If my dog was as stupid as that woman I would shoot it to put it out of it's misery. I cannot believe she actually has a doctorate in anything.
I looked at the source code for her sites, and I have NEVER seen anything so horrible. For some fun, try the w3c validator on them :)
I really hope the judge and/or jury finds for Google *and* charges her and her lawyer (who cannot be all that bright either to bring such a lawsuit..) some kind of huge court costs.
I also checked Google image search for the source of some of the pictures on the site, and quite a few appear to be copyrighted, that she apparently just took to use on her site.
I might also suggest that she try to make the 2006 list on the Darwin Awards website, there is still time....
[edited by: Wlauzon at 9:29 pm (utc) on Sep. 1, 2006]
Now, people. Hold on to your horses. That $250,000 do not go all to her. Big part of it maybe goes to Lawyer too. Can we apply bad publicity is good publicity? Really, her website is talk of the town, city, or world.
|Can we apply bad publicity is good publicity? Really, her website is talk of the town, city, or world. |
She is in fact the laughing stock of the internet and nothing good could come from that unless it's a career in stand up comedy.
Here's how I envision the night at the Improv:
|"Did you all read I sued Google last week? |
They should've known there would be trouble from the start when I signed the contract using a mascara pencil!"
[edited by: incrediBILL at 11:02 pm (utc) on Sep. 1, 2006]
Speaking of images: could this be the same person sueing another website for changing the names of images she/he was hotlinking? Claimed all that time and money was lost and that she/he was trying to build a business.
It would be an odd coincidence to hear about two people this stupid in the space of a week or two. LOL :)
I'm not surprised by these sorts of situations.
I once had a go at some idiot for stealing and modifiying images on my site and he had the gall to abuse me. I can just imagine the possiblities when real money is at stake.
[edited by: Scurramunga at 11:47 pm (utc) on Sep. 1, 2006]
You all keep talking about "her lawyer". What you probably don't realize is that the JD after her name stands for Juris Doctorate, the degree that you get from law school. I'm guessing that she is representing herself.
She also filed the case In Forma Pauperis. I was under the impression that those were almost always pro se cases.
|You all keep talking about "her lawyer". What you probably don't realize is that the JD after her name stands for Juris Doctorate, the degree that you get from law school. I'm guessing that she is representing herself. |
Since the people are talking about her idiot lawyer, I think they understand she's probably representing herself.
Never underestimate the U.S legal system...
A surfer recently sued another surfer for "taking his wave." The case was ultimately dismissed because they were unable to put a price on "pain and suffering" endured by watching someone ride the wave that was "intended for you." (Source: CALA)
A college student in Idaho decided to "moon" someone from his 4th story dorm room window. He lost his balance, fell out of his window, and injured himself in the fall. Now the student expects the University to take the fall; he is suing them for "not warning him of the dangers of living on the 4th floor". (Source: CALA)
A woman driving a car collided with a man who was riding a snowmobile. The man died at the scene. Since his snowmobile had suddenly cut in front of her, police said she was free of blame. She sued the man's widow for the psychological injuries she suffered from watching the man die. (Source: CALA)
[edited by: martinibuster at 1:55 am (utc) on Sep. 2, 2006]
[edit reason] Removed URL. See TOS [webmasterworld.com] [/edit] [/edit][/1]
A few years ago, a 'first jump' parachutist land on a helicpoter's spinning blades. The helicopter owner sued her estate for damage to the helicopter.
It is rarely malicious, not even callous; it's all about insurance.
In many accident cases, especially the weird ones where there is no precedent, the insurance company(s) argue, and will not pay up until a court decides liability.
So someone who is fully insured has to take the bereaved to court, as the ONLY way to get the payout they insured for.
You sort of wonder if it's possible to counter-sue for distress brought upon by frivolous lawsuit. Especially in some cases where bereaved people have been dragged through the courts when the question could have been settled by common sense. If the insurance company has filed a lawsuit in order to escape paying out, when the average Joe in the street would think they should, then maybe the person sued could sue 'em back for the distress caused. As usual the only people to gain are lawyers though.
BTW, the woman is clearly off her trolley and should be sued for being a stupid, publicity seeking trollop. Or is that one not possible ;)
|wonder if it's possible to counter-sue for distress brought upon by frivolous lawsuit |
Loosing such a counter sue will put the American legal in an infinite loop for the alleged victim could then counter-counter-sue, funny times we're living indeed :-)
Sorry for the sidetrack but my jaw dropped when I read this one.
|A few years ago, a 'first jump' parachutist land on a helicpoter's spinning blades. The helicopter owner sued her estate for damage to the helicopter. |
What in the world was up with:
- The jumpmaster letting a cherry jump above a chopper
- was it a marked drop zone?
If not, the jumpmaster is double dumb and twice neglegent.
if it was designated, what was the chopper doing flying around a drop zone below jump height
Sounds to me like everyone except the poor jumper screwed up.
old_expat .. old_jumper
If I was a Halliburton exec .. or an exec of any of her client firms, I would make sure she got dropped like a hot tater.
Imaging their competitors snickering around the country clubs about the antics of the "consultant".
After seeing the name Halliburton, I took deep breath and told myself that it's good thing how the mods here don't allow topics to stray off target.
This one is gonna probably rank up here with the best frivolous lawsuits as reported on by The Stella Awards.
Our "legal system" in it's FULL glory.
Rick Wilson aka CorpRebel
Didn't she know you can right click an ad and copy the link and then see the landing page url. Some consultant!
Rarly she will win
She may have a point because without adsense, people would not observe her stupidity that destroys her credibility.
Overlawyered is, at its core, an industry-funded anti-personal injury litigation site, so it's a good source for one half of the story.
1/2? Maybe 1/10. The case is inherently wrong. I'm still laughing about the second half of the spoonerism.
Re Spoonerisms: Kenny Everett's wannabe-starlet character "Cupid Stunt" (she of "and suddenly ALL my clothes fell off") might approve of the spoonerism but not the consultant...
But it was all done in the best POSSIBLE taste!
Gosh - that takes me back...............
not sure if this has been mentioned but you should all read the thread over at geekvillage on this. The final post about this person's other lawsuits make some real funny reading
Ok, according to something I read this morning, she apparently now has amended her suit to claim that Google deleted all the related email correspondence, including the "contract" from her Gmail account. This article also claims she has a suit pending against Yahoo for deleting her Geocities site, and a few other non-related lawsuits.
The wheel might still be spinning, but I fear the hamster is dead.
EWeek Article [oraclewatch.eweek.com]
If I had known geekvillage was an OK url to post I would have done that myself :}
Anyway it is the post by sashman that I was referring to.
She is a regular frivolous suit filer!
I think she should be jailed for contempt of the legal system every time she attempts to file one. 2 months per suit would soon stop the harassing behavior.
There is a notion in English Law of "vexatious litigant" and it's quite possible that it is an old enough concept to have gotten into the law of many US states before our legal systems "forked"...
Yup, "vexatious litigant" is there. Most courts don't like to use it, and in this case she is fairly safe because she files them in different courts. It tends to be used the most when a judge sees your face or name far too often.
I think that the guy who trademarked "stealth" was hit with being a vexatious litigant.
Well maybe someone could do the legal system a favour, gather together some of her previous form (eg, "corrupt and incompetent Supreme Court of Florida") and file it where a judge taking up her case will see it.
Some kind of "anti-amicus" or "friend of the courts but not this litigant" filing. IANAL!
[edited by: DamonHD at 4:31 pm (utc) on Sep. 7, 2006]
| This 119 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 119 ( 1 2 3  ) |