His blessed sauceliness has declared, “Thou shalt have no other monsters before me.”
H/T Jessica K.
This article was originally published on The Legal Satyricon
|
||||||
|
…No American patriotism allowed on Cinco de Mayo. It might get in the way of Mexicans celebrating their defeat of the French (an unimpressive accomplishment, really, since everyone beats the French). This article was originally published on The Legal Satyricon Christopher Jorgensen, of JackassLetters.com infamy, has further demonstrated his complete lack of sensitivity, yet again, this past weekend. In an appalling display of callousness, he has posted a scanned image only of his latest letter response from Attorney Scott Greenfield, leaving text-only browser users completely in the dark. We here at GaneshaFish just won’t stand for that kind of discrimination. Anyone using a TRS-80, who was unable to enjoy the above-mentioned letter, take heart. We have provided a transcript below. Dear Mr. Jorgenson [sic]: Thank you for your letter explaining why you will not, and cannot, write to me. As you note, “no one ever reads the ‘FUQ‘ on your website.” It would be wrong of me to be the first, and I shall not demean the sanctity of your FUQs by reading them. While they may not remain virginal forever, I would feel dirty to be the first. However, I remain confused about the reference in you letter (the one explaining why you will not write to me) about a “joke”. What joke would that be? I love jokes, and would very much look forward to reading one of your creation. Please let me know with greater specificity when and if you have a joke that I can enjoy. I so look forward to it. Also, your being from Des Moines, would this be the first ever joke to come from there? If so, I would like to announce it, and perhaps get you the key to the City. It would be a great honor for you, but you deserve it if you can be the first from Des Moines to create a joke. Just so you know, I have eaten in Des Moines. It wasn’t very funny at all. As I am not a comedian (and in fact, I am a lawyer), I promise not to steal your joke or use it without attribution. I really hope it’s a good one. Is Jorgenson [sic] a Jewish name?
Very truly yours, s/Scott H. Greenfield A new law in Oklahoma requires women who seek an abortion — including when the pregnancy results from incest or rape — to (i) have an ultrasound performed; and (ii) have the fetus described to them (source). (Apparently, a few Oklahoma lawmakers have been watching too much television, where everyone goes all gooey as soon as the woosh-woosh-woosh noise starts and that unrecognizable, grainy image pops up on the tiny monitor. <cueViolins>”It’s a GIRL!”</cueViolins>) 
“Don’t force your morality off on me! Or else I’ll squirt this gel all over you!” Not particularly shocking news, coming from the buckle of the Bible Belt. I wonder, however, if anyone has considered the First Amendment implications. Can the state require an ultrasound tech to describe the fetus? Not if some pro-choice tech doesn’t want to. This article was originally published on The Legal Satyricon Plenty of whiny types are up in arms over Facebook’s recent “personalization” improvements, which automatically link fan pages for companies, bands, television shows, etc. to users’ profiles, based on their self-proclaimed favorites. Also, when a user specifies their favorite music, movies, books, and the like, that information may now be accessed more readily by parties not in that users’ friend list.
Critics complain that this gives unwanted access to evil corporations, who will use gathered information to exploit their consumers. This week four U.S. Senators, including asshat Al Franken, have put their displeasure with the social networking giant onto paper and mailed it to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. No doubt these idiots are only responding to angry phone calls from their constituents, but how many votes would they really lose by explaining that this really isn’t the kind of thing the federal government should be getting involved in? Not everything that someone can gripe about should be the subject of a congressional investigation. If you don’t like the way Facebook treats its users, you don’t have to be a member. This article was originally published on The Legal Satyricon.
If you’re running your own small business, and you don’t have a holding company for your intellectual property, you should make an appointment to have your head examined. Creating a separate entity, solely for the purpose of owning your IP, is the quickest, easiest, and cheapest way to insure the goodwill associated with your business. I realize that the subject matter of this post is a bit drier than what you may have grown to expect from Tactical IP, but I’m hoping that at least a few of our readers are here for free tips on how to make their intellectual property work for them. With that in mind, I’ll try to keep this light and painless. Liability protection is the name of the game when it comes to creating business entities. Think of it like an insurance policy. If you do it right, assets can be protected from creditors, including judgment creditors who may have prevailed in a lawsuit. As far as the law is concerned, a properly created and maintained business entity is a separate “person” from its owners and employees. The benefit of that treatment is that, if the property created and maintained business entity incurs debts or gets sued, its assets are the only things that may be taken — not the assets of its owners. Let’s look at an example to really hammer this point home. …and the roadways are choked with abandoned vehicles, I will still be able to travel cross country.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed down its decision this week in the Pennsylvania “sexting” case, in which a prosecutor threatened to press child porn charges against a group of teenage girls for sending cell phone pictures of themselves in bras and underwear. You can read the infamous J. DeVoy’s anti-gender-bias coverage of the oral arguments here. In upholding the preliminary injunction requested by the girls’ parents, the Third has declared that District Attorney George P. Skumanick, Jr., cannot use the threat of prosecution to bully them into a court-ordered “re-education” program. (source) While education may be the right medicine (if you believe that there’s some disease), that decision is for the teens and their parents to make — not some jackass, let’s-think-outside-the-box DA who thinks he somehow knows what’s best. As much as I hate the ACLU for politically motivated meddling in the other direction, for once I’m glad they’re helping these families file a civil rights claim against Mr. Skumanick. (Read that complaint here.) This article was originally posted on The Legal Satyricon Earlier this week, Lindsay Lohan filed a $100 million suit against online financial services company, E-Trade. In her complaint (you can read it here), Ms. Lohan accuses E-Trade of appropriating her likeness in its Super Bowl ad, wherein the spokesbaby’s girlfriend accuses him of not calling her because he was with “that milkaholic, Lindsay.” The article was originally published on The Tactical IP Blog |
|
|||||
|
Copyright © 2024 GaneshaFish.com - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
