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.
“Herrera secures $5 million settlement, tough consumer safeguards against BofA credit card subsidiary
Three-and-a-half-year-old case continues to win industry reforms nationwide to protect credit card holders in debt disputes
SAN FRANCISCO (August 22, 2011) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today announced a major settlement agreement with the credit card subsidiary of the nation’s largest bank, Bank of America, in his three-and-a-half-year-old litigation against a so-called “arbitration mill,” which banks engaged to virtually assure they prevail over their credit card holders in binding arbitration proceedings. Herrera’s suit sought injunctive relief and penalties. The settlement secures $5 million for City taxpayers, and imposes tough, enforceable protections for California’s credit card holders in their debt disputes with FIA Card Services.
Under the terms of Herrera’s settlement noticed with the San Francisco Superior Court today, FIA will make a one-time settlement payment in the amount of $5 million, and agree not to arbitrate consumer credit card collections in California for two years. The credit card subsidiary has also agreed to not use the National Arbitration Forum in arbitrations with its card holders for at least five years, and to refrain from enforcing unconfirmed arbitration awards obtained through NAF, which was among the nation’s most notoriously anti-consumer arbitrators when Herrera filed his litigation in March 2008. FIA is also prohibited from barring consumer class actions challenging FIA’s practices. Herrera won a preliminary injunction against FIA early in his litigation, in April 2008, to halt the company’s practice of disclosing Social Security numbers and other private information of its customers in publicly available court records in San Francisco.
“This is a very significant settlement — not just because of its blockbuster dollar amount, but because it’s another milestone in a case that has helped reform the credit card industry’s abusive practices,” said Herrera. “For most consumers in debt disputes, binding arbitration was a sham that never gave consumers a chance — and major banks knew it. Credit card holders were often also victimized by outrageous attorneys’ fees and costs, which were illegally tacked onto arbitration awards against them. I’m very proud of a public interest lawsuit that continues to send a powerful message to the financial industry, and that has caused even the nation’s largest financial institutions to reform their conduct.”
Herrera initially filed his litigation against FIA Card Services and the National Arbitration Forum in March 2008 for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The litigation would soon after feature prominently in a BusinessWeek cover story entitled “Banks vs. Consumers (Guess Who Wins),” in June 2008, which relied on key facts from San Francisco’s case, including statistics showing that consumers prevailed in just 30 cases out of more than 18,000 arbitrations brought by businesses that went to a hearing — less than two-tenths of one percent.
In July 2009, the National Arbitration Forum announced that it would cease handling consumer credit card arbitration matters after a state attorney general followed Herrera’s lead in filing a separate consumer protection case. A month later, Bank of America agreed to drop its longstanding requirement that consumers with credit card disputes enter into binding arbitration. That change by the nation’s largest bank freed millions of credit card consumers from binding arbitration requirements, enabling them to pursue civil actions in neutral courts. Herrera’s case remains in active litigation with NAF, which his office continues to pursue for financial penalties and other relief.
The City Attorney’s case is: People of the State of California v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc.; FIA Card Services et al., San Francisco Superior Court No. 473-569, filed March 24, 2008.”
You wouldn’t believe how long people have been working on getting a new sign up on the State Building at 350 McAllister in Civic Center. I mean, this is a months-long project. They come out, they put up a sample, they look at it, and then they go back inside.
Anyway, in addition to the State Seal and the golden letters spelling out “STATE OF CALIFORNIA,” the old courthouse will soon be getting a big plaque what says, “RONALD M. GEORGE STATE OFFICE COMPLEX.”
“As a Superior Court judge, George presided over the trial of Hillside StranglerAngelo Buono in 1981–1983. George was lauded for his extremely unusual decision to deny the motion by Los Angeles County District Attorney‘s office to dismiss all 10 counts of murder against Buono. However, his unusual decision was speculated to be a result of his earlier decision to separate crucial counts of rape and sodomy, which in themselves would serve as evidence against the defendant, from the murder charges. The prosecutors felt the evidence against Buono was so weak that it did not justify even an attempt to win at trial. Judges rarely second-guess the prosecutors’ judgment on such a matter (and George stated that he was “loath” to do so). However, George’s review of the evidence in the case caused him to feel so strongly that the prosecutors were in error that he did exactly that.”
See that? Dude wouldn’t let the prosecutor drop murder charges.
Now, what Arnold Schwarzenegger really wanted last year was to name the joint the “Ronald M. George Justice Center,” but that didn’t fly with the SEIU union, so the name we’re getting is a kind of compromise. (Arnold also wanted to sell this building to his buddies but that didn’t work out neither, of course.)
Anyway, All Hail Republicans!
More deets of Executive Order S-17-10 after the jump.
(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?
