"In the lawsuit... Rana claimed he was drugged and made a sex slave by Hajdini, who also allegedly made racist claims about him and his wife."

"The most infamous line from the suit was Rana’s claim that Hajdini stripped off her top and said, 'I bet your little Asian, fish head wife doesn’t have these cannons.' JPMorgan and Hajdini have said from that jump that Rana’s allegations are entirely made up. Both defendants argue that Rana should be forced to either stay in state court — or that the suit be dismissed for good, and that he pay legal fees. Hajdini, who has filed a counterclaim alleging Rana defamed her, said her defamation allegation should be argued out before Rana is allowed to file in any new court."

From "The surprising reason JPMorgan lawyers don’t want Chirayu Rana to drop his bombshell ‘sex slave’ lawsuit" (NY Post).

How does that quote even exist? No one would say that, but no one making up a quote should make up something that no one would say. "Fishwife" is a standard expression, but "fish head wife" isn't. And I'll just stop there. It's so ludicrous that it's incomprehensible as a made up quote.

ADDED: "Fishwife" is a standard expression... it has a Wikipedia article:  "A fishwife, fish-fag or fishlass is a woman who sells fish. She is typically the wife of a fisherman, selling her husband's catch.... Some wives and daughters of fishermen were notoriously loud and foul-mouthed, as noted in the expression to swear like a fishwife, as they sold fish in the marketplace. Among the reasons for their outspokenness were that their wares were highly perishable and lost value if not sold quickly, and the similarity of their product to that of others selling the same thing, with volume of voice or colourful language drawing customer attention. Also, managing alone while their menfolk were away fishing for extended periods made them strong and self-sufficient...."

BUT: A reader emails: "In the Clint Eastwood Movie Gran Torino, there is a scene where he is invited to party by the girl he has befriended. The party is next door and everyone (except Eastwood) is Hmong. Eastwood makes a reference to them as 'Fish Heads.'"

Ah! Gran Torino! The most important movie in the history of this blog.

The quote is: "What?! What the hell are all you fish heads looking at?!" Here's the scene:

"For many years, these works have inspired audiences around the world by conveying values such as courage, friendship and perseverance."

"Because of this, many fans feel concerned when images from these works appear to be used in political or military contexts that may differ from the intentions of the original creators or rights holders. This petition seeks to convey the voices of fans who, precisely because Japanese manga and anime are so widely loved around the world, hope that their cultural value and context will be respected."

Says an online petition seeking an end to the use of anime in political satire, quoted in "Trump draws anger in Japan with ‘disrespectful’ cartoon fakes/Fans of anime have called for action against the US president, who posts AI-generated clips of himself as their comic-book heroes" (London Times).

I'll just express my opinion in blog tags: "free speech" and "lawsuits I hope will fail."

This made me think of the old Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates case. Wikipedia:

"A group of Miami residents sued President Donald Trump, Florida officials and trustees of Miami Dade College on Tuesday over Trump’s planned presidential library..."

"... claiming that the college’s decision to hand over a coveted parcel of land for the project constitutes an illegal benefit for the president. The litigants — who include a current Miami Dade College student — allege that the land transfer violates the Constitution’s domestic emoluments clause, which bars states from attempting to influence a president by giving him gifts. They argue that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and his handpicked board of trustees at the state-operated college were wrong to give a nearly three-acre parcel in downtown Miami to Trump’s library foundation last year in exchange for $10. The county’s property appraiser had said the land was worth more than $67 million...."

From "Trump’s plan to use his library as a hotel sparks lawsuit/Litigants allege Florida officials violated the Constitution’s bar on attempts to influence the president through gifts, by handing over a valuable parcel of land" (WaPo).

"What [James] Cameron did was not inspiration, it was extraction. He took the unique biometric facial features of a 14-year-old indigenous girl..."

"... ran them through an industrial production process, and generated billions of dollars in profit without ever once asking her permission."

Said the lawyer for Q’orianka Kilcher, quoted in "James Cameron stole my face, actress claims/Q’orianka Kilcher, who is of indigenous Peruvian descent, is suing the director, alleging that he and Disney violated her rights for the blockbuster franchise" (London Times).

