General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 696
Default Restaurant critics beware!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...0449681&pnum=0

Restaurants Story

Reviewers criticise at their legal peril
5:00AM Thursday July 05, 2007
By David Usborne

Everybody wants to be a critic, but be warned. Praise what you see -
or taste - and the creator will love you forever. Slam it, however,
and they might just try to bite back.

Just ask Craig LaBan, the restaurant reviewer for the Philadelphia
Inquirer. Earlier this year, he visited an eatery called Chops in the
nearby town of Bala Cynwyd and made the mistake of shredding its fare.

The meal was "expensive and disappointing", he wrote in a capsule
review of just three sentences. It included a chopped salad that was
"soggy and sour" and a strip steak that was "miserably tough and
fatty".

These few words stuck in the throat of the owner, Alex Plotkin, who
responded with a libel lawsuit. While expressions of opinion are
theoretically protected by the First Amendment in the United States,
LaBan is accused of false assertion of fact. According to the suit, it
was not a strip steak that he ate, but rather a steak sandwich without
the bread - in other words, an inferior cut.

"No legitimate food critic would ever mistake, or compare, a steak
sandwich with a strip steak," the lawsuit says. Never mind that LaBan
praised another dish at Chops - its crabcakes.

Juries historically side with the critics in such cases, but that may
not help LaBan, because of a recent ruling by the judge obliging him
to give a deposition in front of a camera. He fears the images will be
shown at trial and the most important weapon of his trade will be lost
- his anonymity.

A photograph of LaBan on his newspaper's restaurant guide shows him
with five baguettes shielding his face. Already, he sometimes takes to
new spots in disguise in case he will be recognised. Restaurants
understandably try to up their game if they know an important reviewer
is in the room.

"Mr LaBan's anonymity is important to the process by which he reviews
restaurants," Inquirer lawyers said in court papers. "If a restaurant
knew Mr LaBan was in its dining room, it might put on a show for him
that would not be provided to the general dining public."

His editor has also weighed in. LaBan, said Bill Marimow, "dots his
i's, he crosses his t's, and anyone who reads his reviews knows that
he is meticulous, fastidious and fair as one can be. In the long run,
our work will be vindicated because Craig is a stellar journalist and
a stellar reviewer."

Suits involving critics are increasingly common even in the US. A New
Jersey winery recently sued a reviewer who, without even naming it,
wrote that wines from the state in general are made with "fruit
flavours that are designed to mask the otherwise dreadful plonk". In
another case, a critic won a case brought against him for his
description of a fish dish as "trout a la green plague".

In other countries the risk of being found guilty of libel can be
greater.

In Sydney, the owners of Coco Roco, which has since closed, won a case
against the Sydney Morning Herald after it called it "a bleak spot on
the culinary landscape".

A judge in Belfast recently awarded a US$50,000 ($64,000) judgment
against the Irish Times for its unkind assessment of an Italian eatery
called Goodfellas.

- INDEPENDENT

--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 696
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:25:33 +1200, bob >
magnanimously proffered:

>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...0449681&pnum=0
>
>Restaurants Story
>
>Reviewers criticise at their legal peril
>5:00AM Thursday July 05, 2007
>By David Usborne
>
>Everybody wants to be a critic, but be warned. Praise what you see -
>or taste - and the creator will love you forever. Slam it, however,
>and they might just try to bite back.


Seems like an epidemic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/...104023,00.html

Critics up in arms as restaurant review judged defamatory

What does this mean for restaurant critics? Read Matthew Evans' full
review and have your say on our food blog.

Barbara McMahon in Sydney
Friday June 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Australian food critics were left spluttering into their napkins today
after a court decided that an unfavourable review of a Sydney
restaurant was defamatory, opening the way for the owners to claim
damages.

The critics said the decision could lead to reviewers of theatre,
music, literature and art fearing to speak their minds in case they
too were sued.

The case centres on a review of Coco Roco restaurant, published in the
Sydney Morning Herald newspaper in 2003. Matthew Evans, then the
newspaper's chief food critic, dined at the restaurant twice and was
not impressed.

He said the flavour of oysters soaked in limoncello "jangled like a
car crash" and that a sherry scented apricot white sauce that
accompanied steak was a "wretched garnish" that he scraped off.

Awarding the restaurant only nine points out of 20, he concluded that
"more than half the dishes I've tried at Coco Roco are simply
unpalatable", and that the food was overpriced.

Coco Roco closed three months after the review and the owners, who had
spent more than A$3m (£1m) refitting the restaurant blamed it on the
reviewer, saying that customers had been put off by Evans's words.

The affair has been in the courts for months and in the latest ruling,
the high court of New South Wales found that the review was an attack
on the restaurant as a business. "Business capacity and reputation are
different from personal reputation," the judgment said. "Harm to the
former can be, as here, inflicted more directly and narrowly than harm
to a person's reputation."

The Sydney Morning Herald's current chief restaurant critic, Simon
Thomsen, said the judgment meant that now "anything short of
hagiography will be defamatory". Veteran Australian food critic Leo
Schoolfield said the ruling set a bad precedent. "If a poor review
leads to diminished returns at the box office of the theatre, are we
now going to say that it is due to the review and not to the quality
of the work," he asked.

David Griffiths, executive chef at Wildfire, one of Sydney's best
restaurants, said it was laughable to suggest that one bad review
could close a restaurant. Matthew Moran, the head chef of another
popular restaurant Aria, said his restaurant had benefited from
constructive criticism of food critics like Mr Evans.

