Suing the NSA: THREE PRISM-Related Lawsuits - Obama, Holder Named As Defendants

June 12, 2013 - There is a lot of buzz today about "the lawsuit over PRISM" the NSA program created in 2007 to monitor electronic communications.

Most people do not seem to realize that there are at least three separate lawsuits concerned with the NSA's controversial domestic spying program.

One of the suits was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and two other suits are by former Justice Dept. prosecutor Larry Klayman. He is currently the General Counsel for Freedom Watch, Inc.

The Klayman Suits:

"Having already filed a 3 billion dollar class action with regard to the alleged government privacy abuse by the Obama administration and Verizon," reports Before It's News, "Larry Klayman....filed a new $20 billion dollar companion class action suit in DC federal court today. Like the prior class action suit concerning Verizon [filed on June 10], this new case names President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, the heads of the NSA and the 12 other companies who have collaborated with the government in violating the privacy and other constitutional rights of American citizens. The companies named in the suit which are tied to the government’s PRISM- NSA scheme are: Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Skype, YouTube, Apple, PalTalk, AOL, and Yahoo. The users and subscribers of these companies comprise, combined with the Verizon class plaintiffs, a majority of the entire U.S. citizenry and thus these complementary class action suits pit the American people against their government and corporate enablers."

1) Klayman filed a lawsuit on Monday, June 10. This is "the lawsuit against Verizon." This is Civil Action No.: 1:13-cv-00851 and was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. See the full civil complaint here. Klayman  amended it to make it the first class-action lawsuit in response to the publication of a secret court order instructing Verizon to hand over the phone records of millions of American customers on an "ongoing, daily basis." The defendants are: Barack Obama; Eric Holder; Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency; Lowell C. McAdam, Chief Executive Officer of Verizon Communications; Roger Vinson, Judge, U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; Verizon Communication; National Security Agency; U.S. Department of Justice. More about this lawsuit at US News & World Report.

2) The suit filed today (June 12) asks for $20 billion in damages and attorney fees plus an injunction to stop PRISM. The three plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit: Charles Strange of Pennsylvania, and California private investigators Michael Ferrari and Matt Garrison. More at US News & World Report.

The ACLU Suit:

The ACLU file their lawsuit on Tuesday, June 11 in response to "revelations about the NSA's unprecedented mass surveillance of phone calls," says the ACLU website. They say that the NSA program, PRISM, "violates Americans' constitutional rights of free speech, association, and privacy."

The ACLU's case is No. 13 CIV 3994 as filed with the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. See the full complaint at the ACLU website. This case is commonly called "ACLU v. Clapper" because one of the defendants is Keith B. Clapper, Director of National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service.

Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director, said that NSA's PRISM "goes far beyond even the permissive limits set by the Patriot Act and represents a gross infringement of the freedom of association and the right to privacy."

"In other lawsuits against national security policies," reports the New York Times, "the government has often persuaded courts to dismiss them without ruling on the merits by arguing that litigation would reveal state secrets or that the plaintiffs could not prove they were personally affected and so lacked standing in court.  This case may be different. The government has now declassified the existence of the program. And the A.C.L.U. is a customer of Verizon Business Network Services — the recipient of a leaked secret court order for all its domestic calling records — which it says gives it standing."

Also See: My fight against Obama's abuse of power by Larry Klayman Renew America

Is Supt. Weis Betraying Cops for Political Reasons?

Stuporindendent Jody Weis

Incredible. Reports of icy conditions on Lake Shore Drive at the time of Sgt. Alan Haymaker's death early Monday morning are now being denied by Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis. This stinks of political coverup.  

The Chicago Sun-Times reports Weis's remarks today: Speaking after Sgt. Alan Haymaker was honored with a moment's silence at police headquarters, Weis said officers who were on the scene of Haymaker's death within minutes Monday morning found only "slush and standing water" on the road.  

Okay, Then What About This...? Weis' comments appear to contradict those of Assistant Supt. James Jackson, who said Monday that "icy road conditions were a factor" in Haymaker's death.  

Why Does This Stink? The stink is money and politics. There are many reports that a Streets and Sanitation dispatcher ordered plow crews to NOT lay road salt on Lake Shore Drive around 4:00 a.m. on Monday morning. That's about an hour prior to Sgt. Haymaker's fatal accident near the southbound Irving Park exit. Additionally, it is well known that Mayor Daley hates road salt because it contributes to pot holes and harms roadside vegetation, and Daley has been criticized in the past for not salting streets when needed.  

