Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Affordable Watches including those sold by informercial
Post Reply
User avatar
koimaster (Online)
Administrator/Founder
Posts: 38722
Joined: December 16th 2009, 11:00pm
Location: Oregon, Thanks for visiting! Now go back home!
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by koimaster » July 10th 2012, 10:26am

ChronoMATT wrote:Do you have 30 days to respond before defaulting?

koimaster wrote:1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM The Swatch Group (US) Inc. v. Sturhling Original LLC et al
Dora Lizette Irizarry, presiding
Roanne L. Mann, referral
Date filed: 06/11/2012
Date of last filing: 06/14/2012


As of today, no response from Stuhrling unoriginal.



Under the federal rules of civil procedure I think that is correct.
Image

1946-2006

“Your heart was warm and happy

With the lilt of Irish laughter

Every day and in every way

Now forever and ever after."
User avatar
ChronoMATT
Master of Time
Posts: 2431
Joined: June 8th 2011, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Sun Diego, California
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by ChronoMATT » July 10th 2012, 10:31am

Monday should be an interesting day if we don't hear anything sooner.

koimaster wrote:
ChronoMATT wrote:Do you have 30 days to respond before defaulting?

koimaster wrote:1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM The Swatch Group (US) Inc. v. Sturhling Original LLC et al
Dora Lizette Irizarry, presiding
Roanne L. Mann, referral
Date filed: 06/11/2012
Date of last filing: 06/14/2012


As of today, no response from Stuhrling unoriginal.



Under the federal rules of civil procedure I think that is correct.
Image
User avatar
ocean
Master of Time
Posts: 3040
Joined: June 12th 2011, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Daytona Beach
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by ocean » July 10th 2012, 10:44am

koimaster wrote:
ChronoMATT wrote:Do you have 30 days to respond before defaulting?

koimaster wrote:1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM The Swatch Group (US) Inc. v. Sturhling Original LLC et al
Dora Lizette Irizarry, presiding
Roanne L. Mann, referral
Date filed: 06/11/2012
Date of last filing: 06/14/2012


As of today, no response from Stuhrling unoriginal.



Under the federal rules of civil procedure I think that is correct.


Does the last file date change the response date to Friday the 13th?
To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them. George Mason
eddiea
Founding Member & Master of Time
Posts: 10658
Joined: December 25th 2009, 11:00pm

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by eddiea » July 10th 2012, 1:17pm

ChronoMATT wrote:...and with a "silence clause" so it will go away as quietly as possible.
Watch Noob wrote:I'm guessing Leisure Suit Larry's Legal Rep, is busy trying to strike a deal to settle outside of court. At least if they are smart they are.

A la Dubois-Depraz...perhaps.
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 9646
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Hawk » July 11th 2012, 4:24am

Mortuus wrote:Actually, I'd love to be Larry's attorney...
Image
...assuming, of course, that nothing was ever filed against Seiko.


I don't know about Larry's legal team feeling all froggy but I sure as hell wouldn't envy SNBC's legal team.

It's not about triangular watches - it's about Tim Temple confusing the marketplace and diluting the Hamilton brand. Larry's culpable to the extent that he, and not Seiko or anybody else, provided the specific tool to do so.

This provides a short summary.
Supposedly what got Swatch Group Inc. really upset was a comment made by a ShopNBC host when the Stuhrling watch appeared on the segment. Shortly after the release of MIB, the show aired and the host said: “if memory serves, there is another motion picture release now where this is once again being touted.”

The Swatch Group has also named ShopNBC in the lawsuit against Stuhrling. It claims trademark infringement unfair competition, false advertising, and demands a permanent injunction. The Swatch Group has reportedly spent millions of dollars to promote the watch and now wants to ensure that people don’t get confused over the source of the “Hollywood favorite.”


Temple is the one in the cross-hairs. Larry's off by 3 MOA left, 2 MOA down.

Given the tired old saw that a picture is worth 1,000 posts this, coupled with Temple's probably inadvertent yet ill-considered mis-direction, is why SWATCH is pissed:
Image
And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle.
...bobbee
User avatar
ChronoMATT
Master of Time
Posts: 2431
Joined: June 8th 2011, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Sun Diego, California
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by ChronoMATT » July 11th 2012, 7:02am

I thought this was a cut and paste post from GeekLand. Are you suggesting there is any equivalency between the Seiko triangular model vs Ventura and the Stuhrling Richocet rip-off? You are joking, right?

