• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

McFarlane/Twist settlement: finally

Started by drice6900,

132 posts in this topic

FFB

FFB

Posted
Posted

 

Oh, and I hope FFB simply forgot to put in a few funny graemlins in here and there, because he really looks like a pompous, egotisitical jerk in this thread.

 

 

As opposed to what? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

I think his point was that I am taking it to a new level in this particular thread. makepoint.gif

 

Not possible Scott.. with you the knob is always turned up to 11!

 

One louder is not possible, now is it?

 

tongue.gif

 

 

 

Ze-

 

It's not the volume; it is the abrasiveness. I was going for 40-grit.

 

Hence the reason you'll never get a smooth finish. smirk.gif

 

40-grit isn't intended for smooth finishes. It is intended for rapid removal of material. yay.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldGuy

OldGuy

Posted
Posted
Yet another thing to consider - wasn't McFarlane throwing big money around on MLB homerun balls around the time of the trial?

 

Personally, I believe Todd was wrong to do what he did. Twist was right to sue. An amount was eventually agreed upon by both sides. Doesn't seem too difficult to me thumbsup2.gif

 

Oh, and I hope FFB simply forgot to put in a few funny graemlins in here and there, because he really looks like a pompous, egotisitical jerk in this thread.

 

Right back atcha, fookface! hi.gif

 

Much better, Dork Counselor! thumbsup2.gifinsane.gif

 

cloud9.gif Feelin' the love, but also feeling a little left out.

 

FU BOTH!

 

flowerred.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ze-man

Ze-man

Posted
Posted
yeesh, I don't understand what the fuss is about. I agree with FFB on this issue.

 

Look in the forum handbook.

 

Page 347, paragraph 2.. line 3

 

When 2 lawyer forumites get into a row, it is not possible to figure out what the fuss is about. Just sit back and watch.

 

stooges.gif

 

 

Ze-

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sid

Sid

Posted
Posted
yeesh, I don't understand what the fuss is about. I agree with FFB on this issue.

 

Look in the forum handbook.

 

Page 347, paragraph 2.. line 3

 

When 2 lawyer forumites get into a row, it is not possible to figure out what the fuss is about. Just sit back and watch.

 

stooges.gif

 

 

Ze-

 

hm, I'll eat popcorn to that. popcorn.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drice6900

drice6900

Posted
  • Author
Posted
yeesh, I don't understand what the fuss is about. I agree with FFB on this issue.

 

Look in the forum handbook.

 

Page 347, paragraph 2.. line 3

 

When 2 lawyer forumites get into a row, it is not possible to figure out what the fuss is about. Just sit back and watch.

 

stooges.gif

 

 

Ze-

 

27_laughing.gifsign-funnypost.gifthumbsup2.gif

 

Hey Ze, I hear one of your football players could use a DUI lawyer about now... insane.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
Remember this was Missouri and one boarder has characterized them as a bunch of "good old boys". Nuff said, true believer..... tongue.gif

foreheadslap.gif

I have serious doubts that a jury from "the city of St. Louis" was a bunch of "good old boys".

 

Uh, Tim - have you spent much time in St. Louis? I grew up about 100 miles north of there. My uncle and his family (my cousins, their in-laws, etc) live in and around the St. Louis area and I would characterize them as Good Old Boys (even the girls 27_laughing.gif ). Sure, they don't hang confederate flags off their pickup trucks but they all have a very midwestern "good ol' boy" bent to them in spite of growing up IN St. Louis. In addition, they are all politically conservative and VERY religious.

 

I could easily see them all siding against a guy who is characterized as writing a "Satanic" comic book compared to a blue collar mid-range hockey player. They're also all big St. Louis Blues fans.

 

I ain't sayin' it's right, lawyer boy. That's jus' the way it is in middle America. confused-smiley-013.gifgrin.gif

I guess I was interpreting it as "inner city of St. Louis", and if that was true, then I repeat my statement that there wouldn't have been a lot of "good old boys" on the jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
agro23

agro23

Posted
Posted
I guess I was interpreting it as "inner city of St. Louis", and if that was true, then I repeat my statement that there wouldn't have been a lot of "good old boys" on the jury.
Trust me, there were. And church ladies too.

