A New Low In Obnoxious Advertising

One of those obnoxious ads in the waters off lower Manhattan

As anybody who knows me realizes, I have no patience for the desperate, loud, constant barrage of advertising.

It's possible to make advertising that is engaging, entertaining and makes you want to buy their products. That concept is rare, though, as most advertisers seem more intent on insulting us, rathern than engaging us.

Most advertisers seem to think the more you annoy us, the more likely we are to buy their wares. I have not gotten anyone to explain how that works, if it does.

A new low in advertising has come on the waters of the Hudson and East rivers surrounding the big lights of Manhattan.  Barges now ply those waters with obnoxious LED billboards. As the New York Daily News reports:

"The city filed a lawsuit Wednesday aimed at sinking the billboard-carrying barges that float on New York waterways.

City attorneys write that the company behind the LED advertisements, Ballyhoo Media, has brazenly disregarded requests to dock the barges because they are a public nuisance, distract drivers and violate zoning regulations."

I can see why New York City officials are exasperated with these barges. As New York City Councilman Justin Brannon said in the Daily News:  "At a time when every square inch of our world feels like it's covered in advertisements, visual pollution is a real thing, and our waterways should be off-limits. Drivers along the water don't need more distractions and when kids in Bay Ridge go to Shore Road Park, they don't need to be barraged by flashing lights advertising the latest video game."

True, a big city like New York has plenty of bright lights and advertising. It's turned Times Square into one of the biggest tourist attractions in the world.

But the advertising like that doesn't have to be everywhere. That's why Manhattan has both the dazzling advertising lights of Times Square, and the relative quiet and trees and lawns of Central Park.

However, plenty of advertisers and ad agencies think they must blind and deafen us constantly, because that way we'll buy, buy.  Ballyhoo Media, the company behind these obnoxious floating barge billboards is one of those.

The website for Ballyhoo Media was interestingly down for maintenance Wednesday and Thursday, which is interesting.

Infuriatingly, Ballyhoo Media might still get away this. The company pulled the same stunt in Miami Beach. The Florida city tried banning the advertising barges, but Ballyhoo successfully argued that Miami Beach doesn't have jurisdiction over the water, so their awful visual pollution remains.

Ballyhoo is likely to make the same argument in New York.

The Miami New Times said Adam Shapiro, owner of Ballyhoo, gave this spin on how supposedly great these floating advertising barges are. Shapiro said the barges are a quicker way to reach customers and make announcements. He pointed out there have always been advertisements at the beach.

Well, yeah. You can go up to the boardwalk and look at all the advertisements you want, or you could turn around and have an uncluttered view of the water. You have a choice. Ballyhoo Media wants to take away that choice.

Shapiro made the same argument, that his company is just wonderful, in response to the New York lawsuit. Talk about gall and gaslighting with this statement!

"We love the waterways and have developed this platform to be an asset to the community.....Ballyhoo has proven to provide unique, one-of-a-kind experiences that has been received with overwhelmingly positive community support. We are confident that New York City will see the value and excitement we bring to the waterfront."

I hate to break it to him, but the yelling and screaming Shapiro is hearing is not "positive community support," it's community rage.  But enjoy your delusions, sir.

Unfortunately, this will only get worse. We've probably been sentenced to dozens of these companies clogging beautiful waterways, along with lake and ocean front tourist spots with these outrageous LED ads.

Want to give up on the beaches because of this and stargaze instead? Looks like you're going to be out of luck there, too.

As Astronomy.com and other media outlets have reported, a Russian startup called StartRocket wants to put billboard advertising in space, because apparently, stars and planets are ugly but advertisements  in the sky for chicken wings and cola are majestic.

Astronomy.com describes this hellish idea: "Imagine this: you've just fled from the city to your nearest national park to gaze deeply into the infinite abysss of space and contemplate how your own existence fits into the curtain of the universe. Then out of the corner of your eye, you see brigh white letters spelling "KFC" spring across the horizon in a long arch."

Yeah, lovely.

It seems that advertising company executives are so full of themselves that they will believe any branding about themselves that they imagine. It can't even enter their mind that almost all of the rest of us think they're obnoxious. The guy with the ads in space idea, Valadilen Sitnikov says this: "It's human nature to advertise everything... Brands are a beautiful part of humankind."

Really?

I once read a short story where everybody in the nation was forced to view advertising every waking hour through some sort of hologram that everybody was required to operate.

It doesn't seem like we're that far from that horrible dystopian life.

Looney Tunes Tasmanian Devil Causes Family Crisis In Staten Island

A phobia of Looney Tunes' Tasmanian
Devil is at the center of a weird New
York family dispute 

The holidays are finally over, and most of us have headed home after spending time with our families.

Many of our extended families have a few eccentrics among them, but one Staten Island family takes the cake for oddness and discord.

According to the New York Post, Mazem Dayem, 36, has had a lifelong phobia of the Tasmanian Devil, the ill-mannered angry and inept Looney Tunes charactor.

Dayem's father in law, Yunes Doleh, 62, has been tormenting Dayem by menacing him with a toupee that supposedly looks like the Tasmanian Devil.

This all came to a head at a funeral in November, when Doleh waved his toupee at Dayem and grimaced, snarled, grunted and gesticulated toward him.

Which is odd behavior anyway, but especially at a funeral, but maybe that's just me. There's a chatge of criminal contempt against Doleh, lawsuits and general bad blood. I'd love to hear conversations in this family.

And how were your holidays?

Worst Date Ever Involves Texting During Movie; Lawsuit, Accusations

I've gotten into the weird habit of watching "First Dates" on TV occasionally on Friday evenings. 

A first date at this movie was probalby the worst ever,
and ended with a small claims court lawsuit. 

It is a "reality show" in which people go on first dates and see if they establish a connection. It's oddly entertaining. 

Some couples seem to hit it off. Some dates are terrible. The guilty pleasure is watching how people looking for love find connections. 

However, the worst date ever wasn't on this TV show. It was in Austin Texas, when, according to the Austin (Texas) American Statesman, Brandon Vezmar, 37, of Austin took a 35 -year-old woman on a date to see a 3D showing of the movie "Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2"

Veznar said the woman kept texting during the movie, and he got annoyed. "This is, like, one of my biggest pet peeves," Veznar said. 