Kilcher claimed that Cameron had told her at an event in 2010, one year after Avatar’s release: “I’ve admired your activism work in the Amazon.” She said he later gifted her a signed one-off sketch of the Avatar character with a handwritten note that read: “Your beauty was my early inspiration for Neytiri. Too bad you were shooting another movie. Next time.”

"Avatar" is the highest-grossing movie of all time, so you can see how Kilcher must feel that she's owed something or that Cameron will be persuaded to give her more than that sketch and the compliment. That "Too bad/Next time" must hurt her! And it must hurt him now to be accused of making a movie "that presented itself as sympathetic to indigenous struggles, all while silently exploiting a real indigenous youth behind the scenes."

The law in question is California’s right of publicity law. Here's the text.

I'm giving this my "lawsuits I hope will fail" tag, but I could be talked out of it. 

"Here’s a thought experiment: imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying."

"Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing? Of course not. Because infinite scroll is not inherently harmful. Autoplay is not inherently harmful. Algorithmic recommendations are not inherently harmful. These features only matter because of the content they deliver. The 'addictive design' does nothing without the underlying user-generated content that makes people want to keep scrolling.... If every editorial decision about how to present third-party content is now a 'design choice' subject to product liability, Section 230 protects effectively nothing...."

Writes Mike Masnick, in "Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For" (TechDirt).

I found that because David French links to it in "Don’t Cheer Too Hard for the Facebook Verdicts." French writes: "It’s quite possible that these verdicts will be overturned or heavily modified on appeal. But that process can take years. In the meantime, there will almost certainly be many more trials and many more verdicts that will put social media companies under pressure to increase their own censorship and their own controls over free speech online."

"I have this German mind, if something is too spicy, it should be warned — or at least labelled."

Said Faycal Manz, quoted in "A German tourist sued a restaurant because its sauce is too hot. So I tried it/A litigious visitor claimed the salsa at Los Tacos No. 1 in Times Square made his tongue burn. I wondered: How bad could it be?" (London Times).

“My tongue and mouth were burning immediately,” he claimed. “My Apple Watch registered at this time a higher pulse.”

His lawsuit, for $100,000, was dismissed.

According to the article, the salsa at Los Tacos No. 1 isn't even that spicy. 

Afroman tells his own story: "My proof's on the internet."

For a quick read, go here: "Afroman found not liable in bizarre defamation case brought by Ohio cops who raided his home" (NY Post): "The hip hop star wrote the satirical song 'Lemon Pound Cake' and made a music video with real footage of the raid taken from his home surveillance cameras to raise money for property damage caused during the search, he has said. Seven cops with the sheriff’s office then sued him in March 2023, alleging the music video defamed them, invaded their constitutional privacy, and was an intentional infliction of emotional distress...."

Here's penguinz0 with clips from the trial and mockery of the plaintiffs for their Streisand effect problem:

Here's Afroman's impressive testimony.

Here's "Lemon Pound Cake," one of the songs that led to the lawsuit, with the security camera footage of the cop's cake double-take:

"Brigitte Macron to submit photographs to court proving she is a woman."

The London Times reports.

“It is incredibly upsetting to think that you have to go and subject yourself, to put this type of proof forward,” the lawyer said. “It is a process that she will have to subject herself to in a very public way. But she’s willing to do it. She is firmly resolved to do what it takes to set the record straight,” he told the BBC. The court in Delaware would hear expert testimony that will be “scientific in nature.” Photographs would show Mrs Macron pregnant and with her three children, he added.

So... these are not nude pictures, just photographs in maternity clothing. Macron brought the lawsuit and is seeking damages, so she's responsible for her own predicament. I'm unsympathetic because she's a public figure. Object to the lies (and the truths) told against you and move on. 

At the bottom of the page:

"Le Slapgate" — I hadn't seen that expression before. Didn't know the "-gate" suffix — the all-purpose designation of scandal — had reached Europe, and it's funny to see it with "Le" — the all-purpose designation that we've got something French... French and masculine. 

"Today, I have the Great Honor of bringing a $15 Billion Dollar Defamation and Libel Lawsuit against The New York Times..."