Further hearings will be held so that the newspaper can put forward
its defence and for the court to decide if the owners of Coco Roco are
entitled to damages.

The court's decision comes after a jury in Belfast, Northern Ireland,
upheld a restaurant owner's claim that a review in the Irish News was
defamatory and awarded him £25,000 earlier this year.


--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,876
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:38:08 +1200, bob >
wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:25:33 +1200, bob >
>magnanimously proffered:
>
>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...0449681&pnum=0
>>
>>Restaurants Story
>>
>>Reviewers criticise at their legal peril
>>5:00AM Thursday July 05, 2007
>>By David Usborne
>>
>>Everybody wants to be a critic, but be warned. Praise what you see -
>>or taste - and the creator will love you forever. Slam it, however,
>>and they might just try to bite back.

>
>Seems like an epidemic:
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/...104023,00.html
>
>Critics up in arms as restaurant review judged defamatory
>
>What does this mean for restaurant critics? Read Matthew Evans' full
>review and have your say on our food blog.
>
>Barbara McMahon in Sydney
>Friday June 15, 2007
>Guardian Unlimited
>

snip
>Awarding the restaurant only nine points out of 20, he concluded that
>"more than half the dishes I've tried at Coco Roco are simply
>unpalatable", and that the food was overpriced.
>
>Coco Roco closed three months after the review and the owners, who had
>spent more than A$3m (£1m) refitting the restaurant blamed it on the
>reviewer, saying that customers had been put off by Evans's words.
>

Seems like they are shooting the messenger! Customers would have
reached that conclusion too. In fact, it may have hung on a bit
longer than it should have due to being mentioned at all. Restaurant
critics do not make or break restaurants, but they do advertize them
for free.

--

History is a vast early warning system
Norman Cousins
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:38:08 +1200, bob >
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:25:33 +1200, bob >
>magnanimously proffered:
>
>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...0449681&pnum=0
>>
>>Restaurants Story
>>
>>Reviewers criticise at their legal peril
>>5:00AM Thursday July 05, 2007
>>By David Usborne
>>
>>Everybody wants to be a critic, but be warned. Praise what you see -
>>or taste - and the creator will love you forever. Slam it, however,
>>and they might just try to bite back.

>
>Seems like an epidemic:
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/...104023,00.html
>
>Critics up in arms as restaurant review judged defamatory


<snip>

I am totally not getting how a restaurant can sue a restaurant critic.
They might not think the review fair or unbiased, but it is an
*opinion* that is, assumedly, given by someone with some expertise in
the field:

"A critic (derived from the ancient Greek word krites meaning a judge)
is a person who offers a value judgment or an interpretation. (The
word is sometimes used pejoratively, especially by defenders of a
critic's object.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic"

Seems to me that a "value judgment or an interpretation" is on its
face subjective. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove libel and
I'd love to hear what the judge's findings of facts and conclusions of
law were - or its Ozzer equivilant.

I was, however, happy to see that the restaurant that got sued in the
above post was in Australia and not the notoriously litigation-happy
US.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd...the litigation paralegal <blush>

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,055
Default Restaurant critics beware!

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
>
> I am totally not getting how a restaurant can sue a
> restaurant critic. They might not think the review fair
> or unbiased, but it is an *opinion* that is, assumedly,
> given by someone with some expertise in the field:


You don't seem to understand. Anybody can
sue anybody for darn near anything. That
doesn't mean they'll win. A suit like this
one should be dismissed before trial, but
that requires the defendant to make a motion
to dismiss, which usually requires a lawyer.

Often the purpose of suit is not to win,
but to harass the defendant.

That's why numerous state have passed laws
punishing plaintiffs that bring SLAPP suits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,205
Default Restaurant critics beware!

In article >,
Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>
> I am totally not getting how a restaurant can sue a restaurant critic.
> They might not think the review fair or unbiased, but it is an
> *opinion* that is, assumedly, given by someone with some expertise in
> the field:
>
> "A critic (derived from the ancient Greek word krites meaning a judge)
> is a person who offers a value judgment or an interpretation. (The
> word is sometimes used pejoratively, especially by defenders of a
> critic's object.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic"
>
> Seems to me that a "value judgment or an interpretation" is on its
> face subjective. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove libel and
> I'd love to hear what the judge's findings of facts and conclusions of
> law were - or its Ozzer equivilant.


Terry, being as though your husband and you both work in the legal
profession, I am surprised you would make the comment in your first
paragraph. We all know that in the USA, anyone can sue anyone for any
reason, even for meritless reasons.

I don't agree with this law suit, but I have been following it since I
am in the area where this food critic, Craig LaBan, operates. I have
read many of his restaurant reviews. I like his style of writing.

The crux of this law suit is that LaBan gave a negative review on a meal
he ate at a suburban Philadelphia steak house called Chops. Amongst
other negative things, LaBan wrote that the steak he was served was
"miserably tough and fatty".

The suit alleges that LeBan made an invalid comment about the steak
because the restaurant's owner claims it was a sandwich, but LaBan wrote
that it was a strip steak and didn't say it was part of a sandwich.

The restaurant owner feels that if LaBan had reviewed the meal from the
perspective of eating a sandwich, not a full fledged steak, his review
would have been better because his expectations of the meal would have
been different.

