The Watcher

A couple paid $1.3M for a house in Westfield, NJ and now they have fled the house and are suing the sellers for not disclosing that the house is being watched.

Shortly after they moved in the Broaddus family started receiving letters from someone called "The Watcher."

'My grandfather watched the house in the 1920s and my father watched in the 1960s. It is now my time,' wrote The Watcher. 'Do you need to fill the house with the young blood I requested?'
'Once I know their names I will call to them and draw them to me. I asked the (prior owners) to bring me young blood,' the first letter, dated June 5, read. 'And now I watch and wait for the day when they (sp) young blood will be mine again.'
'Have they found what is in the walls yet? In time they will. I am pleased to know your names and the names now of the young blood you have brought to me,' the letter reads.
'Will the young bloods play in the basement. Who has the rooms facing the street? I'll know as soon as you move in. It will help me to know who is in which bedroom then I can plan better.
Here's what drives me crazy about this. They are suing the previous owners for failing to disclose that "The Watcher" had been harassing them too.

The stalker has nothing to do with the house, he doesn't come with the house. It is a criminal engaging in criminal behavior. This is a matter for the police, not for the courts.

I'm sorry for their plight but I have to tag this "frivolous lawsuits."

What Do You Give Me For? Frankie Carbone and Louie from "The Simpsons"

What do you give me for Frankie Carbone and Louie from "The Simpsons?"
Actor Frank Sivero is suing the creators of the "The Simpsons" for $250M saying Louie is based on his character from "Goodfellas."
Sivero says in 1989 he lived in the same apartment complex as some of the writers for the show. During this time he developed the character of Frankie Carbone. He says he told the writers about his character and that they based "Louie" on Carbone.
Louie first appeared in 1991 and has had 15 appearances in total, including as recently as April 2014.

Fat Yankees Fan Sleeps, Sues

Andrew Rector was caught on camera sleeping in the stands during a Red Sox-Yankees game at Yankee Stadium:



Now Rector is suing ESPN, MLB and Dan Shulman and John Kruk because the announcers made fun of him. The lawsuit says the "unending verbal crusade against" Rector caused him “substantial injury” to his “character and reputation,” as well as “mental anguish, loss of future income and loss of earning capacity.”

The lawsuit doesn't even look as if it was prepared by a real lawyer, it's full of typos misspellings and failed attempts to sound intelligent.

Fact is, calling the guy "oblivious," wondering if he missed the Beltran homer and gently joking about his weight (by asking Kruk if they are related) are totally legitimate things for the announcers to do.

His other allegations that they called him confused and unintelligent just aren't true. But if they had said those things, they'd be right.

Poker pro Vanessa Selbst got caught on camera sleeping at a Montreal Canadiens game but you don't see her filing frivolous lawsuits.

Did She Hurt Her Eyelashes Too?

Suzanne Pierce is suing the Phillie Phanatic. In 2010 she was sitting in a lounge chair at a hotel where she was to attend her sister's wedding. The Phillie Phanatic was performing there, unrelated to the wedding. During his comic routine he picked up Pierce, and her chair, and threw her into the pool.

According to the lawsuit, Pierce "suffered severe and permanent injuries to her head, neck, back, body, arms and legs, bones, muscles, tendons and ligaments, nerves and tissues of her head, neck, back, arms and legs, including, but not limited to, a herniated L-5, S-1, aggravation and/or exacerbation of all known and unknown pre-existing medical conditions, internal injuries of an unknown nature..."

Oh is that all? I would normally have a lot of sympathy for Ms. Pierce. No one should be included in a comedy routine without their permission. And no one should ever be tossed, thrown or shoved into a pool without their consent. That could be a very dangerous activity.

But this is ridiculous. Damage to her muscles, tendons and ligaments? We get it, you're hurt. Pick the parts of your body that are hurt most, that you can prove were damaged and go with that. This Chicken Little medical report undermines her credibility.

