This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
PLEASE let it be a Jewish law firm!!!
see, I think this is hilarious. I don't really care that he has been deeply offensive to gays & lesbians either. I'm a grown-up and don't have to agree 100% with anyone on everything. On the extremely rare occasion, I even disagree with Jenn. Neverthless, I keep coming back because I generally share the same point of view.
Libtards can't cope with that. We are all "foaming at the mouth" in their little world.
One lady who used to live in a little libatard world used to be an elementary teacher in the Sudan. I wonder if the threat of the lash and inprisonment have woken her up.
There, I've said it: Michael Savage is right on this one. Long may his lawsuit run through out our learned courts, and long may he ratchet up costs for CAIR to pay in defending it.
So they're merely replaying undoctored clips his own broadcasted words in hopes of gaining support for their own cause?
Isn't that what most politicians do in the midst of campaign season when they start by showing a rival candidate's ad, then pan back and explain how that rival candidate is wrong? And don't they intend that these campaign ads will help with fundraising efforts in addition to gaining more votes?
Well, it's good to see you've flip-flopped on your hatred of frivolous lawsuits. I can only imagine how much you'd be screeching about bogging down the courts and the waste of taxpayer resources if CAIR sued Michael Savage for reproducing their published materials.
Not Scared of Brown People,
Once a fool, always a fool. This idiot above ... "brownie" ... will take the side of terrorist supporting organizations like CAIR simply because they're fighting Savage.
Brownie hates Savage because he doesn't mince words when it comes to the illegal alien invaders.
Savage is Lester's alter ego 
Michael's mouth is typically out of control, but his points are real. To quote BZ from another blog "the message is good, though the messenger sucks"... or something like that.
Anyway, their agenda is clear: "... the founder of CAIR, the leading Islamic lobby group, reportedly told a group of Muslims in California they are in America not to assimilate but to help assert Islam’s rule over the country..."
Than's a bit problematic even for the libtards...
Not Scared of Brown People,
Sorry, I had to take two steps back, a deep breath, and throw back a shot of whiskey before coming back to respond to your post.
First, you really suck at analogies. This lawsuit cannot be compared to political mudslinging and for you to even suggest it does is testament to your apparent inability to grasp the seriousness of the problem.
You see, there are two very clear, very different ideologies at play here. One believes in taking this country BACK, the other believes in taking this country OVER.
What Savage has done is to react to the incessant attacks by CAIR to silence him and anyone else critical of Islam. What CAIR has done and continues to do is to use our courts and our laws to forward an agenda that limits free speech.
CAIR would much rather have this battle be decided under Sharia law. Fortunately, we still have a little document called the Constitution.
Though the legal framework that makes up this lawsuit may appear to be one of copyright infringement ( and rightly so) it is moreover a necessary battle in the war against the Islamification of the US and I for one applaud him for it. CAIR is but one of the proverbial wolves in sheeps clothing that threaten the very principals this country was founded on. If it weren't for lawsuits against groups like CAIR such as the one being filed by Savage, we may has well resign ourselves to watching teachers in this country imprisoned and threatened with death for "offensively" naming teddy bears.
No, this lawsuit isn't about someone that lacks the common sense to place their hot coffee in a proper holder. This lawsuit isn't about whether someone was charged tax on their toilet paper. It is a counter attack against an enemy that has been, for years now, using our court system and our laws to file frivolous 'profiling' and 'false victim' lawsuits against us. Attacks on our holidays, our displays of religious allegiences and our rights as Americans under the Constitution are the motivation behind this counter attack, and that my friend, is not frivolous.
Besides, they broke the law.
What Billy said!
Nicely said Billy ... I think I'll drink more before I post.
Not scared:
First of all, we all await with interest (not, yawn) your responses to direct questions that have repeatedly been asked of you, yet which you lamely attempt to dodge.
Turning to what substance there is in your post. CAIR are finally getting a taste of their own medicine, and I am lovin' it, lovin' it, lovin' it.
frivolous lawsuits are conservative now?
it's not about being conservative dumbass.
