Jeff Woodward, who publishes another gay mag called Next, wrote in to gay site Queerty:

Ben's a friend of mine… and straight… but as far as you can get from homophobic. I met him a few years ago. He is a Florida friend of Next's owner's boyfriend who is also from Florida. He would always hang around the Next offices when he was up in NYC doing shoots and auditions and all the boys here loved him.

I haven't spoken to him in a while, but can assure you he's not the idiotic homophobe he's being portrayed as. He's a sweet funny kid who is going to go far. He knows the gay boys like to look at him and could care less about how that is perceived.

Which, OK, fine. But why then did Massing freak out so much? What kind of model doesn't want to appear in a magazine? I mean, he's already done Abercrombie & Fitch ads, which couldn't really get any more scantily clad or homoerotic. Except, heh, maybe he didn't realize that. So now that it's right out there, a blatant acknowledgment that, yes, the gays are looking, how can his negative reaction be seen as anything but a knee-jerk homophobic moment? I don't think the kid should be tarred and feathered, and Woodward is probably right to come to his defense, but the guy does need to learn a lesson. The gays are everywhere, and they will find you and look at you if they want to, whether you're in Genre or in a Dior ad in Vogue. You see what I'm saying Ben? In the end, it's all kind of the same thing.

One world!

Update: Massing says it was the sexually suggestive nature of the photos that prompted the lawsuit, not the gayness. So, problem solved!

What most distinguishes Reliance from its rivals is what Mr. Ambani’s friends and associates describe as his “intelligence agency,” a network of lobbyists and spies in New Delhi who they say collect data about the vulnerabilities of the powerful, about the minutiae of bureaucrats’ schedules, about the activities of their competitors.

Mr. Ambani said in the interview that all such activities were overseen by his brother before they split, and had since been expunged from his tranche of the company. “We de-merged all of that,” he says, breaking out in a belly laugh. A spokesman for Anil Ambani declined to comment.

Scandalous spying allegations! We don't even want to think about how many hours of legal work are going to go into this multinational multibillion-dollar libel battle between two of the world's richest industrialists. We'll just say that if we were Times reporter Anand Giridharadas we would totally put this on our resume, and also, if the Times loses, why not just turn over the whole paper as payment? [Times UK]

He's suing the men who ran the old magazine Eros, claiming he lent some of the photos from the collection (called The Last Sitting) and these gents never returned them. So he's demanding that the precious, irreplaceable photos be returned or, you know, they could just give him $700,000 and do whatever they want with 'em. Hell, either way he's asking for an additional $1,000,000 in punitive damages. (Man, 45 years after her death, the Marilyn economy is booming! Some dude in Australia just paid $14,500 for 2 1/2 minutes of Marilyn footage. That's 90-something dollars a second!)

I think we can all learn a little something from Mr. Stern, who hasn't stopped working entirely, but cashed in early and never looked back (or, I guess you could say he looks back all the time). Someone will still be interested in hokey philosophical musings on The Hills in 40 years, right? 'Cause I don't have any savings.

Warner Bros. sued an Indian film company for making a movie called "Hari Puttar," claiming that it was a ripoff of Harry Potter. They just lost the case in an Indian court. Home team advantage? Actually, when you hear the facts it seems more like sheer bullying or paranoia on Warner Bros. part:

"Hari Puttar" is not a tale of magic, but the story of an Indian boy and his cousin forgotten at home in Britain where his family has recently moved, in a plot more reminiscent of the film "Home Alone." In the Indian film, 10-year-old Hari Puttar must guard his scientist father's top-security computer chip from bumbling burglars, while his parents are away.

Gee, that sounds... absolutely nothing like Harry Potter. Also, "Hari is a common name in India and Hindi for God, while 'puttar' is Punjabi for son."

Hey Warner Bros, stop that. Bollywood has already stolen Snoop Dogg from us and India has surpassed America in fighting the Axe Body Spray menace. Soon America will have no original culture left and you'll have to steal ideas from India, so don't blow your wad on frivolous lawsuits. [WSJ; pic via Courant]

[The judge] said he was throwing out Rather's fraud claim not because he wasn't duped, but because he didn't suffer any damages from the alleged trickery. The judge noted that Rather, 76, was still paid the money he was owed under his contract, and is still gainfully - and lucratively - employed by HDNet.

He said Rather's claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty can go forward.

Now Rather's suit has come down to proving that CBS stopped giving him (enough) work in the 15 months following the Bush story controversy. Which is not quite as dramatic as it was before.