Ironically, the plaintiff is not disputing that the steak was chewy and
fatty; his complaint is that it is supposed to be that way because it
was on a sandwich, which LaBan says is strange because no bread was
served on the plate with the steak.

The reason this got onto your radar screen isn't so much that the law
suit took place; its that the deposition is on video tape. LaBan and his
attorneys wanted to avoid taping the deposition because they fear the
tape will become public and LaBan's anonymity will be lost. LaBan claims
that without his ability to go into a restaurant without being
recognized, his job will be over because he will be treated better than
if he would, were he anonymous.
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,551
Default Restaurant critics beware!

bob wrote:
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...bjectid=104496...
>
> Restaurants Story


The Kiwi Herald must be analogous to the Globe.

In the US freedom of the press is still alive and well.

Anyone can write whatever they want about an eatery, there are opinion
pieces all over the net, blogs and all. Anyone opens a restaurant (or
opens any business) is open to criticism.

I'm positive that all KIWI restaurants suck big time... sue me.

  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,730
Default Restaurant critics beware!

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>I am totally not getting how a restaurant can sue a restaurant critic.
>They might not think the review fair or unbiased, but it is an
>*opinion* that is, assumedly, given by someone with some expertise in
>the field:


The fact that it's opinion doesn't spare it from having
to be true rather than false.

In order to sue they only need a lawyer. In order to win
they need to prove that the critic was lying. The more
outlandish a critic gets with his insults, the easier that
becomes.

And it'd be easy to prove intent. A critic always has
the intent to either increase or decrease the fortunes
of whatever they're criticizing. That's their job.
So if they do it and lie, then the intent to lie to cause
economic loss is obvious.

--Blair
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,730
Default Restaurant critics beware!

Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>The crux of this law suit is that LaBan gave a negative review on a meal
>he ate at a suburban Philadelphia steak house called Chops. Amongst
>other negative things, LaBan wrote that the steak he was served was
>"miserably tough and fatty".
>
>The suit alleges that LeBan made an invalid comment about the steak
>because the restaurant's owner claims it was a sandwich, but LaBan wrote
>that it was a strip steak and didn't say it was part of a sandwich.


I wonder what he ordered.

If he ordered a strip steak and got a sandwich steak, then
he was defrauded.

And if he ordered a strip-steak sandwich and got some
other cut in his sandwich, then he was defrauded.

And if I ordered a steak sandwich in a place that was
supposed to have good steaks and got a fatty, gristly
piece of meat, I'd complain about it to the public, too.

Lots of wiggle room. If the whole case is based on
semantics the judge is going to kick some steakhouse ass.

--Blair
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 696
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 19:00:01 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> magnanimously proffered:

>I was, however, happy to see that the restaurant that got sued in the
>above post was in Australia and not the notoriously litigation-happy
>US.


Actually, the first example in the article was a restaurant near
Philadelphia and the paper sued was the Philadelphia Inquirer.

But it's made me wonder what might happen in New Zealand, where my
wife and I have been guests of a restaurant critic three times. The
reservation was made in my name, because the critic's name would be
recognised. However, the magazine pays the bill.

The critic always goes out to the restaurant he's reviewing with a
hospitality trade expert and at least one other couple, to get their
feedback. But he decides on the final score on his own.

Amongst other things during the evening we discuss the service,
ambience and food amongst ourselves. But as far as anyone else is
concerned we're just a few friends talking about Paris Hilton or
something equally fascinating.

On the following day the critic phones to discuss the experience again
and then goes away to consider his verdict.

As he clearly states in the preamble to his monthly review, the points
(points for food, service, ambience = overall score of 0 - 10) reflect
the experience of the critic and his guests on that particular night
and nothing else. So the score refers to one single experience and is
not intended to be an absolute rating for the restaurant.

Unfortunately, that's not how some restaurateurs see it - especially
an old friend whose restaurant got a 5.5 one year and a 6.5 another.
She's never forgiven the magazine or the critic (even though both
scores were well deserved). Frankly, I would have thought that
switched-on restaurateurs would learn from a negative review and make
the appropriate improvements instead of blaming the reviewer for
noticing the obvious.



--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 19:24:52 -0700, Mark Thorson >
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>You don't seem to understand. Anybody can
>sue anybody for darn near anything.


Oh, I understand very well indeed. I'm a litigation paralegal and have
been for nearly 25 years.

> That
>doesn't mean they'll win. A suit like this
>one should be dismissed before trial, but
>that requires the defendant to make a motion
>to dismiss, which usually requires a lawyer.


Anyone in this great land can appear pro se.

>Often the purpose of suit is not to win,
>but to harass the defendant.


We had a client (who we fired) who sought to win lawsuits by "spending
the other guy's money," which is, unfortunately, all too successful.
>
>That's why numerous state have passed laws
>punishing plaintiffs that bring SLAPP suits.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP


wipipedia is not always your friend. Since I'm posting from home, I
don't have all my legal resources at hand, but the SLAPP suit is
intended to prevent individuals and corporations from chilling a
citizen's right to:

"...participate in government and civic affairs, speak freely on
public issues, and petition government officials for redress of
grievances. Yet, individuals and community groups are often sued for
exercising these constitutional rights. These suits are known as
"SLAPPs," or "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation."

http://www.thefirstamendment.org/ant...rcecenter.html

And, yes, the defendant should have filed an Anti-SLAPP suit, as the
plaintiff is clearly trying to chill the restaurant critic's First
Amendment guarantees.

