“We now know that there are at least hundreds, if not thousands, of Costco members who think they bought a Tiffany engagement ring at Costco, which they didn’t. Costco knew what it was doing when it used the Tiffany trademark to sell rings that had nothing to do with Tiffany. This is not the kind of behavior people expect from a company like Costco and this case will shed a much-needed light on this outrageous behavior,” says Jeffrey Mitchell, a lawyer with Dickstein Shapiro who is representing Tiffany in the case. “The Tiffany brand has been damaged, Costco members have been damaged and Costco has profited from the sale of engagement rings by misrepresenting what they were. We will get to the bottom of what Costco was up to and why, and right a terrible wrong.”
I cry foul.
You see, Tiffany, the phrase Tiffany mount and similar, well, that’s a genericized term these days, you know, like champagne.
Oh, and Tiffany, Costco marks up the price of its worthless rocks a lot less than you do, right? That’s why Costco will take back any diamonds people bought if they were stupid enough to be confused over this issue.
It’s not like they were selling the rings in little blue boxes, right?
1. Your name is Ivory Madison for real? Oh. Really? How theatrical.
2. I think you mean former friend, right?
3. [Sanctimonious line reading but otherwise within the bounds of reality.]
4. I think I’m going to call bullshit on this one. That’s just your opinion, IM.
5. So you “contacted the police on her behalf” but without her permission? And in a maladroit fashion to boot, one might add. Like using your personal iPhone to do so, “anonymously.” You’re not that sharp, are you, IM?
6. [Sanctimonious line reading but otherwise within the bounds of reality.]
7. All right, I’ll bite. How does suspending Ross Mirkarimi protect victims of DV?
8. Uh Madison, I don’t think you can declare victory before a process ends, right? And it turns out that Christina Olague’s vote didn’t matter nohow. You understand that, right?
9. You didn’t want to get involved? Are you fucking serious – who’s going to believe that, Huntress?
10. Voters need to know what Olague did? Don’t they know already? Mmmm…
11. Is Ross Mirkarimi a “convicted batterer” like in real life? What does the word “batterer” mean? What does the word “batter” mean? Oh, what’s that, you didn’t actually have a chance to learn that in colledge because you thought a high school diploma would suffice when applying to Stanford Law? That might have worked for Daredevil Matt Murdock in the comix but I don’t think that kind of thing works IRL.
12. Um, I think Ross Mirkarimi is your Sheriff because your neighbors voted for him, like overwhelmingly, right? Didn’t you host a fundraiser for him?
13. Does Christina Olague really think “it’s OK to abuse your wife?” Any support at all for this, you know, outside of this particular vendetta? Wow.
Hey Ivory. You talk about law school so much, why not just sign up for the state bar exam and study for it? You could pass if you applied yourself.
The SFPD requests (more or less) that you transfer your alcohol to unmarked containers, thusly:
And, oh yes, speaking of the Rec and Park, Remember to Vote No on Proposition B (November 2012), the so-called “Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond”
Also because area lawyer Philip Alan Ginsburg would consider passage of Prop B (November 2012) an endorsement of how he’s running the RPD.
That’s why.
Now, let’s hear from San Francisco Mayor Ron Conway,* after the jump. (Spoiler: He wants you to go to Chipotle’s and spend your money before you blow town.)
PS: The after party will be in the Mission District – spread the word, bring fireworks.
*Poor Sony. It appears that any television-like contraption bigger than 100 inches now gets the generic term “jumbotron.”
The headline says it all, but here’s the entire release:
“SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT PTA LEADERSHIP AGAIN URGES STATE PTA TO MAKE A DUAL ENDORSEMENT ON PROPS 30 AND 38
San Francisco — The Second District (San Francisco) PTA leadership recommended in July a dual endorsement of state ballot measures, Propositions 30 and 38, to the California State PTA after hearing from PTA members across the City that funding education was a high priority. At that time, the State PTA held its “Yes” on Prop 38 and voted to approve a “Neutral” position on Prop 30.
In light of recent public polling and campaign dynamics with both initiatives, and again with the encouragement of its members, the District PTA leadership is re-recommending the State PTA take a “Yes” position on Prop 30 to add to its current “Yes” on Prop 38 at the State PTA Board of Managers Meeting October 27.
It is critical that education be funded at a higher level, or at the minimum, maintain current funding in order for all of California’s children to be prepared to be successful in college, career and life. Either Prop 30 or Prop 38 must pass for this to happen. The District PTA also strongly encourages both campaigns to refrain from negative messaging about the other to increase the possibility that at least one measure will receive the required 50% + 1 votes.
Prop 30 would prevent further cuts to K-12 public schools and higher education funding through an increase of around $6 billion per year for 7 years to the state’s general fund budget. Prop 38 would increase funding to K-12 schools, early education and school bond debt payments by $10-11 billion per year for 12 years. Prop 38’s increase in funding would greatly mitigate the result of state education budget cuts of over $20 billion statewide and the laying off of over 40,000 educators over the last three years alone.
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. Forone million dollarsto 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.
Comments:
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?”
KTHXBYE.
*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.”
IMO, back then and now, lawyer Vince Courtney got outfoxed* by a layperson.**
But You Make The Call:
I don’t know, if I were a certain attorney, I’d let sleeping dogs lie.
But that’s just me…
*I can explain to you how “street mediation” works, you know, when conducted by peace officers in this kind of situation. Could this lawyer have been arrested? I don’t know. But he seemed afraid of something.
**I mean, he just pushed and pushed until he got the most he could possibly get, and he got it all recorded, and then posted it for tout le monde to see. That’s called advocacy.
Actually, our State Bar should have a DC-3 on standby so that its disaster team could more quickly parachute into places like Richmond CA, you know, just like D-Day, you know, When Disaster Strikes.
Actually, our State Bar wants people like attorney Nick Haney to call the whaaaaaaaaambulance, to complain about how the State Bar street team is just like the Waffen-SS. It sends a message to all the others.
Keep on keeping on, State Bar Disaster Team!
PS: Oh BTW, exactly zero people were hospitalized due to the latest Chevron refinery fire / explosion / incident. So the chances of any one person garnering “hundreds of thousands of dollars” from watching soot zoom up thousands of feet into the troposphere are, similarly, exactly zero.
