Janet, Justin Sued by Viewer

[Caution]

<snip>
Knoxville native Terri Carlin filed a proposed class action lawsuit in a U.S. District Court on Wednesday, charging the accused with causing her and "millions of others" to "suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury." The suit reportedly seeks billions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.
<snip>

Janet Justin Sued by Viewer

I have no words for this.

[Terwilliger]

1. Can someone counter-sue

calling the original suit utter lunacy and seeking damages?

[Streetdoc270]

16. I want to file a dumb lawsuit too.....

Can I sue NYPD Blue for subjecting me to Jimmy Smits ass?

Or the View for their monday morning fake breast stunt?

How about Fear Factor for making me queezy after watching someone eat pig testicles????

People need to get a life!!! This morning on CNN they asken their british counterpart in an 'across the ocean' segment what impact the Janet incident had in England. He replied it made news the first day but we let the PURITANS (emphasis his) worry about it. He then held up the Star and said we have 31 nipple shots in a newspaper that anyone can see.

[okieinpain]

39. personally I kind of glad that someone is doing this. what janet

did wasn't really too bad, but you just know the next wanna be star is going to try and top her. I kind of tired of people pushing their beliefs off on me. I wanted to watch the super bowl with my kids, not have a discussion on sexual beliefs.

the lefties are getting just as bad as the repugs. they want to tell you who to marry, and what to do with your body. and the lefties want to tell you to have sex, because it fun. uh, let me make up my own mind.

[put out]

52. Did you explain why horse farts are so funny,

or why a woman getting burnt by a fart and a lit candle is so funny? How about erectile dysfunction? That is certainly a sexual matter. What about 4-hour erections? That is called priapism and a medical emergency. How about all that beer being sold? And the screaming woman who is clearly abusing her spouse?

You are certainly free to make up your mind whether or not sex is fun. But if you think for a moment that "the children" were not exposed to sexual content (and not just Ms. Jackson's breast) when you watched the show with them, I think you may need to reconsider.

[okieinpain]

77. nope most of the commercials were pretty lame. I'm not a

prude, I like looking at a naked women like the next guy. but I would prefer that it not be used for everything. I'm sick of the american (corporate)society as a whole, I've been complaining for a long time about how sex is used to sell everything.

[sendero]

53. well, it is *is* fun...

... but I agree with a lot of what you say. This was a cheesy publicity stunt for a washed-up singer at the nation's expense.

Had this been a bit of nudity that had some kind of artistic merit, I'd be more accepting. It had as much artistic merit as the average porn movie, not that I've personally seen any :)

I agree the suit is a nuisance suit, but then 'nuisance' is a perfectly apt description of Janet Jackson.

[Tomee450]

59. Why

is your anger only directed towards Jackson? It took two to pull of that stunt. IMO, Timberlake is equally guilty yet you show no outrage towards him. It seems Janet is getting all the flak while Justin gets off free. Janet has apologized, he has not. He gets to perform at the Grammys while Janet is prevented from doing so. Something is very wrong. Also, I'll bet if an African American entertainer had pulled off Brittany Speers' blouse exposing her breast he would certainly be treated far differently than Timberlake. He would be vilified and his career would be in ruins.

[Sequoia]

63. I AGREE 100%

Why is Janet not allowed at the Grammy's but Justin is. Common Dreams has an article relating to this by the way. Yes, and if it had been Brittany she'd be put on a pedastal and the woman wronged and the black singer would go to jail or something. Auction Block, that's what it was.

[fortyfeetunder]

69. I beg to differ a bit....

<<Also, I'll bet if an African American entertainer had pulled off Brittany Speers' blouse exposing her breast he would certainly be treated far differently than Timberlake. He would be vilified and his career would be in ruins.>>


You think a Black entertainer would have gotten flak for doing the same thing? Me thinks he might be dead! Remember this was in Houston TX...not far from where James Byrd was lynched....

[Sterling]

60. Lefties want all that?

Are you under than the impression that the corporate media that promotes the vulgur culture is left wing? I promise you it is the opposite. It is right wing coporate greed that is trying to turn your sons and daughters into horny consumers.

[leesa]

66. "The lefties want to tell you...."where do you get this whacky idea?

That show was put on the air by ultraconservative corporatists. What does it have to do with "leftists", a GOP term if I ever heard one!