Yeah, texting during a movie can be annoying, but what Vezmar did next was a little over the top. He's suing the woman for $17.31, the cost of the movie ticket.

He was particularly peeved that she got annoyed by Veznar's texting scolding, so she left, leaving him without a ride home. 

When the Austin American-Statesman informed the woman she was being sued by Vezmar, she said, "Oh my God.....This is crazy."

Well, yes. 

Sometimes, two annoyinig people can make magic together. However, in Austin, an obnoxiously texting woman and a litigious man couldn't make it work. 

How sad. Or not. 

On the bright side, the CEO of another Austin theater, the Alamo Drafthouse, has offered a $17.31 gift certificate to settle the lawsuit.  

Wet Wipes Becoming The Scourge Of A Sewer Near You

Are wet wipes like this clogging up
sewer systems around the world? 

I'm afraid we're going to have to talk about poop here.

Specifically, cleaning up after poop.

Most of us (I hope!) have used toilet paper. It gets the job done, it goes away with a flush of a toilet and we can just forget about that unpleasantness when we're finished.

But the consumer products industry, ever anxious to sucker us into buying some grand new doodad, has come up in recent years with an "improvement" over toilet paper.

It's wet wipes, and it's supposed to leave you feeling cleaner, fresher, more comfortable after you're done going.

Well, maybe.

But your local Sewage Treatment Workers of America guys and gals are NOT thrilled by this wonderful new product.

Neither should you, especially if you have your own on site septic system, like I do.

You see, after you flush the toilet, the toilet paper in its journey toward your nearest septic system or municipal sewage treatment plant, breaks apart pretty fast.

Through the magic of sewage systems, the toilet paper disappears, and life goes on just swimmingly. Especially if you dare to take swimmingly literally by taking a cool dip in the waters downstream from the sewage treatment plant.

Wet wipes, though, despite the protestations of bathroom marketers like Kimberly Clark, don't break down.

According to The Atlantic, the town of Wyoming,  Minnesota was among the first to sue consumer products giants like Kimberly Clark, Proctor & Gamble, Nice-Pak and others.

The Atlantic interviewed Dave Torma, a public works emplouee in Wyoming, Minnesota and got this

"After wet wipes are flushed, they exit a house through a lateral pipe that connects to a public sewer system, where sewage pumps ensure that the wastewater flows in the correct direction. 

But unlike toilet paper, wet wipes fail to disintegrate. They clog the pumps, causing them to break down and redirect stagnant wastewater back toward houses. Sewer systems must be shut down so that the wipes can be manually removed. When the four-foot pumps are lifted for maintenance, 'it looks like you're pulling up Cousin Itt,' Torma said. 

The toilet paper industry is claiming the wipes they sell do disintegrate and the problems wastewater managers are facing are due to people flushing other, non-disintegrating material down toilets

The Halifax, Canada, water department actually put out a rather entertaining video that does a great job of describing the wet wipes problem. It's worth a watch.

Here's the video. Warning: There is a segment within where you don't want to be eating, or have a sensitive stomach while watching.

 

USA Freedom Kids Just Got Screwed By Trump Like Everybody Else

Looks like the Trump campaign stiffed the
ever-popular U.S. Freedom Kids and is not
paying them for their viral performance at
one of his rallies.  

In January,  I feature a troupe of youngsters called USA Freedom Kids who gave a performance at Donald Trump rally that caused quite a stir and became a viral sensation.

The USA Freedom Kids performed, their, depending on your perspective, a cute, earnest or cringe-worthy song and dance called "Freedom's Call."

Trump was a big fan then.

Now, however, like almost everything else involving Donald Trump, the situation with the  USA Freedom Kids and Trump involves a lawsuit.

Who knows how it will work out, but there was apparently a series of verbal agreements involving the girls' performance that the dad of one of the performers, Jeff Popick, said were broken by the Trump campaign, says the Washington Post and other media outlets.

Popick had asked for $2,500 for the girl's performance. The Trump campaign counter-offered with a proposal to let the kids set up a table to pre-sell their albums and other merchandise.

Who knew these USA Freedom Kids thing was such a business!?

The campaign never did set up a table for them so they lost out.  Peptic paid for promotional material they never used and lost out on promotional time at what turned out to be the nonexistent table.

Later, says the Washington Post, the Trump campaign wanted, at the last minute just after he dropped out of the Fox News debate back in January.

Trump would go to an Iowa rally instead, and his campaign wanted the girls to perform there.

Says the Washington Post:

"With the promise that the exposure from the event would be 'huge,' Popick readily agreed and the kids and their parents packed up for a direct flight to Chicago and a long drive to Iowa. 

It wasn't to be. When the plane landed, Popick had a message from the campaign staffer indicating that thre was a change of plan."

The campaign allowed the girls and Popick to attend the rally, but were not allowed to talk to the media. Then they put them right next to the media area. Reporters all tried to ask questions, and Popick said he had to be like a jerk and tell them to buzz off, on orders of the Trump campaign.

Well, Trump's a jerk so I guess it fits that he wants everybody else around him to be a jerk, too.

Since then, Popick has been contacting the Trump campaign constantly trying to get paid. After all, Popick had to pay for the flights and travel to Iowa for the kids. Plus theres' that famous performance in Pensecola. Shouldn't the campaign pay them since they're the ones that origionally wanted them?

No deal. They're just blowing him off.

That's the Trump M.O., too. If he owes somebody money, either blow them off, or countersue the people trying to get paid.  Check out this exhaustive USA Today investigation of how cheap and irresponsible Trump is when it comes to paying people he hires.

So now, Popick is getting ready to sue the Trump campaign.

Incredibly, even after all this, Popick tells the Washington Post he is not sure whether he will support Trump for president.

Maybe, Popick says, he was bad to him, but perhaps he'll be good for the country.

With that reputation for stiffing people? I doubt it.

For those who want a refresher on the odd U.S. Freedom Kids performance last winter, here ya go!

Lawyer Might Sue Restaurant Because He Didn't Get Soup

This Texas restauranteur might get sued because
he ran out of soup that a lawyer customer wanted. 

Believe me, I'm all for consumer protection.

Sometimes, when a company or business is unfair to customers and the general public, they deserve to be sued or worse.

This story is not one of those cases.

There's a special that often runs at the Our Place Restaurant in Mansfield, Texas in which you get an entree, two sides and a soup.