 

Well, except I suppose that could be considered judgmental. See, it's not that there's anything wrong with being a good ol' boy or anything per se. It's just they're not exactly qualified (IMHO) to decide what's right or wrong in a first ammendment case. And that was the crux of the McFarlane side of the case; FA, parody, et al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted
I guess I was interpreting it as "inner city of St. Louis", and if that was true, then I repeat my statement that there wouldn't have been a lot of "good old boys" on the jury.
Trust me, there were. And church ladies too.

 

Well, except I suppose that could be considered judgmental. See, it's not that there's anything wrong with being a good ol' boy or anything per se. It's just they're not exactly qualified (IMHO) to decide what's right or wrong in a first ammendment case. And that was the crux of the McFarlane side of the case; FA, parody, et al.

 

This wasn't a first amendment case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whetteon

whetteon

Posted
Posted

I'm confused how Mad Magazine can continuely write jokes depicting famous people in the most obscene and degrading gags and not gets sued while Todd McFarlane makes a character loosely based upon a real life person and get taking for millions in defraud of character?

 

How is this not a first amendment case?

 

Hell, I've seen more defraud of character on CNN nightly then I can ever find in a comic book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drice6900

drice6900

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'm confused how Mad Magazine can continuely write jokes depicting famous people in the most obscene and degrading gags and not gets sued while Todd McFarlane makes a character loosely based upon a real life person and get taking for millions in defraud of character?

 

How is this not a first amendment case?

 

Hell, I've seen more defraud of character on CNN nightly then I can ever find in a comic book.

 

I think it was something to do with Parody and intent. I am sure a lawyer here could elaborate thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whetteon

whetteon

Posted
Posted

I also heard that it helps the news organizations to put question marks at the end of their suggestive statements.

 

Is President George Bush a child pedophile?

 

Maybe Todd can start doing the same in his comic book. Was Tony Twist's divorce due to poor plumbing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hobo

Hobo

Posted
Posted
I also heard that it helps the news organizations to put question marks at the end of their suggestive statements.

 

Is President George Bush a child pedophile?

 

Maybe Todd can start doing the same in his comic book. Was Tony Twist's divorce due to poor plumbing?

 

Whettspeak! yay.gif893applaud-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jokersrevenge

jokersrevenge

Posted
Posted
This is a the sad part. Look at a 10 million dollar verdict, the lawyer takes between 34-45- percent....down to 6.5 million. The IRS takes half, now the final amount is down to 1.5 million.......

 

Not a math major,I see. thumbsup2.gif

 

 

Actually, I did minor in math and thought about being a math teacher before I decided to go to medical school......I guess my point was that both percentages are taken off the total award, so the remainder is sometimes quite small compared to the award......As far as the tax percentage, 35% plus 5-7 % from state and local taxes....It almost seems like double taxing ....first the claimant pays from his winnings, then the lawyers pay from their part.....The gubment makes out pretty well from the system..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted

Two points.

 

The First Amendment says the Government may not impose censorship.Is this case about government censorship? If not,the First Amendment doesn't come into it.

 

As far as taxes being due-most payouts from lawsuits and from insurance companies are not taxable.I was surprised to read,about a year ago,that some settlements are taxable,so I don't know where this one lays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FFB

FFB

Posted
Posted
Two points.

 

The First Amendment says the Government may not impose censorship.Is this case about government censorship? If not,the First Amendment doesn't come into it.

 

Yes it is, because a court case involving a damage award is a government act. It directly implicates the First Amendment. The question is how much protection "commercial speech" gets under the First Amendment. But this is very much a First Amendment case.

 

As far as taxes being due-most payouts from lawsuits and from insurance companies are not taxable.I was surprised to read,about a year ago,that some settlements are taxable,so I don't know where this one lays.

 

Also not true. Settlements for damages resulting from physical injury are not taxable. This settlement, which represented lost earnings opportunities, is definitely taxable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing