Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941) is quoted as saying ,
"If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable."
LAWYER: An individual whose principle role is to protect his clients from others of his profession.
There are two groups of professions from whom we expect to hear lies; politician and lawyers. What's worse is no one really seems to care as long as it isn't their politician or their lawyer that was caught lying. So, what does that say about us as a society? We get what we demand: lousy, ineffective politicians and expensive, lying lawyers. In our opinion, corporate lawyers are the worst.
Wiley, the cartoonist who does the Non Sequitur cartoons, wrote about lawyers and why he attacks them in his cartoon collection The Non Sequitur Legal Lampoon. Everyone should buy this book. In addition, Wiley and others have done numerous cartoons about the legal profession.
First, let's begin by defining lying, or a lie, according to the dictionary. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines a lie as a false statement made with the intention of deceiving.
i.e., making a statement of fact, or telling the truth, in such a way that it creates a false impression, is a lie. Gee, isn't that what the corporate legal representation is all about?
We have encountered this a number of times dealing with corporate lawyers and pleadings from corporate lawyers. But, it's not just Tabberone that has a low opinion of these "officers of the court". As one wag said, "98% of lawyers give the other 2% a bad name."
A lengthy article by Gary L. Quick, A Residency for All, is typical in its observations concerning the perception the public has about lawyers:
Lawyers aren't the only culprits out there. Far too many companies place unqualified individuals into positions where thay have to make decisions concerning copyrights and trademarks. To the uninitiated, the laws governing copyrights and trademarks can be misleading. For example, the Lanham Act, the cornerstone of federal trademark law, simply states that using a trademark without the "authorization" of the trademark owner is illegal. What the Lanham Act doesn't make clear is that "unauthorized use" means counterfeiting either the trademark or applying a real trademark to a counterfeit product. What's disturbing is that while it's understandable how someone could misunderstand wording like "unauthorized use" in the Lanham Act, corporate lawyers often use this wording themselves to intimidate the uninitiated into believing they are doing something wrong when in fact their use falls under "fair use" and the corporate lawyer knows this.
Lorin Snyder wrote an article titled Coping with a Pro Per Litigant for
The Los Angeles Lawyer, July-August 2003 issue. She tells attorneys how to deal with pro per, or pre se, litigants.
One quickly gets the impressions that she regards pro per, or pre se, litigants as lower than one-celled plants.
We have corrected that article to present it from the pro per, or pre se, litigant view, titled Coping Pro Per With A Corporate Lawyer, by Tabberone.
UPDATE - November 10, 2008 - Seems the New York law firm Reed Smith
just can't get a break. The Bair Foundation, which describes itself as a Christian charitable foundation devoted to foster care for children, sued
Reed Smith for over-billing, (among other things) in late 2007. Seems Reed Smith quoted a paltry $50,000 to handle a discrimination
case (which Bair claims was badly mishandled) and ended up billing them almost $1 Million big ones instead. That's twenty times the original estimate. All those kiddies
that won't get foster care because of Reed Smith! Have you no shame, Reed Smith? Opps, that's right, you don't! You're lawyers.
That was a retorical question. Silly us.
In an effort to provide a balanced view, we make the following offer to anyone who feels they have been wrongly accused on this web site.
If you, or your company, have been referenced on these pages, and you would like the chance to post a rebuttal, we will post your rebuttal (provided it is in good taste) so others can read it. The rebuttal must be submitted in a format that can easily be converted into HTML. We reserve the right to alter the rebuttal to make it more readable. However, we will not alter the content (unless there is offensive material to be removed). We also reserve the right to comment on any rebuttal received. Emails protesting the content of this web site may be treated as rebuttals by us at our discretion.
Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Initial Interest Confusion |
Likelihood Of Confusion |
Material Difference Standard
Parallel Imports | Post-sale Confusion | Puffery | Secondary Meaning | Subsequent Confusion | Trademark Abuse
Unauthorized Use | Unfair Competition | What is a Trademark?
Angel Policies |
Contributory Infringement |
Copyright Extortion |
Copyright Misuse Doctrine
Derivative | The Digital Millennium Copyright Act | EULA | Fair Use | First Sale Doctrine | Product Description
Registration | Registration Denied | What is a Copyright? | What is not Copyrightable?
Embroidery Designs |
FAQs & Whines |
Image and Text Theft |
Licensed Fabric |
Licensing & Licenses |
Patterns Index | Profit | Quilting | Selvage | Stanford School of Law Case Outline
Tabberone Disclaimer | Trademark Extortion | Urban Myths | What To Do If You Are Veroed
Federal Court Cases |
Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations
Federal Statutes |
Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22
VeRO (Verified Right's Owner Program)|
VeRO Commandments | VeRO-Verified Rights Owners Program | Counter Notice Letter
Counter Notice (pre-2003) | Counter Notice present | On-Line Survey from 2004 | Articles about VeRO | What To Do If You Are Veroed
|Original material by Karen Dudnikov & Michael Meadors is © 1999-2016|