When did progressives EVER tell you who to marry???

When did progressives EVER tell you to have sex just because it's fun ( I am sorry you dislike sex by the way)?

[okieinpain]

79. I don't dislike sex, but it has it's place. are you telling me that

it's okay for me and the misses to be in grocery store feeling each other up. are you saying that you don't mind seeing a couple of kids at the school game going at it, sitting right next to you.

how about the magazines in the check out lane with the "drive your man crazy in bad" claims. I know that some say "oh just get over it", but I really think it is pretty damn ridiculus that anyone has to put up with someone else's beliefs. come on you have to admit that things are getting a little out of hand.

[CatWoman]

45. hey!!!

Jimmy Smits has a nice ass :D

[Night]

2. You gotta feel sorry for Justin

I heard he thought she was wearing something underneath.

[bloom]

6. I don't think so

[soleft]

8. She was - he pulled it off

[Terwilliger]

20. I'm sure that's the spin he wanted you to believe

good job

[koopie57]

76. he also referred to it as a

what was it he said, "a wardrobe malfunction".

[Shadder]

3. Serious Injury!?

Give me a break......

[bloom]

9. what injuries?

inquiring minds want to know

[el_gato]

13. blue balls

LOL

[ret5hd]

4. *bush has caused me and "millions of others"...

to "suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury."

I'm in the money, I'm in the money.

[Skidmore]

14. So why don't we initiate a class action lawsuit

against Bush on behalf of the entire nation and get John Edwards to represent us all if he doesn't get the nomination.

[oneighty]

5. Darn Lawyers

Darn liberal lawyers do anything for a buck.

Hee! Hee!

180

[tnlefty]

7. It's a great day to be from Tennessee!!!

I'm soooooo embarrassed yet again.

Slinking off to hide in the closet.....

[Gin]

12. Look at it this way....CBS and MTV are in the suit too....so...they will

part with a few dollars to make this go away. That part does not bother me. They have a lock on the media...let them pay.

[hlthe2b]

10. Is Ms Carlin also going to sue her mother?

I mean she subjected her to immeasurable levels of outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury! What if that breast milk her MOM forced on her had struck her in the eye!

I'm nearly speechless....

[KoKo]

30. Maybe her mom wore a metal "nipple guard" and she's been frustrated ever

since! :D Think about what you are saying here. Janet wasn't portraying a "mom's" breast.

[MountainLaurel]

33. Gonna have to guess

That Miss Carlin was bottlefed, because her mom probably thought it was icky and sinful -- these attitudes don't just pop out of nowhere.

[Fla_Dem]

11. Just another example

of why we need tort reform in this country.

[saigon68]

15. This will never go anywhere

For the price of the flilng fee ---
someone will recieve 15 minutes of FAME

[Fla_Dem]

18. regardless, these defendants

still have to take the time and money to answer the summons issued in this case or risk having a default judgement awarded. This is time and money they will not be able to recover.

[Sterling]

61. Thats life.

I am sure Viacom will be fine. Small price to pay for keeping our justice system available for those who really need it.

[pagerbear]

17. Tort reform?

I don't think I'd trust the current administration or Congress to design this reform.

[Fla_Dem]

19. I damn sure

would not trust this regime to handle it, or any lawyer for that matter.

[StClone]

22. Torts

Torts are 'bad' when corporations are sued.
Torts are 'bad' when they are frivolous.

Which of these statements do you agree with?

[Fla_Dem]

24. Torts are 'bad' when they are frivolous.

Those that file these idiotic frivolous suits should be forced to pay for the other side's defense when the case is dismissed for having no merits. Under the current rules, that is not the case.

[StClone]

27. It is a state by state case

In my state Frivolous law suits are already prosecuted or at least quickly dismissed or countered. Of course my state still bans concealed weapons.

[Fla_Dem]

28. except this case is in Federal Court, which plays by different rules.

If you want to get a real eye-opener on some frivolous cases, do a google seach on DirecTV lawsuits. Where basically Directv is suing everyone in the phone book.

