After all the time we spent down at Muswellbrook I was hoping everything we did was worth a second look Do you take me for a fool or do you think that I don’t see The executions that they’re planning to broadcast on MTV
In defense of Katy I can only say That this kind of things expected out here in the world today That’s why everyone is talking ‘bout how time are getting hard And that perpetual renovation down on Biscayne Boulevard You can certainly accuse her of a raging heart on fire But let me tell you something son, the girl just ain't no liar
Katy tried, she even testified But imagine her surprise when she saw you
It doesn’t take a major dude To give a second chance Though you’ll pay for it eternally You’ve got to take that dance
Let me just say something about that Dr. Wu I tripped on the prescriptions that he gave me for the flu So now can you believe that all his jive just isn’t true Every word that Katy said was written just for you You can certainly accuse her of a raging heart on fire But let me tell you something son, the girl just ain't no liar
Is this not the most ridiculous suit you've ever read about -- this guy has been capturing University of Alabama football players in various states of triumph and exaltation, and for this he gets a Lanham Act and trademark suit:
Since 1979, Daniel A. Moore has painted famous football scenes involving the University of Alabama (the “University” or “Alabama”). The paintings feature realistic portrayals of the University’s uniforms, including helmets, jerseys, and crimson and white colors. Moore has reproduced his paintings as prints and calendars, as well as on mugs and other articles.
In 2002, the University told Moore that he would need permission to depict the University’s uniforms because they are trademarks. Moore contended that he did not need permission because the uniforms were being used to realistically portray historical events. The parties could not reach a resolution, and in March 2005, the University sued Moore in the Northern District of Alabama for breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair competition.
This serves the guy right for venerating 'Bama, I guess.
Attorney General Pam Bondi says it is too easy for felons to regain their civil rights in Florida and wants new restrictions, including a waiting period of up to five years before they can seek clemency.
“I don’t believe that any felon should have an automatic restoration of rights,” said Bondi, a former Tampa prosecutor elected in November. “I believe you should have to ask, and there should be an appropriate waiting period.” (ed. note -- right after the next election!)
Bondi’s proposal, set to be formally discussed at a March 9 Cabinet meeting, would reverse a major change that took place in April 2007 at the urging of former Gov. Charlie Crist, who said the civil rights restoration process in Florida was too cumbersome and cruel to many ex-offenders.
Crist’s changes streamlined the restoration process to allow tens of thousands of felons to regain their right to vote, sit on a jury and obtain various state licenses without having to undergo a lengthy review and hearing process.
See what happens when people vote (except released felons)?
While the poor people sleepin' With the shade on the light While the poor people sleepin' All the stars come out at night
I think Judge Carnes has really raised the level in terms of how to write clean, simple, narrative-driven appellate opinions.
His last few all bear the hallmarks of fine storytelling -- a powerful introduction, a strong hook, a sense of leaving the reader wanting more, and a matter-of-fact exposition that flows cohesively from beginning to end.
Ruth’s Hospitality Group, the parent company of Ruth’s Chris Steak House, is proud of its origins. The company boasts that forty-five years after its founder, Ruth Fertel, mortgaged her home to purchase her first restaurant, it has grown into a chain of more than 120 steakhouse restaurants in seven countries. Though it has become an international operation, the company insists that “our success continues to be driven by our adherence to Ruth’s core values.” Ruth Fertel 1 “understood the value of each and every employee’s contribution to her success,” and that is why the business continues to be a place “where respect, integrity and pride are a way of life.”2 Not only that but the company “continues to value the unique differences of each and every team member.”3 Or so it says.
The seven former employees of one Ruth’s Chris Steak House franchise who are the plaintiffs in this lawsuit not only beg to differ but also have pleaded to the contrary, at least insofar as the franchise where they worked is concerned. According to their allegations, that particular franchise had the core values of a criminal enterprise and provided anything but an atmosphere of respect, integrity, and pride for its employees. More specifically, they allege that the Ruth’s Chris Steak House in Birmingham, Alabama, knowingly provided illegal aliens with names and social security numbers of American citizens to use for illegal employment, unlawfully took employees’ tips, discriminated on the basis of race, and retaliated against employees who challenged those and other practices.
Those allegations are contained in an amended complaint that asserts claims based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Alabama common law. The district court dismissed four of the fifteen counts in the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and certified those rulings as partial final judgments under Rule 54(b). The plaintiffs have appealed those four rulings, and they have attempted to appeal a number of others that were not certified for interlocutory appeal. Our decision, like the complaint and the district court’s judgment, is a mixed bag. We end up reversing the district court’s judgment with respect to the RICO claim, affirming the judgment insofar as it includes the other claims that were certified to us under Rule 54(b), and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the attempted appeal of the rulings that were not certified to us.
The Judge also employs a continuing "meat" metaphor throughout the Court's RICO discussion that -- ok it's a bit odd -- but maybe that's why it worked for me.
Of course then Judge Carnes goes on to cite Iqbal and that kind of ruined it for us, but he definitely had us going there for a good while.
