10 Times People Sued Big Corporations

10 Times People Sued Big Corporations



It is estimated that at least 40 million lawsuits are filed in the United States alone every year, and the United States is only one of the 195 countries that exist today. There are times when people have dragged famous corporations into the court for really interesting reasons that are something we don’t often hear of. This list of ten such lawsuits will make an interesting read.

1. The Captain Crunch cereal company was sued by a woman because she believed that “crunch berries” were real fruit for four years and then found out that they were just cereal.

Image credit: capncrunch.comveganfoodlover.com

For four years, Janine Sugawara bought the Cap’N Crunch cereal as she thought that “crunch berries” were real fruit. Cap‘N Crunch is a cereal product that was introduced in 1963 and manufactured by the Quaker Oats Company since 2001. When Sugawara learned that these crunch berries were not berries at all and were just brightly colored cereal, she sued Captain Crunch citing that they had falsely advertised their product. She also brought claims of breach of warranty and fraud against the company under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California Unfair Competition Law.

The judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed Sugawara’s complaint on May 21, 2009, stating this:

“In this case . . . while the challenged packaging contains the word ‘berries,’ it does so only in conjunction with the descriptive term ‘crunch.’ This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a ‘crunch berry.’ Furthermore, the ‘crunchberries’ depicted on the box are round, crunchy, brightly-colored cereal balls, and the box clearly states both that the Product contains ’sweetened corn & oat cereal’ and that the cereal is ‘enlarged to show texture.’ Thus, a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing that the Product in the instant case contained a fruit that does not exist. . . . So far as this Court has been made aware, there is no such fruit growing in the wild or occurring naturally in any part of the world.”

The court also said that it was impossible for her to file an amended complaint, and she received nothing. (12)

2. A man who drank Red Bull for ten years sued the company for “false advertising” stating that he neither grew wings nor had any enhanced intellectual or athletic performance.

Image credit: Albert Bridge

A very famous drink sold by an Austrian company Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull has the highest market share of any energy drink globally with 6.302 billion cans sold across the world as of 2017. Its famous slogan, “Red Bull gives you wings,” is figurative to most who see the ads, but one man, Benjamin Careathers, took it literally.

After ten years of drinking Red Bull, he filed a suit against the company for false advertising and said, that he “neither had wings nor any enhanced athletic or intellectual performance.” He alleged that the firm misled the consumers to earn millions of dollars and to rise above its competitors.

Red Bull, who did not want a trial that would cost it its reputation, settled the mattered out of court and offered a refund of $10 to any consumer in the United States who had purchased the drink since 2002 (an estimated 1.4 million customers that had to file a claim through a website—www.energydrinksettlement.com). It also promised to amend its advertisements. The settlement cost Red Bull GmbH 13 million dollars, with 6.5 million going to a fund through which the refunds were to be processed. (12)

3. The inventor of intermittent windshield wipers, Robert Kearns, faced rejection from the auto industry when he tried to sell his idea. But when these wipers began showing up on new cars, he sued the manufacturers and won millions of dollars in settlements.

Image credit: Robert Kearns/Wikimedia

Thanks to Robert Kearns, we have intermittent windshield wipers on our cars today. Before Kearns took inspiration from an “eyelid that blinked” to create the wipers, there were only two settings the cars had, one for heavy rain and for light rain. When Kearns approached several companies from the automobile industry with his invention, they did not buy his idea. Then, his idea was translated into reality and began appearing on several cars. He first saw it on a Mercedes in 1976, and that is when it all began.

In 1993, Kearns filed a suit against General Motors after defeating Ford and Chrysler for infringing his patent. He won millions of dollars in settlements. Against Chrysler and General Motors, Kearns represented himself. He filed so many lawsuits after that against almost all auto companies that it became all that his children knew, and four of them began working for him full time, being able to draft legal papers without any formal training. Kearns spent his life defending an innovator’s idea, sparking a debate on the issue. A film Flash of Genius was made on his life in 2008. (12)

4. A man named Jonathon Lee Riches got his name included in the Guinness World Records after having filed the highest number of lawsuits in the world. When he got to know about this, he sued the Guinness Book of World Records.

Image credit: Jonathon Lee Riches/youtube

Since January 8, 2006, Jonathon Lee Riches has filed more than 2,600 lawsuits in various district courts of the United States. Many of these cases were in the media spotlight. Some of the famous defendants of his lawsuits include the former President of United States, George Bush, Martha Stewart, Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, Steve Jobs, Britney Spear, and even the Somali pirates!

In May 2009, he filed a suit against the Guinness Book of World Records asking for an injunction. He wanted to stop them from listing him as “the most litigious individual in history.” When the spokesperson for Guinness said that they had no such plan and they did not have such a category, the case was dismissed.

Riches is a former prisoner who was incarcerated at Federal Medical Centre, Kentucky for wire fraud. (source)

5. A woman based in the United States sued WalMart for overcharging her for two cents. This was her fifth lawsuit against the Delmont store and she had won them all.

Image credit: Mary Bach/TwitterRaysonho/Wikimedia

Mary Bach, a consumer activist, won about 100 dollars in damages and about 80 dollars in legal costs in her fifth suit against the WalMart store in Delmont. While shopping at the store, she picked up a package of Banquet Brown ‘N Serve sausages whose price was listed as 98 cents. But when the cashier charged her, it showed as one dollar on the receipt. This was the first time, so Bach pointed out the error and got a refund of two cents.

When she returned to the store and was charged extra once again, she filed a civil suit against WalMart. This was her fifth suit which she had won relating to the same issue of charging at the checkout counter more than what was written as the shelf price of the product. (source)

6. After claiming to have found a mouse in his can of Mountain Dew, a man tried to sue Pepsi. The lawyers for Pepsi defended the case by proving that a mouse would dissolve in the can after a few months, and so the claim was false.

Image credit: Pixabay

Ronald Ball from Illinois sued PepsiCo for 50,000 dollars after he claimed to have found a mouse in his can of Mountain Dew. PepsiCo defended themselves by stating that the mouse would have dissolved turning into a jelly-like substance in 30 days, which meant that the man could not have found the mouse after 78 days of the sealing the can as it was scientifically impossible. The plaintiff questioned PepsiCo’s tests.

There is evidence that citrus soda can eat away bones and teeth in a matter of months, so it was possible that what PepsiCo said about the rodent was true as these drinks had a very low pH value of three which meant it was very acidic. Even though the 2009 suit was settled out of court in 2012, PepsiCo had a mark on its reputation as the dangers of consuming such sodas that came to light since it was accepted by PepsiCo itself through its defense in this case. (123)

7. A couple had already paid for the house they bought but Bank of America erroneously foreclosed on their house. They sued them and won, but when they didn’t get reimbursed for the court battle, they foreclosed on the bank.

Image credit: Naples Daily NewsCoolcaesar/Wikimedia

When Warren and Maureen Nyerges bought a 2,700-square-foot foreclosed home in Naples, California in 2009, they had no idea that legal troubles would come their way. They paid Bank of America 165,000 dollars in cash when they bought the house, but four months later they received a notice from the bank of foreclosure. Warren then told the server, “You must have the wrong house. We bought a foreclosure and don’t have a mortgage.”

Warren, a 46-year-old retired police officer. called over 25 law firms and all of them refused to take his case until he found a lawyer named Todd Allen. Whenever he called the bank. all they told him was to come up to date with the payments. They won the case and the court ordered the Bank of America to pay the couple 2,534 dollars as costs in September 2010. But when in June 2011, Nyerges had not been paid, he sought permission from a judge to seize the assets of the bank. In the apology the bank made to the couple after paying up, they misspelled Warren’s name. (source)

8. Stella Liebeck sued McDonald’s after she spilled hot coffee onto her lap that left her with third-degree burns in 1994. She sued for 20,000 dollars, but the jury awarded her 2.7 million dollars as punitive damages which was reduced to 640,000 dollars by the judge.

Image credit: Gruberlawgroup.comNNECAPA Photo Library

Known as “the hot coffee lawsuit,” Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, was awarded 2.7 million dollars (she received only 640,000 dollars later after the trial judge reduced the amount) in punitive damages from a New Mexico jury after she spilled hot coffee on her pelvic region. The coffee was purchased for 49 cents from McDonald’s, and she suffered third-degree burns on February 27, 1992. She had to be hospitalized for eight days as she underwent skin grafting and had to have two more years of medical treatment. Later on, the parties settled for an amount that was undisclosed to the public.

Liebeck’s lawyers argued that the coffee that was served by McDonald’s Albuquerque, New Mexico branch was too hot at 88-89°C, and was more highly likely to cause serious injury than the coffee that was served at other establishments. Many term this case as an example of frivolous litigation as it was Liebeck who held the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the lid off to add sugar and cream while she was sitting in her car. It was this that lead to the spilling of the coffee and the third-degree burns. (source)

9. A man was sent a letter with an offer of a credit card. He altered the terms of the credit card to include unlimited credit at 0% interest which the bank accepted without reading. When they tried to void his card, he sued the bank for not sticking to the terms of the contract and won.

Image credit: riavrn.ru

Remember those emails you get with offers for a credit card you never asked for? Dmitry Argarkov got a letter with an offer like that in Russia from Tinkoff Credit Systems. But Argarkov did not like the terms. So he scanned the paper, altered the terms to include unlimited credit and 0% interest and sent it back to Tinkoff who did not read the amendments and signed the contract, sending him a credit card.

But then the bank sued Argarkov for 45,000 rubles for fees and charges for overdue payments that were not in Argarkov’s version of the contract. The judge of a Russian court found in Argarkov’s favor and asked him to pay only the actual amount he had spent which was 19,000 rubles. Argarkov went a step further and sued Tinkoff for breach of contract demanding 24 million rubles, but Tinkoff said that instead, he could be serving a prison sentence for fraud as it was a matter of principle. (source)

10. Hooters, a restaurant company offered its employees a chance to win a Toyota. The waitress who won was given a “toy Yoda” action figure instead as a prank. She sued and won enough money to chose whatever kind of Toyota she wanted.

Image source: oppositelock.kinja.com

Jode Berry was a 27-year-old when she was working as a waitress at the Panama City Beach Hooters and took part in a  sales contest which had a Toyota as its prize in 2002. She was happy and believed that she had won the contest as she was escorted to the parking lot of the restaurant, blindfolded. Excited to have a look at her new car, Berry instead saw a toy Yoda action figure from Star Wars when her blindfold was taken off. It was meant to be an April Fool’s joke.

Infuriated, she sued Hooters and settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. Her lawyer, David Noll, said that the amount was enough for her to go to a “local car dealership and pick out whatever type of Toyota she wants.” (source)

10 Incredibly Curious Food Lawsuits

10 Incredibly Curious Food Lawsuits

When it comes to lawsuits concerning the food industry, someone has to be in the wrong. Often, we’ll find that a company is trying to deceive its customers, but in some cases, the customers themselves can make some pretty outlandish claims.

While it’s true that most lawsuits are pretty straightforward, a select few of them stood out and made headlines across the world. Some were justified class-action lawsuits, while others just seem like feeble attempts at suing the food industry for something they weren’t responsible for. Here are ten utterly ridiculous, absurd, and astonishing lawsuits that involved the food industry.


10 The Amount Of Ginger In Canada Dry

Photo credit: Canada Dry

Ginger ale is often used to remedy common stomachaches and fevers because of the carbonation and, of course, the (naturally medicinal) ginger. Yet, in 2018, Julie Fletcher noticed a lack of the word “ginger” in Canada Dry’s list of ingredients and filed a federal lawsuit. The stated ingredients used to make Canada Dry are: carbonated water, high-fructose corn syrup, citric acid, sodium benzoate, natural flavors, and caramel color. According to her lawyer, Michael J. DeBenedictis, Fletcher believed that Canada Dry was using ginger root in their soda and thus believed that it would be a healthier alternative than regular sodas.