[kanrok]

32. Here we go again

One knucklehead files an idiotic suit and the clarion call begins. Good way to justify a BS policy: let's use this as an example of the norm and "prove" we need reform. What a joke. Tort "reformers" love this shit. They can't wait to pounce. Here's the truth: if this is a "frivilous" suit then it will be dismissed, and the lawyer who filed it will be subject to sanctions under the existing rules of civil procedure. Contrary to your assertion, costs of the suit are payed by the loser. "costs" generally do not cover attorney's fees, but they do cover filing fees and deposition fees (if it ever gets that far, and it likely won't). Please stop pretending to be indignant about this "man bites dog" news. It is a blip on the radar screen and not an example of "lawsuits gone wild." The timing of it is extremely suspect, especially since the national Chamber of Commerce and the Bush administration are pushing "reform" of class action lawsuits. I would not put it passed the rethug douchebags to be behind this. Give it a rest.

[Fla_Dem]

35. and costs other than attorney fees

are negligable. I recently had to defend myself in Federal Court in a frivoulus case. Since I could not afford a lawyer to defend me (just the retainer to an attorney in a federal court is 5,000) I handled it myself and got it dismissed. My total "court costs" were less than 500 bucks.

[kanrok]

40. More facts please

Sounds like a horrible thing to have happen. (I'm not kidding). Good job on getting it dismissed. I was sued by a guy I put away when I was a prosecutor. It was a BS case, but un-nerving nonetheless. My defense costs were covered by an insurance policy, so I never had to shell out any dough. It was still a pain nonetheless. Give some info regarding the lawsuit, I may be able to recommend some recourse you haven't thought of. Sorry about my knee-jerk reaction to the tort "reform" arguments, but this kind of thing just does not represent the norm in courtrooms across this country. Real, working lawyers with thriving practices don't have the time for BS cases. By the way, welcome to DU.

[Fla_Dem]

44. The case against me was filed by Directv

Since I purchaed a device with, according to Directv, could only be used to steal their satellite signal, they sued me under 18USC 605, 17USC 2512, and 17USC 2520. This was after I had already told them that I have never used the device for that, and explained what I had used it for, which was a very legal purpose. all they would say is pay us 3,500 dollars or we will sue you. I told them to go ahead, which they did. We went all the way through the discovery phase, even through depositions until they finally agreed they had no case and dismissed it. They are doing this to several thousand people across the country right now, hoping to extort money. According to several lawyers who are helping others defend themselves against this crap, there really isn't any way to recover legal fees, as the Federal Statues do not have any clauses built in to them.

[kanrok]

51. I can see why you are for "tort reform"

But may I gently persuade you to re-think that issue. Tort "reform" has nothing whatsoever to do with your case. The ONLY lawsuits that are targeted by tort "reform" are personal injury lawsuits. Business to consumer suits are not contemplated by the Chamber of Commerce nor the Bush administration. The fact is that the number of lawsuits in business to business or business to consumers is much, much higher than personal injury cases. You will never see a "reform" mesaure meant to cure the types of cases you had the sad misfortune of involuntarily becoming involved in. I was unaware od DirectTv doing this, and I will research it, because it helps me make my point, that is, that this administration has no interest in helping anyone except those who contribute to it. Sorry about your negative involvement in the civil justice system. In teh main, it not as you perceive it.

[patcox2]

54. Hey, tort reform doesn't have to be the repub trojan horse reform

Whats your area of practice? I have seen suits to make your hair stand on end, and they are not rare. The big fad now in class actions is to use consumer fraud statutes, they are usually strict liability even for technical violations, allow nominal damages even where there is no injury, and allow attorney's fees and treble damages. In the class action context they are being used to bring suits no single individual would ever bring, because the damages might only be in the pennies, but the treble damages and attorneys fees make the lawyers millionaires.

Since I defend them, I fantasize about how I could get rich making up new ones. Here's a good one. Supermarkets let you use your debit card as either a debit or credit, but many now charge a fee for a debit transaction. At many local supermarkets where I live, the self-serve card swipe things are set up to try to trick you into using your card as a debit rather than a credit (at one point in a string of prompts, after you have already chosen "credit," it says "would you like to use your PIN?" If you hit "yes," it makes the transaction a debit transaction.

I could make a million, bring the suit on behalf of someone who was "defrauded" into using the debit when they wanted to use the credit, damages might be next to nothing (credit has a longer "float," possible fees or loss of frequent flier mileage), but how many millions of transactions?

