She hasn’t changed this yet?
OK, by the numbers:
Am I missing something here? Is she licensed in Botswana or someplace?
In closing, OMFG.
I don’t know.
IMO, she be better off suing the person who advised her about stuff like this.
Now hey, how is that Red Room website/business doing? It’s not exactly setting the world on fire these days, now is it?
So will it be involved with the Ross Mirkarimi defamation lawsuit? I mean, the damages there could add up to millions, huh?
I’ll tell you, if somebody gave me $10,000 to invest in a website that furthered my own glory and then I didn’t make as much money as I thought I was going to, it sure would be nice to displace blame, huh?
All right, I’m off to apply to Stanford Law. I’ll crib from this, so I’m a lock to get accepted! (Or I’ll get a colledge degree before applying, either way.)
You know, IM, with all the energy you exert, you could apply yourself to taking and passing the California Bar Exam. I’m srsly, you could do it. And then you could make big bucks advocating. You know, the way Angela Alioto does it. Nobody thinks she’s the brightest candle on the menorah but she gets it done, consistently and thoroughly.
And she makes far, far, far more moolah than you can ever hope to realize from a defamation endeavor.
This suit isn’t a good thing for you, IM.
Well if the world ends tomorrow, 12-21-2012, the joke’s on me.
So, earlier this year some rich whacko up in Marin started making a video* in Latin America what was supposed to be all about the so-called Mayan Prophecy.
But things headed south with the production, so that got written up in a blog down south, down in Los Angeles.
And then the same basic info was posted in the San Francisco Examiner. (It used to be right here.)
And then the rich Marin whacko actually went and sued that film-industry blog earlier this year.
And then the rich Marin whacko lost her lawsuit, big time.
So then I made a post about this affair, you know, because nobody else up here had done so.
Then I got a threatening letter from the same attorney who lost the case in L.A. Read that letter here.
But apparently, that threat was all lies and jest.
Hey, do you like sports analogies ‘n stuff?
This is rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot’s inchoate SLAPP lawsuit against TheWrap blog, IMO:
See? Kicker Garo Yepremien tried to score a few points but then opposing counsel filed a special motion to strike what was so special that discovery was immediately halted. Then he lost the hearing and that was the end of the suit, it looks like. I’m saying Elisabeth Theriot got pwned in court.
With a quickness.
Which, you know, this kind of thing doesn’t happen every day so that’s why I made a post about it.
But now the world is supposed to end tomorrow ‘n stuff and there’s no Mayan Prophecy “film” to see.
Now, what about San Francisco Examiner President and Publisher Todd Vogt? Do you think he got some sort of request or demand or something from rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot or the wire service or somebody to take down the wire story on these topics, you know, that used to be posted right here?
Why would the ‘Xam have a page dedicated to rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot (just look at the URL bar) with nothing to say about her? It’s because the story about her that used to be there is no longer there.
Is there cowardice here?
I’ll tell you, TheWrap.com stood up to rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot and was/will be rewarded with mandatory attorney fees as a kind of reward.
Why couldn’t/can’t the ‘Xam stand up to rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot too?
I don’t know.
Now I’ll tell you, when an actual newspaper (improperly, IMO) caves to some rich lady, that just might have the effect of emboldening her. Then she just might start going after poor, defenseless WordPress bloggers.
But maybe I’m way off on this one.
If so, please somebody disabuse me.
* I call it a video because it was (mostly?) recorded on digicams – no film required. The current title of this still-troubled production is Mayan Revelations & Hollywood Lies. It’s delayed. It’s nonsense. Oh what’s that, we’re going to see just how important that Long Count calendar is tout de suite? No we won’t. Sorry. Oh, over the coming decades? No we won’t. Sorry.
Hey look what’s sitting in my Spam folder right now – it’s a scary letter from a Los Angeles attorney demanding that this blog be retracted.
Can you imagine?
Here’s what caused the trouble:
And here’s the vast bulk of the resulting lawyer letter:
Click to expand, if you dare.
Now I can understand why the San Francisco Chronicle might not want to get involved with all the allegations surrounding the making of some movie project about the Mayan calendar deal. You know, relationships ‘n stuff. And plus, it’s not like a whole bunch of people are going to watch this flick.
So that’s one thing, but the San Francisco Examiner, did it get a similar letter earlier this year? You make the call. See? Earlier this year it used to have something to say about Elisabeth Thieriot and the Mayan Prophecy and Mexico and whatnot, but not now. Mmmm. Did the San Francisco Examiner take down a Reuters news story on this topic because it was afraid of getting sued? Sure looks that way.