The company’s argument was that ginger is used in the process to make the “natural flavoring” that is listed in the ingredients. One factor that may have confused Fletcher further was a Canada Dry commercial that was aired back in 2011 which depicts a farmer and a crop of ginger. It certainly doesn’t help if the label says “Made from Real Ginger,” either.

A similar lawsuit against Dr Pepper (which makes Canada Dry) was filed in Missouri. Lab tests revealed that Canada Dry did not contain any ginger. The company argued that just because the lab tests couldn’t detect ginger doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. That suit was ultimately dismissed at the request of the plaintiff.[1]

9 Popeyes Sued By Customer After He Choked On Their Food

Usually, when someone chokes on their food, it’s because they ate it too fast or were negligent in making sure it was chewed thoroughly before swallowing. Apparently, this was not the case when a man from Mississippi filed a lawsuit against Popeyes. His complaint? He had to eat a large piece of fried chicken with his hands because of the fact that he didn’t get a knife with his drive-thru order, which ultimately made him choke on his food.

According to Paul Newton Jr., the man who sued Popeyes for this injustice, he only received a spork when the incident occurred late 2015. He ordered two chicken breasts with red beans and rice, a biscuit, and a soft drink. As with any order, the food came with napkins, packets of salt and pepper, and a spork. While driving back to his office, he started eating his food by using his spork to eat his beans and rice. Since he didn’t have a plastic knife with his food, he resorted to eating the chicken with his bare hands, which was (according to him) why he started to severely choke on his meal.

In addition to suing Popeyes for not including a plastic knife with his meal, Newtown also sought financial compensation for his pain and suffering and medical expenses since they had to perform emergency surgery to remove the piece of chicken from his throat. In the end, however, Newton dropped the suit.[2]


8 McDonald’s Sued For Millions Over Two Slices Of Cheese

In 2018, two Florida residents filed a $5 million lawsuit against the fast food giant, claiming that they’ve been charging customers up to $1 extra for pieces of cheese on their hamburgers that they didn’t ask for or receive. Leonard Werner was the one who realized that McDonald’s was charging him extra for a Quarter Pounder with Cheese while still giving him a cheese-less hamburger, as he requested.

According to Werner, the McDonald’s app menu includes a cheese-less Quarter Pounder, but their actual restaurant menus don’t. This means that up to 25 million customers may have been overcharged, and if the judge sides with the plaintiffs in this case, they could all be eligible to receive $10 and a free sandwich. Yet, McDonald’s is confident that won’t happen. In their opinion, the case is “without legal merit.”[3]

7 Fruitless Froot Loops

Back in 2009, a man by the name of Roy Werbel made headlines when he tried to sue Kellogg’s for their dastardly marketing that led him to believe there was actual, nutritious fruit in Froot Loops. The case got dismissed without prejudice because of the fact that Werbel had not successfully served Kellogg’s. It wasn’t long before he came back to start things up again and make sure that he served Kellogg’s correctly. Yet, Werbel still faced bigger problems with the lawsuit than just serving the defendant the right way . . .

Two federal judges made some valid points in the previous lawsuit. First of all, the word “Froot” cannot be interpreted as suggesting that there’s real fruit in the cereal. “Froot” isn’t real, and real fruit cannot come in the form of “loops.” There have been at least four cases made against Kellogg’s about Froot Loops (counting Werbel’s twice) over this same false assumption.[4]

6 Greek Yogurt That Isn’t Greek Enough

The makers of Chobani Greek Yogurt found themselves in hot water back in 2014 when two men sued them, claiming that there was absolutely nothing Greek about their products. According to them, Chobani’s Greek Yogurt is about as nutritious as a fudge ice cream bar. This is actually true, considering the fact that it shares the same amount of sugar (16 grams) as a Nestle Fudge ice cream bar. They also argued that none of Chobani’s products are even made in Greece and that they create further confusion among customers by placing a “0%” on their label without actually elaborating on what it represents.

The two men who filed the class-action lawsuit are Barry Stoltz from Scarsdale and Allan Chang from Queens. They sought an unspecified amount of compensation for damages after being tricked into believing that the “0%” on the label meant that there are zero calories/sugar. (The “0%” actually means that the product is nonfat.) Chobani did hit back at Stoltz and Chang, saying that the word “Greek” on their yogurt products simply refers to the way they make their yogurt, not where it’s from. They also pointed out that they’d managed to get a similar suit dismissed in California.[5]


5 The ‘Fast Food Made Me Fat!’ Lawsuit

In 2002, a 56-year-old man from New York named Caesar Barber filed a class-action lawsuit against multiple fast food companies, including KFC, McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s, for jeopardizing his health with their unhealthy food. Barber’s lawsuit claims that the fast food restaurants, where he says he used to eat at four to five times a week (even after suffering a severe heart attack), did not properly disclose all the ingredients in their food to him. In an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America, he said that “they never explained to him what he was eating.”

According to Barber’s lawyer, Samuel Hirsch, the fast food industry has the responsibility to warn their customers of the dangers of consuming their food. It is Barber’s opinion that the fast food companies involved caused him to sustain serious injuries, including two heart attacks, and made him diabetic. A spokesperson for the food industry could hardly believe that Barber made his legal argument with a straight face. While some nutrition advocates and doctor’s groups insist that the food industry should take some responsibility for the obesity epidemic, Barber’s lawsuit was the first known legal action to claim that the fast food industry knowingly contributed to the obesity problem in the United States.[6] A judge threw Barber’s case out in 2003.

4 The ‘There’s Sugar In Jelly Beans?’ Lawsuit

Photo credit: Gluten Free Is Life

In 2017, a woman from California filed suit against the makers of Jelly Belly jelly beans for tricking her into believing that one of their products was free of sugar. Her name is Jessica Gomez, and her complaint is about Jelly Belly’s Sport Beans, which are marketed as an exercise supplement containing carbs, vitamins, and electrolytes.[7] The problem is that the ingredients list does not specify sugar as an ingredient but instead uses the phrase “evaporated cane juice.”

Gomez’s class-action lawsuit claims that the wording used on the label is in violation of the state’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Business Practices Law, and False Advertising Law and that it is designed to intentionally confuse customers who are health-conscious. Jelly Belly called the case “nonsense” in a notion to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that no reasonable customer would miss the amount of sugar content listed on their product’s “Nutrition Facts” panel. However, the Food and Drug Administration is on Gomez’s side; in 2016, they stated that the term “juice” shouldn’t be used unless it’s referring to that of a fruit or vegetable.

3 Krispy Kreme’s Falsely Advertised Ingredients

A man from Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against Krispy Kreme Doughnuts in 2016, claiming that they’d falsely advertised the ingredients of their fruit-filled and maple-glazed doughnuts. Jason Saidian sought $5 million in damages from the pastry chain for the nonexistence of the “premium ingredients” advertised in their products. According to Saidian, Krispy Kreme conducts “false and misleading business practices” because of the fact that their “Chocolate Iced Raspberry Filled,” “Glazed Raspberry Filled,” “Maple Bar,” and “Glazed Blueberry Cake” doughnuts don’t actually contain any real raspberries, maple, or blueberries.[8]

Saidian said that he felt cheated because the company had used real fruit in other items, like the “Glazed Lemon Filled” and “Glazed Strawberry Filled” doughnuts. He also said that if he had known that the other doughnuts did not contain any actual maple syrup, raspberries or blueberries, he wouldn’t have bothered to purchase them. The case was voluntarily dismissed in 2017.

2 The ‘Nutella Isn’t A Health Food?’ Lawsuit

In 2012, the makers of Nutella, Ferrero USA, lost a class-action lawsuit against a parent who claimed that she was fooled into thinking that it was good for her kids. As part of the settlement, any US citizen who purchased a bottle of Nutella between January 1, 2008, and February 3, 2012, can file a claim. (California residents had different dates, specifically between August 1, 2009, and January 23, 2012.) Customers had until July 5, 2012, to file claims for up to five jars of Nutella, and they could expect to receive $4 back per jar, for a maximum compensation of $20 per household.

Athena Hohenberg, the Californian parent who proposed the class-action lawsuit, said that she fed her four-year-old daughter Nutella after she saw the advertisements which suggested that the spread was part of a healthy breakfast. She was shocked to find out that Nutella was, in fact, practically a candy bar. The lawsuit certainly underwent some degree of ridicule across the Internet, but the makers of Nutella agreed that their marketing campaign was misleading. Ever since then, Nutella has changed their labels and advertisements to better inform their customers of the chocolate spread’s contents.[9]

1 Subway’s Footlongs Come Up Short

Photo credit: Matt Corby/Facebook

Back in 2013, a teen from Australia took a photo of his Subway footlong sandwich next to a tape measure, in which the sandwich only measured up to 28 centimeters (11 in) instead of the promised 30 centimeters (12 in) usually portrayed in the media. His post sparked public outrage and went viral, which led to a class-action lawsuit. In 2016, Subway settled and promised to make sure that their bread rolls would be at least 12 inches to ensure more uniformity in their bread. The suing attorneys were just about to make $520,000 in fees, when the director for the center for Class Action Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise Institute objected to the settlement. According to him, the class in the class-action lawsuit received “negligible to no relief.”

The judge involved with the case agreed that the settlement didn’t benefit anyone but the attorneys involved. Ultimately, the settlement got thrown out in 2017. This was because of a few key facts that made the case quite weak. In the first place, the majority of the bread that was being sold at Subway restaurantswas at least 12 inches long, and anything that didn’t reach that length only missed it by a quarter of an inch. Also, all the raw dough sticks used to bake the bread sold at Subway restaurants weigh exactly the same. Due to the natural process involved with baking the bread, the final results could leave some loaves slightly shorter and wider than others. Lastly, the amount of meat and cheese included with each and every sandwich is standardized, which means that a sandwich that is slightly shorter than 12 inches still contains the same amount of meat and cheeses as it would have if it measured up to 12 inches.[10]

20 Divorce Lawyers Share Craziest Reasons Their Clients Filed For Divorce

20 Divorce Lawyers Share Craziest Reasons Their Clients Filed For Divorce

The Most Scandalous Rumored Details of 18 Celebrity Prenups

The Most Scandalous Rumored Details of 18 Celebrity Prenups

Whether you like it or not, marriage is first and foremost a contract. And with divorce rates on the rise, prenuptial agreements have become a ceremony staple for almost any couple with money. In the celebrity world, prenups are pretty much a requirement when two Hollywood starlets decide to tie the knot. Both sides want to protect what they've got, regardless of how unromantic the gesture may be. In fact, some even believe Hollywood's richest are to thank for the growth of the prenup business. Stars are known for defining what's trendy and cool, but who would have thought legally binding contracts would be all the rage?

By now, you know that celebrities can be pretty eccentric. So it's not exactly a shocker that their prenuptial details are going to reflect those same "unique" qualities. With a boat load of cash, celebrities want to ensure that all their branded efforts don't get snatched out from underneath them in a nasty divorce they never thought was coming. Huge piles of cash are definitely negotiated in their prenups, but the contract assures these celebrities aren't paying more than they need to.