The verbiage around that special on the menu states that the soup often runs out, and if you get the special, you might have to live without the soup. "While supplies last," the menu says.

The owner of the restaurant, Benji Arslanovksi, says people understand the soup is kind of a freebie, like the pickle you get next to your hamburger.

OK, not getting the soup at Our Place Restaurant is a bit of a bummer, but it's no reason to sue, right?

Oh yes it is!

Arslanovksi was recently slapped with the threat of a lawsuit for a whopping $2.25, but $250 in lawyer's fees, for not offering the soup to attorney Dwain Downing, who is the guy who might sue, says Dallas television station WFAA.   

A menu is an offer of a contract, and that the restaurant uses deceptive trade practices by running out of soup, apparently. Even though the menu warns that there might not be soup.

I fear poor Downing is bored, and maybe needs practice to keep his legal chops going, so he's launching this lawsuit just for practice? I have no idea.

His web site says Downing has been practicing law since 1981, so he must be pretty good. And probably busy. But the lawsuit threat over a cup of soup sounds like a teeny weeny bit of overkill, no?

I always thought if you don't like the service or the food or the lack thereof at a particular restaurant, you just stop going there if you don't like it.

I'm sure Our Place Restaurant is fine, but if people don't like it there, I'm pretty sure Texas has other restaurants to try.

"I really don't whant to think. I mean, it's a cup of soup," Arslanovksi told WFAA.

Exactly!

Downing declined an on-camera interview with WFAA, but said the restaurant should be prepared if it regularly runs out of soup.

Well, yes. But a lawsuit?

As is almost always the case with this type of thing, the lawsuit threat appears to be backfiring on our attorney, thanks to social media.

Arslanovksi posted Downing's lawsuit threat letter on Facebook,

Plus there's a bright side. Our Place has a new special in which if you bring a can of soup with you to the restaurant, you'll get 10 percent off your bill.

No, they won't heat up that can of soup for you. Instead, they'll donate it to the local food shelf. Which is mmm mmmm good thing!

This Judge Says Three Year Olds Can Represent Themselves In Court Proceedings

A federal judge thinks kids like this group can be
trained to act as their own lawyers and understand
immigration law just fine.  

An immigration judge named Jack Weil certainly must have a high opinion of toddlers' intelligence.

According to the Washington Post and several other news outlets, Weil said that three and four year olds are perfectly capable of representing themselves in immigration court. No need for pesky lawyers or adults for these kids!

Weil said the following in sworn testimony in a federal court deposition:  

"I've taught immigration law literally to three-year-olds and four-year-olds.....It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of patience. They get it. It's not the most efficient, but it can be done."

Well, I guess the next time I need a lawyer, I'll just pick up some random kid at a preschool.

Weil's opinion came during a deposition in which the American Civil Liberties Union and immigrants rights group is tring to force the government to provide counsel for every indigent child that can't afford a lawyer.

The U.S. Government is contesting the lawsuit, which led Weil to ultimately say there's no need for those lawyers, because toddlers are smart enough to be lawyers.

The backpedaling on the government side, naturally, is furious. Weil, in a brief email to the Washington Post, said his statements don't "present an accurate assessment of my views on this topic and raises that old chestnut that his remarks were taken out of context." He then shut up, saying he needs Justice Department permission to speak further.

Yeah, I'm sure he asked and I'm sure the Justice Department gave its permission, what with all the stupidity in Weil's statement

A Justice Department spokeswoman told the Washington Post that her department does not say three and four year olds are capable of defending themselves, and that Weil made his remarks in a four hour deposition that discussed various ways immigration judges can make hearings fair, including for young children.

In its lawsuit, the ACLU obviously says they will use Weil's words to make their case.

Weil, and by extention the Obama Justice Department is Trump Lite - coming up with ridiculous notions on how to deal with illegal immigrants. They're just more subtle about it.

Of course we shouldn't just let anybody into the country. Of course we should deport those that cross the border illegally (I won't get into the 11 million or so that are already here. Trump's mass deportation of all of them clearly isn't feasible. You'd think we could come up with some path to citizenship, one that's been talked about for years but never implemented.)

If we are going to deport illegal aliens though, shouldn't we stick up for our ideals and give people at least a little due process? Sure, it costs money and takes time, but we take the high road for once.

But insisting that toddlers can act as their own lawyers? This from a judge who supposedly trains other immigration judges?

As quoted in the Washington Post:

"Elizabeth S. Scott, a Columbia Law Professor considered an expert on children and the law said, 'The law uniformly presumes in every other area that younger children lack the mental capacity to make consequential decisions.'"

But I guess immigration courts are somehow above the law?

And I'm sure (snark) that immigration judges spend hours and hours teaching each kid that comes into immigration court the fine points of immigration law, right?

Weird Alabama Lawyer Sues Supreme Court Over Gay Marriage; He Sufffers 'Mental Anguish'

Alabama attorney Austin Burdick says he's so
"traumatized" by gay marriage that hes suing
the five Supreme Court justices who favor it.  

I must confess I sometimes get upset by the way the United States Supreme Court rules.

For instance, I didn't like the Citizen United decision, which really opened up the doors more and more for money in politics.

Yes, it angered me, but, like most rational people, I got over it. I'll just keep voting for politicians who don't like Citizens United and who are trying to find ways to enact laws that get around it.

Other decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court I really like. Last year came the Obergfell decision, which granted the right of gay people across the United States to marry.

As a married gay man in Vermont married to an awesome guy, I LOVED that decision.

But I get it that some people don't, and will be voting for politicians who will try to find ways to make gay marriage illegal again. I don't agree with these voters, but hell, vote away. It's your right.

There are a few grandstanders though who apparently are so traumatized by the gay marriage decision that they are suing the U.S Supreme Court over the decision.

Well, at least one guy is, according to AL.com, an Alabama news organization.

Austin Burdick an Alabama attorney, says he's so traumatized that he's suing the five justices who voted in favor of gay marriage for $6 million.

That's a lot of trauma! It must really hurt to see gay people marry and be happy.

For one thing, Burdock said the decision violates the 5th Amendment, which preserves the right of people to not self incrimidate. I'm not sure why the 5th Amendment is involved in this case, since nobody is accusing Burdock of a crime.

Stupidity, maybe but not a crime. Stupidiy IS legal, after all.