"... one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual 'mouthpiece' for the Radical Left Democrat Party. I view it as the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER. Their Endorsement of Kamala Harris was actually put dead center on the front page of The New York Times, something heretofore UNHEARD OF! The 'Times' has engaged in a decades long method of lying about your Favorite President (ME!), my family, business, the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole. I am PROUD to hold this once respected 'rag' responsible, as we are doing with the Fake News Networks such as our successful litigation against George Slopadopoulos/ABC/Disney, and 60 Minutes/CBS/Paramount, who knew that they were falsely 'smearing' me through a highly sophisticated system of document and visual alteration, which was, in effect, a malicious form of defamation, and thus, settled for record amounts. They practiced this longterm INTENT and pattern of abuse, which is both unacceptable and illegal. The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW! The suit is being brought in the Great State of Florida. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Writes Trump, on Truth Social.

If your idea of America greatness doesn't include freedom of speech, it's not worth much.

And if you think the NYT is making an "illegal Campaign contribution" when it speaks about political candidates, you must want Citizens United overruled. 

"It is more difficult than ever for a theoretical Van Gogh to become an actual Van Gogh, a familiar reality for collectors of star 20th-century artists."

"More than a decade ago, foundations for Andy Warhol and Keith Haring, and the estate of Jean-Michel Basquiat, got out of the authentication business altogether. Keeping fakes from circulating is an important task but led to lawsuits that threatened their broader work."

From "Van Gogh or Faux? Weeding Out Fakes Is Starting to Take a Toll. Attributing a work to the artist generally requires authentication by the Van Gogh Museum, but lawsuits and an influx of requests have made it reassess that role" (NYT).

I like the idea of a "theoretical Van Gogh." (It makes me want to craft a joke about a vincentretical Van Gogh.) You can imagine how many people have tried to paint like van Gogh — either to pull off a fraud or just because they love Van Gogh. And here's this guy suing over something he bought cheap that would be worth many millions if it were a real Van Gogh.

He says: "I am sure that my painting is a real Van Gogh. The entire painting radiates van Gogh. Everyone who sees it only thinks of Van Gogh." But that would be the mark of a fake Van Gogh! How would you fake Van Gogh? You'd try to make the entire painting radiate Van Gogh. The curly colorful strokes, the petals and tree trunks, the little man in the field. Everyone who sees it would only think of Van Gogh!

"[Juan] Hamilton became the handyman, assistant and friend of [Georgia] O’Keeffe when he was 27 and she was 85."

"He worked and travelled with her for the next 14 years, helping her to paint again as her eyesight was failing, to mount exhibitions and to publish an acclaimed book about her life and work. But it was also noted by neighbours in New Mexico that he was tall, dark and handsome. O’Keeffe’s former agent, Doris Bry, noticed that he was invited to accompany O’Keeffe on a trip to Morocco, apparently in her stead and later filed a lawsuit alleging that he was interfering in her business relationship with the artist. And after O’Keeffe died in 1986, without children, her surviving relatives noticed that he had been made the sole beneficiary of her $70 million estate and filed a suit, later settled out of court...."

From "Juan Hamilton, Georgia O’Keeffe’s caretaker and friend, dies aged 79/The artist’s assistant inherited her entire estate when she died in 1986, but her relatives sued him and they settled out of court" (London Times).

"In a complaint filed Wednesday... Justen Lipeles... alleges that [Madonna concert] attendees were subjected to 'pornography without warning'..."

"... including 'topless women on stage simulating sex acts' in an uncomfortable, sweltering environment. He claims that Madonna demanded the air conditioning be turned off and he became physically ill in the heat. Lipeles also cites Madonna's tardiness.... 'Forcing consumers to wait hours in hot, uncomfortable arenas and subjecting them to pornography without warning is demonstrative of Madonna's flippant disrespect for her fans'...."

From "Madonna hit with new lawsuit alleging unwanted exposure to sexual content and emotional distress/California concert attendee Justen Lipeles is the latest to sue the pop star over her 'Celebration' tour" (Entertainment Weekly).

It was hot and she was late are not interesting complaints. The key phrase here is "pornography without warning." I remember seeing "Marat/Sade" in New York in the 1960s when I was a teenager and feeling quite surprised to see the lead actor become completely naked at one point. Somehow I dealt with it. Should I have been warned? It was supposed to be shocking, not that it was "pornography without warning." It was about revolution and madness, not sex.