The most shocking part of these prenups isn't even the money itself, but the details around the money. "Lifestyle clauses" and other weird euphemisms hold these famous people reliable for stuff like cheating or drinking. If you were already a little turned off by the whole concept of marriage, just wait until you see some of the most scandalous details of celebrity prenups

This Could Become Biggest Ever Profit Case In TV History

This Could Become Biggest Ever Profit Case In TV History

A bunch of Walking Deadbigwigs are suing AMC, claiming the network hasn't compensated them fairly. In what the Hollywood Reporter says "could become the biggest ever profits case in television history," co-creator Robert Kirman (whose comic books provided the show's source material) along with producers Gale Anne Hurd, Glen Mazzara, and David Alpert have now sued AMC; the show's other co-creator, Frank Darabont, had already filed a lawsuit of his own. Per the lawsuit, at least three other shows that aired on AMC but were produced by outside studios were paid higher licensing fees than Walking Dead, which was produced by AMC's in-house studio. As a result, the cast and crew of those shows made a higher percentage of the show's net profits. Per THR, potential damages in the case could reach $1 billion.

The Washington Post explains the issue: Traditionally, a studio and a separate broadcast or cable channel are involved in creating (studio) and airing (channel) a show; the network would pay the production company a licensing fee in order to air the show and the production company would pay the actors and crew a percentage of that fee. But after certain FCC rules were eliminated, a studio and production company are now allowed to be owned by the same corporation; in this case, AMC owns its own production studio. "Since money is changing pockets in the same pair of pants, there’s an incentive for the production company and the cable channel to agree on what might be something of a lowball figure" for the licensing fee and, following that, the amount the talent makes, an expert explains.


Settlement Reached In Landmark Torture Lawsuit Over Harsh CIA Interrogation Programs

Settlement Reached In Landmark Torture Lawsuit Over Harsh CIA Interrogation Programs


A settlement was announced Thursday in a landmark lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against two psychologists involved in designing the CIA's harsh interrogation program used in the war on terror, the AP reports. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Trial had been scheduled for Sept. 5 in federal court in Spokane, Washington. Attorneys for the ACLU called it a historic victory, saying this is the first time the CIA or its private contractors had been held accountable for torturing suspects in the war on terror. The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of three former detainees, who contended they were tortured at secret sites overseas. The defendants were psychologists James Mitchell and John "Bruce" Jessen, who were under contract with the federal government following the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The lawsuit claimed the psychologists designed, implemented, and personally administered an experimental torture program. The techniques they developed included waterboarding, slamming the three men into walls, stuffing them inside coffin-like boxes, exposing them to extreme temperatures, starving them, and keeping them awake for days, the ACLU said. "This outcome shows that there are consequences for torture and that survivors can and will hold those responsible for torture accountable," said Dror Ladin, an attorney for the ACLU. "It is a clear warning for anyone who thinks they can torture with impunity." The ACLU said this was the first lawsuit involving the CIA's torture program that was not dismissed at initial stages. A US Senate investigation in 2014 found that Mitchell and Jessen's techniques produced no useful intelligence.

Rejected Jurors Hated Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli As Much As You Do - Here's What They Said

Rejected jurors hated Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli as much as you do

In case you somehow missed it, Pharma bro and human rat Martin Shkreli was found guilty of securities fraud and conspiracy on August 4. On August 17, Harper's published a transcript of the three-day jury selection process from June, and it is wonderful. It was, as you might imagine, very difficult for Shkreli's lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, to find impartial jurors for the case, since Shkreli is fairly famous for being a total jerk.

Here are a few of the funniest answers that potential-but-then-rejected jurors gave during jury selection.

Juror No. 1 did not mince words.

Juror No. 1: I’m aware of the defendant and I hate him.

Benjamin Brafman: I’m sorry.

Juror No. 1: I think he’s a greedy little man.

The Court: Jurors are obligated to decide the case based only on the evidence. Do you agree?

Juror No. 1: I don’t know if I could. I wouldn’t want me on this jury.

The Court: Juror Number 1 is excused. Juror Number 18.

Juror No. 18's parents and Juror No. 40 are on medication, and therefore have issues with RatPharma Bro.

(Remember when Shkreli jacked up the price of an AIDS drug by 5,000 percent? Yeah, turns out people were not cool with that.)

Juror No. 18: Both of my parents are on prescriptions that have gone up over the past few months, so much that they can’t afford their drugs. I have several friends who have H.I.V. or AIDS who, again, can’t afford the prescription drugs that they were able to afford.

Juror No. 40: I’m taking prescription medication. I would be upset if it went up by a thousand percent. I saw the testimony on TV to Congress and I saw his face on the news last night. By the time I came in and sat down and he turned around, I felt immediately I was biased.

Juror No. 52 knows in his/her heart that Shkreli is a snake. Not incorrect.

Juror No. 52: When I walked in here today I looked at him, and in my head, that’s a snake — not knowing who he was. I just walked in and looked right at him and that’s a snake.

Juror No. 77 called Shkreli "the face of corporate greed in America."

Juror No. 77: From everything I’ve seen on the news, everything I’ve read, I believe the defendant is the face of corporate greed in America.

Juror No. 59 was the opposite of impartial.

Juror No. 59: Your Honor, totally he is guilty and in no way can I let him slide out of anything because —

Juror No. 125 didn't even care what Shkreli was being charged with—"guilty."

Juror No. 125: I’ve read extensively about Martin’s shameful past and his ripping off sick people and it hits close to me. I have a mother with epilepsy, a grandmother with Alzheimer’s, and a brother with multiple sclerosis. I think somebody that’s dealt in those things deserves to go to jail.

The Court: Just to be clear, he’s not being charged with anything relating to the pricing of pharmaceuticals.

Juror No. 125: I understand that, but I already sense the man is guilty.

Juror No. 144 nailed it so hard that even the judge had to give him/her a high five (that's a lie but how great would it have been if it had happened?).

Juror No. 144: I don’t think I can because he kind of looks like a dick.

Juror No. 28 can't figure out Shkreli's motivation, but either way, s/he's not a fan.

Juror No. 28: I don’t like this person at all. I just can’t understand why he would be so stupid as to take an antibiotic which H.I.V. people need and jack it up five thousand percent. I would honestly, like, seriously like to go over there —

The Court: Sir, thank you.

Juror No. 28: Is he stupid or greedy? I can’t understand.

And Juror No. 59 had the best reason of all.

Juror No. 59: Your Honor, totally he is guilty and in no way can I let him slide out of anything because —

The Court: Okay. Is that your attitude toward anyone charged with a crime who has not been proven guilty?

Juror No. 59: It’s my attitude toward his entire demeanor, what he has done to people.

The Court: All right. We are going to excuse you, sir.

Juror No. 59: And he disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan.

Plug In Your Phone Number, See if Robocallers Owe You

Plug In Your Phone Number, See if Robocallers Owe You

It's the best kind of revenge against robocallers: money in your pocket. The Miami Herald reports that people who got a call about a cruise may be due $300 to $900 thanks to a class-action lawsuit. To find out if you're eligible, you can plug in your phone number here.

The settlement applies to people who got a call between July 2009 and March 2014 offering a free cruise from Carnival, Norwegian, or Royal Caribbean, reports WESH. The companies settled the suit, which alleged a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, rather than go to trial.

Video Shows United Employee Pushing 71-Year-Old To The Ground

Video Shows United Employee Pushing 71-Year-Old To The Ground

United Airlines had a rough April, from violently removing a paying passenger, to mangling an apology multiple times, to scorpions. And now they're back in the news, thanks to an aggressive employee.

Video Shows United Employee Pushing 71-Year-Old Man To The Ground

The encounter took place at Bush Intercontinental Airport in 2015, but KPRC in Houston just obtained video. The man, Ronald Tigner, is currently suing United for $1 million:

Previously: United Settles With David Dao

On Thursday, United Airlines settled its dispute with David Dao out of court, paying the man an undisclosed amount. In a letter issued by the law firm representing Dao, his lawyer says:

 [United CEO] Mr. Munoz said he was going to do the right thing, and he has. In addition, United has taken full responsibility for what happened on Flight 3411, without attempting to blam others, including the City of Chicago. For this acceptance of corporate accountability, United is to be applauded.

You can read the full letter below.


Where It All Started: David Dao Gets Dragged Off A Plane

On Sunday, April 9, Dr. David Dao, refusing to get up after being "voluntarily rescheduled," was dragged from his seat, into the aisle, and off the plane by three Chicago O'Hare security officers. Since this is the year 2017, passengers aboard United flight 3411, posted videos of the incident, which quickly went viral.


To add insult to injury, the brutality was the result of United overbooking the plane and needing to transport four United employees to Louisville.

This Isn't A One Time Thing

Geoff Fearns, the president of a California investment firm, told the Los Angeles Times that even in a first class seat, he was threatened with cuffs when he resisted giving up his seat:

They said the flight was overfull... they told me they needed the seat for somebody more important who came at the last minute... They said they have a priority list and this other person was higher on the list than me.

[Los Angeles Times]

Bride And Groom Kicked Off United Flight

In another passenger incident that is quickly spreading across the internet, a couple is accusing United of kicking them off a plane on Saturday that was flying to their wedding in Costa Rica. The couple reportedly attempted to change seats to an empty row. They say it only happened once, and United says that it happened repeatedly.

Scorpions On A Plane

Adding to United's PR woes, a Canadian passenger reported that a scorpion fell from the overhead compartment of a United plane and stung him. The man and his wife were traveling from Houston to Calgary. United offered him credit as compensation. It's a safe bet he won't be redeeming it.

United's Stock Takes A Hit

Despite United's set of late apologies, the damage seems to have been done. Two days after the incident, United stock dipped as much as 6.3%, costing them $1.4 billion in market capitalization. The airline has continues to face accusations of racism and calls for a boycott.


Dao's lawyers held a press conference where they announced that they would most likely file a lawsuit, and that Dao had suffered a concussion, broken nose and the loss of two teeth.

Johnny Depp Sues Managers for $25M

Johnny Depp Sues Managers for $25M

Johnny Depp sued his former business managers Friday alleging they mismanaged his earnings throughout a lucrative period of his career, although the company says the actor's spending is to blame. Depp's lawsuit filed against The Management Group seeks more than $25 million, reports the AP, alleging it failed to properly pay his taxes, made unauthorized loans, and overpaid for security. Michael J. Kump, an attorney for The Management Group, calls Depp's lawsuit a "fabrication." The company "did everything possible to protect Depp from his irresponsible and profligate spending," Kump wrote. Depp's suit accuses the company and its owners, attorneys Joel and Robert Mandel, of receiving $28 million in payments for services over 16 years. The company "actively concealed the true state of Mr. Depp's finances while driving him deeper and deeper into financial distress," the suit states.

Depp hired the Mandels in 1999 and they received 5% of his income on hit films such as the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, Alice in Wonderland, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The lawsuit alleges the company failed to file Depp's tax returns on time, costing him nearly $5.7 million in penalties. The lawsuit also alleges the company overpaid for several services, including forgetting to terminate the lease on a home where Depp's mother lived temporarily, and spending $8 million on security between 2012 and 2015 alone. Depp learned of the problems after hiring new management in March 2016. Kump wrote that Depp owes The Management Group $4.2 million from a $5 million loan. "His tactics and lawsuit will fail, and he will be forced to pay back the loan as promised," Kump wrote. The suit came the same day Depp finalized his divorce from Amber Heard, which calls for Depp to pay $7 million in installments. Heard gets to keep the couple's dogs, notes the BBC, Pistol and Boo.

Parents Sue, Blame FaceTime For Death Of Daughter

Parents Sue, Blame FaceTime For Death Of Daughter

A Texas couple is suing Apple, claiming its FaceTime app is responsible for the death of their 5-year-old daughter. James and Bethany Modisette say Apple was granted a patent in 2014 for a FaceTime design that would've used GPS tracking to determine speed of travel to prevent people from using the app while driving, reports Courthouse News. Yet Apple never implemented the design, nor did it strongly warn drivers against using the app, per the lawsuit filed Friday. As a result, Garrett Wilhelm, 22, was able to use FaceTime while driving 65mph on Interstate 35 near Dallas on Christmas Eve in 2014, when he slammed into the back of the Modisettes' vehicle, which had slowed with other vehicles because of a traffic accident, say police.