Coincidentally, we go to court on Wednesday to a hearing on our
client's Anti-SLAPP motion. It's becoming one of the most misused
tools in litigation, IMHO...well, that and that *idiotic* *^&%#>$!!
Form Interrogatories the bright lights in Sacramento dreamed up.

OB Food: Anyone who tries to eat a meal at LA Superior's cafeteria is
out of his/her mind. OTOH, there is a great view of the new Disney
Center from its balcony.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 696
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 06:34:10 -0700, Sheldon >
magnanimously proffered:

>bob wrote:
>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...bjectid=104496...
>>
>> Restaurants Story

>
>The Kiwi Herald must be analogous to the Globe.
>
>In the US freedom of the press is still alive and well.


Oh really? If you weren't so busy making a fool of yourself again you
might have noticed that the articles referred to an American newspaper
(the Philadelphia Inquirer), an Australian newspaper and an Irish
newspaper. But don't let a couple of little facts like that get in the
way of your appalling lack of reading comprehension.

>Anyone can write whatever they want about an eatery, there are opinion
>pieces all over the net, blogs and all. Anyone opens a restaurant (or
>opens any business) is open to criticism.


I'm surprised the lawyers in all these cases didn't come running to
you for your expert legal advice. After all, you're such an authority
on opening your mouth.

>I'm positive that all KIWI restaurants suck big time... sue me.


That's one of your problems, Sheldon. You're positive about so many
things you know absolutely nothing about, including geography.

Sue you? What for ... ignorance? Arrogance? A total absence of
finesse?


--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 08:44:34 -0400, Stan Horwitz >
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>Terry, being as though your husband and you both work in the legal
>profession, I am surprised you would make the comment in your first
>paragraph. We all know that in the USA, anyone can sue anyone for any
>reason, even for meritless reasons.


No, I'm not being naive, Stan, I just get worn out sometimes by the
idiocy I see in my work week. And there are laws against frivolous
lawsuits and "vexatious" litigants. I just wish they were more
strenuously applied. I blame much of the frivolous lawsuits on
contingency fees and avaricious lawyers.

<snip>

>The restaurant owner feels that if LaBan had reviewed the meal from the
>perspective of eating a sandwich, not a full fledged steak, his review
>would have been better because his expectations of the meal would have
>been different.
>
>Ironically, the plaintiff is not disputing that the steak was chewy and
>fatty; his complaint is that it is supposed to be that way because it
>was on a sandwich, which LaBan says is strange because no bread was
>served on the plate with the steak.


And LaBan was supposed to eat imaginary bread with this steak
"sandwich"? And if I'm served a "chewy and fatty" steak sandwich, I'd
be plenny unhappy, too, Loosey.
>
>The reason this got onto your radar screen isn't so much that the law
>suit took place; its that the deposition is on video tape. LaBan and his
>attorneys wanted to avoid taping the deposition because they fear the
>tape will become public and LaBan's anonymity will be lost. LaBan claims
>that without his ability to go into a restaurant without being
>recognized, his job will be over because he will be treated better than
>if he would, were he anonymous.


Any lawyer worth his pinstripes would be able to make a motion to have
the videotape *lodged* with the court or a motion in limine to have it
kept out, which means it's not in the public forum for anyone to just
waltz in to the clerk's office/videographer's office and request a
copy. And I rather doubt that LaBan's mug isn't common knowledge among
restaurateurs, anyway. If you have an upscale Manhattan eatery, for
instance, you'd have gotten your hands on a photo of the guy and had
it posted at the maitre d's station <g>

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,205
Default Restaurant critics beware!

In article >,
Blair P. Houghton > wrote:

> Stan Horwitz > wrote:
> >The crux of this law suit is that LaBan gave a negative review on a meal
> >he ate at a suburban Philadelphia steak house called Chops. Amongst
> >other negative things, LaBan wrote that the steak he was served was
> >"miserably tough and fatty".
> >
> >The suit alleges that LeBan made an invalid comment about the steak
> >because the restaurant's owner claims it was a sandwich, but LaBan wrote
> >that it was a strip steak and didn't say it was part of a sandwich.

>
> I wonder what he ordered.
>
> If he ordered a strip steak and got a sandwich steak, then
> he was defrauded.


The article said LaBan ordered a dish called "steak frites" but there is
some disagreement as to what that that dish is.

> And if he ordered a strip-steak sandwich and got some
> other cut in his sandwich, then he was defrauded.


Yup. Being a born and raised Philadelphian, if I was served a chewy and
fatty steak sandwich, I would be none too happy, and I don't care what
kind of meat was on the sandwich.

> And if I ordered a steak sandwich in a place that was
> supposed to have good steaks and got a fatty, gristly
> piece of meat, I'd complain about it to the public, too.
>
> Lots of wiggle room. If the whole case is based on
> semantics the judge is going to kick some steakhouse ass.


I agree. Like Terry said in her posting, this litigation is ridiculous.
I hope the judge turns around and finds for LaBan and makes the
plaintiff pay LaBan's legal fees.

Terry, it didn't occur to me, but now that you mention it, I do find it
hard to believe that any restaurateur worth his salt in Philadelphia
can't figure out how to get a photo of Craig LaBan. After all, this IS
the information age!
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,055
Default Restaurant critics beware!

bob wrote:
>
> That's one of your problems, Sheldon. You're positive about so many
> things you know absolutely nothing about, including geography.
>
> Sue you? What for ... ignorance? Arrogance? A total absence of
> finesse?


