No Good Can Come of This.

In other news, the Miami Breakfast Attorneys' Club has met again (apparently in an art gallery of some kind) and the video evidence is here:

Ruden Files for Bankruptcy; "Assets" Absorbed into Greenspoon Marder.

Julie Kay has it here.

Good Pesach, the Sequel.

Because the Haggadah is such a facacta crazy document, we get to read it all over again tonight.

(BTW, I've said it before, but the recently restored Arthur Szyk-illustrated Haggadah is a work of shining brilliance and beats the hail out of the Maxwell House edition my family has been using for decades.)

Enjoy the suffering!

Stuart Slotnick Wraps Up Another One.

A commenter points us once again to Buchanan Ingersoll litigator Stuart Slotnick.

You may recall Stuart planned to make Woody's relationship with Soon-Yi the focus of his client American Apparel's defense of Woody's $10 million privacy infringement claim.

When the judge properly excluded that proposed testimony, Stuart suddenly wrapped his client around the First Amendment, which actually would have been an interesting issue to see litigated.

(I don't see the satiric element myself, but it still is a more credible defense than threatening to drag Woody's name through the mud).

But alas, Stuart's client gave up and settled for $5 million:

Standing with his lawyers outside a Manhattan federal court on Monday, Mr. Allen said, “I am told the settlement of five million dollars I am being paid is the largest reported amount ever paid under the New York right to privacy law,” according to Reuters.

Always good to be involved in a record-breaking case, I always say.

Stuart Slotnick, My Hero.

Remember when Buchanan Ingersoll had an Aventura and Miami office? You know, back when there were solvent banks and real estate clients and that kind of thing.

Hey, what do you know? I guess technically they still do.

Hi Jack Kessler and Richard Morgan!

Listen Jack and Richard, I want you to talk to your New York partner Stuart Slotnick. This guy is one goyishe kup.

I guess Slotnick's client American Apparel used images of Woody Allen on billboards as part of a marketing campaign. Allen does no advertising of any kind in the United States and did not authorize the advertisements.

So Woody sued and Slotnick began to act just like the kind of lawyer his photograph suggests he may actually be:

The new court papers said American Apparel has "adopted a `scorched earth' approach," issuing broad document requests and subpoenas to many people close to him, including his sister.

Allen's lawyers said the company was seeking to "tarnish Mr. Allen's reputation a second time" and called it a "despicable effort to intimate" him.

Now I guess Slotnick's argument is the value of Woody's image has been diminished as a result of his sex scandal a decade or so ago.

I think there is some legitimacy to that argument.

But what to make of this:

"American Apparel lawyer Stuart Slotnick said the company plans to make Allen's relationships to actress Mia Farrow and her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, whom Allen married, the focus of a trial scheduled to begin in federal court in Manhattan on May 18.

'Woody Allen expects $10 million for use of his image on billboards that were up and down in less than one week,' Slotnick said. 'I think Woody Allen overestimates the value of his image.'"

Stuart, the focus of the trial? Its focus?

I can't imagine any fair use or public domain-type arguments that would have permitted Slotnick's client to use that image from Annie Hall as part of an advertising campaign. So liability seems pretty clear to me.

But wouldn't a more accurate measure of Woody's endorsement value be the amount he charges for similar ads in Europe or Japan?

Oh well.

The heart wants what the heart wants, right Stu?