Don't Have Skype Sex on a Stolen Computer

An Ohio woman settled a lawsuit with a software company after she claimed the company grabbed a sexually explicit photo of her from her computer.
Here's what happened: Susan Clements-Jeffrey, a teacher, age 52, bought a laptop from a student for $60.
Not surprising that computer had been stolen, and sold to another student for $40, who quickly flipped it to his naive teacher for a 50% profit.
Mrs. Clements-Jeffrey used the computer and the webcam to communicate with her out of state boyfriend.
This is where Absolute Software comes in.
In an attempt to recover the stolen property, the company grabbed a webcam image of Clements-Jeffrey. They used a webcam image rather than some other saved photo, because that's the only way to determine who is actually using the computer.
They also used the tracking software to locate the computer. They turned over the location and the explicit photo to local police, who arrested Clements-Jeffrey.
She sued, claiming her privacy and been violated and she had no idea the computer was stolen. A judge agreed and ruled in her favor (instead of taking it further, the parties settled).
The judge ruled, even though the company was tracking stolen property, a legitimate purpose, it crossed a line when it obtained and disseminated (to police) a sexually explicit image of Clements-Jeffrey.
I agree. And I would love to side with her but for one big thing. She didn't know the computer was stolen? There's no way that can be true. She bought a laptop from a student for $60 and didn't think it had been stolen. Not possible.
Not saying she deserved to have her naked photos exposed, but when you traffic in stolen goods I believe you lose some of your rights. And I think she should have had this case dismissed.

What Do You Give Me For? Toucan Sam and the Mayan Archaelogy Initiative Toucan

Kellogg is asking a group working to defend Mayan culture to reconsider its logo, saying consumers can confuse it with Toucan Sam.
An attorney for Kellogg sent a letter to the nonprofit Maya Archaeology Initiative saying Kellogg opposes the group's bid to trademark its logo.
The Maya Archaeology Initiative says there is little similarity. It says its logo is based upon a realistic toucan native to Mesoamerica, while Toucan Sam is a cartoon character with the coloring of Froot Loops.

What Do You Give Me For? Kim Kardashian and Old Navy Model

What do you give me for Kim Kardashian and the chick in the Old Navy ad?
Kardashian is suing Old Navy's parent company, Gap, over the Super C-U-T-E ad featuring Melissa Molinaro. Kardashian says the company purposely used a lookalike and people are mistakenly thinking that she is the one endorsing Old Navy clothes.

You May Be Surprised at My Answer

Ohio Congressman and former Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich is suing a Congressional cafeteria for $150,000. Three years ago Kucinich ate a sandwich and bit down on an olive which still contained a pit. Kucinich says he suffered serious dental problems as a result, and according to his lawsuit "a loss of enjoyment."
Throw out the amount he's seeking, because you always ask for way more than reasonably should be awarded, fully expecting the judgment to be reduced. Consider only the merits of his claim. And forget the loss of enjoyment too, though I guess it makes sense, you would enjoy food and life a lot less if you had a broken tooth requiring serious oral surgery to repair.
Focus only on his claim: he expected everything in his sandwich to be easily edible. I agree with him. No one should put a olive with a pit in a sandwich, that's negligence on the part of the cafeteria's food preparers. And he suffered actual damages as a result of that improperly prepared sandwich. I say this is a legitimate lawsuit.

And You Thought Texting While Driving Was Bad

This woman actually gives me a good idea. I am going to pretend to be texting while walking through the mall, and fall in the fountain. Except when I do it, I'm going to grab a handful of change.

The woman is angry at mall security for posting the video online. Understandable.
She is also angry they laughed at her instead of helping her. Understandable, on the part of mall security.
And now she is considering a lawsuit because she became an international laughing stock as a result of the video being leaked. That is going too far. And it earns Cathy Cruz Marrero the oversensitive babies and frivolous lawsuit tags.

The Case the Lawyers Are Talking About

In April 2009, Juliet Breitman, 4, and Jacob Kohn, 5, were racing their bicycles, under the supervision of their mothers, Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, on the sidewalk of a building on East 52nd Street. At some point in the race, they struck an 87-year-old woman named Claire Menagh, who was walking in front of the building and, according to the complaint, was “seriously and severely injured,” suffering a hip fracture that required surgery. She died three months later of unrelated causes. Her estate sued the children and their mothers, claiming they had acted negligently during the accident.

