Comments on: Photo-retouch blogging draws lawyer nastygram

By: mojo

mojo — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:33:58 +0000

Would “Bite me, Shyster” be considered a valid response? Would it be defamatory?

How about if I stick in a “don’t dare print this” warning?

By: A.W.

A.W. — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:58:05 +0000

ironically, i would never have heard of this story but for the fact that this guy sent the nastygram. hecuvajob you are doing there, bud. now even more of us know about this crappy photoshop.

By: Le Mur

Le Mur — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:12:56 +0000

As a photoshopper, I thought the model's Photoshopped hip was funny because it was so poorly done and obvious. The threats from the the law-talking-guy were just silly.

By: SmartDude

SmartDude — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:44:51 +0000

Ms Demi Moore should have all print photographs stamped “Confidential Legal Notice – Publication or Dissemination is Prohibited”.

By: Simple Justice

Simple Justice — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:20:36 +0000

Not For Publication…

Lawyers are a hoot. We write stuff in letter that makes us sound like we’ve got army behind us to back us up if the recipient doesn’t buckle. Heck, in Maricopa, judges can’t enforce their own
decisions, and yet some guys in blue pinstripes (not the…

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:20:08 +0000

Whenever I see letters from potential plaintiff’s attorney’s purporting to make the letter “Confidential Legal Notice – Publication or Dissemination is Prohibited”, my estimation of the the legal profession drops a little more. To me, that is always a sign the author of the letter is making a poor legal assertion and is trying to stifle debate.