Wilhelm's vehicle rolled "up and over the driver's side of the Modisette car," the lawsuit states. Driver James and 5-year-old Moriah, seated behind him, were both critically injured. James, Bethany, and 8-year-old daughter Isabella were taken by ambulance to Denton Regional Medical Center, along with Wilhelm, while Moriah was airlifted to Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth, where she died of her injuries, reports the Denton Record-Chronicle. Wilhelm—whose FaceTime app was still active when officers arrived on the scene, say police—now faces a manslaughter charge. But Apple's failures "were a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs' injuries and decedent's death," the lawsuit states. Apple has not responded. (This woman was on FaceTime when a deadly tornado struck.)


Courtroom Screaming Match At Cosby Hearing

Courtroom Screaming Match At Cosby Hearing

Somebody get these lawyers a pudding pop!

A pre-trial hearing meant to quietly solve a few issues before Bill Cosby’s June sexual assault trial erupted into a screaming match between the comedian’s legal team and the district attorney — dashing hopes of an early plea deal.

Lawyers from both sides of the sexual assault case bickered loudly in Tuesday’s pre-trial hearing over the defense team’s practice of publicizing the names of the women accusing the aging comedian of sexual assault.

Montgomery County Judge Steven O’Neill – holding a two-day hearing on whether prosecutors can call any or all of the 13 accusers at next year’s trial — cautioned both sides to quit the rhetoric and keep his courtroom civil.

The high-stakes hearing was testy from the start as District Attorney Kevin Steele clashed with Cosby lawyer Brian McMonagle over the defense’s insistence on identifying accusers by name in public documents and a court hearing.

Steele became enraged when McMonagle argued that prosecutors had provided him with the names of the accusers. Arguing that the names were disclosed during the pretrial discovery process and were not part of the public record, Steele suggested that Cosby’s lawyers were publicizing them in a “simple attempt to intimidate the witnesses.”

Pointing to a large projector screen facing the galleys, to be eventually used by defense in their arguments for this hearing, Steele complained, “They’ve got their powerpoint up right here facing the media.”

McMonagle countered that most of the accusers had already gone public with their allegations.

“These are witnesses in a trial. They are not children,” McMonagle argued.

Cosby’s lawyers want the accusers barred from testifying at his trial on charges that he sexually assaulted a woman at his suburban Philadelphia home in 2004. The defense was expected to attack their credibility and relevance as they try to keep them off the witness stand.

O’Neill ended up ruling that Cosby’s lawyers could identify 11 of the women who had already self-identified in the media. The remaining two who have stayed out of the spotlight won’t be identified in court, the judge said.

Cosby, 79, remained quiet during the testy exchange.

When the funnyman entered the Philadelphia court, he tried to joke with security officers who used a security wand to check him for weapons.

“Don’t tase me bro,” he quipped. The joke fell flat.


First Nation Suit: Canada's Parliament Is On Our Land

First Nation Suit: Canada's Parliament Is On Our Land

Aboriginal group says it never relinquished title


Ottawa's Parliament, Supreme Court, and the National Library may soon have some new owners—or new old owners. The city's south bank where these three institutions lie is in the middle of a land ownership lawsuit filed Wednesday by a Quebec First Nation, CTV News reports. "The Algonquin Anishinabe Nation has never surrendered its title to the Kichi Sibi lands," the suit filed in Ontario Superior Court reads."Kichi Sibi" means "great river" in the Algonquin language, and the complaint lists the real estate in contention as islands in the Ottawa River, as well as the sections of its south bank and LeBreton Flats, land slated for development to possibly include an NHL arena. The suit names the National Capital Commission, the attorney general of Canada, and Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General as defendants, per the CBC.


The backstory involves the Ontario Algonquins, who raised Quebec Algonquins' ire by signing an agreement in October with the Ontario and federal governments that would eventually sign over to the aborigines nearly 14,000 square miles of land, including the Ottawa Valley section with Parliament Hill. But the Quebec faction says it wasn't consulted on the $300-million-plus deal and that the Ontario Algonquins "[sold] their soul to the devil for a handful of peanuts."


The suit notes that even though various land agreements have been forged over the years, they always hinged on the band keeping possession of its land—an agreement it claims Canada has flouted and profited from over the years. "We're not against development but we want to be an equal partner. We have to be benefactors of that land," says Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg Chief Jean-Guy Whiteduck, per the Ottawa Citizen.


Melania Trump Sues Daily Mail For Saying She Worked As An Escort In The ’90s

Melania Trump Sues Daily Mail For Saying She Worked As An Escort In The ’90s


Melania Trump is reportedly taking legal action against the Daily Mail and other outlets for allegedly making “false and defamatory” claims about her past. According to Politico, Trump is represented by Charles Harder, the attorney financed by tech billionaire Peter Thiel in the Hulk Hogan case thatultimately bankrupted Gawker.

“Mrs. Trump has placed several news organizations on notice of her legal claims against them, including Daily Mail among others, for making false and defamatory statements about her supposedly having been an ‘escort’ in the 1990s,” Harder said in a statement. “All such statements are 100% false, highly damaging to her reputation, and personally hurtful. She understands that news media have certain leeway in a presidential campaign, but outright lying about her in this way exceeds all bounds of appropriate news reporting and human decency.”


The article in question was published by Daily Mail on Friday and picked up a story from a Slovenian magazine that questioned Trump’s history as a model and exactly when she arrived in the U.S. from Slovenia.

Outlets such as Inquisitir and Bipartisan Report have already printed retractions after picking up the Daily Mail story.

“Yesterday, Aug. 21, 2016, we published a story sourced from multiple outlets about Melania Trump’s past employment,” wrote Bipartisan Report. “After publishing, it was brought to our attention that many of the statements made by sources were not fully confirmed by audio or video tape and are therefore heresay.”


Johnny Depp, Amber Heard Settle Divorce

Johnny Depp, Amber Heard Settle Divorce


The drama in the breakup of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard appears to be over. TMZ reports that the former couple has reached a settlement in their divorce that calls for Depp to pay Heard $7 million. As part of the deal, Heard has dropped her domestic violence case against Depp, whom she had accused of physically assaulting her. "Our relationship was intensely passionate and at times volatile, but always bound by love," says a statement released by the couple, adding that "there was never an intent of physical or emotional harm."

The statement goes on: "Neither party has made false accusations for financial gains." That's an interesting sentence, because it does not say neither party has made false statements.

It ends by saying that Heard will donate money from the settlement to charity, though it does not provide specifics. (She may have a new billionaire boyfriend.)


Nerd Threatens To Sue Warner Bros. Because There Wasn’t Enough Joker In ‘Suicide Squad’

Nerd Threatens To Sue Warner Bros. Because There Wasn’t Enough Joker In ‘Suicide Squad"


There are few things that make me laugh harder than impotent nerd rage and unmitigated fanboy entitlement. With that in mind, I really enjoyed the manifesto written by Redditor BlackPanther2016 who was furious enough over the dearth of Joker screen time in “Suicide Squad” to enlist his brother “(who is a lawyer)” to sue Warner Bros. for releasing a misleading movie trailer. Hopefully, his brother is a better at constructing an argument than he is, because he starts off with a convoluted fast food metaphor:

My brother (who is a lawyer) and I are going to sue WB and DC for false advertising, misleading visual images and gaining a profit from us and millions others due to these acts. Our case has been accepted. We begin 11.08.16 (self.movies)
submitted 1 day ago * by BlackPanther2016

Movie Trailers are like food menus, they give you a preview of what your gonna get. If you look at a McDonald’s menu and you choose to get your favourite burger, presented/showcased in a nice picture with pickles, chicken, mild cheese(you’re favourite, in-fact…that’s the only reason you’re getting this burger…because you love mild cheese). So you use your hard worked money to pay for this burger, you get the burger, but only to find out that…this isn’t the burger you ordered. Yes it has pickles and chicken…but…it doesn’t have mild cheese…it has regular cheese.

Okay, where you going with this, Matlock?


I went ahead and bolded some choice passages for emphasis.

Suicide Squad trailers showcased several SPECIFIC Joker scenes that I had to pay for the whole movie just so that I can go watch those SPECIFIC SCENES that WB/DC had advertised in their trailers and TV spots. These scenes are: When Joker banged his head on his car window, when Joker says, ”let me show you my toys”, when Joker punchs the roof of his car, when Joker drops a bomb with his face all messed up and says, ”BYE BYE!”. Non of these scenes were in the movie. I drove 300 miles to London to go watch these specific scenes they had explicitly advertised in their TV ads…and they didn’t show them to me. Adding to this, they were also 2 specific Katana scenes they advertised that were also the reason I wanted to go watch the movie. These scenes were: Katana’s eyes going black, and a slow motion shot of her and her sword taking souls…in a smokey kind of style. These scenes were advertised several times in the 1st trailer and many TV ads…but they didn’t show it to me in the movie. I wasted alot of money paying and travelling to go watch this movie because of these specific scenes they had advertised to me and all of us saying, ”hey, check out our preview! this will all be in our movie, come watch it on the 5th!!”. All lies. I told the theatre about this unjust act and said I didn’t get what I came here to see…can I have my money back. They laughed at me and kicked me out. So I’m now taking this to court. I want my refund, the trauma of being embarrassed as I was being kicked out and people laughing at me for wanting my refund, and also the 160 pounds of fuel money I used to drive to London from Scotland.

In fairness, it’s reasonable to be upset when a movie trailer shows myriad scenes that don’t actually end up in the final cut. In this case, it sounds like Jared Leto had a glorified cameo in “Suicide Squad” given that most of his scenes were cut. Perhaps they were truly too TwIzTeD to inflict upon the straights and the squares.

Still, this guy is furious over not seeing scenes he’s already seen for free and probably can see any time he opens up his laptop.

One commenter said it best when he quipped, “Well, you’ve picked a really tiny hill to die on.”


Anyway, good luck with your potentially landmark legal proceedings, Redditor Blackpanther2016, who is definitely not Jared Leto pretending to be a Scottish dude. Keep fighting the good fight.

Cash For ADA Compliance - What A Racket

Cash For ADA Compliance - What A Racket


"Advocacy" group floods Valley with ADA lawsuits.

Teen Sues Snapchat For Sexually Explicit Content

Teen Sues Snapchat For Sexually Explicit Content

rubbing-eyes-462x428 John Doe is a 14-year-old kid in Los Angeles who gets good grades, likes history and science, and uses Snapchat to communicate with friends. But on July 1, he came across a (NSFW) BuzzFeed piece via Snapchat's Discover feature headlined "23 Pictures That Are Too Real If You’ve Ever Had Sex With A Penis." The story places sexual captions like "When he came way harder than you expected" beneath images of Disney classics like Aladdin, reports Teen Vogue. When he swiped to the next story, he encountered a Vice feature with the headline, "What It Is Really Like to Let People Finger You in Public." So the boy and his mother, Lynette Young, have filed a class-action lawsuit against the tech giant seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief that includes barring Snapchat from engaging in these practices and requiring a corrective ad campaign.


At the heart of the lawsuit is how involved Snapchat is in its Discover feature, which is integrated into the chat platform that the lawsuit claims "controls and curates" content with media partners including BuzzFeed, MTV, and Cosmopolitan. By promoting the kind of content John Doe encountered, renowned attorney Mark Geragos accuses Snapchat of perpetuating an "insidious pattern and practice of intentionally exposing minors to harmful, offensive, prurient, and sexually offensive content, without"—and this is key—"warning minors or their parents that they would be exposed," reports Mashable. The suit calls this a violation of the Communications Decency Act that requires said notification in their service agreement, reports Variety. Snapchat says it has yet to be served with a complaint but is "sorry if people were offended."


