Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Enbastet's avatar

- You bet wrong as to how I depose.

- The recordings are his property but how he may use them is subject to the law on misappropriation.

- The Holmes comment actually would be cited by the cops in claiming that he damaged them by the misappropriation and so must pay. He is the alleged tort feasor here.

- They were not trespassing. They were there under color of law. If they engaged in misconduct while there that is a separate issue. He could publicize that as free speech but when he made it into "buy my stuff" he entered the tort realm.

- You are conflating incidental presence in a TV shot with being made a feature of a commercial effort.

I realize that you don't like the answers and you are free to respond as Mr. Bumble did as far as the law being "a ass", but it is what it is.

Past this point, I would just be repeating myself.

Expand full comment
Colbert Thorenson's avatar

How can you say they invaded his home for no reason. That guy in the lead photo was clearly looking for a leftover lasagna in the fridge.

Expand full comment
728 more comments...

No posts