According to AL.com, Burdick is also invoking the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Burdick, in his lawsuit says:

"The 14th Amendment, which states that 'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive a person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,'  has been rewritten by the five members of the court.

Again, I'm not following him here. I'm not sure how gay marriage is depriving Burdick of property, because no gay couple I know wants his stuff. Nor do any gay couples that I know of want to suppress his liberties. Burdick can still go to church, hate gay people if he chooses, hate gay marriage if he feels that way, and just go about his life.

But, maybe I shoudn't be so harsh. Some people are traumatized by the strangest things. Maybe I should sue Mother Nature because the weather became too harsh for me to work outdoors yesterday so I didn't get the things done that I wanted to do.

Oh, the TRAUMA!!

I wish Burdick all the best with his strange lawsuit, and I hope he's not too traumatized when he loses.

Tamir Rice Ambulance Billing FIasco: City Won't Seek Money From Family After All

The city of Cleveland is suing the family of
Tamir Rice, trying to claw back  $500
ambulance bill for the kid after the city's police
 fatally shot him. 

UPDATE: 

The Mayor of Cleveland finally responded to this mess and says this whole thing was a mixup.

And more importantly, Tamir Rice's family won't be billed for the ambulance after all.

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson said the bill had been previously canceled, but the executor of the Tamir Rice estate had they needed a copy of the billing statement to deal with Medicaid paperwork.

This made it look like the Rice family was being billed, but that wasn't the intention,  Jackson said.

He added that the city would look at its procedures so this doesn't happen again.

To me, this looks like it could be classic backpedaling by the city, but of course I can't prove that. The most important thing is the Rice family won't be hounded to pay this bill

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION

Pretty much everybody hates what happened with Tamir Rice, the 12 year old kids in Cleveland who was gunned down by police in 2014.

Cleveland Police shot Tamir after he was seen playing with what looked liked a gun, but was a replica in a Cleveland Park.

A grand jury did not indict the officers who shot the kid, but Tamir's family is suing the city, in part because officers did not give him any emergency aid after he was shot.

An FBI agent, then an ambulance crew eventually showed up and tried to save him, but were not able to.

Now, his family was just slapped with a $500 past-due notice for the ambulance ride Tamir got after he was shot.

Says Cleveland Scene:

"'That the city would submit a bill and call itself a creditor after having had its own police officers slay 12-year-old Tamir displays a new pinnacle of callousness and insensitivity,' of of Rice's family attorneys, Subodh Chandra, told Scene this afternooon. 'This kind of poor judgement that it takes to do such a thing is nothing short of breathtaking. Who on earth would think this is a good idea and file this on behalf of the city? This adds insult to homicide.'"

I'll tell you who would do this:  Somebody in the city wanted to send a message to anybody who would object to police shooting any young black teen or man. Anywhere.

So they try to make it as horrible for Rice's family as possible. To tell the rest of the black community nationwide: If we white officers shoot your black teenager, shut up about it. Don't make a stink. And for God's sake don't do the Black Lives Matter thing.

Cleveland.com reported that no city officials would comment so far on the ambulance bill. The city told other media outlets it doesn't comment on pending litigation, which is of course a weasly way out.

That's typical too. The Mafia doesn't exactly fall all over itself responding to media requests.

I'm obviously not saying most cities or police agencies act like the Mob. The overwhelming majority do not. I shouldn't even have to say it, it's so obvious, but to a few, the attitude is if you criticize one aspect of police work in one community, you hate all police.

In this case, it's not the Cleveland Police union that's instigating this latest outrage. The union president, Steve Loomis, sharply criticized the city for billing Rice's family for the ambulance, and found rare agreement with Chandra.

Note that Loomis called Rice an adult in a kids body who caused his own death. That he would blast the city for sending the ambulance bill definitely says something

Television station Fox 8 in Cleveland, quoted Loomis saying this:

"'Subodh Chandra and I have never agreed on anything until now. It is unconscionable that the City of Cleveland would send that bill to the Rice familu. Truly disappointing but unfortunately not surprising."

Still, it's extremely disturbing that when somebody rightfully objects to moments when white police officers kill black people when it's apparent said black person is not an immediate threat, somebody retaliates against those who complain. Like the Mafia.

It's happened before, just recently.

Chicago Police officer Robert Rialmo sued the family of Quintonio LaGrier for $10 million last week.  LaGrier was a mentally ill teen who police shot after LaGrier's father called police during the disturbance. During that incident, police also shot and killed a downstairs neighbor.

Rialmo says the shooting, and a wrongful death lawsuit the LaGrier family filed, has caused him "emotional trauma."

Poor thing.

Rialmo's suit says LaGrier swung a baseball bat at him several times, just missing him. So, according to the suit, it was LaGrier's fault that he died.

Rialmo's attorney, Joel Brodsky said the fact that LaGrier's family filed a lawsuit so quickly makes Rialto want to point out that "having a relative killed in an officer-involved shoting is not the same thing as winning the lottery."

Yeah, I'm sure that's whaty LaGrier's father called the cops. He saw an opportunity to win the lottery.

Maybe LaGrier's family should sue again, for the emotional distress of having Rialto act like the thug he apparently is.

Plumber Sues Auto Dealer Because His Truck/Logo Ended Up With Terrorists.

Mark-1 Plumbing's old truck ended up in the hands of
terrorists, and now the owner of the business
is suing the dealership that failed to remove the logo.

Mark-1 Plumbing in Texas got some unwanted free advertising about a year ago.

One of the company's old pickup trucks was sold, but then reappeared in the media, complete with its Mark-1 Plumbing logo, being used by Islamic terrorists in Syria.

It should be obvious that Mark-1 Plumbing's owner, Mark Oberholtzer is not a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer. He's a fine American, a reputable businessman, and certainly no threat to anything, except maybe a leaky pipe.  

We should have all laughed off the fact Oberholtzer's truck somehow ended up in Syria, even if the people using the truck are certainly no laughing matter.

However, this is America, land of a substantial subset of dumb people.

A segment about the Mark-1 Plumbing truck appeared on the widely watched final episode of the Colbert Report.

It was a joke, but some dumb people didn't take it as such.

According to the New York Times, Olberhotzer and his employees faced this, according to the plumber's attorney, Craig Eisland:

".......there were thousands of harassing and threatening phone calls to Mr Oberholtzer's office and other phone numbers with accusations that he supported terrorists. His staff and family members were also subject to threatening calls, Mr. Eisland said.