I apologize for perpetuating Rather-talk.

[NYP]

"The lawsuit filed yesterday is filled with frivolous and unfounded allegations, and I hope every partner in this company is as outraged as I am at having to spend the time and money required to defend ourselves against it. The media industry is in crisis, the advertising environment is extremely difficult and the economy is in turmoil. The overwhelming majority of our employees have taken up the challenge — they are working hard, leading by example, and devoting themselves to re-inventing our businesses by developing new and innovative products for our readers, viewers and advertisers. As a company we are attacking our problems and revolutionizing the media industry.

"This lawsuit is a mere distraction, and we will work quickly to see that
it is dismissed. It will not deter us from completing the work ahead."

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Los Angeles, CA-A class action complaint CV08-06040 was filed today against Samuel Zell, the Tribune Company, and others in U.S. District Court, Central District of California, by Joseph Cotchett and Philip Gregory of the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on behalf of Dan Neil, Los Angeles Times Pulitzer Prize winning auto critic; Corie Brown, former Los Angeles Times wine and food writer; Henry Weinstein, founding faculty member of UC Irvine School of Law and former Los Angeles Times legal affairs writer; Myron Levin, former Los Angeles Times consumer affairs writer; Walter Roche Jr., former Los Angeles Times writer; and Jack Nelson former Los Angeles Times Washington, D.C. bureau chief on behalf of themselves and other members of a class consisting of current and former employees of the Tribune Company who have rights under the Tribune Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) or various Tribune retirement plans.

The complaint alleges that since completing his takeover of the Tribune Company in December 2007, Sam Zell's illegal and irresponsible actions and public statements have damaged the reputation and business of the company he purports to want to preserve. According to the filed complaint, through both the structure of his takeover and his subsequent conduct, Zell and his accessories have diminished the value of the employee-owned company to benefit himself and his fellow board members. It alleges further that through their destructive management and self-dealings at the expense of employees, Zell and his co-fiduciaries have repeatedly breached their fiduciary duties to beneficiaries of the Tribune Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP).

Plaintiffs seek to recover all losses to the Tribune ESOP and the company caused by Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties. As well, Plaintiffs seek the removal of Defendants from their fiduciary positions and removal of the Tribune Board in its entirety for their ongoing dereliction of duties.

[via Romenesko]

• June 25, 1998: Michael Bloomberg is deposed for a sexual harassment suit by an employee who says she was raped at work. He gives kind of asshole answers.
• September 27, 2007: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announces it will sue Bloomberg for cutting the pay of or demoting women on maternity leave.
• October 2, 2007: A New York Post story calls the company "a cesspool of discrimination" towards women.
• October 4, 2007: Mayor Bloomberg himself is accused of fostering and condoning the sexual discrimination in his company. Also of secretly running it himself.
• October 5, 2007: Mayor recalls that yes, he does talk to the head of his company all the time.
• May 2, 2008: Number of ladies suing Bloomberg is up to 58. That was not the ceiling obviously.

Now, there are 72 women on the suit—a suit that the company initially called a "publicity stunt," New York mag points out. They always knew pregnant ladies were unstable, what with the hormones and all. Stop suing, ladies—stress is bad for your figure! Amirite Mike? Play on, playa!

She says she was protected by "a wooden fence approximately five feet tall" in her yard, but the defendants nevertheless trespassed to photograph and expose her unclothed body to the wilds of the internet. For shame!

We couldn't find any definitive candidates while digging around Egotastic. The closest Miami shots appear to be Helena Christensen (but she was at the beach with her boyfriend) or Brooke Hogan (but she's not nude, or a supermodel). So who is it? Guesses about this matter of legal import in the comments.

UPDATE: Elsa Benitez?

[Courthouse News]

Commentary has a think piece out this month on new legislation signed by New York's heroic blind governor last spring, which allows judges here to invalidate libel judgments obtained in countries with lesser free speech protections (hello, UK). The prime motivation was reportedly the nonstop libel tourism of Khalid bin Mahfouz (see below), which threatened to bankrupt some journalists. Huzzah for our right to write things, and yours to read them! Here are some of recent history's most notable libel tourists:

• Khalid bin Mahfouz—a Saudi billionaire who may be the chief libel tourist offender. He's been successful three dozen times, according to Commentary, winning either cash or an apology. His main problem is that lots of people say he funds Al-Quaeda.
• Sidney Blumenthal—wonky former Clinton advisor and (irony!) journalist who sued Matt Drudge for $30 million for alleging Blumenthal abused his wife, based on anonymous sources. Drudge later apologized, but Blumenthal never won his suit formally.
• Richard Perle—hawkish Bush advisor "threatened to sue investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in London, because of a series of critical articles Hersh had written about him." Jerk.