Of course that online trade journal TheWrap did get sued. For one million dollars to be exact. But then it responded with a Motion to Strike and that took care of that. And then TheWrap wrote about how it won, big-time. Then I linked to its story (and the entire decision itself) and now it sure looks like I’m the next to get sued.
Uh, do I know that this lawyer represented/s that lady? No, not all. I mean, I assume that’s the case, but what’s this “as you know” stuff?
Does the lawyer really want/expect me to retract the entire blog, all 6000 posts? (Does the lawyer actually know what a blog is? Apparently not.)
Does the lawyer want to write my blog posts for me, you know, using his point of view? Sure looks that way. Is that his right? And how can I retract something that’s not wrong?
And I’m supposed to rely on CA law about retractions what apply to the MSM, but not really? So what’s the point of bringing that up?
And I’m “not authorized” by the lawyer to disclose the contents of the lawyer letter so I can’t do it? Really? Well, similarly, I’m not authorized by that lawyer to have a delicious Taco Bell Doritos Locos taco for lunch, so does that mean I can’t have that for lunch IRL? And I can’t show the letter to anybody, even to get help with how to respond? Is that fair dinkum? I think not.
So who else in the bay area has gotten these kinds of communications from Down South? I don’t know.
Anyway, I guess I’ll take that email chain* out of the Spam folder and put it into the Archive folder and await further developments.
But I’ll think to myself, “Man, don’t you realize you just lost, in a big way, on the very same topic in the very same state?”
*Apparently, Elisabeth Thieriot herself sent me an email last month as well, on purpose, or by mistake, or something in betwixt. I’ll tell her what I told my grandmother,** about how Reply All is kind of an advanced email technique best left to the younger generation, you know, so you don’t email people by mistake.
** I still can’t believe she got a Hyundai, after all those decades of her having large RWD Ford products such as the Mercury Grand Marquis. She says her new ride is a “good snow car.”
Here’s the news:
“A Los Angeles judge threw out a lawsuit against TheWrap News on Wednesday, ruling that an article about movie financier Elisabeth Thieriot was both accurate and “took pains” in reporting on a production dispute with her co-producer. Judge Barbara M. Scheper of Los Angeles Superior Court sided with the news organization in granting an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss Thieriot’s complaint on the grounds that it had no probability of success on its merits.”
And you journos should check out the ruling – it’s very accessible.
Now, is she going to pay the attorney fees for both sides of this fiasco? Only Time Will Tell.
Now let’s see what the San Francisco Examiner has to say about all this. Uh oh, you’re still afraid, huh ‘Xam? So that’s why you took down all what you said about ET, huh? Fair ‘nough.
ET and Mr. Bigglesworth, Marin County, USA:
And remember to KYAG by December 21, 2012, you know, when the World ends.
Will the world end in the night time?
(I really don’t know)
Or will the world end in the day time?
(I really don’t know)
PS: Fur is murder
Sometimes things happen in town and sometimes people die. That’s the way it is.
Anyway, check out “PRIDE OFFICIALS THREATEN YOUTUBE VIDEOGRAPHERS” and
and then review the current hit results here…
…and then check out the threatening letter below.
Obviously, not every shooting that occurs in the 415 during the last weekend in June is a “Pride Shooting.” Obviously.
Anyway, take a look at both sides of this issue and decide which one you’re on.
Now, do I think that the San Francisco Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration Committee, Inc. has been run poorly?
Does it benefit in me in any way shape or form to say that?
Do I think that the people behind Pride should be looking within instead of lashing out?
“Dear Mr. Wilton:
I am General Counsel for the San Francisco Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration Committee, Inc. (“SF Pride”), the producer of San Francisco Pride and the owner of the trademark “SF Pride, among other valuable marks.
The YouTube video that you filmed and display athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOfz0zxDdNc falsely states that there was a “shooting at Pride 2011″. The police and the media have all confirmed and made affirmative public statements that the shooting that happened on Saturday evening, June 25th WAS NOT AT SF PRIDE and was not connected the Pride Festival.
For example, see: http://www.sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=3763&recordid=52 which quite clearly leaves out any reference to SF Pride or the Pride festival. And http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8214747 which notes that the shooting was “blocks from the Pride festivities.”