Mr. Oberholtzer said his business has suffered. Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents met with him and advised him to protect himself, the lawsuit said. He started carrying a handgun."

Note the clip from the New York Times mentions a lawsuit. That's because Oberholtzer is suing AutoNation Ford Gulf Freeway in Houston, Texas for $1 million.

Oberholtzer said he traded in his old truck at the dealership and they failed to remove the Mark-1 Plumbing logo from it before re-selling it on the open market, and it ended up going on the black market, to end up in the hands of terrorists.

The lawsuit seems frivolous at first, but then you have to remember the dumb people. The dumb people who somehow thought Oberholtzer was a terrorist or ISIS sympathizer because his truck ended up with terrorists, even though he clearly had nothing to do with getting his truck to Syria.

Because people could not follow the very clear point in media reports about that the truck ended up in Syria through no fault of Oberholtzer.

So he's suing, due to the fear, the lost business, the inconvenience, the damage to his reputation.

Too bad Oberholtzer can's sue all the stupid people who made those threatening calls to him, who threatened him and his business.  Hell, I'd like to sue 'em.

I wonder if we can make being stupid a crime, too. Maybe we can send the stupid people to Syria to join the Mark-1 Plumbing pickup truck. It's one sure way to defeat ISIL: Just infiltrate all our stupid people into their ranks, and watch them crumble.

World's Worst Aunt Loses Lawsuit Against Her Nephew

Jennifer Connell said her
eight year old's over-excited hug
caused her to break her wrist.
So she sued the kid.  

UPDATE: 

OK, there's a chance me and the rest of the world were unfair to this aunt who sued her nephew because his big greeting four years ago caused her to fall and break her wrist.

According to her lawyers, Jennifer Connell really didn't want to sue her nephew, but the homeowner's insurance company of her nephew's parents forced the issue.

Their insurance company was Travelers. They offered to pay Connell a whopping $1.00. When she objected, Connecticut law makes her, and others in that situation to sue whoever caused the injury.

In this case, it was the nephew.

Yeah, Connell should have realized the optics of this situation looked really bad, and maybe tried, I don't know, GoFundMe.

But still, the insurance company is a total villian in this case, too. Probably more of a villian than Connell.

Of the verdict in which jurors awarded Connell no money. "We think the verdict speaks for itself. We don't have anything to add about this case."

That's because Travelers wants to make sure all the negative publicity is on Connell, not them.

I have to agree with the snarky web site Gawker on this one. As Gawker wrote:

"As horrible as a woman suing a child - a relative, at that - sounds on paper, a healthcare system where a corporation can force her into that situation to address her injuries sounds even worse."

Exactly. If Connell's lawyers' version of events is correct, Travelers was too cheap to reach some sort of settlement, and decided Connell's efforts to get some money was worth making her an Internet punching bag.

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION

About four years ago, Sean Tarala, then eight, saw that his aunt, Jennifer Connell, arrived at his birthday party

According to the Connecticut Post, this is how the scene played out:

"When he spotted Connell, he dropped the new bicycle on the ground, exclaiming, 'Aunit Jen! Auntie Jen!'

'All of a sudden he was there in the air, I had to catch him, and we tumbled onto the ground,' Connell testified of her encounter with the 50-pound boy. 'I remember him shouting 'Auntie Jen I love you,' and there he was flying at me.'"

Notice the quote from the Connecticut Post said Connell was "testifying."

That's because she was in court relaying this story. She was in court because she was suing her nephew, who is now 12 years old.

When Sean embraced Connell at that party four years ago and they fell, Connell broke her wrist.

Which is of course unfortunate.  But she sued the kid for $127,000 for breaking her wrist. Sean, who the lawsuit claimed was negligent for recklessly hugging is aunt, was the only person named in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit said that "a reasonable eight year old under those circumstances would know or should hae known that a forceful greeting such as the one delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff could cause the harms and losses suffered by the plaintiff."

The Connecticut Post reported that a jury spent all of 20 minutes reaching a common sense conclusion that Sean was not negligent and Connell would not be awarded so much as a penny for her troubles.

Those troubles, according to testimony, included the fact the broken wrist made it hard for Connell to hold a plate of hors d'oeuvres at a party.

Sean sat through court testimony looking kind of confused with his father at his side. Why wasn't Sean's mom there? Well, she died last year.

You'd think Sean had enough bad things going on in his life with his mother dying. You'd think Connell would think to herself that maybe Sean needs a loving woman in his life and an aunt would be a great help for Sean right now.

But, Connell couldn't hold a plate of hors d'oeuvres at a party because of that snotty nosed brat Sean hugging her and breaking her wrist. So just sue the kid instead.

Connell is of course now an Internet villian. A hashtag for her on Twitter is #AuntFromHell.  But she is widely known know as #AuntieJen a meme that's becoming as iconic for a adult who is mean to children as Mommie Dearest.

But she really should have seen that coming.

NYPD, Psych Ward Can't Believe Black Woman Could Be Bank Employee Who Drives BMW

This woman says she was locked in a psych ward for truthfully
saying she drove a BMW, worked at a bank and was
on President Obama's Twitter feed.  

There's a 32 year old black woman in New York City who works at a bank, drives a older model BMW and is one of a zillion people President Obama follows on his Twitter feed.

No offense to the lady, but to me, this brief profile of her doesn't strike me as particularly unusual.

To the New York Police Department and a psych ward at Harlem Hospital  this woman is implausable as a unicorn dancing on Pluto with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Trouble came to Kamilah Brock when last year in Harlem when she stopped at a red light while driving her 2003 BMW 325Ci.

She apparently liked the song on the radio because she was sort of moving around in her car and briefly had her hands off the steering wheel as she grooved to the music waiting for the light to change.

Brock said a NYPD officer saw this little dance, pulled her over and ordered her out of her car.

The cops arrested her and seized her car because they thought she was high on pot. She wasn't and no drugs were found in the car. They still comfiscated her car and took her into custody, says the web site Alternet. 

"After being detained at NYPD's 30th Precinct for a few hours, Brock was released without charges. When she asked for her car, officers told her to return the next day to claim it at a substation. Instead of giving Brock her car back the following day, NYPD cops refused to believe that she owned a BMW and placed her in handcuffs before calling an ambulance."

