How much do we love you, Wonkers? Well, yesterday we read that idiotic complaint by Google douche James Damore. And today we waded through the legal stylings of Chuck C. Johnson and Milo Yiannopoulos. So, a lot! Get psyched for another round of whinyass whiteboy weeping, because there's
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.
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
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.
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.
"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?!?!?!?!"
THIS! EXACTLY THIS.
And from Wonkette in general. Yea!
And somewhere in South America.
It's...very complicated. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
More lawspainers? On Wonkette?
Dick jokes and recipes! FOCUS, people!
Shall we poll the wonketariat on pun threads? (Too obscure?)
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.
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
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.
Not an American citizen. No rights.
He does. Of course, they're not his turds.
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.
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.
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.
I worked with a woman who gave up the tabloids one year for Lent. Almost killed her.
"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?!?!?!?!"