Source     I Am Bored

Guy Beaten in Chicken Costume Awarded $10.5M

Guy Beaten in Chicken Costume Awarded $10.5M


A California man whose life was forever altered by donning a chicken suit for a high school pep rally has been awarded a lot more than chicken scratch in a lawsuit against Kern High School District. Mitch Carter was a 17-year-old student at Bakersfield High School in 2010 when he dressed up in the suit to mock the Golden Hawk mascot of arch-rival Golden West High School for an ill-fated skit, the Los Angeles Times reports. Students—including plenty of football players—piled on top of him, delivering kicks and punches in a beating that lawyers said left Carter with a traumatic brain injury. After a jury found the district liable for his injuries, it decided to settle with him for $10.5 million, most of which will be covered by insurance.

Lawyers said Carter, once an honor roll student, has struggled with depression and poor grades in college since the beating. His future medical care costs will be more than $5 million, according to the lawyers. "I would trade everything just to have a full functioning brain," he said after the award was announced. The Bakersfield Californian recaps the wild trial that was brought to an end by the settlement. It included accusations of conspiracy and cover-up from Carter's lawyers, who brought in students to testify that the high school was obsessed with football and protected star players. During closing arguments, attorney Nicholas Rowley donned a chicken costume to make a point.


Macy's Must Stop Detaining Alleged Shoplifters, Forcing Confessions

Macy's Must Stop Detaining Alleged Shoplifters, Forcing Confessions


A judge in New York ruled this week that Macy's has to stop detaining shoplifting suspects for hours on end, getting them to sign confessions without due process, and forcing them to pay money in order to be released, the New York Daily News reports. In his ruling, the judge said Macy's was taking advantage of New York statutes and using "this power as a double-edged sword instead of a shield," according to the New York Law Journal. The lawyer for a shopper who sued Macy's claims the department store pulls this tactic on mostly young, minority shoppers. And the judge says Macy's is strong-arming people who don't understand their rights in that situation. Macy's claims it stopped these practices last year.


Samya Moftah, 53, had what her lawyer says is a common experience for people accused of shoplifting at Macy's. The Guardian reports Moftah was buying gifts for her family last summer in New York when she was accused of shoplifting. A Macy's manager and two security officers refused to look at her receipt or Macy's card account. Instead, they took her belongings, patted down her private areas, and locked her in a basement cell for hours. She says she was mocked for being Muslim and ordered to pay $100 and sign a document in order to be released. When she started crying, she claims the manager told her the price to go home had just increased to $500. She refused to pay, but she says they charged her credit card anyway. Then they called the police, who arrested Moftah. All charges against her were finally dismissed in March. Moftah's lawyer is hoping to turn this week's ruling into a national class action suit against Macy's

Source  I Am Bored

TSA Sued After Beating Up Disabled Teenage Cancer Patient

TSA Sued After Beating Up Disabled Teenage Cancer Patient


19-year-old Hannah Cohen and her mother Shirley are suing the TSA over an incident that occurred about a year ago when the then 18-year-old was beaten by agents while attempting to go through security at Memphis international airport.

Hannah and her mother were attempting to fly to Chattanooga for the holidays, a trip Shirley claims they made hundreds of times. Hannah is a patient at St. Jude’s hospital in Memphis, where she is being treated for a brain tumor. Hannah and Shirley told The Guardian that Hannah’s condition “left her easily confused and frightened in unfamiliar situations.”

On June 30, 2015, Hannah set off the alarm on the airport body scanner as she went through security. Her and her mother believe it was because of the sequins on her shirt, which she offered to remove since she had another shirt on underneath. A female TSA agent allegedly laughed at the suggestion. Meanwhile, Shirley, who had already gone through security attempted to inform agents about Hannah’s condition.


From The Guardian:

But soon, a voice on the public address system requested more agents to report to the checkpoint, Shirley said. “That’s when the armed guards came.”

The brain tumor had left Hannah blind in one eye, deaf in one ear and partially paralyzed, so when the guards grabbed each of her arms, it startled her, she said. “I tried to push away,” she said. “I tried to get away.”

The guards slammed Hannah to the ground, her mother said, smashing her face into the floor, which the complaint alleges left her “physically and emotionally” injured.

Hannah was taken to the hospital and then transported to jail. She was released 24 hours later and had to appear in court the next day. After explaining the situation to a judge the charges were eventually dropped and the court fees refunded.

The lawsuit against the TSA and the Memphis-Shelby County airport authority calls for a “reasonable sum not exceeding $100,000″ for medical bills as well as punitive damages.

Source   I Am Bored


Woman Sues Abusive Husband, Is Awarded $21.5M

Woman Sues Abusive Husband, Is Awarded $21.5M

He spent just 2 days in jail for domestic violence


After her husband spent just two days in jail for giving her a beating that left her with fractured facial bones, Jennifer Kershaw took the unusual step of filing a civil lawsuit—and taught him a $21.5 million lesson. On Tuesday, a jury in Franklin County, Ohio, awarded the 36-year-old elementary school teacher $1,580,000 in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages, theColumbus Dispatch reports. State laws capping such awards may cut the amount by up to 90%, but Kershaw, who has now divorced Jerry Bailey, says the message the victory sends is the important part. "It's brought back a lot of dark times that I tried to grow away from," she says. "But I really believe that it's going to be healing for me, and this is for all women who have been abused in some way."


Bailey—who was fined $100 after being found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence in the 2013 attack on his wife—had tried to stop the lawsuit, arguing in legal papers that it was "a complaint of conduct and claims arising out of the marital relationship." A judge disagreed last fall and allowed the rare spouse-on-spouse civil lawsuit to proceed separately from divorce proceedings. Kershaw's lawyer tells the Washington Post that "attitudes are still behind the times, which I think is why we really haven't seen a case like this." He tells theDispatch that he hopes the court victory will send the message that it is "not OK for people to commit domestic violence. And for those who do, there will be consequences."



Johnny Depp’s Lawyer Claims Amber Heard Is Avoiding Deposition

Johnny Depp’s Lawyer Claims Amber Heard Is Avoiding Deposition

Amber HeardThe latest legal tangles from the hellish Amber Heard and Johnny Depp divorce involve securing time for Heard and best friend Raquel Pennington to answer questions under oath before next Friday’s restraining order trial, TMZ reports.

According to Depp’s attorney, Laura Wasser, both Heard and Pennington claim they don’t have a free day in their schedule to come in for a deposition prior to the restraining order trial.


From TMZ:

Bottom line … Wasser thinks Amber and Raquel are BSing about not being available … And there’s this shot … Wasser says, “[Amber] has tried her claims in the media. It is now time to do so in a court of law.”


Amber Heard and her lawyers are spending countless hours trashing Johnny Depp in the media, but they're so scared that Amber might ruin her case under oath they're dodging her deposition ... so claims Johnny Depp's lawyer.

Attorney Laura Wasser just filed some interesting documents, claiming Heard and best friend Raquel Pennington claim they don't have a single day available before next Friday's restraining order trial ... to answer questions under oath in a depo.

Wasser drops some info ... according to the docs, lawyers on both sides were talking about sitting down and trying to settle the case. It's possible the settlement would involve each staying clear of the other. It's also possible the settlement would involve money ... Amber's asking for $50k a month in spousal support.

Wasser says just 4 days ago they had planned to have the settlement conference June 10, but that fell apart so Wasser wanted to use the day to take Amber's depo. Wasser says Amber's lawyer suddenly claimed she was not available so the depo couldn't go forward.

Bottom line ... Wasser thinks Amber and Raquel are BSing about not being available ... and if they won't sit for a deposition they should not be allowed to testify at next week's trial.

And there's this shot ... Wasser says, "From photos of bruises to text messages, [Amber] has tried her claims in the media. It is now time to do so in a court of law."



Ed Sheeran Hit With $20M Copyright Suit

Ed Sheeran Hit With $20M Copyright Suit

sddefault[1]A $20 million lawsuit accuses superstar singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran of "verbatim, note-for-note copying." The lawsuit from songwriters Martin Harrington and Thomas Leonard alleges Sheeran's "Photograph" is too similar to their 2009 song "Amazing," released by X Factor winner Matt Cardle in 2012. They're represented by the same heavyweight lawyer who, for the family of Marvin Gaye, nabbed $5.3 million plus 50% of publishing and songwriting rights from Robin Thicke's monster hit, "Blurred Lines." In addition to similar chords, the plaintiffs say 70% of Sheeran's chorus is identical to "Amazing" in pitch, rhythmic duration, and note placement—and plenty on social media seem to agree, reports Billboard.

"The similarity of words, vocal style, vocal melody, melody, and rhythm are clear indicators" and are "instantly recognizable to the ordinary observer," the complaint reads, per the BBC, adding the alleged infringement is "breathtaking in its deliberateness, magnitude, and hubris." The plaintiffs say they tried to settle the dispute privately before filing the suit, which also names co-writer Johnny McDaid of band Snow Patrol, Warner Music, and others, per the Guardian. They're seeking $20 million plus royalties. After "Photograph" was released in 2014, Sheeran rightly predicted it would change his career. The song has sold 3.5 million copies, and Sheeran was named the top Billboard artist in the US last summer.



Guy Sells Printer On Craigslist For $40 And Sets Off 6 Years Of The Biggest Legal Nightmare Ever

Guy Sells Printer On Craigslist For $40 And Sets Off 6 Years Of The Biggest Legal Nightmare Ever

old-printer[1]Doug Costello sold a used black and white printer on Craigslist back in 2009. It was probably the worst decision of his life. The profit of $40 wasn’t worth the years of legal trouble it’s caused thanks to a sue-happy ahole.

He (Costello) would find himself liable for about $30,000 in damages. He would pay a lawyer at least $12,000 in his battle to escape the legal mess.

And it all started with a piece of hardware he sold online for about $40 in 2009. With shipping and other costs, the total was less than $75, according to court records.

The printer’s buyer was Gersh Zavodnik, a 54-year-old Indianapolis man known to many in the legal community as a frequent lawsuit filer who also represents himself in court. The Indiana Supreme Court said the “prolific, abusive litigant” has brought dozens of lawsuits against individuals and businesses, often asking for astronomical damages. Most, according to court records, involve online sales and transactions.


Doug Costello, a Massachusetts man, has been embroiled in a nearly seven-year lawsuit in Indiana after selling a used printer online for less than $75.

Zavodnik accused Costello of “falsely advertising a malfunctioning printer with missing parts” and pocketing his money. According to a filed complaint, Zavodnik “tried to resolve the issue with Costello to no avail, leaving him with no other choice but to take legal action.”

Zavodnik originally filed a lawsuit in Marion County Small Claims Court. He sought the maximum $6,000 in damages but lost because he had thrown away the printer, the only evidence in the case.

Costello thought he’d heard the last of Zavodnik but NOPE. Zavodnik sued AGAIN and requested $30K in damages for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, deceptive advertising and emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the case, along with 26 others filed by Zavodnik. He appealed all of those dismissals.

Here’s where the story goes nutty bananas.

The Indiana Court of Appeals in March 2012 revived the lawsuit against Costello and sent the case back to the trial court, where it remained stagnant for another nine months until a hearing was scheduled later that year.

Zavodnik also had sent Costello two more requests for admissions. One asked Costello to admit that he conspired with the judge presiding over the case, and that he was liable for more than $300,000. Another one requested Costello to admit that he was liable for more than $600,000.

Because Costello did not respond to all three requests for admissions within 30 days of receiving them, and did not ask for an extension of time, as required by Indiana trial rules, Costello admitted to the liabilities and damages by default. He also did not appear at a July 2013 hearing, according to court records.

Costello said he never received the requests for admissions and was not notified of the hearing.