That's the story. Here's the ruling: the case can continue, but no ruling has been made yet as to whether the kids are guilty of negligence. Previous cases have set the precedent that a child under 4 is not capable of negligence. Since the girl was nearly 5, the judge allowed it to go forward.

Here's my take: I think children this young are capable of understanding risk. I am 100% sure that if Chase were riding his bike and someone was in the way he would know enough to stop, slow down or try to avoid that person. But then again, if someone walked out in front of him suddenly, or if he were racing and distracted, he might not.

I really don't know what to decide so I am going to punt. Here is my ruling: What is the difference if you sue a 4-year-old? She can't be held liable for monetary damages, can she? Future earnings? You wouldn't seek a criminal penalty, certainly not for this.

So the parents should be held responsible since they were "supervising." They're the ones who should have known that a bike race on a crowded Manhattan street was not a good idea.

Tear Down the Playground

An old saw referencing our increasingly reactive culture says that every time a kid falls a playground is closed. I didn't think this was literally true, but I suppose it is.

"Elementary school playgrounds in one West Virginia county are losing their swing sets.

Swings are being removed from Cabell County schools in southern West Virginia in part because of lawsuits over injuries.

Cabell County schools safety manager Tim Stewart said Wednesday that a lot of parents are accusing him of being un-American, but he says the cost of maintaining a safe surface is too expensive.

Stewart says a lawsuit in the past year involved a youngster who broke his arm jumping off a swing like Superman. It was settled for $20,000.

Other equipment such as monkey bars will remain. Stewart says the schools are able to maintain the proper protection underneath them."

It's only a matter of time until the monkey bars go too. And eventually our kids will play in foam rubber rooms where no one ever gets hurt and no one is good or bad. And when that day comes kids in China will kick our kids' asses.

Sue Everybody

Lauren Rosenberg is suing Google for more than $100,000 because she was hit by a car.
What does this have to do with Google?
Rosenberg is from Los Angeles, while visiting Utah she used Google maps for walking directions. She says Google provided unsafe directions.
Google Maps led her to walk on a busy road without sidewalks that was "not reasonably safe for pedestrians."
She claims she was led onto a busy highway and hit by a car "as a direct and proximate cause of defendant Google's careless, reckless and negligent providing of unsafe directions.”
Rosenberg is seeking compensation for unspecified "severe" injuries and lost wages in addition to punitive damages.
The court papers didn't explain why Rosenberg walked along state Route 224 instead of choosing streets with sidewalks.
On its version for computers, Google Maps suggests one alternative for Rosenberg's route. It also highlights a disclaimer: "Use caution -- This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths."
The mobile version of Google Maps, however, does not come with that warning.

Even Lawyers are Starting to Poke Fun at Our Overly Litigious Society

The law firm of Trolman, Glaser and Lichtman offering a insightful take on their own profession, specifically lawyers who advertise on TV.



Machete!

A few days after I wrote this and set it to post today I got a paper cut and it really hurt.

Machete!

Milk-A-What

Lindsay Lohan thinks the famous milk-a-holic baby of the same name was based on her.
She is suing E-Trade, saying the boyfriend-stealing, "milkaholic" baby in its Super Bowl commercial was modeled after her.
And she wants $100 million for her pain and suffering.
Lohan's lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, said the actress has the same single-name recognition as Oprah or Madonna.
"Many celebrities are known by one name only, and E-Trade is using that knowledge to profit," Ovadia said.
"They used the name Lindsay," Ovadia said. "They're using her name as a parody of her life. Why didn't they use the name Susan? This is a subliminal message. Everybody's talking about it and saying it's Lindsay Lohan."
Chris Brown, a spokesman for Grey Group, which produced the spot, is throwing cold milk on the controversy, saying it "just used a popular baby name that happened to be the name of someone on the account team."
Ovadia said E-Trade has violated Lohan's rights under New York state civil-rights law and used her "name and characterization" in business without paying her or getting her approval.
She says Lohan is owed $50 million in exemplary damages, plus another $50 million in compensatory damages.