The Honorable Jerry Brown Governor of California State Capitol, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 32/cap and trade rule
Dear Governor Brown:
We, the undersigned California CEOs and business leaders, are dedicated to the successful implementation of the state’s landmark law, AB 32. Like you, we believe AB 32 is benefiting our economy and environment and is crucial to attracting additional clean technology investment to the state.
While Californians overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 23 last year and its attempt to indefinitely delay implementation of AB 32, key provisions of the law are now facing additional challenges that also threaten to delay implementation even further. While the cap and trade program is one of many AB 32 rules, we believe it is critical to the success of the overall program.
First, we reject the calls from some environmental organizations for a wholesale revision of the AB 32 cap and trade system. We take particular issue with these organizations calling for such revisions in the name of jobs and the economy. As business leaders who are responsible for creating the jobs that have become such a popular talking point, we can tell you that nothing will do more harm to the emerging California clean economy sector than continued regulatory uncertainty. By far, the biggest impediment to creating real jobs is delay. The implementation of AB 32 has proven to be a bright spot during this recession. It has attracted clean technology manufacturers, investors, businesses and jobs to the state. Undermining this market signal with indefinite delays will jeopardize this progress.
Second, a recent court decision based on a lawsuit filed by several organizations has effectively halted the cap and trade rule development. As a result of this lawsuit, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is unable to do any work related to the rulemaking. If the delay persists, we are increasingly concerned that the state will fail to meet its deadline for the rule to go into effect in 2012. Further, we believe efforts to derail California’s cap and trade rule will jeopardize the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) as California’s participation is crucial to the success of the WCI. A strong regional carbon market anchored by California is important to the business sector and it will increase the size of the market for California’s clean technology industry.
For businesses, uncertainty in the marketplace hurts investment, innovation and growth. Forcing businesses to remain in virtual regulatory limbo will only exacerbate the problem. In order to give businesses the confidence that California will lead the nation with the creation of a robust, economy-wide cap and trade system, it is vital the state resolves this issue as soon as possible. We look forward to working with you and your Administration on the implementation of AB 32 and strengthening California’s clean economy.
San Francisco’s method of handling feral cats might be affected by a recent ruling down in L.A., where Judge Thomas McKnew just suspended the entire county’s Trap-Neuter-Return program. So people can still bring in feral kitties for sterilization at various clinics but the county can’t subsidize or promote any such program now.
Do we have a similar TNR program in San Francisco? Oh yes. If you call the SPCA about a feral cat in your backyard, they’ll help you trap it, they’ll perform the operation and then they’ll release the kitty right back in your backyard.
In most cities, there is no care available for feral cats. But since 1993, The SF/SPCA has teamed up with feral cat caregivers to control, monitor, feed and provide veterinary care to feral cat populations — and even help adopt some into loving homes.
We provide spay/neuter procedures for San Francisco’s feral cats for free on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays — no appointment necessary.
Read the Adoption Pact between The SF/SPCA and ACC.
The new Leanne Roberts Center dramatically increases our capacity to care for and treat feral cats. See the tips below for how you can help.
How Our Feral Fix Program Works
We accept trapped cats Monday, Wednesday and Friday (excluding major holidays).
Drop off time is between 7:30 a.m. – 8:00 a.m.
Bring a trapped cat to the Leanne Roberts Center Feral Cat Department Entrance at 220 Florida Street. Be sure to cover the trap with a towel or sheet.
No need to park your car! We offer a curbside drop-off service. Simply pull up between 7:30 – 8 a.m., and a staff person will assist you.
You will be offered the option of purchasing a Feline Leukemia Test ($27.50) and/or a one-time treatment of Revolution ($8) or Advantage ($7) for fleas. If interested, please be prepared to pay by credit card or check.
Same-Day Feral Cat Pick-Up Information
Feral cats must be picked up the same day between 4:30 – 5:00 p.m.
We offer curbside pick-up at the Feral Cat Department Entrance, 220 Florida St.
Recovery Information
A recently altered feral cat must remain indoors for recovery for two to three days.
If the cat is semi-social, you can use a garage space or bathroom.
For cats that cannot be handled, plan on keeping the cat in the trap. Ask us for advice on cage cleaning and feeding during the recovery period.
If you want to rent a trap from The SF/SPCA, contact us at 415.522.3539.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is a feral cat?
A: An unsocialized “community cat” that cannot be safely handled and must be trapped to be transported.
Q: How young can a feral cat be to be spayed/neutered?
A: Feral kittens can be altered at 2 months of age and/or 2 pounds.
Q: What if I have found a feral mother cat and kittens?
A: If possible, trap the mother and kittens and provide in-home care and daily socialization of the kittens until they are eight weeks of age. At that time, the kittens can be surrendered to The SF/SPCA for adoption. The mother cat will be spayed at no charge and returned to you for release.”