Gersh Zavodnik poses in a room in his home, Tuesday, May 14, 2013, that is full of files for the vast number of lawsuits he has filed.

The case remained dormant for a while, bounced around to different courts and judges, and finally reached the courts. In March 2015 — six years after the original sale of the printer — a judge issued a ruling in favor of Zavodnik and a judgment of $30,044.07 for breach of contract.

The end.




Just kidding. That would have SUCKED, right? Here’s what happened.

Costello appealed the ruling. On March 23, the appeals court issued a sharply worded 13-page opinion in his favor. The $30,000 in damages “had no basis in reality,” Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote.

And in news that should shock absolutely fucking no one, Zavodnik will likely will ask for a re-hearing.

[via USA Today]


Infamous NYPD Sergeant Points Gun At Man Recording Her, Then Busts Into Apartment And Arrests Him

Infamous NYPD Sergeant Points Gun At Man Recording Her, Then Busts Into Apartment And Arrests Him


Plain clothes Sgt. Diana Pichardo

A NYPD sergeant is facing disciplinary action for pointing her department-issued gun at a Brooklyn man who was recording her with his cell phone, the Daily News has learned.

Sgt. Diana Pichardo then confronted the man, David Rivera, called him a "motherf-----," and snatched the phone from his hand — which was all captured on a recording.

Rivera, who was arrested on a slew of felony charges which the Brooklyn district attorney's office declined to prosecute, reported the shocking incident to the Civilian Complaint Review Board. The CCRB substantiated Rivera's allegations that Pichardo pointed her gun at him, abused her authority by searching his apartment without a warrant, and spoke discourteously to him.

Rivera's video, which he shared with The News, is the second video to surface recently which depicts an NYPD cop pointing a firearm at someone merely holding a phone. Harlem cop Risel Martinez was stripped of his gun and badge last month after he was caught on camera menacing onlookers and punching a man recording him.

"I think many police officers fear the camera and attempt to stop the recording because they're concerned it's going to be used against them," said lawyer Jason Leventhal who plans to file a lawsuit on Rivera's behalf this week in Brooklyn Federal Court.


David Rivera claims he was illegally arrested in his Brooklyn apartment for videotaping an arrest in the hallway.


Pichardo, a 13-year-veteran who is known on the gritty streets of Coney Island by the nickname "Pocahontas," has been named as a defendant in 20 federal lawsuits. The city has paid out settlements of nearly $400,000 to the plaintiffs, according to court records.

An NYPD spokeswoman said a disciplinary case against Pichardo stemming from the phone incident is "ongoing" and that her lawsuit history has been reviewed by the NYPD. Pichardo's union lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Rivera, 45, was watching the film "50 Shades of Grey" with his girlfriend on March 8, 2015 when he heard a commotion in the hallway at the Marlboro Houses. He saw three neighbors fighting with cops and began recording the action with his phone.

Additional officers, led by Pichardo, arrived and helped subdue the goons. Pichardo is shrieking into her portable radio, then inexplicably points her gun at Rivera who can be heard saying, "Don't point that gun at me!"


Rivera captured Sgt. Diana Pichardo on his cellphone pointing her service weapon at him, then forcibly seizing the phone and supervising an alleged unlawful search on his apartment.


Rivera was ordered by a cop to go back inside his apartment. He is still recording from inside the doorway when Pichardo rushes up to him.

"Who are these people to you?" she yells at Rivera. "Give me the phone, motherf-----!"

A cop pulled Rivera out of his apartment into the hallway where he was handcuffed. The cops apparently were unaware that Rivera, who installs security systems for a living, had installed cameras in various rooms of his apartment. Those cameras recorded a swarm of cops filing into his apartment and searching the rooms in front of his shocked girlfriend.

Rivera was held in police custody for 43 hours before he was released without seeing a judge.


A snapshot from the tussle shows Pichardo (l.) grabbing for the phone.


"They saw a camera and pegged me as the enemy," he said.

Leventhal noted that his client’s video contained evidence that not only exonerated him of any wrongdoing, but also helped show the cops were attacked by people other than Rivera.

The officers were legally arresting the men who were fighting with them, but it was clearly unlawful when officers grabbed Mr. Rivera's cell phone, arrested him, and entered and searched his apartment," Leventhal said.

Source  I am bored

Dude Sues Ex-Girlfriend For All Of The Shit He Bought Her While Dating

Dude Sues Ex-Girlfriend For All Of The Shit He Bought Her While Dating


I’m just going to go out on whim here and say that about 99 percent of us have had a relationship that ended at some point in our lives. Regardless of the reason why it ended, gone were the good, bad and indifferent memories, flushed down the drain with any and all the money we spent on that significant other forever.

One guy in Russia isn’t about to let that cash go, though, because he’s suing his now ex-girlfriend and trying to get her to repay him for a bunch of shit he bought her while they were together.

Per The Telegraph:

Nina Zgurskaya, in her twenties, told Russian television that her relationship with the young Siberian lawyer had broken down after a romantic seaside holiday in Crimea went awry.

She had expected him to propose after two years together, she said, but discussions about their future had only led to a squabble. She dumped him when he failed to pop the question.

“We went to Fedosia, Crimea, for 12 days and agreed that it was a romantic trip where he will propose to me. But it didn’t happen. So I left,” she told Russia’s Prima TV between tears and giggles.

A few weeks later she received court papers. Her ex-boyfriend had meticulously catalogued flower shop, restaurant and café receipts during their time together and demanded she repay all the money he had spent.

The total amount claimed was 45,000 roubles, or £466 – including legal fees payable to himself.


For those Americans out there, the amount in U.S. currency is equal to $676, meaning this dickbag wants his former lady to basically pay for a round-trip plane ticket somewhere this summer. What a chotch.

Seeing as how this guy is classy as fuck, here’s what the unnamed dude said about things, per The Telegraph:

“She can’t prove that we were even in a relationship,” the man, who wished to remain unnamed, told Russia’s STS television channel. “I never said that I was giving her a present or a free ride. Is it immoral to go to court? Am I expected to give money to every woman on the street?”

Would I want back all the cash I spent on my ex? Sure. But that’s not how this works, that’s not how any of this works.

Source  I am Bored

911 Operator Told Them To Return To Scene Of Crime; One Ended Up Dead

911 Operator Told Them To Return To Scene Of Crime; One Ended Up Dead


A Colorado 911 dispatcher may have been "foolish" and acting "incompetently," but he's not responsible for the death of a Sudanese immigrant four years ago, according to a court ruling Tuesday. The Denver Post reports Jimma Pal Reat, his brother Ran Pal, and others were driving from Denver to their apartment in Wheat Ridge when a red Jeep pulled up next to them. The men in the Jeep yelled racial epithets at Reat and the others, and one brandished a gun. They also threw bottles and bottle rockets hard enough to break the car's window, according to Courthouse News Service. Reat and the others made it back to Wheat Ridge and called 911. Dispatcher Juan Rodriguez, who has since been fired, told them—“for reasons that remain unclear,” per the court ruling—that they'd have to return to the scene of the crime if they wanted help.

Nya (no last name provided) prays during a period of mourning for Jimma Reat at his family's home in west Denver on Thursday, April 5, 2012. AAron Ontiveroz, The Denver Post (Photo By AAron Ontiveroz/The Denver Post via Getty Images)

Nya (no last name provided) prays during a period of mourning for Jimma Reat at his family's home in west Denver on Thursday, April 5, 2012. AAron Ontiveroz, The Denver Post (Photo By AAron Ontiveroz/The Denver Post via Getty Images)

"I said, 'I'm here at home, this is where I feel safe so please send somebody,' Pal tells the Denver Channel. "He said, 'No. If you don't go back that way, we won't be able to send anybody, and it's going to be your loss.” After 14 minutes of begging, insisting they were hurt and afraid, Pal and the others agreed to return to Denver. They were standing outside their car when the red Jeep came back and opened fire. Reat was shot and killed, and the suspects have still not been identified. Reat's family sued Rodriguez, but the court found him not liable for Reat's death and ordered the suit dismissed. The court ruled Reat and the others were free to ignore Rodriguez's instructions. "It cannot be said that any of Rodriguez's actions, as foolish as they were, 'limited in some way the liberty of a citizen to act on his own behalf,'" the ruling states, per CNS.


I am bored

5 Lawsuits From The World Of Gaming

5 Lawsuits From The World Of Gaming

As we march forward in this glorious new millennium, one thing remains the same — people love suing the bejeezus out of their fellow man. And in the world of video games, things are no different. To celebrate that litigious fact, as well as just how fun it is to say "litigious", here are five weird lawsuits pulled from the world of gaming.

Adam Levine/Gwen Stefani vs. Activision

gaming lawsuits activision

Back in 2011, the Maroon 5 frontman took Activision to court over his appearance in Band Hero, causing No Doubt to follow suit. The musicians were okay singing their own songs, but once they realized that gamers could essentially use them as digital meat-puppets, singing and dancing other songs in other voices, they were none too pleased. They were unsuccessful, and more importantly, THE DIGITAL MEAT-PUPPETRY CONTINUES.


Universal vs. Nintendo

gaming lawsuits kong

In 1984, Universal Pictures tried to sue the pants off of Nintendo over the presumed similarities between King Kong and Donkey Kong. The best part of the suit is that Universal essentially defeated themselves, as Nintendo pointed to a 1975 ruling in which the movie studio proved that the movie’s rights were in the public domain, which allowed them to go forward with a remake. Ape-lovers the world over rejoiced, and Donkey Kong would live on as one of the worst drivers in Mario Kart.


Blockbuster Video vs. Nintendo

gaming lawsuits blockbuster

Back again in the wonderful era known as the '80s, Nintendo tried to put a stop to video game rentals by suing Blockbuster Video (remember those guys?). They were unsuccessful, because they severely overestimated the ambition of '80s-era gamers when they worried about unauthorized duplication of game cartridges. But sometimes, you just want to play Lester the Unlikely for 72 straight hours and then pretend it never happened, right?


Tim Langdell vs. The World

gaming lawsuits edge

Founder of Edge Games, Tim Langdell became notorious in the video game world for trying to block anyone from using even the word "Edge". U2 guitarist The Edge escaped unscathed, luckily, and the rest of the gaming world continued to make "cuckoo" motions with their hands whenever Tim was around.


The Romantics vs. Activision

gaming lawsuits romantics

A faithful cover of The Romantics’ "What I Like About You" was included in the Guitar Hero expansion Guitar Hero Rocks the ‘80s, which the band had agreed to. But, possibly for the first time ever, the band argued that the cover was TOO good and that people couldn’t tell the difference between the two. The band was unsuccessful, presumably because the last person who enjoyed that song died around the same time as the '80s themselves.

Which lawsuit would you want to see turned into the next Ryan Murphy miniseries?


Working For Kanye Is Exactly The Nightmare You Think It Is And Kim & Kanye Are Suing The Bodyguard Who Told Everyone

bored? Working For Kanye Is Exactly The Nightmare You Think It Is And Kim & Kanye Are Suing The Bodyguard Who Told Everyone

kanye-west-former-bodyguard-tell-all-0524-00-compressed[1]“Does this look like a dude who likes fingers in his butt?”
“Nah, man. You look dope right now.”
“Dope for real?”
“For real.”

Everyone knows that Kanye West is an unabashed egomaniac. So much so, that he recently scared the shit out of Die Antwoord and those people look like what happened if the CIA tried to create a person made entirely of methamphetamine and tattoo ink. So it’s no surprise that Yeezy’s former employees probably have a shitload of crazy stories about working for him. What is surprising is that his bodyguard, former New York cop Steve Stanulis, either never had to sign a NDA, or did and doesn’t mind having his entire dick sued off, because holy shit, did he unload a pile of batshit here. Via The Sun:

“I’ve been employed by a lot of high-end people but I’ve never worked for someone like him. He’s ten times worse than what you see. You just never knew what would trigger a meltdown.”