Your YouTube posting falsely claims in the title and in the introductory splash page at 0:01-0:06. In fact, the shooting was NOT on the SF Pride festival grounds and was not related to SF Pride, or the Pride Festival, or any LGBT issue or concern.
You did not, for example, title your video “shooting in front of Apple iPad advertisement.” Nothing in the video has any connection with SF Pride or the Pride festivities. You simply chose to sensationalize your posting by wrongly associating a violent tragedy with the safe and peaceful, SF Pride. Your advertising harms SF Pride by that false association. It harms SF Pride’s ability to attract attendees and sponsors for future events by creating the false impression that the event and festival were the site of a violent shooting.
Your video constitutes false advertising from an attorney, trade libel, and constitutes tortious interference with SF Pride’s prospective economic advantage by associated its safe event with this tragic and entirely unrelated incident.
According to YouTube, over 3,200 have viewed this outrageous misrepresentation already. Specifically:
San Francisco / Civic Center Shooting at Pride 2011 – Sat 6-25-2011
The end of the video at about 2:27 in states:
Filmed by David Wilton
Law Offices of David Wilton
SF Pride demands that you at once do the following or we will take all other necessary and appropriate legal action:
1. Take down the above referenced video.
2. Replace it with an affirmative public apology to SF Pride for wrongly associating it with violence, and clarifying that the shooting on Market Street had nothing to do with the SF Pride festival, and was blocks away from it;
3. Pay SF Pride $10,000 in damages and costs. Any delay will certainly see this amount increase.
Outside General Counsel, San Francisco Pride”
(Gentle Readers, you know that I love you, all 14 of you, no matter what. But others, well, they only care about cosmetic-type things – they’ll like you better if you pay somebody to shoot protein into your face, oh well.)
Can you imagine making a post on the Yelp about your plastic surgeon and then getting hit with a multi-million dollar defamation (plus invasion of privacy plus interference with prospective economic advantage, you know, the whole megillah) lawsuit?
Oh, and surprise, they’re talking about this case on the Yelp.
A little of this, and now you’re beautiful!
Anyway, Only in Marin, as they say…
“S.F. Zoo gets Martha the tiger to replace Tiger Shot after attacked by 3 Men Christmas 3 years ago”
Uh, en realidad, we don’t actually know that “3 Men” “attacked” that tiger, do we? Hey, what about the minor who died? He was less than 18, right? Oh, and you’re saying he attacked the tiger along with brothers Dhaliwal, you know that for a fact that all three of them did that, huh? You and the zoo have videotape you’ve been sitting on all these years, maybe…
Is this kind of thing what pays your mortgage, Sam?
A post-Tatiana big cat enclosure at the, frankly, poorly-run, San Francisco Zoo:
And the shrine that got set up at the entrance of the zoo, back in the day:
And here’s some reaction from the media.
And here’s the defense from, more or less, the sainted BBC.
So Tesla, let’s agree that that Top Gear TV show has, at the very least, a flair for the dramatic, a bit of cheesiness built into its DNA. So, why then, did you give them cars to test?
Here are the first two grafs from Tesla’s corporate do-boy:
“Tesla Roadsters in over thirty countries have driven more than ten million real-world miles. [SO WHAT, WHO CARES?] That’s 500,000 gallons of fuel that didn’t burn [HEY TESLA, HOW MUCH JET FUEL DID YOU BUY FOR YOUR CEO OVER THE YEARS? 10,000 GALLONS? 100,000 GALLONS? JUST ASKING, BRO] and over 5.3 million pounds of averted carbon dioxide emissions. [WHY NOT JUST NOT DRIVE INSTEAD, TESLA? AND HOW MANY GALLONS WERE BURNED TO MAKE THE ELECTRICITY TO POWER THE CARS?] The credit goes to approximately 1,500 Roadster owners around the world who drive their electric vehicles in all conditions; [THEY'RE LIKE HEROES, OR SOMETHING, RIGHT?] they’re an enthusiastic group who often talk and blog about their experiences. ["HERE'S A SNAPSHOT OF MY BRAND-NEW SIX-FIGURE TOY" - IT'S JUST LIKE, "LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT MY GRANDCHILDREN."]