Truth is the ultimate defense!

[Commentary (abstract); pic via Reuters]

The two broke up. Then Martinez allegedly emailed Mullens over and over and over, moaning about his lost love and his bad mental state, and promising to stop contacting her (which she told him to do). But it just kept on, and got worse:

Soon Mullens started receiving emails from a mysterious (fake) "Hugh Frederick":

Martinez eventually acknowledged that he was Hugh Frederick. But his unwanted emails to Mullen got even more disturbing:

Here's a PDF of the entire complaint. If it's at all accurate, Martinez should probably 1. Stop that, and 2. Seek help.

[THR]

In California contracts can only last seven years? But they've had theirs for nine years? So they just quit it? No idea if this is legally sound or not.

If you think the fact that we have sold in excess of 2 million records and have never been paid a penny is pretty unbelievable, well, so do we. And the fact that EMI informed us that not only aren't they going to pay us AT ALL but that we are still 1.4 million dollars in debt to them is even crazier. That the next record we make will be used to pay off that old supposed debt just makes you start wondering what is going on. Shouldn't a record company be able to turn a profit from selling that many records? Or, at the very least, break even? We think so.

Ha, yes. Shouldn't a nice person like, say, you be able to hit the lottery weekly? You think so.

Time to make a sex tape, Jared Leto.

[30STM. Beware: music]

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Slavery now
Current mood: thoughtful

Hello Friends, i'm writing this little blog to find out what people consider slavery and freedom. I've had these ideas in my mind since i was a child and they are starting to make my life really hard now. Well lets see.... My idea of slavery is not having a choice of what you want your life to be like, not being allowed to make decisions to better your life, being forced to live a certain quality of life, and my list goes on. I guess the easiest way for me to explain is by showing you how we live as americans. Why in america is everyone given a social security/tracking number at birth, is this really something necessary or government convenience. Why are all americans taught white history , when this is one of the most diverse places in the world? Why are their private schools even in elementary , is this to make certain members of society more elite ? Why are we forced to pay for education(college) that is vital for our survival in our nation? Is this a way to keep certain social classes contained and to lead them into becoming products of their environment. I know that their are such things as scholarships and loans, but what does that really mean when we could just look out for our well being. With banks closing so rapidly, what are you going to do with your hard earned money my friends and where will your money go. Are you going to continue you to pay taxes for living in a country founded on stealing,raping,lying. Paying taxes is something that peasants did because kings forced them to.Do we really want to stay ignorant, broke, deceiving, scared of one another. If all power went out tomorrow what would you do, would you be able to start a fire, would you be able to grow your own food, would you have drinking water, knowledge of how to catch and clean a fish, or even shelter. If our president declared marshal law what would you do? My friends we are all slaves in this country, i hope that you are ready for survival of the most efficient. Please teach yourself a trade or a skill, something that you can actually use if shit really hits the fan. You have to think what is graphic design going to do for you when your starving?

Some key pieces from the lawsuit:

Cretella says the Times didn't give him a promotion because he was falsely charged with sexually harassing a new 33-year-old copy editor that Cretella was training. Very enthusiastically:

The two became friends, with Cretella giving him a hand-me-down jacket, letting him use his personal coffee machine and giving him some of the candy he often kept at his desk...

The Times cited allegations that Cretella offered to train the new employee at his home and had a sign on his computer that read, "Can't get enough of lil' bro."

But! Cretella says he was just being nice, and the other guy is actually the perv:

The new guy would walk close by after lunch breaks and whisper things like, "Did you miss me?" the lawsuit says...

In June 2006, the younger employee "started to act inappropriately more consistently" and once rubbed himself through his pants for 20 minutes in his cubicle, the lawsuit says.

Needless to say, both men come off looking very strange. Who's right? We want to hear from each and every New York Times employee with an opinion on this matter. Particularly the copy editors.

[NYDN]

Osteen is currently getting sued by flight attendant Sharon Brown for an air rage incident:

One of Ms. Brown’s co-workers, Maria Johnson, told a jury of five women and seven men that Ms. Osteen “manhandled” her and Ms. Brown and charged toward the cockpit during a flight from Houston to Vail, Colo., in December 2005.

Ms. Osteen was upset about some liquid “about the size of quarter” on the armrest of her first-class seat, Ms. Johnson said.