Well, we’ve seen him scream at a guy in a wheelchair to stand the fuck up, and have a meltdown at SNL like a toddler at bedtime. And speaking of that last one, how did Stanulis say they manage to calm him down?

It was only when wife Kim, 35, came down from the audience to soothe him that the 38-year-old could bear to carry on with the show.

I’ll just get this out of the way, because we’re all thinking it:catastrophic So how much worse could it get? Way worse. All of the worse. Over the course of working for Kanye for a total of just 14 days, Stanulis witnessed Kanye tell people not to talk when he walks by, scream at another guard for touching him, drunkenly berate the security detail of an Italian dignitary, and become a sulky bitch when he was forced to ride in the front seat of a car. He was once told “Patterns distract him,” which sounds a lot like an instruction you’d give to a special education teacher. It’s a seriously great read, especially for the part where Stanulis is so traumatized by Kanye that he speaks glowingly about Kim Kardashian. I can’t imagine the special kind of mindfucking I would need to describe Kim Kardashian as anything other than the malignant tumor that metastasized, except I can, and it’s having an argument in an elevator with Kanye about who is going to push the buttons. It’s amazing this man hasn’t had a thousand strokes.

So now they want to sue this guy for spilling the beans... a former NYPD officer and truth-telling hero...

Naturally, this truth telling didn’t sit well with Black Joffrey and Queen Guernsey, so they made some bullshit documents and sued him. This is why we need trial by combat.

Via Page Six:

Stanulis alleges to Page Six, “After I had finished working with them, and my first comments came out in the press, Kanye’s head of security wanted to meet me and asked me to sign a post-dated confidentiality agreement, and I refused. That would be like putting my head on the guillotine and pulling the lever.

“Then somebody seems to have done their best to copy my signature on another confidentiality agreement, which is clearly a fake, and I can prove it. It isn’t my signature, and I have a chain of messages from them asking me to sign an NDA months after this forged one is dated.

Right, lying bullshitters gonna lie and bullshit. But here’s the best part of the whole thing besides Kim’s giant tits, which let’s be honest, is the whole reason for this post.


“He thinks he can drag me through the mud. If he just paid me the $900 for my work for them I would go away and never mention the names Kanye West and Kim Kardashian again.”

We found out that Kanye is so insecure about dudes talking to his wifecow that he will literally fire staff on sight for doing it, and all because he’s so broke he didn’t have $900 to pay his bodyguard. Sometimes the world is a good place.*walks outside, smells flowers, sees neighbor approaching to talk, fakes cell phone call, runs back in house*



British Couple Wins 'Squatters' Rights' To Neighbor's Yard

British Couple Wins 'Squatters' Rights' To Neighbor's Yard

PAY--The-disputed-verge-outside-Hilary-Kirkbys-homeThey say fences make good neighbors, but that definitely wasn't true for Hilary and Edward Kirkby. The British couple, who are 72 and 70, respectively, have spent the past 12 years tending to a stretch of yard in front of their Yorkshire home, which they bought in 1999. That work included tearing down the bushes that once filled it, building two parking spots, erecting a low fence, sowing grass—reportedly carting in tons of topsoil in order to do so—and planting flowers, reports the Mirror. Marcus Heaney's home sits across the alley, and the Kirkbys have been battling it out in court with him since Heaney registered the strip of land as his own in 2012, dismantled the fence, and ordered his neighbors to "make no further use of it, whether for parking or otherwise," reports AOL Money.


The Kirkbys responded with their own paperwork claiming rights to the land, and the courts have on several occasions ruled in favor of the Kirkbys. This latest—and final—win in the Court of

Marcus Heaney outside Court of Appeal after hearing in neighbourhood dispute with Hilary Kirkby. Photo by Paul Keogh 07914 583 378

Marcus Heaney outside Court of Appeal after hearing in neighbourhood dispute with Hilary Kirkby. 

Appeal leaves Heaney with nothing but a $370,000 legal bill, reports the Telegraph. "It would be a sad day for the law if the courts were to attach too much legal significance to acts which pass for nothing between good neighbors," Heaney's attorney said in a sort of warning. "Adjoining owners would have to be constantly on the watch in case their rights were being infringed." AOL notes that Brits who can demonstrate they've occupied unregistered land for a period of 12 years can make an ownership claim.


Justin Bieber Is Getting Sued For Ripping Off Another Artist To Make His Biggest Banger, And It Sure Sounds Similar

Justin Bieber Is Getting Sued For Ripping Off Another Artist To Make His Biggest Banger, And It Sure Sounds Similar

LAS VEGAS, NV - MAY 22: Recording artist Justin Bieber performs onstage during the 2016 Billboard Music Awards at T-Mobile Arena on May 22, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images)

If there’s one thing everone can agree on, it’s Justin Bieber’s ‘Sorry’ was the banger society needed in 2016.  Uplifting and fun, it had a greater effect on the national mood than the CIA’s lacing of the water supply with Zoloft in advance of the presidential election.

That did wonders, too, though.  But did we place our hopes and trust in a false god? Did Bieber steal ‘Sorry?’ One lawsuit is alleging just that.

Musician White Hinterland claims that Bieber infringed on the copyright of her 2014 song “Ring the Bell.” The lawsuit says, in part, “The identical and/or striking similarity of ‘Sorry’ to Plaintiff’s song ‘Ring the Bell’ surpasses the realm of generic coincidence and independent creation.”

Well, it’s up for you to decide.

Here’s ‘Sorry:’

Here’s ‘Ring the Bell.’ Pay attention to the opening.

It certainly seems EXACTLY the same.

According to the suit, White Hinterland is only suing after informing Bieber of the similarities and not receiving any response.

Classic Bieber.

If you recall, last year, Robin Thicke and Pharrell were forced to pay millions to Marvin Gaye’s estate after a judge ruled ‘Blurred Lines’ ripped off his song ‘Got To Give It Up.’

Let everyone know what you think in the comments.


Kanye West Threatens To Sue Creators Of App For Making Him Look Like A Moron

Kanye West Threatens To Sue Creators Of App For Making Him Look Like A Moron


What a moron…

Back in 2014 it started when Lindsay Lohan sued Rockstar Games, claiming that Grand Theft Auto V featured a character who is allegedly based on her.


Last year former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega filed suit  against Activision Blizzard Inc., the makers ofCall of Duty: Black Ops II, for using his likeness without permission. According to the complaint, Activision depicted Noriega as “a kidnapper, murderer and enemy of the state,”


Lohan’s & Noriega’s cases have been dismissed because the use of a person’s likeness in a video game varies from state to state and one “cannot control the likeness of publicity”

Now Kanye is taking his chances at an online app that has gone viral with his cartoon image being used.


Someone from Kanye’s PR company emailed the creators of WhackAMoron (who we have promoted on this site and other social media.) a generic DCMA take down with links to the “exclusive copyrights” they own.



The DMCA and lawsuit don’t seem to be scaring the developers of WhackAMoron, they fired back the following response:



If you are interested in downloading the game to piss off Kanye West or any other moron you want you here you go: AppleAndroid 



Guy Left Brain Damaged After Driver Hit Him Going 107 MPH Taking A Snapchat Speed Filter Photo Is Suing Snapchat

Guy Left Brain Damaged After Driver Hit Him Going 107 MPH Taking A Snapchat Speed Filter Photo Is Suing Snapchat




Wentworth Maynard was struck by Christal McGee, a woman driving over 100 mph in order to take a Snapchat speed filter photo, on a highway near Atlanta, Georgia, and suffered permanent brain damage. McGee had three passengers in her Mercedes C320, however according to Metro there is “no information on injuries suffered by Christal McGee or her passengers.” Despite McGee’s unknown state, Maynard is now suing Snapchat, arguing that the filter “facilitated McGee’s excessive speeding” and “distracted her in the moments leading up to the crash.”:

The former Uber driver has been unable to work since the crash, the suit says.

McGee even took a snap after the crash, showing her in an ambulance under the caption ‘Lucky to be alive’.

The lawsuit also names McGee as a defendant and demands unspecified damages from Snapchat.(via)

Speaking to New York Daily News, one of Maynard’s attorneys, T. Shane Peagler, argues that “This is a product liability case because Snapchat put something very dangerous in the marketplace without any warnings or safeguards, and basically said, whatever happens, happens.”

You’d think common sense would be enough of a safeguard here, but if you’re determined to maim yourself and others then all intelligence goes straight out the window. Frankly, McGee should be the only one getting sued here – not Snapchat.

Snapchat has not issued a statement on the lawasuit, however they have added a warning to the speed filter telling users to not snap while driving. Tomorrow they will be also be adding the warning “Please, do NOT forget to breathe” on every filter since that’s important and god forbid someone not breathe and then file a lawsuit because Snapchat didn’t tell them one way or another.

As for McGee’s ambulance Snapchat…it’s a fucking doozy:


Some people, man. Some people.


Florida Man Seeks $170M From His 'Dad,' William Shatner

Florida Man Seeks $170M From His 'Dad,' William Shatner


A man who has been claiming to be the illegitimate son of William Shatner for three decades now says it's time for dear-old dad to pay up. The Tampa Tribune reports 59-year-old Florida resident Peter Sloan recently filed a lawsuit to force Shatner to stop denying his paternity, take a DNA test, and pay him $170 million in damages for defamation, libel, slander, and more. “There has been a pattern of behavior that makes me look like I am lying, and I won’t stand for that anymore," Sloan says. "I am tired of being called a fraud by his people and him.” Sloan claims his mother hooked up with Shatner in Toronto while they were starring in the Canadian version of Howdy Doody. He says he was adopted and only learned of his famous parentage when he reconnected with his birth mother in the 1980s.


Sloan claims Shatner actually admitted to being his father in 1984 during a meeting on the set of TJ Hooker, TMZ reports. But Shatner, 85, denies Sloan is his son, and claims the local radio host is trying to unfairly live long and prosper from the connection. Sloan has no proof the meeting ever happened. In 2011, Sloan started using the name Peter Shatner online and for a radio show he hosts, leading to allegations from Shatner's camp—which points out that "many people over the years…have claimed to be his children"—that Sloan is just after some easy fame and money, according to the New York Post. But Sloan says it's not about the money, he just wants to bond with his dad. “I am William Shatner’s son, and I just wish he would acknowledge me," he tells the Post. And lest you think Sloan's lawsuit isn't serious, he's representing himself.

Florida Man Seeks $170M From His 'Dad,' William Shatner



She Wanted To Be A Cop, Till A Cop Did The Unimaginable

She Wanted To Be A Cop, Till A Cop Did The Unimaginable


Diana Guerrero

The city of La Cruces, NM, has agreed to pay $3 million to settle a federal civil lawsuit brought by a woman who was sexually assaulted by a police detective when she was a high-school intern with the department. During the trial, Diana Guerrero, who had aspired to become a police officer, told the court, "It had never occurred to me that a person who had earned a badge would do this," the AP reports, noting Guerrero agreed to be named. According to a Justice Department press release, former Las Cruces police Detective Michael Garcia took Guerrero, then 17, on a ride-along to visit a crime scene in May 2011. Rather than take her directly back to the station, he "drove her to a secluded location where he sexually assaulted her." The press release notes he was "assigned to a unit that focused on child abuse and sex crimes investigations" at the time.


