It’s OK to be nekid…

Yeah, you heard that right. It is apparently OK to be unclothed; especially if you are in your own home, and it is it prior to 7:00 A.M. and, well, your house is well set back on your property. We know, we know, as silly (and obvious) as this all sounds, there was recently a man sued over this very matter.

No, really!

Fairfax Naked Guy — Not Guilty

A Fairfax County Circuit Court jury took less than 20 minutes Wednesday to find Erick Williamson, “The Naked Guy,” not guilty of indecent exposure, for standing nude inside his Springfield house last fall.

“It’s a weight off my shoulders,” Williamson said of the verdict, which was an appeal of his misdemeanor conviction by a judge in Fairfax General District Court. “I think it sets the record straight. It was an innocent action.”

Apparently there was like a whole thing about this.

The appeal trial for The Naked Guy, Erick Williamson, got underway in Fairfax County Circuit Court on Wednesday, after Williamson appealed his conviction for indecent exposure while inside his Springfield house last fall.

Though Fairfax prosecutors limited their case strictly to the two women who say they saw Williamson, 29, standing naked at the door to his carport on Oct. 19, one new detail did emerge today: Yvette Dean, who testified she was walking her 7-year-old son to school that fateful morning, said that when she spotted Williamson posing in the doorway, “I flipped him off.”

Apparently is was the not only that the woman was (apparently) too far away to “look him in the eye”, but, according to the defense attorney:

If a woman is “walking along and sees someone naked,” Young told the jury in his closing argument, “the last thing they’re going to be looking at is his eyes.”

Yeah, we thought that part was funny too.

The Perfessor

When in doubt…sue!

I know that by now you are all familiar with the national sport of the U.S., suing the crap out of everyone. Lindsey Lohan tried it recently, and since this is something of a “fake” lawsuit (OK, it is a real lawsuit, but no one other than Lindsey is taking it seriously). Want to know how I know this? I just read the following on Legal Blog Watch.com.

Welcome back to Judge Carton Rules, where a fake judge issues rulings to spare the parties to cases in which the outcome is obvious the time and expense of further litigation. Here is today’s docket:

Case 1: In the awesome commercial below, the toddler girlfriend of the E-Trade baby demands to know if “that milk-o-holic Lindsay was over” at her boyfriend’s house. Lindsay “You’re So Vain, You Probably Think This Commercial Is About You” Lohan says that she “has the same single-name recognition as Oprah or Madonna,” and as such, the ad has misappropriated her “name and characterization.” She’s asking for $100 million.

Judge Carton’s ruling: Bwaaaah haaahaaaaahaaaaaa hahhaaaaa!! Wow. Good to laugh like that once in a while. Now get out of my fake courtroom, “Lindsay,” and do not return. E-Trade’s future Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

(In case you missed the vid, we posted it here)

The Perfessor

Everyone wants a piece of the pie

Having successfully beaten back one copyright infringement lawsuit against them, J.K. Rowling, and Bloomsbury Publishing (which printed Harry Potter books), were named this past June as defendants in new lawsuit regarding the property.

Well, It seems that the estate of Adrian Jacobs just figured out that they were ripped off (13 years later).

The estate of the deceased author of a children’s book has accused the author of the stunningly successful Harry Potter books of plagiarizing concepts and themes from Adrian Jacobs’ The Adventures of Willy the Wizard: No 1 Livid Land, which was published in 1987.

You seriously have to wonder about people who want a piece of your pie, long after your pie has been served to millions of people (we are reminded of the fellow who waited until after Seinfeld went off the air to sue NBC over the fact that he felt George Costanza was based on him).

Still, now that I think about it, there are elements of the book that are similar to a dream I once had…(now where is my lawyer’s number?).

The Perfessor

Rules of the Snow

Has this ever happened to you (have you ever done this to someone else)?

There is a terrific snowstorm (a “Snowmageddon” if you will) and you spend an hour or so digging your car out of the snowbank into which it was plowed. Do you “own” that spot? well that was the very question asked by some lawyers.

“If you dig your car out from its frozen tomb, do you then own that parking spot until the sun melts open the rest of the curbside space?”

This is the very question asked this past week when our nation’s capital became a Snowtropolis:

In the D.C.-area where I’m located, everything — politics; the suckitude of the Redskins, Wizards and Nationals; you name it — has taken a back seat to the record three feet of snow that the Snowpocalypse of 2010 has inflicted upon our city this week. As such, an article on Tuesday in The Washington Post did a great job of highlighting perhaps the most contentious issue of the week:

Quite a few years ago, the guy who owned my house before me (Sal) had such an incident happen to him. He dug out a spot from the end his driveway, backed out his car and left. When he came back, he discovered that a neighbor had pulled into his spot (right in the driveway), to take his spot. When asked the guy to leave,th guy refused, so Sal simply parked behind the fellow, effectively trapping him in the snow. When the other fellow asked that Sal move his car, Sal refused. forcing the guy to dig his way out in a path that went across Sal’s yard.

Personally I think it was a great solution.

The Perfessor

To Infinity and Beyond!

outerspcae_No, really we mean it…

I know that Walt and others who follow this blog are addicted to crappy TV American-Idol-type vote-and-release “variety” shows, well, I came across this blog posting on The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog page, and I thought that it was not only interesting, but fairly ridiculous as well. According to the post, NBC’s America’s Got Talent TV show has very specific wording in the release papers the contestants are asked to sign. The contract reads, that their performance could be “edited, in all media, throughout the universe, in perpetuity.”

Like I and the WSJ you may rightly ask, “Throughout the universe?” Is that really necessary?

Apparently, the lawyers think so (Hey we call our beauty pageants Miss Universe, so why shouldn’t se sign contracts that ripple throughout all media everywhere in the known (and probably) unknown universe. I just can’t wait until someone discovers the multiverse, and copyrights stuff in not only alternate dimensions, but backwards into the past as well — what? you are going to allow for FTL travel, alternate worlds and leave out time travlel? Not very imaginative are you?)

Well according to the article:

Entertainment outlets seem to think so. Searcey writes experts in contract drafting (lucky souls that they are) say lawyers are trying to ensure that with the proliferation of new outlets — including mobile-phone screens, Twitter, online video sites and the like — they cover all possible venues from which their clients can derive income, even those in outer space. (FremantleMedia, one of the producers of NBC’s “America’s Got Talent,” declined to comment on its contracts.)

Searcey writes that the space and time continuum has extended to other realms outside the arts, including pickles. A 189-word sentence in a September agreement between Denver-based Spicy Pickle Franchising Inc. and investment bank Midtown Partners & Co. — which has helped raise capital for the sandwich and pickle shops dotted across the region — unconditionally releases Spicy Pickle from all claims “from the beginning of time” until the date of the agreement. “We’re trying to figure out how to cover every possible base as quickly as possible,” says Marc Geman, chief executive officer of Spicy Pickle. “When you start at the beginning of time, that is pretty clear.”

Needless to say, there are still some legal experts who rail against such silliness in contract language as being both imprecise and unnecessary.

Ken Adams, a Garden City, N.Y., attorney and lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who advocates for clarity in contract language, says references to outer space and the end time are silly.

To me it sounds like a 10-year-old calling “Dibs for all times” on the recliner chair, and expect it to hold.

But then, I drink a lot.

The Perfessor