Just imagine his words coming out of Bucky Katt.


  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,207
Default Restaurant critics beware!

Terry wrote on Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:02:14 -0700:

??>> Terry, being as though your husband and you both work in
??>> the legal profession, I am surprised you would make the
??>> comment in your first paragraph. We all know that in the
??>> USA, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, even for
??>> meritless reasons.

TPB> No, I'm not being naive, Stan, I just get worn out
TPB> sometimes by the idiocy I see in my work week. And there
TPB> are laws against frivolous lawsuits and "vexatious"
TPB> litigants. I just wish they were more strenuously applied.
TPB> I blame much of the frivolous lawsuits on contingency fees
TPB> and avaricious lawyers.

Look at that pompous ass of an administrative judge in DC who
sued a cleaning shop for $35 million because their sign said
"Satisfaction Guaranteed" and he wasn't when they maybe lost his
pants.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,551
Default Restaurant critics beware!

BABY bob wrote:
> Sheldon typed:
> >BABY bob wrote:
> >>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...bjectid=104496...

>
> >> Restaurants Story

>
> >The Kiwi Herald must be analogous to the Globe.

>
> >In the US freedom of the press is still alive and well.

>
> Oh really? If you weren't so busy making a fool of yourself again you
> might have noticed that the articles referred to an American newspaper
> (the Philadelphia Inquirer), an Australian newspaper and an Irish
> newspaper. But don't let a couple of little facts like that get in the
> way of your appalling lack of reading comprehension.
>
> >Anyone can write whatever they want about an eatery, there are opinion
> >pieces all over the net, blogs and all. Anyone opens a restaurant (or
> >opens any business) is open to criticism.

>
> I'm surprised the lawyers in all these cases didn't come running to
> you for your expert legal advice. After all, you're such an authority
> on opening your mouth.
>
> >I'm positive that all KIWI restaurants suck big time... sue me.

>
> That's one of your problems, Sheldon. You're positive about so many
> things you know absolutely nothing about, including geography.
>
> Sue you? What for ... ignorance? Arrogance? A total absence of
> finesse?


Two out of three I'll readily admit to... but you are the only
ignorant one here... bob (uses his ga-ga goo-goo baby talk name
because he's too ashamed of his adult name), so grossly ignorant that
relative to your IQ a turnip is Albert Einstien. Newspapers have
Editorial and Op-Ed pages, that's where *opinions* (including
restaurant reviews) are printed. It's people the likes of you who
instill the opinion that all Kiwis are ignorant uncivilized bush
dwellers... now stfu, rob baby, and munch your widdle grubbies.

  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 308
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 03:01:10 GMT, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>ObFood(andDrink): Two little bottles of chablis mixed with pure
>raspberry juice.


If it was good Chablis, that is pure murder.
Yes, you can sue me on that quote ;-)

Nathalie in Switzerland (not far from Burgundy)

  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 696
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:09:41 -0700, Sheldon >
magnanimously proffered:

>>
>> >I'm positive that all KIWI restaurants suck big time... sue me.

>>
>> That's one of your problems, Sheldon. You're positive about so many
>> things you know absolutely nothing about, including geography.
>>
>> Sue you? What for ... ignorance? Arrogance? A total absence of
>> finesse?

>
>Two out of three I'll readily admit to... but you are the only
>ignorant one here... bob (uses his ga-ga goo-goo baby talk name
>because he's too ashamed of his adult name), so grossly ignorant that
>relative to your IQ a turnip is Albert Einstien. Newspapers have
>Editorial and Op-Ed pages, that's where *opinions* (including
>restaurant reviews) are printed. It's people the likes of you who
>instill the opinion that all Kiwis are ignorant uncivilized bush
>dwellers... now stfu, rob baby, and munch your widdle grubbies.


Now, now, Sheldon. You really mustn't get your knickers in a twist. It
just makes you write more nonsense and gives a bad name to the
rational Sheldons of this world.


--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,730
Default Restaurant critics beware!

Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>In article >,
> Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>> I wonder what he ordered.
>>
>> If he ordered a strip steak and got a sandwich steak, then
>> he was defrauded.

>
>The article said LaBan ordered a dish called "steak frites" but there is
>some disagreement as to what that that dish is.


You kidding? That's a 100-year-old Bistro term for a steak
and french fries. Preferabley Hanger steak.

I would expect a steak, and french fries.

And there's no way that anyone's confusing a strip
for a hanger steak, if they know what they are.
To put a gristly strip out and call it a "sandwich
steak" in order to justify a lawsuit is a good reason
to lose a business. I say countersue.

>Terry, it didn't occur to me, but now that you mention it, I do find it
>hard to believe that any restaurateur worth his salt in Philadelphia
>can't figure out how to get a photo of Craig LaBan. After all, this IS
>the information age!


Given that the resteratuer doesn't know the difference between
a steak and a steak-umm, I expect him to find out Craig LaBan
looks like Huckleberry Hound.

--Blair

P.S. So while I'm up getting a soda and changing a
lightbulb in the middle of writing this post, Tyler
Florence comes on the TV and introduces us to Applebee's
new "New York Strip Steak," which looks like a pale slice
of pumpernickel...ugh...