It's about playing them at their own game.
besides lestard, isn't if for the judge in accordance with the law to decide whether or no a lawsuit is "frivolous".
what game? they aren't suing him are they? I'm not a CAIR fan but obnoxious lawsuits are obnoxious regardless of who is doing them
Oh sweet, naive, dub-assed Lester remember the flying imams?
What is frivolous about CAIR using his voice for THEIR profit? If it is a clip from his radio show it is CLEARLY copyright infringement.
This is no different than the lawsuit against the makers of "Borat." What CAIR did was no different than films like "FahrenHYPE 9/11" or "Outfoxed." It's no different than any of the billions of political fundraising pamphlets quoting one's opponent and accusing that person of ruining America.
The ONLY difference is that this time the frivolous lawsuit is against someone you don't like.
All that stuff you folks said about evil trial lawyers ruining America and destroying the justice system...well, right back at ya'.
"The ONLY difference is that this time the frivolous lawsuit is against someone you don't like."
CAIR is someone you shouldn't like either. There are certain things all Americans should be united against ... the creep of islamofascism is one of them. Look around the world, look at Europe ... is that what you want here? Great Britain is a basket case.
Either you're unaware of the true nature and mission of organizations such as CAIR or you chose to ignore them simply because it would mean agreeing with us.
I have no idea of the depth of your understanding of islam, or what's happening around the world ... but if you are more informed than you let on it might be best to let that show in your comments.
Actually the Borat lawsuits, in a couple of cases were almost justified. They were not aware they were going to be made asses of for public consumption. The 3 college kids are the exception.
There is nothing frivolous about this suit is a copyright suit and valid. Period.
Some law suits are justified; the settlement against Westboro Baptist Church, and this one are two that come to mind.
It's nice to see people come to this site and make blanket statements like "you" folks and "you guys" grouping us together.
If children like NSOBP would recognize that groups like CAIR seek to divide and concure this country, perhaps they'd join as well...
"This suit is a copyright suit and valid." -- Jenn
Jenn, the mere fact that savage has LABELED it a copyright suit doesn't make it valid. But I guess the Fair Use Doctrine isn't commonplace on Law and Order, so how could an armchair Johnnie Cochran like yourself be expected to know better?
A lawsuit is either frivolous or not, regardless of who it is filed against. What if Savage was suing for slipping on his own urine in the CAIR office bathroom? Would you still think it's justified since it's against a group of people you hate? Perhaps you (and the rest of your sheep) should refer back to your own comments regarding that small claims case about two months back and see how you've flip flopped.
Uh oh! I just realized -- I broke the law! I quoted someone! And it wasn't just re-typing, it was cut and paste! So it's YOUR work that I used for my own purposes! And my friend gave me money for it! I'm gonna get sued!! I'm gonna get sued!!
Waiting on that subpoena.
Still waiting.
Still waiting.
Still waiting.
Still waiting.
Still waiting.
Speaking of armchair lawyers, but I digress NSBP...
If Savage's case is deemed to be frivolous or vexatious BY A JUDGE then you will be entitled to crow about it.
As it happens, your learned analysis of the matter consists of college words you MAY have picked up prior to dropping out of 1L from Mavis Beacon's Typing College of Northern Nebraska.
Those in the know will know that "frivolous and vexatious" is a fairly high (low) test. If a proper judge (and not an internet wanker like yourself) thinks there is a dispute to be resolved a strike out is highly unlikely. CAIR's lawyers may have a go at a summary judgment, but even that's a bit of a crap shoot.
Let it roll. I hope this becomes a post-modern Jarndyce v Jarndyce that bleeds CAIR's legal fighting fund dry.
As per Black's Law Dictionary:
Frivolous: lacking a legal basis or legal merit; not serious; not reasonably purposeful.
Savage claims CAIR have used recordings of the show without permission are are thus in breach of copyright protections.
Guess what dipstick, I'm thinking copyright infringement gives the claim a legal basis.
Summary judgment: a judgment granted on a claim about which there is no genuine issue of material fact and upon which the movant is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.
Here, Savage will argue that the genuine issue is that of copyright infringement. I don't know copyright law (and I doubt NSBP does either) but it is likely that Savage's lawyers will find a genuine issue, even if not apparant to the drop-out NSBP.