“Tesla is committed to building the best cars in the world. [HAHAHAHAHAHA! AFTER EIGHT LONG YEARS, YOU'RE "COMMITTED," HUH?] And in doing so, [IN DOING WHAT, ACTUALLY? THESE TWO SENTENCES DON'T BELONG TOGETHER - YOU DON'T THINK YOU'RE BUILDING THE BEST CARS IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW, OR DO YOU?] catalyzing change in a very traditional industry [OBJECTION, FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE] by convincing drivers that EVs can match and surpass automobiles run by combustion. [BUT YOUR EV'S ARE MOSTLY RUN BY COMBUSTION] That’s not an easy task. [O RLY? TELL US ABOUT THE MISMANAGED TWO-SPEED TRANSMISSION FIASCO, RICARDO, WHAT ABOUT THAT?] But the Roadster has changed a lot of minds. [THE ROADSTER IS A FAT LITTLE PIGGY WHAT COSTS WAAAAAAY TOO MUCH MONEY. TESLA MOTORS IS A FAT LITTLE PIGGY WHAT SUCKS ON GOVERNMENT TEAT WAAAAAY TOO MUCH]“
Anyway, check the video, below, if you want.
Why yes, I’m extreeeeeeemely comfortable in this very small, very heavy, very expensive rolling toy. Why do you ask?
And leave us not forget: All hail the Mighty Tesla Driver: “Look at me! Look at me! Ooops.” That was on Geary in the Western A, I believe.
The video you’re not supposed to see. I’d never seen it before, personally. It makes the Tesla Roadster look like the overweight, overpriced, electrified POS that it is.
And here’s part of the defense from the BBC’s cheesy Top Gear show.
1. We never said that the Tesla’s true range is only 55 miles, as opposed to their own claim of 211, or that it had actually ran out of charge. In the film our actual words were: “We calculated that on our track it would run out after 55 miles”. The first point here is that the track is where we do our tests of sports cars and supercars, as has happened ever since Top Gear existed. This is where cars are driven fast and hard, and since Tesla calls its roadster “The Supercar. Redefined.” it seemed pretty logical to us that the right test was a track test. The second point is that the figure of 55 miles came not from our heads, but from Tesla’s boffins in California. They looked at the data from that car and calculated that, driven hard on our track, it would have a range of 55 miles.
2. We never said that the Tesla was completely immobilized as a result of the motor overheating. We said the car had “reduced power”. This was true.
3. Tesla claims we were lying when we said the brakes were “broken”. They now say that all that had happened was that the fuse to the vacuum pump had failed, which meant that the brake just had to be pushed down much harder than usual. Well – to my mind, if the brakes are broken, then they’re broken, and if this happened to your car, you’d take it to the garage to get it fixed. Odd it seems so trivial to Tesla now, because on the day of filming they insisted on repairing the fuse before we could carry on driving the car.
The above points will be argued over in the near future by brainy people wearing wigs, but in a layman’s nutshell, this is where we stand on the matter. Before I finish though, I must clear up one important issue: scripting. It’s alleged by Tesla that on the day of filming one of their employees caught sight of a script that had been written, before the car had even been driven, already containing the verdict that in the “real world” the Tesla doesn’t work. This, they say, proves our guilt, because we’d condemned the car in advance. May I just say in reply:
a) The truth is, Top Gear had already driven the car prior to filming, to enable us to form a view on it in advance
b) Our primary reasoning behind the verdict had nothing to do with how the Tesla performed; our conclusion was based mainly on the fact that it costs three times more than the petrol sports car upon which it’s based. It takes a long time to recharge, so you can’t use it as easily for the carefree motoring journeys that are a prerequisite of sports car driving. You can actually reach that conclusion without driving the car. As it happens, when it did come to the subjective area of how the car drove on the track, we were full of praise for its performance and handling.
c) Just so you understand there’s nothing devious going on, you need to know how this filming business works. When you film a car review, the reviewer is only the tip of the iceberg. Behind the lens is a film crew, and only a day’s worth of light to shoot the eight minute film. This means we have to prepare in advance a treatment – a rough draft of a script so that the director and film crew can get to work right away, knowing what shots they will need to capture. It will contain the facts about a car, and what we think of its looks and so on, but how well the car actually drives is added on the day. If we’ve driven it ahead of filming, as we do with most cars, we will also have an idea how it feels to drive. But, and this is crucial, as we uncover fresh information about a car whilst filming it, it is entirely normal for the treatment to be modified as the day unfolds. Jeremy is always tweaking the scripts to reflect what his driving experience has actually been on the day.
There you go. I’ve said my bit, and now we’ll hopefully shut up and prepare for our day in court.
PS: As this is going through the courts right now, we’re afraid we’ve had to turn off comments on this one, but we wanted to let you all know how we see it.
Andy Wilman is the Executive Producer of Top Gear”