CPD Sgt. Alan Haymaker

As we noted previously, IF a dispatcher actually issued an order to not salt LSD, said dispatcher would probably have done so only if it was in compliance with standing policy or specific orders from above. IF that happened, it would open the City of Chicago up to a very embarrassing investigation and expose it to a multi-million dollar lawsuit by the late Sgt. Haymaker's family. It could also cause department heads to roll, and cost Daley any future bid at getting re-elected.  

Supt. Weis is often and widely criticized by his own troops as not caring about their safety and welfare. He is accused of being nothing more than an easily controlled political puppet of Mayor Daley. Weis' statement about a "lack of ice," even though "officers who were on the scene" said there was no ice, lacks credibility. Too many other people on the road at that time have reported that it was icy.  

Why, for several days, did CPD keep attributing icy conditions as a factor in the crash? Why the sudden about-face by Weis?  

Furthermore, any of the first responders at the Haymaker crash arrived after the car slid off the road and went over the curb. If there had been ice on the road, even just a patch of ice, at the moment Sgt. Haymaker lost control of his car, it could have melted before anybody got to the crash site.  

Weis is guessing about ice or lack thereof, and we're guessing that he's doing so to help cover some high ranking asses. That pun, by the way, is fully intended.

Video: Fighting City Hall

You may have heard about a Chicago developer who has subpoenaed Google in an effort to learn the identities of two anonymous blogs on the city's north side. Maybe you haven't; the mainstream media has so far ignored the story. The developer, Peter Holsten, is building a massive mixed-use project on a site called "Wilson Yard," half a mile north of Wrigley Field. Wilson Yard has been a contentious issue for residents of the Uptown neighborhood, and the bloggers have been highly critical of Holsten, the city, and the local alderman. Here is a video from "Fix Wilson Yard," a grassroots group that has sued the City of Chicago over alleged misuse of tax increment funds (TIF). CNB RSS Feed

Full Texts of Blogger Subpoenas

These subpoenas were filed against Google in an effort gain information about two bloggers in Chicago's Uptown neighborhood, as well as information about two neighborhood groups. Links to the subpoenas (PDF files): Wilson Yard Defendants Subpoena to Google (re: two blogs) (01-12-2009) Wilson Yard Defendants Subpoena to Buena Park Neighbors (01-12-2009) Wilson Yard Defendants Subpoena to Uptown Neighborhood Council (01-12-2009) The subpoenas were filed by developer Peter Holsten's attorney Thomas E. Johnson. Holsten is the developer behind a mixed-use project now under construction at the "Wilson Yard" location in Uptown, at Montrose and Broadway. RELATED: Holsten v. Uptown Update and What the Helen (Citizen Media Law Project) Developer Targets Bloggers in Chicago Marathon Pundit: Google subpoenaed about two anonymous Chicago blogs Uptown Update: "Holsten's Attorney Subpoenas Google" Open Letter to Uptown Update: Expose Yourselves Gapers Block: Uptown Throwdown WindyPundit: Google Subpoenaed Over Anonymous Blogs in Connection With Controversial Chicago TIF Project Chicagoist: Don't Shoot the Messenger: Uptown Bloggers Subpoenaed CMLP Blog: Chicago Developer Shovels Out Subpoenas by the Bucketful Over Wilson Yard Redevelopment CNB RSS Feed

Ambassador: Obama Born In Kenya

Was Obama born in Kenya? Kenya's Ambassador to the United States, Peter Ogego (photo) says he was. He admitted to talk show hosts that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. He was speaking on the phone with the Mike In The Morning show on WRIF radio, in Detroit, in November, 2008 after Obama was elected to the office of President of the United States. Mr. Ogego was happy about his nation's plans to build a memorial at the site of Obama's birth in Kenya. The US Constitution, by the way, requires that presidents be born in the United States. Listen to the audio (short version on YouTube, below) or the long version at the WRIF website. RELATED: New Lawsuit Asks Proof Obama is US Citizen and New Lawsuit Demands Arrest of Obama's Aunt CNB RSS Feed