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:21:12 -0500, Steve Wertz
> rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:49:08 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
>
>> OB Food: Anyone who tries to eat a meal at LA Superior's cafeteria is
>> out of his/her mind.

>
>That's it - I'm suing you for defamation. We could make it
>class action suit. Who's with me?


Bwahahaha! If you tried the case at LA Superior, you wouldn't be able
to find a judge in the entire building who would find me guilty. *And*
the judge would likely require the plaintiffs to buy me lunch at the
great little bistro across the street (which name escapes me) after
the verdict was rendered :-)

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:40:56 GMT, "James Silverton"
> rummaged among random neurons and
opined:

> Look at that pompous ass of an administrative judge in DC who
>sued a cleaning shop for $35 million because their sign said
>"Satisfaction Guaranteed" and he wasn't when they maybe lost his
>pants.


Got handed his *ss on a plate, too, didn't he? But the very idea that
a case such as this could make it as far as it did without the
defendants early on asking for and being granted summary judgment is
just appalling. The trial court judge needs a wrist slapping.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,205
Default Restaurant critics beware!

In article >,
Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>
> P.S. So while I'm up getting a soda and changing a
> lightbulb in the middle of writing this post, Tyler
> Florence comes on the TV and introduces us to Applebee's
> new "New York Strip Steak," which looks like a pale slice
> of pumpernickel...ugh...


Actually, I have ordered Applebee's sirloin steak a few times; its not
bad at all. I don't know about their Strip Steak though and since I have
reduced my red meat consumption a lot, its not something I am likely to
try any time soon.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default Restaurant critics beware!

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:40:56 GMT, "James Silverton"
> > rummaged among random neurons and
> opined:
>
>> Look at that pompous ass of an administrative judge in DC who
>> sued a cleaning shop for $35 million because their sign said
>> "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and he wasn't when they maybe lost his
>> pants.

>
> Got handed his *ss on a plate, too, didn't he? But the very idea that
> a case such as this could make it as far as it did without the
> defendants early on asking for and being granted summary judgment is
> just appalling. The trial court judge needs a wrist slapping.
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd


Has that case been resolved yet?


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,207
Default Restaurant critics beware!

Ophelia wrote on Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:11:49 +0100:

O> Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
??>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:40:56 GMT, "James Silverton"
??>> > rummaged among random
??>> neurons and opined:
??>>
??>>> Look at that pompous ass of an administrative judge in DC
??>>> who sued a cleaning shop for $35 million because their
??>>> sign said "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and he wasn't when
??>>> they maybe lost his pants.
??>>
??>> Got handed his *ss on a plate, too, didn't he? But the
??>> very idea that a case such as this could make it as far as
??>> it did without the defendants early on asking for and
??>> being granted summary judgment is just appalling. The
??>> trial court judge needs a wrist slapping.
??>>
??>> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

O> Has that case been resolved yet?

Well, the cleaners are now suing him for legal costs.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not



  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default Restaurant critics beware!

James Silverton wrote:
> Ophelia wrote on Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:11:49 +0100:
>
>> Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:40:56 GMT, "James Silverton"
>>> > rummaged among random
>>> neurons and opined:
>>>
>>>> Look at that pompous ass of an administrative judge in DC
>>>> who sued a cleaning shop for $35 million because their
>>>> sign said "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and he wasn't when
>>>> they maybe lost his pants.
>>>
>>> Got handed his *ss on a plate, too, didn't he? But the
>>> very idea that a case such as this could make it as far as
>>> it did without the defendants early on asking for and
>>> being granted summary judgment is just appalling. The
>>> trial court judge needs a wrist slapping.
>>>
>>> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

>
>> Has that case been resolved yet?

>
> Well, the cleaners are now suing him for legal costs.


Thanks! I take it he lost then?


  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,983
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:06:52 +1200, bob >
wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:09:41 -0700, Sheldon >
>magnanimously proffered:
>
>>>
>>> >I'm positive that all KIWI restaurants suck big time... sue me.
>>>
>>> That's one of your problems, Sheldon. You're positive about so many
>>> things you know absolutely nothing about, including geography.
>>>
>>> Sue you? What for ... ignorance? Arrogance? A total absence of
>>> finesse?

>>
>>Two out of three I'll readily admit to... but you are the only
>>ignorant one here... bob (uses his ga-ga goo-goo baby talk name
>>because he's too ashamed of his adult name), so grossly ignorant that
>>relative to your IQ a turnip is Albert Einstien. Newspapers have
>>Editorial and Op-Ed pages, that's where *opinions* (including
>>restaurant reviews) are printed. It's people the likes of you who
>>instill the opinion that all Kiwis are ignorant uncivilized bush
>>dwellers... now stfu, rob baby, and munch your widdle grubbies.

>
>Now, now, Sheldon. You really mustn't get your knickers in a twist. It
>just makes you write more nonsense and gives a bad name to the
>rational Sheldons of this world.


sheldon thinks restaurant reviews are printed on the op-ed page?
maybe in the weekly advertiser he reads and depends on for his
****-nutty opinions.

your pal,
blake
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:11:49 +0100, "Ophelia" > rummaged
among random neurons and opined:

>Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:40:56 GMT, "James Silverton"
>> > rummaged among random neurons and
>> opined:
>>
>>> Look at that pompous ass of an administrative judge in DC who
>>> sued a cleaning shop for $35 million because their sign said
>>> "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and he wasn't when they maybe lost his
>>> pants.