Maybe some people would like advance consent to anything sexual, including a theatrical performance. Isn't it enough to know it's Madonna? Who goes to a Madonna concert then complains about topless women on stage simulating sex acts?

"The climate scientist Michael Mann on Thursday won his defamation lawsuit against Rand Simberg... and Mark Steyn...."

"The six-member jury announced its unanimous verdict after a four-week trial in District of Columbia Superior Court and one full day of deliberation. They found both Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn guilty of defaming Dr. Mann with multiple false statements and awarded the scientist $1 in compensatory damages from each writer. The jury also found the writers had made their statements with 'maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm,' and levied punitive damages of $1,000 against Mr. Simberg and $1 million against Mr. Steyn in order to deter others from doing the same."

From "Michael Mann, a Leading Climate Scientist, Wins His Defamation Suit/The researcher had sued two writers for libel and slander over comments about his work. The jury awarded him damages of more than $1 million" (NYT).

I'm very sorry to see this. I've been following the trial through the "Climate Change on Trial" podcast.

"Those favoring the disqualification of Mr. Trump insist that there is nothing antidemocratic about constraining the presidential choices of the national electorate."

"The Constitution, after all, contains a number of provisions that deny the people the right to elect whomever they wish. Article II, Section One, for example, prevents the people from electing anyone who is under age 35 or who is a foreign-born candidate. Those qualifications are expressly declared in the text, and they received robust vetting and debate in the ratifying conventions. In the case of Section 3 [of the Fourteenth Amendment], the Supreme Court is being asked to impose new constraints on the democratic process by way of textual implication and in the absence of any public debate whatsoever.... At best, the text of Section 3 is ambiguous regarding the office of president. The Supreme Court should limit the clause to its historically verifiable meaning and scope. Let the people make their own decisions about Donald Trump."

Writes lawprof Kurt Lash, author of "A Troubled Birth of Freedom: The Struggle to Amend the Constitution in the Aftermath of the Civil War," in "Trump Should Not Be Disqualified by an Ambiguous Clause" (NYT).

The fundamental principle is "the people should choose whom they please to govern them." Ambiguity must be resolved in that direction.

"I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being president of the United States by any court. I think it’s bad for the country."

Said Chris Christie, whose campaign for the nomination is based on despising Trump.

Quoted in "Disqualifying Trump may be legally sound but fraught for democracy, scholars say/Experts say there’s a strong basis for the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to bar Trump from the ballot, but the larger political context makes the question one of the thorniest in recent memory" (WaPo).

I'm not going to touch the bait "Experts say." You don't need to point it out. I see it.

I've already said what I want to say, but because I hear my own opinion in Christie's, I'm going to reprint what I wrote on January 26, 2021, when Democrats were impeaching the former President and defending it on the ground that a conviction would provide a basis for disqualifying him from running again. Of course, the Senate did not convict Trump, and today's disqualification effort would make a lot more sense if it had. 

At the time, I wrote:

[I]t's extremely important to remember that there is a "fundamental principle of our representative democracy . . . 'that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.'" 

I'm quoting the Supreme Court case rejecting term limits for members of Congress, which was quoting a case about Congress's power to exclude someone the people have elected. 

The internal quote — "the people should choose whom they please to govern them" — comes from Alexander Hamilton, arguing in favor of ratifying the Constitution: 

After all, sir, we must submit to this idea, that the true principle of a republic is, that the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Representation is imperfect in proportion as the current of popular favor is checked. This great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed.

I think the presumption should always be against a constitutional interpretation that would restrict the power of the people to choose whom they please. 

The Senate would need to strain the other way to disqualify Private Citizen Trump from running for office again, and that betrays a lack of respect for the people, for the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy." 

Enough fretting that the people can't be trusted evaluating Trump as one of our options. Let the members of Congress get on with proving that they deserved the trust we the people put in them.

And, now, let the various candidates for President prove we ought to trust them and not Trump.

The people should choose whom they please to govern them.

"One time, 'He asked her to literally scratch her back,' the lawyer said. When Robinson asked him why he didn’t just use the back-scratcher that was there..."