Comment On Obama Citizenship Post

Many thanks to "Mountain Publius Goat" for an email with kind words and a much-appreciated spelling correction. The Goat was writing in about my recent post about a new lawsuit regarding Barack Obama's citizenship. MP Goat's email: Good article about new lawsuit but you spelled the plaintiff's name [incorrectly].... It is Kerchner, not Kirchner, as I read it when I read the case. See the link you cited in your story for the correct spelling of the plaintiff's name: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/ You should probably correct it before people start quoting your story, etc. But all and all, a good story. Good that someone is getting the message out about the continuing battle. Keep up the good work. M Publius Goat, http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org Thanks again, MP Goat. It's been corrected, and we've added your site "Obama Citizenship Facts" to our links list. CNB RSS Feed

New Lawsuit Asks Proof Obama is US Citizen

A new lawsuit resurrects a question we heard throughout the presidential campaign last year: Where is the proof that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in the United States, and is thereby qualified to hold the office of President? A new lawsuit is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and this one targets Congress as a defendant for its "failure" to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office. (Source) KERCHNER et al v. OBAMA et al, filed in New Jersey District Court, Case Number: 1:2009cv00253 was filed on January 20, 2009. The defendants named in the suit are Barack Hussein Obama II, United States of America, United States Congress, United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, Richard B. Cheney and Nancy Pelosi. The presiding judge in the case is Judge Jerome B. Simandle. Mario Apuzzo, the attorney for Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. posted the full complaint online, with an explanatory note, reproduced in full here (emphasis added): On early Tuesday morning, January 20, 2009, at about 3:00 a.m., I electronically filed a Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Petition for Quo Warranto on behalf of my clients, Mr. Kerchner, Mr. Patterson, Mr. LeNormand, and Mr. Nelsen, against defendants, Barack Hussein Obama II, United States of America, United States Congress, United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, Richard B. Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi. I filed the complaint in the Federal District Court of New Jersey and is now pending in Camden. It bears Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00253. The complaint seeks to learn the truth about whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. On January 21, 2009, I filed an Amended Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Petition for Quo Warranto. The Complaint and the Amended Complaint can be accessed and viewed at the District Court of New Jersey and Pacer web site. I will also be uploading a copy of the documents at this blog site as soon as possible so that they may be more easily viewed. The defendants have not yet been served. I am now in the process of requesting that the Court issue to me the summonses so that I can then serve as soon as possible the Summons and Amended Complaint on the defendants. As you know, the courts have refused to reach the underlying merits of the many lawsuits that have been filed on the question of whether Mr. Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. Since no case such as this one has ever been filed in the history of our nation, this case would be precedent setting. My clients and I hope that we will get a court to reach the underlying merits of this question so that the American people will be assured that Mr. Obama is their legitimate President and not an usurper. I will appreciate whatever comments anyone has on the procedural posture and underlying merits of this lawsuit. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. This is not the first such lawsuit, and probably won't be the last. Right now, there is another lawsuit with similar goals.: Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama's presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page. I.O. interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney, Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT, today, minutes after she learned of this move.Taitz believes, "This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress... the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election." (Full Story...) RELATED: Kerchner et al v Obama et al Complaint filed... Congress sued to removeprez from White House Barack Obama is a Citizen of Kenya... CNB RSS Feed

