Well if the world ends tomorrow, 12-21-2012, the joke’s on me.
But otherwise…
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.
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.
Oh well.
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.
Oh well.
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.
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.”
“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.
The hard-core NIMBYs at San Francisco Beautiful (our Comcast monopoly’s L’il Buddy) ended up going two for two yesterday in their crusade ensure that dial-up internet service is the best that some San Franciscans can get. That is, they won a stay from Superior Court Judge Harold Khan temporarily blocking the installation of AT&T sidewalk boxes and they’ll have no requirement to post a bond to keep their stay.
This is, of course, despite the fact that the Board of Supervisors recently approved the installation.
“Residents across the City, as well as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, have voiced support for competition and choice when it comes to TV, high speed internet and digital phone service.
Despite today’s decision to issue a temporary stay, AT&T believes it ultimately will prevail in the litigation and it remains committed to bringing San Francisco a next generation IP network.”
Which, you know, sounds good to me, but I’m not a NIMBY.
So, when you see these existing boxes, which Judge Khan has no control over, what’s your reaction? Do you say, well there’s graffiti on a telephone box or an electricity box or a mail box so we shouldn’t have telephones and we shouldn’t have electricity and we shouldn’t have mail service? I don’t know.
Click to expand
Let’s hear from the NIMBY side of things after the jump, but I warn you, it’s barely legible.
The 10 passenger limo I ordered did NOT arrive. Instead, they sent us a VAN! The morning of my wedding. Not what I ordered.
I contacted the company when I returned from my honeymoon–note: they NEVER contacted me to explain the situation nor to apologize–and they said:
“I have checked with our operations department as to what happened this day and it appears there had been a mechanical issue with a regular stretch limo so they made the last minute decision to upgrade the vehicle to a limousine van. This was our next best option at the moment. I sincerely apologize that a regular stretch did not appear, but this was viewed as a free upgrade to the original vehicle reserved.”
Horrendous company, terrible service, awful fleet of cars if they have seemingly frequent “mechanical issues.” Do yourself a favor and STAY AWAY FROM BAUER’S unless you want to get ripped off and disappointed! Especially on your wedding day….
Can you believe that? Now, if I were running a crappy limo / transportation / “intelligent” transportation company, I’d feel bad about my fail whale exploding all over a wedding and I’d apologize and then I’d give a full refund, but that’s just me.
Now, speaking of crappy, how about them Bauer limousine van / bus / whatever drivers on the 101?
Speeding? Sure, we’ve got to get you to the church (or wherever) on time! But signaling? Not so much. You see, there’s no money in signaling:
Click to expand
Rosie says that the Bauer people didn’t respond to her until after she filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court, Small Claims Division. Oh well.
Now, judges might be sympathetic to plaintiffs in a situation like this, but you never know how they’d rule. Sometimes what’s in the contract is what matters and sometimes not so much. Oh well.
But I believe the gist of Rosie’s story – I don’t think that she’s committing Yelp fraud, I don’t think that she owns a rival cheesy “intelligent” transportation company or that she’s sponsored by one.
Herrera Wins Court Order Closing Violence-Plagued ‘Pink Diamonds’ Club
Site of June slaying to be shuttered for one year, with operators ordered to pay $688,500 in civil penalties plus costs
A San Francisco Superior Court this morning ordered the year-long closure of the Pink Diamonds nightclub, where a defiant pattern of lawlessness in the months following a stipulated injunction from earlier this year culminated in a brutal slaying on June 27, 2009. The order by Judge Peter J. Busch comes in response to City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s motion last month to shutter the notorious adult entertainment venue at 220 Jones Street, which required more than 230 service calls by the San Francisco Police Department in the previous six months alone, according to the City’s petition.
Illegality detailed from Herrera’s investigation and in accompanying police declarations included illicit drug sales, prostitution, extended hours permit violations, illegal alcohol consumption, noise nuisance violations, and repeated episodes of violence and disturbances of the peace in the surrounding neighborhood, which includes nearby senior housing.