When Jury Duty Doesn't Seem So Bad

Hustler founder Larry Flynt is suing his two nephews claiming they ruined his business by putting out inferior product using the Flynt name.
The nephews worked for Flynt for a long time but when he fired them they launced their own company, FLYNT Media.
In order to decide the case the four women and four men of the mostly middle-aged jury viewed photos of some of the nephews' DVD boxes. Images of naked, well-endowed women on the front and people in all sorts of contortions on the back were flashed on a giant-screen TV right next to them.

The jury decided the nephews had infringed on Larry Flynt's trademark and they will now be required to use their first names on their porn moives.

A Fitting Yom Kippur Story

Proud of his religion and worried about its future, Chicago dentist Max Feinberg wrote a will with an unusual catch: His grandchildren wouldn't inherit a penny if they married someone who wasn't Jewish.

His decision led to family feuds, lawsuits, counterclaims and, on Thursday, a unanimous ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court that Feinberg and his wife were within their rights to disinherit any grandchildren who married outside the faith.

"Equal protection does not require that all children be treated equally ... and the free exercise clause does not require a grandparent to treat grandchildren who reject his religious beliefs and customs in the same manner as he treats those who conform to his traditions," Justice Rita Garman wrote in a ruling that overturned decisions by two lower courts.

One disinherited granddaughter had argued it was improper for a will to set up conditions that promote religious intolerance in people's marriage decisions or even encouraged couples to divorce.

"It is at war with society's interest in eliminating bigotry and prejudice, and conflicts with modern moral standards of religious tolerance," said Michele Feinberg Trull's brief to the Supreme Court.

The court's ruling was based partly on technicalities in the way this estate was arranged. The court did not provide a broad ruling on whether similar religious restrictions would be valid under other circumstances.

The dispute has its roots in 1986, when Feinberg died.

He put his money into trusts for his family, but his will declared that any grandchild marrying someone who wasn't Jewish, or who didn't convert to Judaism, "shall be deemed to be deceased" and would inherit nothing.

Feinberg's will gave control of the trusts to his wife, Erla. When she died and the grandchildren were to inherit $250,000 each, she followed her husband's wishes and imposed the same restrictions.

By that time, four of the five grandchildren had married gentiles.

Erla Feinberg's death triggered a series of disputes. Trull accused her father and aunt, the Feinbergs' children, of mishandling the family money. In return, they tried to get the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that the daughter was "dead" for purposes of inheritance and had no standing to sue.

So the courts had to decide whether it's acceptable for a will to base inheritance on someone's marriage and religion.

Feinberg's son, Michael, argues there's nothing wrong with it.

Michael, who stands to inherit more money if his children are cut out, argued in court documents that the will simply rewards the grandchildren who help preserve the "heritage and faith" his father loved.

His position won the support of several Jewish organizations, including Agudath Israel of America, a national Orthodox group.

David Zwiebel, executive vice president of Agudath Israel, said he didn't know of any other court rulings that directly address whether a will can tie inheritance to religious choices. Such restrictions aren't unusual, he said, because some people want to discourage intermarriage that is contributing to the declining number of Jews in America.

"There is a strong sense within certain segments of the Jewish community that in order to preserve the religious identity, it's important to promote marriage within the faith," Zwiebel said.

Michael Feinberg, who is the co-executor of his parent's estate, was pleased by the ruling but had no other comment, his attorney said. Trull's attorney said she was disappointed but looking forward to court action on her other legal claims.

The two sides of the family can't even agree on what to call the part of the will causing all the trouble. The granddaughter calls it "the Jewish clause." Her parents have adopted the phrase "religious preference clause."

The state Supreme Court based much of its decision on the fact that Erla Feinberg's will awarded set amounts of money based on the marriage status of the grandchildren at the time of her 2003 death -- either they qualified for the money or they didn't. The court said that meant the will didn't try to control what the grandchildren would do in the future and didn't offer any incentive for a particular couple to divorce.

A will that provided money year after year if the heir did not marry a gentile might not pass muster, the court suggested. That's because it would amount to a dead man trying to control actions for years to come and would encourage divorces so that people could claim an inheritance.

I honestly don't see what the legal dispute is here. To my knowledge, there isn't nor should there be a law restricting to whom and for what reason heirs are chosen.
This reminds me of how people often confuse the free speech debate. Free speech and equal protection are granted by the government. If this old coot wants to treat his grandchildren unequally, that should be his right.
You know how many root canals this poor schmoe had to do to earn this money.
He doesn't want some schicza with a cute nose marrying his grandson and using his hard-earned money to buy Christmas presents.
I can't believe the case even came this far.

Senos Grandes

Melody Morales is suing the Hawaiian Tropic Zone for discrimination after getting rejected for a job as a waitress there.
Morales who is 21-years-old, has the right experience, she used to be a Hooters girl.
She has the right assets, she has 34D breasts and as she says "I look good in a bikini" but the Hawaiian tropic racists wouldn't know because "they never even looked at me in a bikini."
Instead, a manager dismissed her, saying, according to Morales: "You don't speak white" and "you are ghetto."
Also, a manager said "I am not going to ruin my business with your Latin accent."

I can definitely see both sides of this argument. First of all, a restaurant does have the right to hire people who can communicate with its customers. And she does look kind of ghetto.
But let's be real here, they're not running a high-class joint. She has big tits and does look pretty good in that bikini. And those are the real job requirements.

Maybe Bikini Girl Was Just the Beginning

American Idol is suing an Austin, Texas strip club.
Palazio Men's Club hosts a weekly amateur stripping contest called "Stripper Idol."
Ads for the contest use a logo with a "color scheme, design and font" similar to the TV show's. Waitresses at the club also wear T-shirts emblazoned with the logo, according to the lawsuit.
The suit says "there is a substantial likelihood that consumers will be confused, misled or deceived as to the sponsorship ... of the defendants' stripper talent contest."
And that's the key, will consumers be confused?
And that's why American Idol has no case. No one in their right mind is going to believe that this concert is in any way connected to the show.
So while the club is definitely profiting off the show's images and trademarks, I don't feel it is causing customer confusion.
Except when Katrina Darrell is on the show.

This Story Is Not as Big as It Seems To Be

A group of angry women are filing a class-action lawsuits claiming they've experienced very uncomfortable symptoms, like rashes, hives and permanent scarring from Victoria's Secret bras.

"I had the welts ... very red, hot to the touch, extremely inflamed, blistery. It itched profusely," said Roberta Ritter, who describes herself as a longtime Victoria's Secret shopper. "I couldn't sleep, waking up itching.

"I was just utterly sick," she added.

Ritter, 37, filed a lawsuit against the company May 14 in relation to the Angels Secret Embrace and Very Sexy Extreme Me Push-Up bras she said she purchased.

What the fuck is wrong with these bitches? Most women have to undergo surgery, have their breasts cut open, then stuffed with a saline-filled bag in order to have jugs big enough so that men will notice them. Victoria's Secret does these women a favor and eliminates the need for all that with innovative products such as the "Very Sexy Extreme Me" push-up bra and these women want to complain over a couple hives. Just like a woman, no matter what you do for them they always want more.

Fired for Fucking at Work

Two former loss prevention investigators are suing Neiman Marcus after they were fired for fucking each other at work, in the loss prevention office.

Veronica Miranda and Steven Chalem were caught fucking twice by a hidden camera.

They claim their terminations were supposed to be kept confidential but now say the story and the tape was shared on an online database for security personnel.

They say this has prevented them from being able to get any other jobs in the industry.

The lawsuit asserts violations of the state eavesdropping and personnel statues, breach of contract, infliction of emotional distress and other claims.

Clearly this is a case of you get what you deserve. There is no excuse for having sex at work, but if you have to do it, and you get caught, you really can't complain how you were caught and that you were fired.

OK, I can grant that sharing the video might have gone too far but when you do something so stupid, you really have no basis for complaint.