Developer Targets Bloggers in Chicago

A developer in Chicago is using the legal system to go after at least two blogs based in Chicago's Uptown neighborhood. There are several very disturbing aspects to this story, including the possible involvement of the son of Alderman Helen Shiller (46th Ward, Uptown), an attorney who shares an office suite with the developer's attorney. First, let's quickly review the basics as reported in the current issue of News-Star: The attorney representing Wilson Yard developer Peter Holsten in the lawsuit filed against him by Fix Wilson Yard has subpoenaed Google seeking information about two Uptown blogs. News-Star learned that the blogs in question are Uptown Update and What the Helen. Each blog was notified by e-mail that they had been subpoenaed as third parties through Google and that they have until Feb. 4 to file a motion to quash the subpoena. Both blogs are maintained anonymously and neither is affiliated with Fix Wilson Yard. In December, the Uptown community group Fix Wilson Yard, which claims to represent more than 2,000 Chicago residents, filed a lawsuit against the City of Chicago and Holsten Real Estate Development. The attorney is Thomas E. Johnson. His law firm is Johnson, Jones, Snelling, Gilbert & Davis, P.C., located at 36 S. Wabash Avenue, Suite 1310, Chicago. Another law firm in the same suite is Shiller, Rossiter & Co., LLC. The "Shiller" in that second firm is Brendan Shiller. Brendan's mother is Ald. Helen Shiller, who has championed developer Holsten's project at Wilson Yard and has been the subject of much criticism by the blogs in question. Additionally, Tom Johnson has been a financial contributor to Ald. Shiller's campaigns. All this proves is that Brendan Shiller shares a suite with Johnson's firm. One must admit, however, that the coincidence is stunning, and it begs the question: How involved is the Shiller family in this legal pursuit of Uptown Update and What The Helen? The most disturbing aspect of this, of course, is the fact that a developer is trying to suppress the free speech activities of a respected blog, Uptown Update. "What The Helen," a blog whose name is derived from Helen Shiller, the target of their critiques, has been defunct for about a year, so to stay in the present, let's concentrate on Uptown Update. Uptown Update (UU) is enormously popular; it achieved one million hits last week. Like What The Helen (WTH), UU has been critical of Shiller and of the Wilson Yard TIF project at Montrose and N. Sheridan. UU, however, has been somewhat more subtle than was WTH. Additionally, UU reports on a broad range of news in the Uptown neighborhood. In essence, UU is a virtual neighborhood newspaper, providing some commentary and a lot of hard news reporting, with excellent graphics and community events listings. It is not unusual to hear an Uptown resident say, "I saw that on Uptown Update." For a developer's attorney to use subpoenaes to identify the operators of UU and WTH is disturbing. If this action by Holsten's attorney is being done as an attempt to silence Uptown Update and, thereby, the comments made by community members on that blog, then it is frightening. There can be only one or two reasons why this is being done. Those reasons may be: 1) To simply intimidate the bloggers, with the possible intention of scaring them into either shutting down their blogs or to delete past references to Holsten and not make future posts about him or his Wilson Yard project; 2) To discover the bloggers' names to subsequently bring legal action against them. That legal action would most likely be charges of defamation or interfering with commerce; There could be other reasons, of course, but the most obvious ones would seem to be an intention to either intimidate and/or to bring legal action against the individuals behind the blogs if their real names are discovered. It should be noted, for whatever it's worth, that Holsten Development Capital has channeled a lot of money over the years to a number of Democrats in Illinois, including Ald. Helen Shiller (at least $10,000 to Citizens for Shiller, 2000 through January, 2006). A small sampling of other beneficiaries of his largesse includes Citizens for Lisa Madigan (over $12,000), Citizens for David Orr ($8,000), Citizens for Joe Moore (over $16,000), Citizens for the 48th Ward Democratic Party (over $3,700), Citizens for Mary Ann Smith (over $17,000) [Smith is the 48th Ward Alderman], Citizens for Carol Ronen (over $4,000), Friends of Edward M Burke (over $10,000). (Source) It should be noted that I am not implying anything illegal about the contributions referred to above. MORE DISTURBING ASPECTS As mentioned above, Ald. Helen Shiller's son Brendan is an attorney who shares a suite with Holsten's attorney, Tom Johnson. Holsten and Ald. Shiller have both been targets of harsh criticism in the blogs. Both, therefore, have the motivation to squelch the blogs. Both Holsten and Shiller have the means, or ability, to bring the legal tools to bear in order to attempt that. Let me stress that this is theory on my part, but to say the least, it seems unlikely that the Shillers were not aware of the pending subpoena before it was filed. IS HOLSTEN BEING HONEST? Developer Holsten told News-Star that he had no knowledge of the legal action: Holsten said that he was not aware that Google had been subpoenaed by his defense attorney for information about the blogs. "I tend to stay off the blogs," Holsten said "They can get pretty nasty." This may or may not be true, but it seems difficult to believe. While he might actually "stay off the blogs," as he claims, it seems unlikely that his attorney Tom Johnson would not make him aware of anything about him on the blogs that could be deemed problematic. As for Holsten staying off the blogs, Holsten Management Corporation is one of the most frequent visitors to Uptown Update. Now, are we to believe that one of Holsten's secretaries is reading UU, and nobody else in that office, and that no notes are being taken by said hypothetical secretary? Furthermore, it is hard to swallow Holsten's implication that his attorney is lobbing subpoenaes on his behalf without his knowledge. Why would Johnson be seeking the identities of the bloggers? If not for client Holsten, then for whom or for what purpose? Curiosity? Suppose Holsten is being honest about this. Is Helen Shiller behind it? As mentioned, Holsten and Shiller are allies in the Wilson Yard battle. Shiller undoubtedly sees the whole controversy as a threat to her political career in the 46th Ward. I'm not saying Shiller is behind it, but the question must be asked. WHO ELSE WILL BE TARGETED? At this time, the targets of this subpoena is Uptown Update and the defunct What The Helen blogs. However, plenty of other blogs and web sites have been critical of both Holsten and Ald. Shiller, and still more have republished or linked to posts on those blogs. If Holsten and/or Shiller are truly on a witch hunt, they may leave no stake unburned in their attempt to shut down free speech in Chicago's 46th Ward. Worse still, other politicians will be watching this action. If Holsten and friends prevail, it could set a very chilling precedent for citizen journalists nationwide. RELATED: Open Letter to Uptown Update: Expose Yourselves News-Star: "Trial Date Set!" Shiller comes out fighting What is Wilson Yard? City makes change to spur financing for Wilson Yard Tax increase may blunt Uptown’s economic boom UNC ENews - The Truth About Wilson Yard - Uptown Neighborhood Council UNC e-News: The latest on Wilson Yard, Vote, October 28, 2008 Is Illinois the Most Corrupt State? - Capitol Briefing Feds Sued by Community Organizations and Publishers, Charge Computer Searches Illegal Electronic Frontier Foundation CNB RSS Feed