Michael Garcia

Garcia, who pleaded guilty, was sentenced to nine years in prison in late 2014. Guerrero reported the assault, which left her feeling "like a piece of trash" in 2013, after bumping into a female detective that year who asked why she had ended the internship. "I just blurted it out," Guerrero told KVIA. "I am most happy and satisfied that this lawsuit brought to light a cesspool of sexual violence and harassment that exists in police departments across this country," Guerrero tells the AP. Indeed, an investigation by the news outlet found that, during a six-year period, about 1,000 officers were fired for a range of sex crimes; it calls that number "unquestionably an undercount." The City Council still has to approve the settlement, according to KRWG, which is expected to happen Monday. KVIA reports Guerrero now intends to pursue a career in nutrition.


Hulk Hogan Wins $115m In Gawker Sex Tape Lawsuit - Could It Destroy The Gossip Site Forever?

Hulk Hogan Wins $115m In Gawker Sex Tape Lawsuit - Could It Destroy The Gossip Site Forever?IvMSOB2[1]

An Oxford education, elite media lawyers and the constitutional shield for freedom of the press was not enough to protect Gawker publisher Nick Denton – and the view of press rights in America – from the wrath of 6ft 7in, 302lb Hulk Hogan.

On Friday in St Petersburg, Florida, the legendary pro-wrestler, whose real name is Terry Bollea, delivered a $115m legal hit on the iconoclastic web publisher, a victory that signals a significant change in the public’s tolerance for media invasions of privacy – and that could bankrupt the site.

For three weeks jurors heard how Denton, a media star with ambitions of revolutionising news coverage, and AJ Daulerio, a former Gawker editor, had published and refused to take down a 2006 sex tape of Hogan and the wife of his best friend, DJ Bubba “the Love Sponge” Clem.

Denton’s refusal to do so now stands as a fateful decision that could determine whether the 49-year-old publisher goes down as both creator and destroyer of Gawker Media. If the judge in the case imposes as $50m bond on Gawker, which its representatives say it cannot pay, the site and its nine ancillary publications could quickly collapse.


Whether DJ Clem approved of his wife’s extramarital activities – Hogan settled with him for $5,000 – publication of the bedroom events were not. Hogan sued Gawker, Gawker stood on its right to publish, and jurors sided with Hogan, who shed tears in the courtroom when the verdict came down after just six hours of deliberations.

But the question remains: why had Denton insisted on Gawker’s right to publish, flying as it does in a perceptible shift in how the public sees privacy rights?

Denton’s vocal adamance made clear that he was out of step with public sentiment long before the Hogan case came to court. Advocating a philosophy of extreme openness, which he applied to Gawker’s editorial choices, the site has arguably stepped over the line repeatedly. In 2012, Denton said he was “proud to have taken part” in outing a CNN presenter; in 2013 and 2014, it published a string of articles about the private life of a Fox News anchor; and in 2015, it exposed an affair involving a married media executive from a rival firm. The site was accused of “gay-shaming”, and Denton subsequently pledged to make Gawker “20% nicer”.

But Denton’s attempts to apply extreme openness to others could cost the ruin of his company. Like the jurors in Florida, the public is now far less likely to side with the media over privacy issues. It’s an empathetic shift, some argue, that has come from having to manage public and private identities on and offline.

“The public has seen the damage that online speech can do, and is getting sick of the media and becoming very pro-privacy,” said Samantha Barbas, a law professor at the University at Buffalo. “The public is becoming disenchanted with freedom of speech and this verdict is a reflection of that.”


New laws prohibiting “revenge porn”, or growing calls for “the right to be forgotten” are signals of the same shift, she said.

Last month, US sportscaster Erin Andrews was awarded $55m against Marriott Hotels, after a Tennessee jury found the chain had not protected her from being filmed in the shower by a stalker. Last week, a Pennsylvania man pleaded guilty and now faces five years in prison for dumping a trove of nude celebrity images, some including actor Jennifer Lawrence, in 2014 – an event now thought of as a turning point in attitudes toward celebrity privacy.

Throughout the Hogan trial, Denton maintained Hogan’s sexual activities were of legitimate public interest. “We believed the story had value,” Denton said. “That it was true, that it was a story honestly told, and that it was interesting to millions of people.”

Denton has now vowed to appeal the case, arguing the jurors were not given the chance to hear key testimony from Clem. “We feel very positive about the appeal that we have already begun preparing, as we expect to win this case ultimately,” he said in a statement after the verdict.

Regardless of any appeal’s outcome, Denton may have inadvertently ushered in a second phase in the way the media operates. The first came with the founding of Gawker in 2002 as a gossip blog that skewered celebrities and New York media figures. Friday’s verdict could herald a shift in media practices around privacy, reflecting growing disdain for invasions of privacy.

Hogan’s legal team said as much in a statement, calling the verdict: “a statement as to the public’s disgust with the invasion of privacy disguised as journalism”.

“Ordinary people feel like they’ve been burned and this decision could be felt [in the media] very tangibly right away,” Barbas said.

Courts have long grappled with the question of what defines a newsworthy story, and what constitutes “legitimate public concern” under the law – and many celebrities and politicians have come down on the losing side of judges and juries over their high status in the public eye. But the Gawker verdict firmly rejected Denton’s arguments that Hogan’s fame and boasting of his sexual exploits made him any different from an anonymous member of the public.

“The jury’s decision is somewhat of a black box,” said Mary-Rose Papandrea, a University of North Carolina law professor who has represented the an aggressive tabloid, the National Enquirer. “It will be much more interesting and much more important as a legal issue to see what the appellate court says.”

Inadvertently, Denton and Gawker may also have revealed something more about the contemporary dilemma of two personas – the public and private – that celebrities have long since grappled with.

“It’s something we’re all struggling with and that’s kind of what the Hulk Hogan verdict was about,” Barbas said. “Even someone who makes sex part of their public persona deserves a right to privacy in their own intimate lives. It’s an important decision.”

Hulk Hogan Wins $115m In Gawker Sex Tape Lawsuit - Could It Destroy The Gossip Site Forever?



Cosby Wants Home Insurance To Cover Legal Costs

Cosby Wants Home Insurance To Cover Legal Costs

In this Oct. 26, 2009, file photo, comedian Bill Cosby, left, and his wife, Camille, appear at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington.   (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

Why anyone other than Bill Cosby should care about Bill Cosby's homeowners insurance may at first seem a mystery. But the beleaguered comedian is apparently taking advantage of the personal injury coverage linked to his AIG policy to deflect his growing legal costs as he fights the defamation suits filed against him by 10 women in three states, the New York Times reports.

Cosby is leaning on coverage he has on homes in both Massachusetts and California, each with $1 million in limited liability coverage, as well as additional liability coverage of $35 million he holds with wife Camille, court records show. Cosby is said to want to use the money through the policies for both his defense and to pay out any final judgment costs. It's an uncommon way to use one's home coverage, but the Times notes it's been used in the past by the likes of Bill Clinton, Roger Clemens and OJ Simpson.


Most homeowners policies include bodily injury coverage in case someone gets hurt on one's property. But the rich often tack on umbrella policies that allow for personal injury coverage, including defamation lawsuits. AIG is currently ponying up legal fees for at least three of Cosby's five defamation cases, but it's battling in courts in Massachusetts, California and Pennsylvania to get its money back, citing a "sexual misconduct exclusion."

But a California judge ruled in November that the policy wasn't clearly worded and that the defamation suit brought against Cosby by Janice Dickinson was seeking damages for allegedly defamatory statements, not the alleged sexual assault. (AIG plans to appeal.) Meanwhile, a lawyer for seven women suing Cosby notes, "If the allegations are true, you can harm someone and get somebody else to pay for your wrongdoing. God bless America! There is no financial responsibility."



Why Is The Court Discussing The Market Value Of The Hulk Hogan Sex Tape?

Why Is The Court Discussing The Market Value Of The Hulk Hogan Sex Tape?

Friday morning’s first witness, a balding ginger gentleman by the name of Shanti Shunn, was a purported expert in web analytics called in to estimate the number of times the Hogan sex tape was viewed through Gawker’s publication. Since Shunn’s report relied solely on screenshots obtained from Hogan’s lawyers (rather than forensics or analytics obtained from Gawker) it is pretty thin stuff. Shunn’s total page view count (not the video view count) was something north of 4.4 million views. It was easy to guess how Gawker would counter this flimsy number: Page views can be counted any number of different ways; by landing even for a moment, by spending a set amount of time, by scrolling through a page to a given point, and so on.

In the increasingly sophisticated world of web analytics, ad sales on internet video are frequently calculated based on a certain length of time spent watching the video itself. During questioning, Shunn admitted at last that he had no idea and no means of determining how many people had really watched the Hogan sex tape.


Similarly Jeff Anderson, the prosecution’s last witness, relied on outmoded methods in order to determine the value of the Hogan sex tape to Gawker’s bottom line. Anderson works for a firm called Consor that values intellectual property. Hogan’s lawyers brought him in to determine how the value of Gawker.com increased owing to the publication of just the Hogan sex tape. Incredibly, he arrived at this figure by:

a) comparing the numbers of users to the market capitalization of companies like BuzzFeed and HuffPo (in no way a consistent figure)

b) assigning a value per user

c) estimating the increase in Gawker.com’s value over the period during which the Hogan post was online at Gawker ($54 million arrived at by maybe reading lamb entrails)

d) assuming that 28.53% of that figure (tea leaves) was attributable to the Hogan sex tape.


Anderson finally admitted that he wasn’t aware of a single instance in which his methodology had ever been used to determine the financial value of a single web post. But my real question is this: If the suit is alleging invasion of privacy, why is the dollar value of the sex tape an issue at all? Leaving aside the question of whether anyone would pay even $1 to watch that terrible 100 seconds of Hogan having sex with Heather Clem.



Court Approves Lawsuit Against Donald Trump’s Scam University


Donald Trump Launches Education Initiative At Barnes & Noble

Donald Trump woke up Tuesday, March 1, ready to take on his political opponents and wrap up the Republican nomination but instead was served with news that a New York appeals court has approved a lawsuit from the state’s attorney general charging that the candidate’s Trump University was a fraudulent sham.

Eric Schneiderman filed a $40 million lawsuit against Trump back in 2013 for defrauding “students” up to $35,000 each. I have “students” in quotes because, technically, to be a student one’s alma mater would have to be a legit scholarly institution as opposed to a three-day seminar. Some 5,000 poor saps were duped into paying for what promised to be a one-on-one mentorship program, but “instead just got to take a picture next to a life-size cardboard cutout of Trump.”

According to the New York Daily News, the attorney general’s lawsuit also charged that Trump “repeatedly deceived students into thinking that they were attending a legally chartered ‘university'” and “intentionally misrepresented, through advertisements and oral misrepresentations, that prospective students would be taught by successful real estate ‘experts’ who were ‘handpicked’ by Mr. Trump when, as alleged by petitioner, not a single instructor was actually handpicked by Mr. Trump.”

That’s despite Trump’s promise that “we’re going to have professors that are absolutely terrific — terrific people, terrific brains, successful, the best … All people that are handpicked by me.”

Trump had referred to the suit as tantamount to “extortion” and tried to get the case thrown out of court because the statute of limitations had expired. But in a unanimous ruling Tuesday, a four-judge panel of the state’s appellate division ruled that the case could proceed.

Trump’s opponents in the Republican primary have been focusing on the lawsuit in recent days, with Senator Ted Cruz telling a crowd of supporters “I want you to think about, if this man is the nominee, having the Republican nominee on the stand in court, being cross-examined about whether he committed fraud.”

For his part, Trump called the case “a small deal … very small,” over the weekend and has vowed to reopen the university — which closed in 2010 after receiving a cease and desist letter from the state’s department of education — once he wins the election. In other words: Donald Trump plans to get back to swindling the American people as soon as he finishes swindling the American people.




Court Approves Lawsuit Against Donald Trump’s Scam University

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
error: Content is protected !!