Psycho! Plus, she pushed past all of the black employees to speak to a white person. Racist! But Brown seems a bit greedy:

Ms. Brown contends Ms. Osteen assaulted her and has filed a civil suit, seeking an apology and 10 percent of Ms. Osteen’s net worth as compensation.

Ha, wow, quite a bit of money for getting yelled at! As a bonus, Osteen's lawyer is a clown:

Ms. Osteen’s lawyer, Rusty Hardin, said she acted “reasonably,” given that it was an unknown substance on the armrest that prevented both her and her son from taking their seats...

Red-faced and waving his hands, Mr. Hardin asked [Brown] if she knew the Osteens’ congregation was a third black and a third Hispanic.

And Brown's experts are equally shady!

Shayna Patrice Lee, a psychiatrist, testified that Ms. Brown suffers from “major depression” and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the scuffle.

She said that because Ms. Osteen was a well-known religious figure, her behavior caused Ms. Brown to “question the whole issue of spirituality.”

Moreover, Dr. Lee, who said she had expertise in treating African-American patients, said Ms. Brown, as a black woman, was especially harmed because Ms. Osteen’s behavior made her feel “demeaned and humiliated."

Overall, this would be a good time for god to start smiting people. Here's a video of Osteen and her pastor husband discussing their Jesus-based relationship. I am from the South and I fear these people:

[NYT]

Mosley, 68, brought the case earlier this month, saying the newspaper, which published pictures showing the Formula One boss being spanked by women dressed as prison guards, was responsible for a "gross and indefensible intrusion of his private life".

The News of the World had claimed Mosley was involved in Nazi-style role-playing and that the sex session was an example of "true depravity" not just harmless "hanky spanky".

Giving evidence during the case, Mosley confessed to having had a penchant for sado-masochism from an early age, but dismissed any suggestion of a Nazi fetish. He said he could think of few things more unerotic.

[Reuters]

More broadly, the scary reality is that here in the free speech capital of the world, a prosecutor tried both to demand confidential information about an anonymous critic and insisted, under penalty of law, that his request for the information be kept secret. We’re glad he backed down, and confident that the courts would have rebuffed his demands.

But not every blogger will be lucky enough to find pro bono counsel like ours, and few can afford to pay for lawyers. In the meantime, we hope District Attorney Johnson will be able to provide more detailed answers to the unanswered questions in this case: Who ordered this investigation of a political critic to be opened? Did it proceed through the usual channels – a complaint filed with the New York Police Department, for instance – or through the D.A.’s political operatives? The chilling threat to an important new form of speech demands that the D.A. take these questions seriously, or if he doesn’t, that a credible outside

Once again, we're dangerously close to becoming the UK.

[NYP]

Last March, Rupert Murdoch's News of the World reported that Mosley had a Nazi-themed bondage party with five prostitutes (actually dominatrices!). They have a tape, it's kind of inescapable. Mosley sued them for breach of privacy anyway. And he is probably going to win!

Britain is so open to libel suits that Mosley's case looks good even though the basic facts of the News of the World story are all true, and yes, there is a tape. But Mosley argues that sado-masocism is totally normal and harmless (no argument here), and furthermore that his party was not Nazi-themed. This is where he kinda loses us, as the tape features the women explaining that they're beating him because they are "the Aryan race" and there are some very Nazi-looking uniforms and also a lot of German is spoken. Also Mosley conveniently deleted a couple emails he sent to "participants in the session."

But he got himself a great judge:

The judge, the paper said, was “almost single-handedly creating a new privacy law” with a series of landmark judgments against newspapers in libel and invasion-of-privacy cases.

The Times cited a 2006 case in which the judge granted a “gagging order” to a famous British sportsman, unnamed in the order, who had had an affair with a married woman, to prevent the woman’s husband from going to the papers and exposing the sportsman as a philanderer.

So the expansion of the right of complete privacy to people who are outright no-foolin celebrities does basically mean the crippling of the celebutainment industry in Britain.

The Times story is written by John Burns, by the way. You may remember John Burns as one of the reporters whose extramarital affair was part of a wrongful dismissal suit filed against the New York Times a while back, which was reported on in the New York Observer and elsewhere. Though Burns probably hopes you don't remember this. (He should move to London!)

(The story also features the most helpful Times photo caption ever: "Max Mosley, in a video on a Web site.")

