra Costa County, California.
Cunningham did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
(Reporting By Terry Baynes; Editing by Cynthia Johnston)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/us-sept11-lawsuit-idUSTRE8112D820120202
Feb 2, 2012
(Reuters) - A federal appeals court sanctioned two California lawyers on Thursday over a lawsuit they filed, dismissed as frivolous, that accused former officials in the Bush administration of allowing the September 11 Pentagon attack to occur as part of a broad conspiracy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordered the two lawyers to pay $15,000 total in sanctions in addition to double an unspecified amount the government spent defending the case.
Three attorneys -- Dennis Cunningham, William Veale and Mustapha Ndanusa -- filed the lawsuit in 2008 on behalf of April Gallop, a member of the U.S. Army injured in the Pentagon attack on September 11, 2001.
The lawyers accused then-Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of allowing the Pentagon attack to occur through inaction, despite having what the suit described as real-time information that a hijacked plane was approaching.
The suit, which also questioned the nature of the attacks, said the inaction rose to the level of conspiracy to create a political atmosphere that would allow the U.S. government to pursue domestic and international policy objectives.
The suit accused the men and others of conspiracy to cause death and bodily harm and a violation of the Antiterrorism Act.
The September 11 attacks, carried out by 19 hijackers from the global militant network al Qaeda, led U.S. forces to invade Afghanistan to topple the Taliban rulers who had harbored al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
That war served as a precursor to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, which the administration chiefly justified by citing intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons were subsequently found.
U.S. District Judge Denny Chin dismissed the case in 2010, ruling that the complaint was frivolous and a product of "cynical delusion and fantasy." A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld that decision, imposing $15,000 in sanctions on the three lawyers for filing the suit. All three appealed.
In requesting a rehearing, the lawyers asked the court to disqualify the three-judge panel "and any like-minded colleagues" from participating in the decision to grant review, accusing the panel of "severe bias, based in active personal emotions arising from the 9/11 attack."
But the 2nd Circuit took exception to the request, concluding no attorney would make such a demand in good faith.
The court upheld sanctions against Veale and Cunningham but reversed them against Ndanusa, who only served a minor role as local counsel. Ndanusa said all of the lawyers acted in good faith in bringing the lawsuit.
The court also ordered Cunningham, who described himself as "the decider" in developing the case, to inform other federal courts in circuit of the sanctions order for the next year.
"We are not delusional by any means. We have the facts, and they cannot be explained," said Veale, a former chief assistant public defender for Contra Costa County, California.
Cunningham did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
(Reporting By Terry Baynes; Editing by Cynthia Johnston)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/us-sept11-lawsuit-idUSTRE8112D820120202
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)