>>
>> Got handed his *ss on a plate, too, didn't he? But the very idea that
>> a case such as this could make it as far as it did without the
>> defendants early on asking for and being granted summary judgment is
>> just appalling. The trial court judge needs a wrist slapping.
>>
>> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

>
>Has that case been resolved yet?
>

More or less, as the cleaners are seeking attorneys' fees and the
plaintiff hasn't yet appealed that I know about. What I can't
understand is why the cleaners need to seek attorneys' fees. That
should have been something they asked for in their answer to the
complaint and the judge surely would have granted. <shrug> Go he

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/trouser.trial/

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,730
Default Restaurant critics beware!

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:40:56 GMT, "James Silverton"
> rummaged among random neurons and
>opined:
>> Look at that pompous ass of an administrative judge in DC who
>>sued a cleaning shop for $35 million because their sign said
>>"Satisfaction Guaranteed" and he wasn't when they maybe lost his
>>pants.

>
>Got handed his *ss on a plate, too, didn't he? But the very idea that
>a case such as this could make it as far as it did without the
>defendants early on asking for and being granted summary judgment is
>just appalling. The trial court judge needs a wrist slapping.


Apparently, up until this very last hearing, the guy doing
the suing /was/ the judge handling the trial.

Don't ask me how.

--Blair
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,730
Default Restaurant critics beware!

James Silverton > wrote:
>Well, the cleaners are now suing him for legal costs.


They should nail him for harassment and abuse of power.

But it seems the ******* was down to $1000 to his name
when the lawsuit was ripped up by a real judge.

--Blair


  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default Restaurant critics beware!


"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
...
>>Has that case been resolved yet?
>>

> More or less, as the cleaners are seeking attorneys' fees and the
> plaintiff hasn't yet appealed that I know about. What I can't
> understand is why the cleaners need to seek attorneys' fees. That
> should have been something they asked for in their answer to the
> complaint and the judge surely would have granted. <shrug> Go he
>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/trouser.trial/
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd


Thanks Terry.


  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,984
Default Restaurant critics beware!

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> Apparently, up until this very last hearing, the guy doing
> the suing /was/ the judge handling the trial.
>
> Don't ask me how.
>
> --Blair

No, he was a judge, not THE judge of this trial. I was recently up in
D.C. when this was going on and they were saying this shameless judge
(the pants owner, not the trial's judge) will probably be losing his job
over this stupid suit as he is either elected or appointed (I forget
which). It isn't the first time he's sued someone over something lame,
apparently?
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Restaurant critics beware!

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 19:24:52 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> rummaged among random neurons and opined:
>
>> That
>> doesn't mean they'll win. A suit like this
>> one should be dismissed before trial, but
>> that requires the defendant to make a motion
>> to dismiss, which usually requires a lawyer.

>
> Anyone in this great land can appear pro se.


I know someone who was told by the Judge that she COULD NOT represent
herself and she MUST retain an attorney to appear in court...
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,730
Default Restaurant critics beware!

Goomba38 > wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
>> Apparently, up until this very last hearing, the guy doing
>> the suing /was/ the judge handling the trial.
>>
>> Don't ask me how.

>
>No, he was a judge, not THE judge of this trial. I was recently up in
>D.C. when this was going on and they were saying this shameless judge
>(the pants owner, not the trial's judge) will probably be losing his job
>over this stupid suit as he is either elected or appointed (I forget
>which). It isn't the first time he's sued someone over something lame,
>apparently?


I distinctly recall that he had actually managed to get
the early part of the process dealt with in his own court.
And if he'd been able to get the whole process done that
way, I have no doubt he'd have found for himself.

And yes, he should be tossed in jail for it.

--Blair
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,983
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:50:10 +1200, bob >
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:26:41 GMT, blake murphy >
>magnanimously proffered:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:06:52 +1200, bob >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:09:41 -0700, Sheldon >
>>>magnanimously proffered:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >I'm positive that all KIWI restaurants suck big time... sue me.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's one of your problems, Sheldon. You're positive about so many
>>>>> things you know absolutely nothing about, including geography.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sue you? What for ... ignorance? Arrogance? A total absence of
>>>>> finesse?
>>>>
>>>>Two out of three I'll readily admit to... but you are the only
>>>>ignorant one here... bob (uses his ga-ga goo-goo baby talk name
>>>>because he's too ashamed of his adult name), so grossly ignorant that
>>>>relative to your IQ a turnip is Albert Einstien. Newspapers have
>>>>Editorial and Op-Ed pages, that's where *opinions* (including
>>>>restaurant reviews) are printed. It's people the likes of you who
>>>>instill the opinion that all Kiwis are ignorant uncivilized bush
>>>>dwellers... now stfu, rob baby, and munch your widdle grubbies.
>>>
>>>Now, now, Sheldon. You really mustn't get your knickers in a twist. It
>>>just makes you write more nonsense and gives a bad name to the
>>>rational Sheldons of this world.

>>
>>sheldon thinks restaurant reviews are printed on the op-ed page?
>>maybe in the weekly advertiser he reads and depends on for his
>>****-nutty opinions.
>>
>>your pal,
>>blake

>
>Sheldon is a legend in his own lunchtime ...


<snort>

your pal,
blake


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:20:29 -0700, Tony23 >
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:


<snipped my own stuff>

>> Anyone in this great land can appear pro se.