For years, bloggers and other assorted morons have assumed "allegedly" is some sort of magical "get out of libel free" card, when in fact it is just an annoying affection (except when we use it, then it's a funny joke). But if "I think" is now the magical line between defamation and simple innocent speculation, well, consider us hypothetically back on the accused bandwagon!

This is the second lawsuit Condit's lost against Dunne, and Dunne just keeps accusing the never-charged man of "knowing" things about this murder, repeatedly implying that the former congressmen is—as pretty much everyone in America suspects—personally responsible.

Now we can accuse the mildly famous of anything as long as we couch it in tentativeness. We thought we heard that maybe John Mayer supports Robert Mugabe? Oh, and Paul Janka, accused rapist, can't wait to meet all of you guys!

Dominick Dunne Clear of Insinuating Gary Condit is a Creepy Maybe-Murderer [Jossip]
Condit Suit Against Dunne Tossed [Radar]
Judge Dismisses Condit Lawsuit Against Author [ModBee]

Chaunce's full statement:

Statement from Chaunce Hayden: Neither myself or any other employee of Steppin' Out magazine, published anything at anytime to suggest that [Opie's fiancee] Ms. Smigo was involved in a sex tape. In fact, I went as far as to print that Ms. Smigo was not involved in a sex tape despite what Page Six of the New York Post suggested. When contacted by Bill Hoffmann of the New York Post, prior to their story about a sex tape involving Ms. Smigo and Bam Margera, I was asked if I thought the story was indeed true. I told Mr. Hoffman that I never saw a tape and that this is a rumor that has been on the internet for two years and that a former employee of the Opie and Anthony Show is claiming the story to be true. I told Mr. Hoffman that I was waiting for an answer from either Mr. Hughes or Mr. Margera to confirm or deny the story and I would wait until I saw a tape before filing my story. The next day Page Six published the item, despite my denial of a sex tape. In fact, I personally advised Mr. Hoffmann not to print anything until he saw the tape. Mr. Hoffman asked for 48 hours to "work" the story after I suggested he hold off until he saw the tape as well.

Yea Chaunce, you should probably get a lawyer, though. And here's a transcript sent by Hayden, in which he helpfully inserted the name of the real culprit in all this:

Transcript: Opie commenting on his XM radio show about the alleged sex tape between Bam Margera and his fiancée Lynsi Smigo. Opie confirms how long the story has been public and where the story originated: This is a false rumor. It's a lie that was started a year and a half ago by someone and we all know his name (Ben). Fucking Chaunce was the one who fed this story to Page Six and made them believe that this story could be possibly true. This guy [Ben] is a complete asshole. I'm now up to 20 names of people I know that (Ben) told this rumor to behind my back. He's been trying to get this rumor out there and trying to get as many to believe this. He got message boards to believe it. He's got people saying, "Let's try to find the fucking tape!" This whole thing started one and a half years ago! Everyone knows who started this. I'm not allowed to say his name on the radio right now. He would text me non-stop around the clock. I wouldn't budge. I finally wrote back, "Wow you are damaged. You need help." Then he wrote back, "Lynsi...Sex tape. Do I have your attention now?" I thought who is ever going to believe it. Now this motherfucker [Chaunce] gets Page Six to believe this and now I'm in hell.

Page Six does the nasty:

The story spreads:

It's not true!:

Also, lies are hurtful:

[via The Smoking Gun]

In August 2002, Quon and another officer exceeded a department limit of 25,000 characters per month for texting. The police chief ordered a subordinate to obtain transcripts of the officers' text messages to determine whether the pagers were being used purely for work purposes.

The provider, Arch Wireless, sent the department transcripts of the messages. The city determined that many of Quon's messages were personal, and several were sexually explicit.

The court found that Arch Wireless violated the federal Stored Communications Act, which prohibits providers from divulging the contents of any communication that is maintained on the service without a warrant.

So check to make sure your work uses and outside email contractor; then, spend all day texting dirty things to your girlfriend and sending us spiteful leaks via email. America! Freedom!

[LAT]

Stern promises to appeal the ruling, first off. Which will be fun. And Stern is still suing his former employers at the New York Post! In Florida. Because Stern's lawyer Larry Klayman is a conservative political activist who keeps suing the Clintons over and over again, so now he's only only allowed to argue cases in Florida, Pennsylvania, and D.C.. Maybe some sun will do Stern good?

And hey, Stern should still look on the bright side. His life may be in shambles, but at least he's not one of the two former Page Six contributors currently in jail for statutory rape or theft. He's not even reduced to writing for Gawker! (Anymore.)