Here is another; our consumer fraud regulations list the precise names to be used for cuts of beef, and it also specifies the units of measurement to be used in pricing, by the pound, by the ounce, and it varies by the product. I notice that most supermarkets occasionally use new, trendy names for cuts of beef as fads come and go ("osso buco", instead of "shank," for example) and they often use the wrong weight units in pricing. Well, what do you know, facial violations of our regulations, automatic liability under our CFA, another perfect class action in which the consumers will get a coupon for $1.00 off your next meat purchase, and I, the entrepenuerial plaintiffs lawyer, will get a yacht. And the public will pay a hidden tax as the supermarkets have to recoup these losses.

Its real, and its ridiculous.

[kanrok]

58. My area of practice is, and will always remain:

Plaintiff's personal injury, specifically, medical negligence, wrongful death and catastrophic personal injury with a specific interest in traumatic brain injury. I never filed a class action lawsuit, and don't plan on doing so. I believe there is merit to the class action system, but I also know there are abuses. TLPJ has a group dedicated to monitor class action abuses. I don't profess to know an awful lot about them, though. I do know about med mal and PI and I know that the information the consumer gets about "frivolous" lawsuits is incredibly slanted and amounts to misinformation at best. I know how hard it is to compensate my clients, and that juries nowadays have been indoctrinated by tort "reformers" to such an extent that it affects verdicts. If the information that we read about with respect to class action lawsuits is as slanted as that which tort "reformers" spew about med mal and PI then, I don't have a lot of confidence that what we're being told is true. It sounds like your experience is different, and I'd sure like to find out what you think.

[patcox2]

71. I have no issue with those areas of the law

One of my only jury trials was a dental mal case, similar in all respects to a med mal. I represented plaintiff. I know full well what bullshit is the republican medical malpractice propaganda. I had an ex-nurse in my firm, who became a lawyer, as a result, she got many calls from nurses who had witnessed egregious instances of med malpractice and were being set up to take the fall. The system absolutely protects doctors. After my case (I was no caused - after the defense attorney was done crossing my expert, the judge, of his own volition, took it upon himself to cross examine my expert, elicit a response the judge felt was inconsistent with the witness's opinion as to the standard of care, then instructed the jury to disregard the expert's testimony on the basis of the responses to the judge's cross-examination. After I lost, the judge and the defense attorney were laughing it up in the court room and the judge had the balls to tell me proudly that no plaintiff had ever won a med mal case in his courtroom.

This consumer fraud shit, in the class action context, is another thing entirely. remember, any time any statute or rule of decision uses the word "reasonable" that means "jury question." Any time there is a jury question, that means no claim is frivolous. When its a class action, this translates into a shakedown. There is room for reform in this area, class actions only.

[PA Democrat]

82. Businesses are king when it comes to lawsuits

Some interesting stats to back up your point kanrock:

• Business cases account for 47% of all punitive damage awards. In contrast, only 4.4% and 2% of punitive damage awards are due to product liability and medical malpractice cases respectively (Rand Institute for Civil Justice, 1996).

• Businesses suing each other over contracts comprised nearly half of all federal court cases filed between 1985 and 1991 (The Wall Street Journal, 12/93).

• Contract and property cases - most involving business - comprise more than 1/3 of all civil cases in state courts; by comparison, only 0.21% of all civil cases were product liability claims (National Center for State Courts, 1995).

Source: http://www.atlanet.org/homepage/bizvsbiz.aspx

[kanrok]

85. Thanks, PA

I was aware of these statistics, generaly, and have them spread over a lot of articles in my "tort reform" file, but it's great to have them in one concise source. Thanks, again.

[0007]

68. LOL!! This is an example?

C'mon! Your kidding right?

[Supply Side Jesus]

83. Stupid due process...

Who needs it!!! :eyes:

[MadHound]

21. Great, I hope she wins, 'cause then we can sue * on the same grounds!

Actually my wife and I were discussing the whole Super Bowl incident, and after I heard how CBS and others were instituting serious(5 + minutes) tape delays at the Grammys, etc I had a real :tinfoilhat: idea. Suppose this whole Janet Justin thing was deliberate? The networks all can institute tape delays in the interests of "protecting morality and the children". All in time for the Oscars and Grammys, which are notorious for having celebs use the award speeches to political advantage, ala Michael Moore last year. Given that Bush hates criticism, and that nothing happens by accident, to paraphrase FDR, it becomes something to make you go Hmmm. A celeb starts to speak out against the Shrub, poof! we never know, thanks to a little tape delay.