Citizen Participation Act: Unleash the Hounds

Michael Miner is keeping abreast of a new law in Illinois that holds hope for bloggers and non-bloggers alike: Public Act 095-0506, also known as the Citizen Participation Act (CPA), passed last summer and yet to be tested in a court of law. Miner did an excellent report about the pending lawsuit in the April 3 issue of the Chicago Reader. Miner is a great writer, but I have one tiny bone to pick with him. It's nothing personal, I just wish to set the record straight. I reported on the case of Jaeger v. Okon, in which a developer sued a married couple for defamation - both on their blog and, allegedly, verbally. My Chicago Journal/Booster article, in the April 30 issue, broke the news that the developer and the bloggers had settled out of court. We were also the first to report that the new CPA was yet to be tested. Here's the bone picking: In the May 15 Reader, Miner had a few problems in an otherwise excellent article. "I wrote about Jaeger’s suit against the Okons in Hot Type on April 3," Miner wrote, "The Citizen Participation Act became law last August, and in March the Okons’s attorney, Daliah Saper, unleashed it on Jaeger and Donnelly." However, as I reported on April 30 (as noted by Miner), the Okon's and their attorney unleashed….nothing. Nothing at all, in fact, except a willingness to settle out of court and quietly go away. Granted, Ms. Saper would probably have "unleashed" the Citizen Partipation Act in court, had it gone to trial. With no trial, though, the CPA is yet to be tested, yet to be "unleashed." Miner continued, "Saper asked the court to dismiss Jaeger’s suit. Instead, the two sides promptly set­tled out of court." So, which is it? Did Saper "unleash" the CPA on developer Jaeger, or did Saper ask the court to dismiss the lawsuit? You don't "unleash" a law on anybody or in any court by asking for your case to be dismissed. It would be like a star football player "unleashing" his best plays against a team that lost the game because they didn't show up. In the next paragraph, Miner wrote, "According to an article in the Booster, the Okons wound up paying $20,000 and posting an apology on their blog, terms that don’t resemble victory and that make the Citizen Participation Act sound pretty toothless." "Toothless?" They settled out of court. Had the blogger's attorney, Ms. Saper, actually "unleashed" the CPA in a court of law, and had the CPA not swayed the court's decision, then it could correctly be said that the CPA sounds "pretty toothless." But a law that is yet to be tested cannot sound toothless - or toothy - until it's been tested. Such a case is called a "test" because, well, it tests the law to see just how good its teeth are. A couple of paragraphs later Miner wrote, "Because the two sides settled, Jaeger’s suit didn’t lead to what Saper had hoped it would: the first court test of the Illinois CPA." In my Booster article on April 30, I reported that Alex Memmen, an associate for developer Jaeger's legal counsel, "would have loved to litigate the case" [Jaeger v. Okon] "because it would have been the first case in Illinois" to test the CPA. The Illinois Legislature unanimously passed the Citizen Participation Act (Public Act 095-0506) last August. Approximately 20 other states have laws similar to Illinois' Public Act 095-0506, and more state legislatures are currently considering such laws. I rest my case.

Band Tries to Intimidate Blogger

UPDATED! Read the following, then read the followup.