Let it roll.
http://www.savage-
productions.co..._CAIR_suit.html
Savage's claim is nicely pleaded.
Have I mentioned how much I love this?
I'm no lawyer, but I'll throw my dime's worth in here. From reading the basis for the lawsuit I think that Savage has a case. If CAIR is somehow using snippets of his show - without permission - for their own gain, then it's definitely illegal.
A bad analogy are those stickers of Calvin peeing on everything. Bill Watterson never drew that image and never authorized anything like that. Companies that print those are using a copyrighted character to make money, which is illegal.
Now, whether Watterson chose to go after these people is another matter, but whether he did or not, doesn't make their act any less wrong.
"If CAIR is somehow using snippets of his show - without permission - for their own gain, then it's definitely illegal."
I don't think so. I mean people go to youtube to see clips, does that mean I could load a clip of myself on to youtube and sue them? or something?
fair use I think is the phrase.
at any rate, CAIR is getting a taste of their own medicine as they are the ones perpetuating lawsuits like this all the time. they should quit CAIR and get real jobs.
why are there any advocacy groups at all? thye just make people more annoyed at the respective groups. NAACP CAIR. who likes those people?
lester belongs to the NAAFI, the national association for the advancement of fucking idiots.
Not Scared of Brown People sai,
"What if Savage was suing for slipping on his own urine in the CAIR office bathroom?"
Ummmmmmmmm, he's not.
You obviously didn't read my reply to your initial post. I told you you really suck at analogies. However, what you have attempted to shoulder Savage with is the exact method of operation carried out by CAIR over and over and over again. You're just too ignorant to acknowledge it.
Isn't the term "brown people" considered a thought... sorry, I mean hate-crime?
Look, CAIR is using his voice without his permission. That is prohibited by law. His main source if income is his voice and he sells advertising on his show because of his celebrity. A simple example is today's NFL games. Each broadcast is for the end user only, and not for rebroadcast without permission. They (the NFL) disclose this at the beginning and end of each game.
Hey Billy, that whisky really works!
Yes if he sued for slipping in his own piss, I would call that a frivolous lawsuit even if it were filed against a group I "hate".
Dipshit.
Michael Savage has the guts to back up his thoughts and words. Isn't that odd? And I'll wager everyone here agrees that CAIR IS in fact a funded organ of terrorist organizations. That has been PROVEN. The problem is that Savage actually has the CASH to engage attorneys as he wishes.
BZ
Kids, again I would simply point to the comments that many (if not most) of you posted regarding the small claims suit about two months ago. If a clear and obvious violation of state law is, according to many of you, a frivolous suit, then how does this one warrant any more merit?
In light of those earlier comments, it's interesting to watch nsoGL try to prove you all wrong.
As for Gawfer, I hate to break it to you but NFL highlights are rebroadcasted constantly. That's perfectly legal (so long as it's within certain fair use limits.) The games aren't however, rebroadcast in their entirety, which would be illegal without permission. So yes, that IS a good example, except that it proves you wrong.
Once again, I also point to films like "Outfoxed." That film was composed ALMOST ENTIRELY CLIPS OF FOX NEWS AND THE O'REILLY FACTOR USED WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION. How's that lawsuit going?
I used to address you as Not Scared of Brown People however I think in the interest of time and accuracy, from now on I'll just call you Moron, OK?
So, Moron,
If the NFL were to specifically demand from a particular media outlet that they cease and desist from any rebroadcast of copyrighted NFL material without written consent from the NFL, and that media outlet ignored the cease and desist letter, would the NFL have a case?
ALSO
Do you have any examples of media outlets ever using NFL copyrighted material, out of context, as a tool to maliciously blackmail advertisers into pulling their advertising dollars from NFL broadcasts or events in an attempt to silence the NFL?
ALSO
Have you even bothered to read the case filing by Savage and his attorneys??? From your comments you obviously have not, or, if you did, you may want to read it again.
I really don't expect an answer, you completly ignored my last two rebuttals to your idiocy.
No Billy, NSBP hasn't bothered to read or think before typing.
Kind of a recurrent theme with that loser.
"As for Gawfer, I hate to break it to you but NFL highlights are rebroadcasted constantly. That's perfectly legal (so long as it's within certain fair use limits.) The games aren't however, rebroadcast in their entirety, which would be illegal without permission. So yes, that IS a good example, except that it proves you wrong."
No, it doesn't prove me wrong because the news HAS permission to rebroadcast portions... idiot. It has nothing to do with the length of the rebroadcast, and everything to do with permission... again, idiot.
lol what a dumb lawsuit. he can't win. freakin liberals
I like Savage, he's a bit like a cranky old Uncle but I like him and he's smart - enough to know that he can win.
I have this funny feeling he will win, just like the USFL vs NFL, you win, here is your dollar, now go away.
wmd-maker
True, but it's the legal costs rather than the compo that is the killer.
Damn lawyers.
I'm not sure it matters what the financial outcome is. Mark Levin is constantly taunting CAIR in the hopes they sue. He's a constitutional attorney and doesn't give a hoot about money - he wants the discovery process opened to him so he can force them to open up their financial records.
Point of fact is, every time someone (private citizen or corporation) has fought them (i.e. not bellied up and settled out of court) and it looks like the discovery process is about to begin, CAIR suddenly drops the lawsuit.
One such PRIVATE individual was the blog host of AntiCair, who was sued by Cair. He fought and when discovery was about to start they baulked and dropped the suit.
Seems they have a LOT to hide!
Of coors they do.
who gives a shit about CAIR? or islam. america is moving on to the dollar crisis. savage is the village people circa 1980
and you're the villiage idiot circa 2007
I don't care about Savage and I think the legal complaint was written by a 2nd-rate ambulance chaser.
Does he have a copyright claim? Possibly. I don't know squat about copyright law.
That said, can Savage prove that violation of the copyrights led to him losing sponsors? That to me seems like a bit of a stretch unless he wants to depose his former sponsors and get evidence of this.
If I'm a potential sponsor of his show and I see him acting in that manner, why would I want to put my good corporate image with a schmuck like him?
Look at it this way, if Savage loses, conservatives can cry judicial activism and rail about the judiciary just like they did when the federal courts slapped Congress in the face after passing that law for Terri Schiavo.
It's win-win from my perspective.
I have to disagree. I think he has a great case. Not only can he claim the loss of current sponsors, you just made the case for him losing potential FUTURE sponsors.
"If I'm a potential sponsor of his show and I see him acting in that manner, why would I want to put my good corporate image with a schmuck like him?"
Acting in what manner? The statements CAIR is using were cherry picked and taken out of context.
Besides, he specifically demanded that CAIR CEASE and DESIST from using the specific comments they are using. That goes beyond a blanket copyright advisory and speaks directly to a specific offense.
He'll either win or as has been suggested by someone above, CAIR will settle the closer it gets to financial disclosure.
I guess leftists can dish out abuse but they sure can't take it.
I have no sympathy for CAIR and I hope Michael Savage bleeds them dry!
I dislike CAIR just as much as I dislike any whiny activist group.
CAIR would be more obnoxious than a threat if they didn't have ties to terrorist organizations.
Savage will always be a neocon kike!
i randomly came across this blog.
you're fucking dumb.
you need to get an education.
people like you (and even george bush), throw around words like 'freedom' and 'democracy', without understanding a single fucking thing about what they mean or what they have meant historically (going from the U.S. constitution, all the way back to ancient greek times). go take a course in political science before you ever more prove yourself to be an under-educated dumbass.
americans have a problem with history...it barely exists for them.
not to mention you're completely ignorant when it comes to other places, cultures, people and religions of the world. go take a course in world history, geography or anthropology.
i'm gonna have to reiterate my point, you're a fucking dumbass.
as a conservative libertarian, i'm pretty disgusted and dismayed with the blindness, stupidity and ignorance of most of you sheep who claim to be conservatives but really are too stupid and lazy to think critically for yourselves.
go fucking kill yourself. you're a plague to this planet.
Commenting by HaloScan