Again, just noodling some :tinfoilhat: around in my head.

[ima_sinnic]

23. this woman has issues

--serious issues.

hopefully she will seek the professional help she so desperately needs with her windfall settlement.

I got a notice I was a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Western Union because they had stiffed people out of excessive amounts to send money out of the country. The payoff: discount coupons to send more money. Hopefully this lame woman will get the same kind of anticlimatic reward: discount tickets to a future SuperBowl or some such.

what a jackass!

[KoKo]

25. Hey, it's a person standing up to the Media! Even if reasons seem trivial,

the Media is totally in charge of everything we see. If one wanted to go to MTV to see Janet's boob one would know what they were letting themselves in for, but a football game like the "Super Bowl" one expects to see some restraint. I think anytime the media gets hit about "stunts" like this, it's good. After all.....look at all the stunts they pull on Democrats and Liberals.

And, since few have spoken out about the Reality Shows and the rest of the stuff that passes for cheap entertainment, Janet and Justin were maybe just the incident that was the final straw for some folks.

I think it's good.

Edited: typing too fast and too many typo's.

[transeo]

29. Good???

No, it's awful. If this goes forward it sets a precedent that it is ok to sue the media every time you are offended. Pretty soon the fundies will be suing all the time and the media will be afraid to show anything deemed controversial. This will then lead to totally bland programming in line with conservative values and no one elses. This sets a horribel and dangerous precedent for censorship.

[KoKo]

34. We already have "bland" programming in line with "conservative values,"

imho. The corporations give the "Conservatives" just the kind of entertainment they like. And they can sell sex and flash to whole generation of folks who think they are expressing their freedom. What freedom do people who don't care to see Janet's flashed boobie and Jutin's ripping of clothes while they are watching a football game have. What about the folks that don't see that as appropriate expression of freedom?

[okieinpain]

80. I agree.

[Whoa_Nelly]

26. This is real news?

Celebrtity sensationalistic "news" needs to stay in the yellow journals. We have much larger, more important issues that need to stay in the news, and to keep pushing to make available to all. Hmmmm...let's see...how about no WMD, troops dying daily, our public schools going to hell, over 8 million Americans now unemployed, AIDS, lack of health care for too many Americans, the daily lies and retraction of "promises" by BushCo, the PNAC and the push for global domination, First Amendment rights being slashed unless the Patriot Act can be brought to the higher courts and proved unconstitutional...and...???

Yup, keeping news about real issues alive in the US media is worth every ounce of fight by all who know Bush has to vacate the WH, and all that can be done to prosecute the criminals who have led our country into the rockiest time in our national history.

IMO, posting celebrity news is akin to moving the focus away from the real issues.

Just Breaking: (dit-da-dit-dit...)
Los Angeles-Michael Jackson case holds sway over congressional debates and will have great impact on the future of all Americans...</sarcasm>

[yellowcanine]

31. Get a life, Terri.

As if no one ever showed a boob on TV before. Serious injury? I don't think so. I don't really believe the outrage, anger, and embarrassment, either. Someone wants to get paid, methinks.

[denverbill]

36. Jebus, thank God this woman never watched Monty Python.

Instead of a millisecond long-distance photo of one breast covered by a nipple-guard, she would have seen two breasts in focus for a considerably longer time period with no nipple guards.

Why the hell didn't anyone ever bother suing Farrah Fawcett for Charlie's Angels? You saw a helluva lot more nipplage on that show than the halftime show did.

[Unforgiven]

37. Ka-Ching!

can you say money? It's a gamble that could pay off. Isn't greed wonderful?

[ProfessorGAC]

38. Incredibly Stupid

How can anyone prove economic harm? I would think it would be impossible to prove harm in this case. This should be summarily dismissed.
The Professor

[rocktivity]

41. I'm glad she holds both Janet and Justin equally responsible

Justin seems to have gotten a free pass on this--Janet didn't tear her own clothes off, but she didn't help her case by confessing that a "costume reveal" had been planned. But while I didn't see the show, I've seen enough clips of Kid Rock in his American Flag poncho and the scantily-clad dancers preceding Janet to wonder Ms. Carlin didn't turn the set off is she was so offended.


rocknation

[Fridays Child]

42. Just one more thing that Europe can laugh at us for...mammaphobia.

(Is that a word?)