Roundeye just doesn't get it. Roundeye is a rock band in Rogers Park, and they seem bound and determined to remain an obscure, amateurish band of immature punks. If they were pros, they would not have had their "booking agent" Mark send me a request to stop using their band logo on The Bench. "Mark," who doesn't give his last name, sent an email to The Bench asking me to "remove any and all Roundeye logo images" from The Bench. (Sorry, Mark, I don't want to.)

Mark's poorly crafted letter "notified" me to remove "all Roundeye logo images" from The Bench. Huh? So, other, non-logo images are okay? Perhaps Mark could advise his "client" to stop trashing the neighborhood with Roundeye stickers, applied to stop signs, phone poles, light poles, mail boxes and so forth, all of which is illegal.

Mark reminded me that I did not obtain permission to use Roundeye's badly drawn logo, and said that I must remove it because I do not own it. Apparently Mark and Roundeye don't read many magazines or newspapers, which frequently use logos to illustrate a point or to satirize or parody something or somebody. But I would expect this from poorly educated, semi-literate amateurs.

Parody and satire are protected by law, according to the "Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code":

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. [more at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107]

Mark optimistically thanked me for my "anticipated" cooperation. Let me thank Mark in advance for his anticipated autofornication.

Dear Mark,

Have a lawyer send a request to cease and desist and I might consider it. In the meantime, Roundeye, as a rock band that seeks publicity, is a public figure and therefore subject to public criticism. The use of its logo as satire or parody is, by my understanding, permissable. I have not used their logo for financial gain. If your puny client cannot stand the heat of public criticism, Mark, then perhaps they should stop seeking the public spotlight.

Here's a question for you, Mark. Does Roundeye have written permission to use logos from the following entities on their MySpace site?:

Chicago Peace Fest; Hemp and Peace Fest; Sexfist; the Cobra Lounge; Pabst Blue Ribbon; Illinois Entertainer; WLUW; Hustler Magazine; He-Man; Warner Brothers (for use of the Tasmanian Devil image); others.

Oh, and by the way, Mark, I have half an urge to forward the obscene, unsolicited email that the idiot Brettly sent out to publicize Roundeye. I believe there may be a couple of federal and state laws that were violated by that email.

Oh, and Mark, what the hell is your last name? What kind of amateur are you that you don't use your last name, give the name of your agency, or any contact info other than your email?

UPDATED! NOW READ THE FOLLOWUP

RELATED:
Red Line Tap Bartender's Obscene Email Blast
Fair Use Network: 'Cease and Desist!' - Assessing & Responding to ...
NCAC - National Coalition Against Censorship - Parody is protected by the First Amendment, ruled the California Supreme Court, overturning a lower court...

Bloggers, Developer Settle Out of Court

A case of Blogger v. Developer ended quite differently than David and Goliath. Goliath won this round, but only after a few interesting twists and turns behind the scenes. FULL STORY at Chicago Journal/Booster...

Stay Out of Jail Card

Giganto hat tip to Levois for this: For bloggers: A stay-out-of-jail card

Transsexual Can Sue Library of Congress

I heard about this case on the radio the other night. Seems like a clear case of discrimination to me. Who cares if this guy is now a gal? Can this person do the job? That's all that should matter. Essentially a job applicant, while interviewing as a man, was offered a position with the Library of Congress as a Terrorism Research Analyst. Once the applicant disclosed that she was undertaking steps to change gender and would be changing her name and presenting herself as a woman, the job offer was revoked due to her not being a “good fit” for the organization. The applicant, Diane Schroer, after exhausting administrative remedies, sued under Title VII. MORE from HRLORI... Related: Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Transsexual's Discrimination Claim Against Library of Congress

Nifong Bankrupt

Serves him right. It's a shame the same fate won't befall the bigoted professors, staff and adminstration at Duke University. This from The Smoking Gun: JANUARY 15--Disgraced and disbarred, Mike Nifong is now bankrupt. The former North Carolina prosecutor, whose career imploded with his botched handling of the Duke University rape case, today filed for bankruptcy, listing liabilities in excess of $180 million. MORE...

Lawyers Are Hated Because...

...they act like lawyers. Roy Pearson is an administrative law judge in Washington D.C., who had a pair of pants lost at the cleaners. So now he's suing, for 57 MILLION DOLLARS, plus $425/hr in legal fees, to be paid to his lawyer, himself. The suit, he says, isn't over the pants, it's over the fact that they have a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign in the window, and he's not satisfied. Read more about this at Crazy Politico...