"You know how uncomfortable that makes somebody feel, especially somebody who's going through chemo? Stupid ass bitch."

[via ConcreteLoop]

"The libel claim focuses on a series of articles that appeared in the British press including the Daily Mail, the London Evening Standard and the Independent on Sunday from April 22 onwards.

These articles alleged that Robert Dee had lost 54 consecutive professional matches, making him the world's worst player. British-born Dee, who works full time as a tennis professional at La Manga in Spain, has denied the claim.

According to his spokesman, Dee said that while he has lost 54 consecutive International Tennis Federation matches he also won 20 other professional matches in that time."

Robert Dee is a terrible tennis player. God bless the USA!

(Also, could this spell the end of derogatory listicles in the UK? Heaven forbid!)

[Guardian UK]

Karlin signed a contract for a book that was going to be tie-in for a new PBS series called "Spain ... on the Road Again," which starred flame-haired fatty celebuchef Batali and blonde actress Gwyneth Paltrow.

But in November 2007, a conflict arose when Mr. Pinsky allowed Mr. Batali to engage designers for the book, including one of Mr. Batali's relatives, instead of leaving the design to Mr. Karlin, as previously agreed, the lawsuit states. Mr. Karlin contends that Mr. Batali also expected him to write the book in its entirety, and refused to contribute recipes, pictures, or other material to the project, claiming to be too busy.

When Mr. Karlin asked to lessen his involvement in the book, the lawsuit states, Mr. Batali asked that the writer be fired from the project. He has not been paid, and is suing for $125,000, including the cost of two trips to Spain, according to the lawsuit.

Well, it sounds like Batali really flaked out here, and Karlin deserves to be paid for his hard work. Unless he's just making it up because he's, you know, a little bit of a dick.

[NYS; pic via NY]

[Yesterday her lawyer called her Joan Clark; a bad sign?]

FOX NEWS BESIEGED BY BEDBUGS

Joan Clark, a twelve year veteran of Fox News, can no longer go to work
after suffering emotional distress due to a continuous and ongoing bedbug
problem at work. Since October, Fox News has been struggling to control a
bedbug infestation at its headquarters, located at 1211 Avenue of the
Americas, in NYC without success. Ms. Clark, bitten in the original influx
in October '07, then in November '07, was once again attacked by these
swarming insects on April 30, 2007.

Joan Clark has been diagnosed with post traumatic stress syndrome and finds
that she is unable to return to work and maintain her normal daily routine.
As a mother with a young child, she is trying to cope and carry on as usual.
She is under the care of doctors who are treating her emotional problems due
to being thrice bitten by bedbugs.

Although her entire department was moved to a different floor, the bedbugs
moved with them. Ms. Clark repeatedly asked and got assurance from her
supervisors that the environment was safe.

Alan Schnurman, Ms. Clark's attorney who has handled numerous bedbug cases
said to his knowledge this is the first lawsuit concerning bedbugs in an
office. "We have had cases in hotels, cruise ships, and apartment buildings
but this is one of the first we know about in the work environment." Bedbug
infestation has reached national epidemic proportions. Even Congress has
taken note and on May 19, 2008, Congressman G.K. Butterfield introduced a
bill before Congress called the "Don't Let the Bed Bugs Bite Act of 2008" to
establish funding to eradicate this serious problem.

A lawsuit is being filed on behalf of Joan Clark and her husband Stuart
against the building's owner and the maintenance company in Supreme Court,
New York County. Ms. Clark has also filed a Workers Compensation claim
against her employer, the News Corp. A press conference is being held on
Thursday, May 29, 2008, at 11:00AM at the law office of Zalman & Schnurman,
61 Broadway, Suite 1105. Joan Clark and her husband will be on hand to
answer any questions in regard to this matter.

Locate the greasy gross culprit immediately!

Unfortunately the lame-o editorialist at the Dartmouth Review doesn't except much of it. He's too busy castigating post-modernism and comparative lit and feminists, because he is soooo smart and controversial. (Also: his name is Weston and he uses his middle initial.)

But here's the first line:

"The Renaissance is a period characterized by many scholars as a critique of medieval and religious scholaticism [sic] that concerned itself with the study and revision of certain aspects of ancient civilization in the realm of art, literature, law, historiography, and political theory."

Well. We can see how that outraged her students so much!

Anyway the rest of the essay is about MacBeth and the patriarchy and also how everyone should stop being mean to Priya Venkatesan.

Venkatesan's Thesis: Sound and Fury [DartReview]