"... De Niro said, 'I like the way you do it,' [the lawyer] said. Robinson has said she was also on the receiving end of De Niro’s allegedly misogynistic comments — including suggesting she could get pregnant using the sperm of a married male colleague. 'He would joke with Ms. Robinson about his Viagra prescription.' De Niro smirked at Ms. Robinson about his young paramour, who was around Ms. Robinson’s age,' her suit said. But De Niro’s lawyer fired back that Robinson 'always played the victim' and painted her as a money-hungry ex-employee. 'It's nice to work for a movie star, but it can be mundane,' [De Niro's lawyer said]...."

From "Grumpy Robert De Niro testifies in sensational showdown with ex-assistant who claimed he’s boss from hell: ‘This is nonsense!’" (NY Post).

She's suing for $12 million. I can't figure out what the legal basis of the claim is supposed to be. Her job was personal assistant — to an 80-year-old movie star — and she received a $300,000-a-year salary. 

"Most pop songs can fit over most pop songs … You could go from Let it Be to No Woman, No Cry and switch back."

Testified Ed Sheeran, quoted in "Ed Sheeran testifies in Marvin Gaye plagiarism case: ‘Most pop songs can fit over most pop songs’/Appearing in New York court, singer-songwriter defends his ballad Thinking Out Loud against similarities with Gaye’s song Let’s Get It On" (The Guardian).

A musicologist for Sheeran has said the chord sequence is not unique, and gave numerous other examples of its use in songs by artists such as Donovan and the Seekers.... 

Sheeran has been accused of plagiarism numerous times before. In April 2022 he won a UK court battle over biggest hit, Shape of You.... In 2017, he added writers of the TLC song No Scrubs to the credits of Shape of You, after similarities had been spotted by fans, though no legal case was brought against him. Also in 2017, he settled out of court after songwriters of the Matt Cardle song Amazing claimed it had been copied by Sheeran for his song Photograph. Sheeran later said he regretted the settlement, as “the floodgates opened” to further plagiarism claims....

He made a target out of himself. Avoiding 2 fights early on, he attracted these new disputes, and he must fight or continually pay out money for the routine privilege of singing simple pop songs, which, as he testified, all sound alike. 

The shocking criminalization of freedom of speech in America.

Here's one of the leaders of one of the groups who is now indicted, Omali Yeshitela of @_InPDUM, speaking at a "Peace in Ukraine" rally last month.

Criminalizing speech is becoming increasingly common by claiming the speech serves Russia's interests:https://t.co/i9kmkLYykr

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 19, 2023

"The federal judge in a closely watched lawsuit that seeks to overturn federal approval of a widely used abortion pill has scheduled the first hearing in the case for this week..."

"... but he planned to delay making the public aware of it, according to people familiar with the case.... Judge [Matthew J.] Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee who has written critically about Roe v. Wade and previously worked for a Christian conservative legal organization, told lawyers in a conference call Friday that he did not want the March 15 hearing to be 'disrupted'.... In asking the lawyers to keep quiet about the hearing, the judge did not issue a gag order, which would bar the participants on the call from sharing the information. Rather, he asked them to keep the information secret 'as a courtesy.' He said that the court would provide seating for the public and the press, but his plan to provide little advance notice seemed likely to have the practical effect of minimizing the number of people who would attend, according to people familiar with the discussion. Amarillo, in the Texas Panhandle, is several hours’ drive from other major Texas cities, and only a couple of those cities provide direct flights."

 
The NYT reports.

"Calling presidents liars, even when they’re honest, is a great American tradition."

"Trump, the greatest liar in American political history, stands no chance of upending it."

That's the last paragraph of "Opinion Trump sued CNN for defamation. Here’s where his case falls apart" by Eric Wemple, in WaPo.

I can imagine Trump suing Wemple for calling him "the greatest liar in American political history." Lawsuits like that must fail in America, and Trump should be ashamed of himself for his impingement on freedom of speech. But of course he's the most shameless of all the ex-Presidents.

Fortunately, I'm too small to be harassed in court by Donald Trump or I would have restrained myself from making a fact-like statement about him that might not be precisely true. Maybe Bill Clinton is the most shameless of all the ex-Presidents. Should we have a court case on that topic?