Brock was taken to Harlem Hospital's psych ward because everybody knows black women aren't rich enough to drive BMWs and they don't work at banks, is the apparent logic of NYPD. I mean, come on, every 32 year old black woman in New York is  crack whore, goes the logic.

Harlem Hospital held Brock for eight days, repeated knocking her out, or at least knocking her for a loop, by repeatedly being injected with sedatives and forced to take lorazepam and lithium because the jerks at the hospital misdiagnosed her as bipolar and delusional.

Alternet goes on:

"According to medical records, doctors also repeatedly attempted to coerce her into denying she owned a BMW, was a bank and has President Barack Obama as a follower on Twitter."

But Brock was in reality all of these things. She has worked at Citibank, Chase and Astoria Bank. The BMW in question is registered to her. Obama does follow Brock on Twitter. Although the Twitter account is administered by White House staffers. Obama doesn't contribute to it all that much.

Still. How hard would it have been to verify Brock's Twitter account. It's set to "public" so any bozo can look it up. Also, if Brock claimed to work at a bank, why not just call the bank to see if it was so. Pretty easy right?

After the eight days went by, Brock was released from the psych ward without explantion. She was then billed for $13,637.10 for the hospital stay, even though she never was misdiagnosed and held against her will.

I guess Harlem Hospital decided it needed a revenue boost, so they held a sane woman as crazy.

By the way, Brock has no history of mental illness. Unlike the cops that detained her and the jerks at the hospital, Brock is totally sane.

Now, Surprise! Brock is suing the city of New York for violating her constitutional rights.

No You Can't Give Your Low Wage Workers' Salaries To Big Banks

A McDonald's franchise insisted on paying this women
only with a fee-laden debit card. So she sued.  

There's been some good U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the past week, but another ruling, from a lower court in Pennsylvania about a month ago, gave me another reason to be happy.

The court said that a McDonald's franchise owner could not pay the employees there in the form of Chase Bank debit cards.

As we well know, McDonald's employees tend not to be super rich 1 percenters. So they need every penny of their paychecks.

According to Consumerist, the debit card pay violated a Pennsylvania laws that says "wages shall be paid in lawful money of the United States or check."

The legal question was whether a debit card is lawful money. It kinda is, but.....

Anyway, a woman named Natalie Gunshannon worked briefly at one of these debit card McDonald's. Briefly, because she objected to being forced to use the fee-laden debit card. Her employer said she had no choice.

Oh, but she did. She quit and went straight to a lawyer. Gunshannon is sort of a Norma Rae of McDonald's, at least in Pennsylvania.

Here's how Consumerist described it:

"The 2013 complaint alleges that the McDonald's franchisee violate this law by requiring that employees accept the Chase debit card, which charged fees like $1.50 for using an ATM, $5 for over-the-countery cash withdrawals, $1 per balance inquiry and $0.75 for online bill payment."

In other words, if these McDonald's employees actually wanted to get access to their wages, they had to give some of it to Chase Bank, which, as I noted, is probably not about to run out of cash anytime soon.

Consumerist goes on, "At the same time, managers at these McDonald's were being paid through direct deposit, meaning that the were not stuck with any of these fees."

Yep, the lower wage workers had to give some of their money to the poor suffering bank, while the somewhat better paid managers got to keep all of their wages.

The judge said the debit cards violated the law because the cards are neither cash nor check.

The judge in the case also said this new technology makes for evolving case law, and state legislators are grappling with this.

Consumerist notes that Federal Reserve Regulations say that "no financial institutions or other person may require a consumer to establish an account for receipt of electronic fund transfers with a particular institution as a condition of employment or receipt of a government benefit."

In other words, an employee can choose to get a paycheck, cash, direct deposit or debit card arrangement with the bank of his or her choice, but the employer can't choose for the employee.

More than that, though, the McDonald's franchise owners were awfully scummy. Did they get some nice arrangement from Chase Bank for forcing employees to use the debit cards.

Worse than that, this is totally a reverse Robin Hood. The debit cards are classic steal from the poor and give to the rich.  (Hmm, I bet Bernie Sanders wouldn't approve of this!)

George Orwell Should Have Worried More About Business Than Government

A California woman is suing her former
employer because she said her boss
monitored her 24/7 through the
workplace management app Xora. 

Talk about an overbearing boss! And a creepy one, if a story about a lawsuit that recently appeared in Ars Technica is true. 

The woman sying, Myma Arias, was fired from her job for the money transfer service Intermex, after disabling an app called Xora from her company-issued iPhone because it traced her every move.

It could tell where her car was going, how fast she was driving, how long she was at a given location, pretty much everything.

Arias said she had no problem with the app running while she was on duty working as a sales executive for the company.

After all, it's pretty reasonable for a boss to make sure the employee is meeting with the people she's supposed to meet with, was driving safely and working,  and not just hanging out at the nail spa or something like that.

The problem Arias said she had is that her boss, John Stubits, monitored Arias and coworkers while they were not on the job.  He could spy on her 24 hours a day.

Part of her lawsuit reads as follows, says Ars Technica. "Plantiff expressed that she had no problem with the app's GPS function during work hrs but she objected to the monitoring of her location during non-work hours and complained to Stubits tht this was an invasion of her privacy. She likened the app to a prisoner's ankle bracelet and informed Stubits that his actions were illegal. Stubits replied that she should tolerate the illegal intrusion."

You have to wonder why Stubits, the boss, was so interested in his employees' off work activities. Was it away to make them feel like they should be working when they are off the clock? Or is Stubits a creepy pervert who wants to know everything about his workers?

Whatever is going on, I think we should all be rebelling against this kind of corporate spying on its employees, just as we should rebel against blanket spying by the government against its own citizens.

Of course, employers have the right to fire employees whose activities on personal time are way over the line.

In Toronto recently, an engineer with a firm was fired after he enthusiastically supported, on camera, another bro who participated in a vulgar, misogynistic insult against a female television reporter, a quote, unquote joke that's gotten popular on social media.

Where I live in Vermont, a Vermont State Police trooper was forced to resign after his superiors caught wind of offensive posts he put up on Facebook.

So yes, there are circumstances where your private life, which isn't so private nowadays, can get you fired. Often justifiably so.