>
>I know someone who was told by the Judge that she COULD NOT represent
>herself and she MUST retain an attorney to appear in court...


Well, that's just crap. *Anyone* can appear pro se. I cannot imagine a
state that doesn't allow one to represent him/herself. I'd have asked
that judge to show me song and verse in the Code of Civil Procedure
where it says that. "You're Honor, with all due respect (which, of
course, always has a subtitle of "you flaming *ss"), please direct me
to the portion of the Code of Civil Procedure that prohibits me from
representing myself."

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,730
Default Restaurant critics beware!

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>Tony23 wrote:
>>I know someone who was told by the Judge that she COULD NOT represent
>>herself and she MUST retain an attorney to appear in court...

>
>Well, that's just crap. *Anyone* can appear pro se. I cannot imagine a
>state that doesn't allow one to represent him/herself. I'd have asked
>that judge to show me song and verse in the Code of Civil Procedure
>where it says that. "You're Honor, with all due respect (which, of
>course, always has a subtitle of "you flaming *ss"),


It's that "due" that turns it from "with all respect" to
"with no respect because you are due none".

>please direct me
>to the portion of the Code of Civil Procedure that prohibits me from
>representing myself."


And he says, "it's not my job to advise you and if you
had a lawyer you'd know that already," with the subtext
"(and because you don't have a lawyer you have no way of
challenging me successfully on this)".

And goes back to eating his Gyro. (ob.food)

--Blair

  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,762
Default Restaurant critics beware!


"Blair P. Houghton" > wrote

> Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>>Tony23 wrote:
>>>I know someone who was told by the Judge that she COULD NOT represent
>>>herself and she MUST retain an attorney to appear in court...

>>
>>Well, that's just crap. *Anyone* can appear pro se. I cannot imagine a
>>state that doesn't allow one to represent him/herself. I'd have asked
>>that judge to show me song and verse in the Code of Civil Procedure
>>where it says that. "You're Honor, with all due respect (which, of
>>course, always has a subtitle of "you flaming *ss"),

>
> It's that "due" that turns it from "with all respect" to
> "with no respect because you are due none".


I thought the general idea was to avoid grounds for overturning the
result of the trial. The fact that the person wasn't represented could
easily result in a do over. The Colin Ferguson (sp) case comes to mind,
he represented himself but the court insisted he have 'co-counsil' ...
lot of good that did. And ... he did appeal the conviction because he
had incompetent counsel.

nancy


  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,983
Default Restaurant critics beware!

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:00:18 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>
>"Blair P. Houghton" > wrote
>
>> Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>>>Tony23 wrote:
>>>>I know someone who was told by the Judge that she COULD NOT represent
>>>>herself and she MUST retain an attorney to appear in court...
>>>
>>>Well, that's just crap. *Anyone* can appear pro se. I cannot imagine a
>>>state that doesn't allow one to represent him/herself. I'd have asked
>>>that judge to show me song and verse in the Code of Civil Procedure
>>>where it says that. "You're Honor, with all due respect (which, of
>>>course, always has a subtitle of "you flaming *ss"),

>>
>> It's that "due" that turns it from "with all respect" to
>> "with no respect because you are due none".

>
>I thought the general idea was to avoid grounds for overturning the
>result of the trial. The fact that the person wasn't represented could
>easily result in a do over. The Colin Ferguson (sp) case comes to mind,
>he represented himself but the court insisted he have 'co-counsil' ...
>lot of good that did. And ... he did appeal the conviction because he
>had incompetent counsel.
>
>nancy
>


the only reason i can think of that *pro se* would be forbidden is a
'competency' question, i don't know if there's a line between
'incapable of aiding in his defense' and 'incapable of representing
himself.' it's a bad idea, in any case. 'fool for a client' and all
that. you will notice that most attorneys do not represent
themselves.

on the other hand, at least if you represent yourself, your attorney
is not likely to fall asleep during the trial, as sometimes happens in
texas.

your pal,
blake



your pal,
blake
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Restaurant critics beware!

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:20:29 -0700, Tony23 >
> rummaged among random neurons and opined:
>
>> Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:

>
> <snipped my own stuff>
>
>>> Anyone in this great land can appear pro se.

>> I know someone who was told by the Judge that she COULD NOT represent
>> herself and she MUST retain an attorney to appear in court...

>
> Well, that's just crap. *Anyone* can appear pro se. I cannot imagine a
> state that doesn't allow one to represent him/herself. I'd have asked
> that judge to show me song and verse in the Code of Civil Procedure
> where it says that. "You're Honor, with all due respect (which, of
> course, always has a subtitle of "you flaming *ss"), please direct me
> to the portion of the Code of Civil Procedure that prohibits me from
> representing myself."
>


North Carolina. And I suggested something similar - but the judge
refused to even listen to her if she didn't have an attorney.

Yes, it was wrong. But it's hard to fight something like that when
you're a single mom barely scraping by - you have more important things
to spend your energy on...
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
red meat for the critics tert in seattle General Cooking 7 22-05-2016 09:21 PM
Critics of the Budweiser buyout are frothing John S. Beer 10 15-07-2008 08:40 PM
Critics of the Budweiser buyout are frothing [email protected] Beer 1 14-06-2008 03:06 PM
Looking for some wine critics Rob General 0 27-04-2006 06:27 AM
Wine Critics John LaCour Wine 28 15-02-2006 03:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"