[Unforgiven]

49. If it Wasn't

it is now. You just coined it! :)

[Mari333]

43. Gee can I sue the White House for OUTRAGE over 500 dead

and thousands wounded?
I have words for this woman in Tennessee.
horseshit.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

47. When I throw a brick through my TV screen

during the next Bush press conference, can I sue Anthony Scalia?

[qanda]

46. Righteous indignation works better

If you turned off the halftime show way before Janet's breast was revealed. I thought the whole thing was inappropriate for children to see and that's why we didn't watch it in my household. People should start suing themselves for their own poor judgment.

[progressivebydesign]

48. There is something wrong with America...

And it has nothing to do with Jackson's breast.

[malachi]

55. Amen to that.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

50. I want to know why this woman can seek

reparations of such a frivolous nature while I don't stand a chance of having my son's x-ray and doctor bills repaid by the kids who jumped him in school in November.

If Ms. Carlin can afford to do this, she must have some serious $ to begin with.

[Tripper11]

56. This will get tossed, easily.

Come on, if this isn't the definition of frivolous I don't know what is.
Just think about the millions and millions of lawsuits that will be filed against TV, radio, internet site and anything else that we might happen to see that one can personally deem offensive, outrageous or embarrassing.
As far as being personally injured, I wonder if Miss Terri was injured trying to wrestle the remote from her husband's ever tightening grip as his arousal state reached a crescendo? :P

[jmm]

57. Maybe she'll get Ashcroft to take the case for her?

:eyes:

[bushwakker]

62. No doubt by a GOPer who is against frivolous lawsuits

[gate of the sun]

64. Gee I guess that means I could sue bush

for making me suffer outrage,embarrassment and serious injury?????
This is ridiculous.

[leesa]

65. Yet another conservative filing a frivilous lawsuit. When will they stop

clogging up our courts with BS.

[KoKo]

67. Whoo Hoo.......I seem to be the "prude" on this post.....LOL's

Still, I'm glad I spoke up..even if I was the only one. I stand by what I said.....Peace.....

[rincons land]

70. for god's sake...

...it was just a boob.

[rincons land]

72. and a right sexy boob at that

n/t

[democracy eh]

73. File this under 'W'

for :wtf:

yes the human body must be feared,

arghhhh

[gauguin57]

74. this is such b.s.

I am so sick of boobgate.

The Super Bowl -- professional sports in general -- has been getting skankier by the year. A family event, my Aunt Fanny! For every honorable professional athlete there seems to be a skanky, druggie or violent one. Football is a pretty violent sport to begin with. And every time I see a TV report about fans watching the Super Bowl, it's a bunch of drunk, screaming guys, suffering from testosterone poisoning. Some of them get out on the roads and endanger families via DUI, and some (as studies have shown) go home and physically abuse their wives or girlfriends. Some of them (like those jackasses in Boston) rip up the town, burn stuff, drive over each other, kill people.

I'd rather have a kid see 1.5 seconds of a bare boob than all of that nastiness! But, of course, it's not 1.5 seconds, because we have to see it replayed and replayed ... along with closeup stills of the bare boob plus piercing. It's the most replayed TiVo moment ever. Obviously, a whole spitload of people want to lookie lookie lookie at Janet's boob (and then pretend to be indignant later). Give me a freaking break!

And I'd rather see the FCC put their time into better policy about media ownership (as the public has demanded!) instead of pandering to rich media owners.

This country is so chockablock with hypocritical Puritans that sometimes I feel like I'm suffocating.

This Ashcroftian Zeitgeist is going to lead to DANGER ... will this videotape delay on the Oscars scrub out any political statement someone doesn't want us to hear (with the powers that be telling us it was dirty language)?

[pinniped]

75. Billions?

I would say she has a slightly better chance at winning an overweight person lawsuit against the company that pioneered the term "McJobs".

[alarimer]

78. How old is this person?

Have they never seen themselves uncovered? Or anyone else? How ridiculous. Well I guess I will have to sue the Bush administration because I suffer anger and outrage every damn day. It would be way worse to see him naked though. Talk about trauma!

[Lorien]

81. Frivolous in the extreme

just another gold digger after some celebrity dough. Disgusting!

[Nile]

84. Why would a lawyer even take a case like this?

There used to be a day when a lawyer would advise against such a thing. There must be lawyers with to much time on their hands.