226 Comments
User's avatar
HooverVilles's avatar

THIS! EXACTLY THIS.

Expand full comment
HooverVilles's avatar

And from Wonkette in general. Yea!

Expand full comment
HooverVilles's avatar

And somewhere in South America.

Expand full comment
Grokenstein's avatar

It's...very complicated. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Expand full comment
Saxo the Grammarian's avatar

More lawspainers? On Wonkette?

Dick jokes and recipes! FOCUS, people!

Expand full comment
Dr. Rags's avatar

Shall we poll the wonketariat on pun threads? (Too obscure?)

Expand full comment
Tetman Callis's avatar

It's not such a "complicated contract lawsuit" that Milo got himself tangled up in. I read S&S's Memo of Law in Opposition to Milo's Motion for a Slam-Dunk (yes, I'm a Nerd, and WE RULE!), and the issue looked pretty straightforward to me: the contract gave S&S two ways out in light of Krazy-kat Milo's actions. S&S argued that if they couldn't skin that pussy one way, they could do it the other ("It is black-letter law that contracts must be construed to give full meaning to all of their provisions." -- page 29, and ooh, I like that, talk tough to me, attorney-person).

The only thing that made it complicated was Milo complicating it. Fuck all, S&S told him he could keep the $80,000 of the advance they paid him (the contract said he had to give it back) if he would just go away. His counsel likely told him, "Just keep it, Milo, pay us our share, and drop it -- you can't win this." When he apparently decided to persist, they did a quick C/B analysis and figured there was no way this client was going to be worth the future effort.

Expand full comment
Jenibrio Jenificus's avatar

This is the future now. They will push companies into doing what they want orbtie them up with nusience lawsuits. I hope all companies are paying heed- this is what working with these douchenozzles is

Expand full comment
Daniel_Oriordan's avatar

So, Chuckie's argument is that a for profit company must accommodate everyone who wishes to do business with them even if the company doesn't personally agree with the client's beliefs?

If he prevails, every gay couple in the world will be able to use the precedent set by that decision when a baker or florist refuses to provide their services for their wedding.

Expand full comment
Daniel_Oriordan's avatar

Not an American citizen. No rights.

Expand full comment
Daniel_Oriordan's avatar

He does. Of course, they're not his turds.

Expand full comment
Daniel_Oriordan's avatar

I like the use of the term "power couple" in the lede. I guess that's MSN's way of tricking people into believing this trivial gossip is newsworthy.

Expand full comment
GlobalBeagle's avatar

Yeah. He’s that smart...

No wonder his real lawyers dumped him. Undoubtedly that’s because S&S offered a deal; he refused it and the lawyers withdrew on the basis he was acting unreasonably or not following advice. That’s the usual reason.Or they discover he’s given conflicting instructions.

Expand full comment
Zyxomma's avatar

OK, I'm psyched. But I have no coffee on hand; I make cold brew and it takes three days to finish brewing. I should have made it in advance.

Expand full comment
Daniel_Oriordan's avatar

I worked with a woman who gave up the tabloids one year for Lent. Almost killed her.

Expand full comment
Daniel's avatar

"A man who is his own lawyer has A SHOCKING ICONOCLAST WHO LOVES BLACK COCK BY WHICH HE MEANS HE LOVES HAVING SEX WITH BLACK MEN for a client and you are so offended and triggered now give me attention. Him. The client. ARE YOU NOT OUTRAGED?!?!?!?!"

Expand full comment