But where does the boss cross the line? Certainly, they shouldnt have the right to spy on your every move. Why should bossman care if you kick back with a beer while watching the game on Saturday afternoon? Or get randy with your spouse on Friday night?

I'm hoping the boss that was monitoring his employees' every move, and is the subject of that lawsuit, gets fired himself.

Online Store Practically Threatens To Break The Knees Of Customers Who Complain

A scummy online retailer threatened this woman
Thankfully, she's fighting back.  

Consumerist, that web site full of stories about retail and service businesses that don't quite understand the concept of customer service, has really topped itself this time.

They're telling us about an outfit called OnlineAccessoryOutlet.com which has a terms of service rule demanding customers not even threaten to complain about it, or they'll pay, pay, pay and pay. 

That's a new level of ridiculous, and probably unenforceable tyrannical terms of service rules.

Here's the "best" part of OnlineAccessoryOutlet.com's rules:

"You agree not to file any complaint, chargeback, claim, dispute, or make any public foru post, review, Better Business Bureau complaint, social media post, or any public statement regarding the order, our website or any issue regarding your order, for any reason, with this 90 day period, or to threaten to do so within the 90 day period, or it is a breach of the terms of sale, creating liability for damages in the aount of $250, plus any additional fees, damages, both consequential and incidental, calculated on an ongoing basis."

That's right, even if you casually threaten to post something whiny about OnlineAccessoryOutlet.com on Facebook,  or something,  and not even bother to post the complaint, they'll still go after you for $250.

This goes beyond some of the other ridiculous terms of service I've written about.   At least those tried to collect only when somebody actually complained, and one of these businesses backed down when the publicity hit, saying the rules were just a joke. 

Unlike some other outrageous terms of service fine print from other companies, this one from OnlineAccessoryOutlet.com apparently isn't a joke or an empty threat to make people think twice about complaining.

OnlineAccessoryOutlet.com went after a Wisconsin customer, Cindy Cox who was unhappy with them.

Says Consumerist: "The company told her in an email that not only would she be hit for the $250 penalty but that her account would be sent to a collections agency, which would 'put a negative mart on your credit for 7 years and will also result in calls to your home and/or work."

They also threatened her with further billing on an hourly basis. The customer said she had the right to contact her credit card company about the purchase, and these jerks responded that she now owed them unspecified monetary "damages" above and beyond the $250.

The customer also got a threatening email that read in part: "You are playing games with the wrong people and have made a very bad mistake given the legally binding contract we have in place. One we have successfully enforced on many individuals, the same we will do with you."

Gawd, this is worse than a plot line in "The Sopranos."

I have no idea wither OnlineAccessoryOutlet.com has actually gone after people like they said they have, but boy is this company stupid.

You know inevitably one of the customers the company abused would go to the media, or the media would find out, as happened here. This negative publicity can't be helping this bad outfit.

Plus, as they often do in cases like this, Public Citizen is helping the customer sue OnlineAccessoryOutlet.com, which will only drag out the misery for the company, and maybe with any luck, drive them out of business.

Scumbags that they are.

Says Public Citizen: 

"The lawsuit asks the court to declare that Cox doers not owe Accessory Outlet a debt because the terms of sale were hidden on its website, are unreasonably favorable to Accessory Outlet and were never presented to or accepted by Cox when she made her purchase."

I'm not a lawyer, but it sure seems to be Public Citizen and their client have a strong case.

Here's more evidence of how bad OnlineAccessoryOutlet.com is, according to Consumerist.  The company  claims to have endorsements from the Better Business Bureau and Angie's List. However, both organizations say uh-uh.

The Better Business Bureau actually gives Accessort Outlet an "F" rating, and Angie's List doesn't give them any props, because they have no reviews of this outfit to begin with, Consumerists says.

So I think this might be the beginning of the end for OnlineAccessoryOutlet.com, which would be a very good thing, based on what I'm reading about them.

That might be happening already. I couldn't get into their Web site Friday morning. An error message said their site was "undergoing maintenance."

Insurance Company Pays $21,000 In Loose Change; Instantly Mocked Worldwide

Andres Carrasco says an insurance company paid the
$21,000 it owed him with loose change.  

Another day, another self inflicted PR disaster for one business.  

This time, it's the Adriana's Insurance Services Inc. of Rancho Cucamonga, CA.

According to NBC Los Angeles, a man named Andres Carrasco, 73,  reached a settlement in a lawsuit against the insurance company.

Carrasio said he had been assaulted by one of Adriana's Insurance employees, sued, then settled.

So, recently, the insurance company ponied up $21,000 to Carrasco by delivering it as loose change -- quarter, nickels, dimes, pennies in buckets, says NBC Los Angeles.

Seems awfully juvenile for an insurance agency, doesn't it? Or maybe it's just me.

Already, Adriana's is being mercelessly mocked on Yelp and other social media and review sites, so their little game probably is costing them TONS of business.

This comes a day after news broke that a Hudson, N.Y. inn had a policy that said wedding parties whose guests stayed at the inn and then wrote a negative review faced a $500 fine from the inn. 

Amid a social media storm, the owners of the inn said the policy had been put on their Web site as a joke, they forgot to take it down, and some employees mistakenly enforced the policy if it were real.

The inn's policy is gone.

But we don't know what's going on with Adriana's yet. They told NBC they aren't commenting to the media. At least not yet.

The change came in five gallon buckets and it took eight Adriana's employees to deliver them. Carrasco said he can't even lift one of the buckets of change because of a recent hernia operation.

Another side question I have is, where the hell did the insurance agency get $21,000 in coins. And don't the employees there have anything better to do than collect all that change, put it in buckets and deliver it to Mr. Carrasco?

So, if you need an insurance agency, and you might have to get a settle with them, don't go with Adriana's. Unless you have a lot of room to store loose change. And are a frequent visitor to vending machines.

Glenn Beck Has A Novel Defense In A Defamation Lawsuit

According to Salon, Glenn Beck's got quite a defense against the guy suing him for defamation:
  

Glenn Beck's got a, um, novel response to a defamation
lawsuit against him.  

He made the guy he allegedly defamed famous, even though the guy didn't want to be famous. Therefore, the "famous" guy can't sue.

Confused yet? Well, it is a tortured defense, if you ask me.

Here's the deal:  This guy named Abdulrahman Alharbi was at the Boston Marathon when the terrorist bombs exploded in 2013.  He suffered relatively slight injuries, and of course was terrified.

Law enforcement interviewed him, like they did a lot of people, and decided he had nothing to do with the bombing.

According to the Boston Globe and the Washington Post, police could not have been more clear when responding to media inquires about Alharbi:  "He has been checked out," a law enforcement person said to the Boston Globe in the days after the attack. "He is not involved. He is just a victim."

Case closed, right?

Nope. Beck had other ideas.

Maybe because Alharbi has an Arabic sounding name, I don't know, Beck kept telling readers and listeners he would "expose" Alharbi and called him the "money man" for the terrorist conspiracy.

Alharbi sued for defamation, since he's obviously not a terrorist, though now in the eyes of many Beck fans, he is.

As Salon notes, Beck might have been wise to quietly settle out of court to make Alharbi and the controvery go away.

But Beck says his First Amendment rights are being violated by the lawsuit. Beck says Alharbi is a public figure, so the bar to sue is much higher.

And why is Alharbi a public figure? Because Beck says he acted suspiciously near the Marathon finish line that day, prompting federal investigators to question him.

Never mind that federal investigators questioned a LOT of people, so they could rule out suspects.

Beck says Alharbi is a public figure because he's been granting media interviews. And why has he been putting himself in the media limelight? So he could clear his name and make it obvious to the public he's not any kind of terrorist or danger to anybody.

So this is rich. Beck is the one who thrust Alharbi in the spotlight, and now that Beck shoved him into that spotlight, Alharbi can't' sue Beck for defamation?

Yes, Beck has the First Amendment right to spout almost any kind of garbage he wants. Unless it's untrue and defamatory.

Period.

Jailed Robber Sues Victims Who Objected To Being Robbed

A guy in jail four years after robbing a pizzeria still has his feelings hurt.

Nigel Sykes objects to
robbery victims objecting
to his robbery attempt.  

During the robbery, restaurant employees wrestled the gun away from Nigel Sykes, then 19, subdued him beat him up and poured hot soup on him to hold him until police arrived.

Police cuffed and tased him, and hauled him off to jail.

Now our robber is suing the police and the pizzeria employees, because they beat him up, he says.

He wants a total of $260,000, including $20,000 from each of the six restaurant employees who subdued him.

Here's an excerpt from the, um, poor fellow's lawsuit, relating what happened once employees got tghe gun away from him.

"All of the...employees participated in punching, kicking and pouring hot soup over my body. I was unarmed and defenseless and had to suffer a brutal beating by all of the employees."

Sykes noted he was knocked unconscious.

OK, I'm not sure I like vigilante justice, but it sounds like the employees understandably wanted to disable this loser so he wouldn't cause more havoc.  They'd taken the gun away from him. but they didn't want him to hurt anybody.

The robber had fired the gun once, narrowly missing an employee.  So I can see why the restaurant employees were pretty energized about the situation.

In other words, getting beat up is an on the job hazard for robbers.

Deal with it, sucker.

Unless there's information I'm not aware of, I hope this lawsuit is quickly dismissed.

According to the News Journal of Delaware (warning: If you click on the link, a video autoplays, I hate that). Sykes was linked to at least eight other robberies.

During the court proceedings that led to his prison term, he tried to withdraw a guilty plea, saying "I'm not good at making good choices."

I'll say!

A judge overruled him and put him in jail.

While our robber is in jail, maybe he can think of getting a job once he's out of jail, one that won't get him beat up.

We Think You're Being Sued for $2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

A guy in New York is basically suing everybody for more money that exists on the earth.

This won't be enough money to cover damages
if Anton Purisima wins his lawsuit.  

The amount he is seeking is two octillion gigadollars, which is a 2 followed by 36 zeros, says the Web site Lowering The Bar.   

Anton Purisima's lawsuit is hard to follow, but it seems to target everybody in the world, including you.

 But it appears to focus on the city of New York, a baker, two hospitals, Kmart and a "Latina" dog owner, according to the Huffington post. 

He is seeking damages for "civil rights violations, personal injury, discrimination on national origin, retailiation, harassment, fraud, attempted murder, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy to defraud," says the New York Post. 

The Post says it's sort of unclear what the actions were that caused all these grievances, but it appears part of the problem is a dog nipped his finger, which drew a little blood, and a Chinese couple took an "unauthorized" photo of him.

So get ready to pay up! Just by reading about Purisima like you just did, you surely inflicted "emotional distress" on him.

Although somehow, I think the lawsuit will get thrown out by a judge.

How To Look Like A Scumbag In One Easy Lawsuit

In October, 2012, three teenage boys, as teenagers tend to do, decided to go on a 1:30 a.m. bike ride.  

Brandon Majewski, 17, died in 2012 when
he was hit by an SUV while riding his bike late at night
Now, the woman who hit him is suing him and his
family for $3.5 million.  

Not necessarily the best idea, but, we've all done things that aren't great.

This ended in tragedy, however. An SUV driven by Sharlene Simon, 42, slammed into the three teens, killing Brandon Majewski, 17, and injuring the other two.

Some authorities said she was speeding a bit and probably should have seen reflectors on the bikes. But if we left the situation as is, it would be a horrible tragic accident. Depressingly sad, but not criminal

But, in a move that's sure to make Sharlene Simon at least temporarily one of the most hated women in the world, she has launched a $1.35 million lawsuit against the family of the deceased teen, according to the Toronto Sun, and the deceased teen as well. 

She's also suing the two surviving teens and their families. She says she's suffering psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress.

Yeah, and I'm sure the family of the dead kid are just hunky-dory. Right.

In fact, an older brother of Majewski later died of a drug and alcohol overdose. Their father said he was self medicating to dull the pain of the death, the Sun reported.

The Majewski family lawyer says he's never seen anything like it.

"In all of my years as a lawyer, I have never seen anyone ever sue a child that they killed...It's beyond the pale," said lawyer Brian Cameron.

It's true Majewski's family is also suing Simon, but such lawsuits against the driver of a car involved in a bicycle death on a road are common.

Not to trivialize a tragedy, but is Sharlene Simon the worst person in the world at PR.  I hope she didn't think this lawsuit would be kept secret. Everyone would blab about this in outrage.

Geez, she's not a little selfish, is she?

I don't know if she'll win or not, but if she does, I hope she enjoys the money. She won't have much else, since everybody would hate her so much.