Mortuus wrote:Actually, I'd love to be Larry's attorney...
Image
...assuming, of course, that nothing was ever filed against Seiko.
Image
User avatar
koimaster (Online)
Administrator/Founder
Posts: 38722
Joined: December 16th 2009, 11:00pm
Location: Oregon, Thanks for visiting! Now go back home!
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by koimaster » July 11th 2012, 7:06am

Image



Swatch sued not only because of dim wit but the watch is essentially a clone of the Ventura. The Seiko and this Technomarine are not.
Image

1946-2006

“Your heart was warm and happy

With the lilt of Irish laughter

Every day and in every way

Now forever and ever after."
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 9646
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Hawk » July 11th 2012, 7:56am

Another issue that would probably take an actual lawyer to address rather than my guesswork is that the Swatch suit is invoking Trade Dress rather than Trade Mark. I believe US trademark protection actually requires policing of the trademark in order for the thing to be valid - simple registration isn't enough.

However, I'm unaware of any such requirement in cases of trade dress charges which would lead me to conjecture that Swatch is under no obligation to have done anything whatsoever about Seiko or anybody else - they're within their rights to single out Stuhrling and SNBC.

In addition to a product's physical appearance, trade dress may also refer to the manner in which a product is packaged, wrapped, labeled, presented, promoted, or advertised, including the use of distinctive graphics, configurations, and marketing strategies. In intellectual property law, a Cause of Action for trade dress infringement may arise when the trade dress of two businesses is sufficiently similar to cause confusion among consumers. In such situations the business with the more established or recognizable trade dress will ordinarily prevail. Two remedies are available for trade dress infringement: injunctive relief (a court order restraining one party from infringing on another's trade dress) and money damages (compensation for any losses suffered by an injured business).

Trade dress is different from a trademark, Service Mark, or Trade Name. Trademarks are words, symbols, phrases, mottos, logos, emblems, and other devices that are affixed to goods to demonstrate their authenticity to consumers. Levi's jeans, Nabisco cookies, Bic pens, Ford trucks, Rolex watches, and Heinz ketchup are just a few examples of well-known trademarks. Service marks identify services rather than goods. Roto-Rooter, for example, is the service mark of a familiar plumbing company. Trade names distinguish entire businesses from each other, as opposed to their individual goods and services. Coca-Cola, for example, uses its trade name to distinguish itself from other soft drink manufacturers. Under state and federal law, it is advantageous for businesses to register their trademarks, service marks, and trade names with the government. Conversely, trade dress has no formal registration requirements and receives legal protection simply by being distinctive and recognizable.
Bold mine - from here.

From my layman, country boy perspective Swatch has lost nothing by not chasing other triangular watch providers, it doesn't matter how old the Ventura design is (in fact, age seems to be a "positive" in the case of trade dress actions) and my speculation is that Larry was merely a gibbering 200 pound hunk of semtex - probably under the radar until he met the detonator called "Temple".

Whatever the case may be I find myself reacquainting myself with the concept of Schadenfreude. As the philosophers that hang around LOLCats have noted: I has it.
And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle.
...bobbee
User avatar
ChronoMATT
Master of Time
Posts: 2431
Joined: June 8th 2011, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Sun Diego, California
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by ChronoMATT » July 11th 2012, 8:05am

To me, the Technomarine Maori has more a visual connection to the Ventura XXL version than the classic -- and it predates the XXL by years.

Mortuus: Hamilton didn't sue Techno despite a triangular case for obvious reasons. Same goes for Seiko.

koimaster wrote:Image



Swatch sued not only because of dim wit but the watch is essentially a clone of the Ventura. The Seiko and this Technomarine are not.
Last edited by Anonymous on July 11th 2012, 8:10am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
conjurer
ASSHAT & Master of Time
Posts: 30217
Joined: July 13th 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by conjurer » July 11th 2012, 8:09am

Hawk wrote:From my layman, country boy perspective Swatch has lost nothing by not chasing other triangular watch providers, it doesn't matter how old the Ventura design is (in fact, age seems to be a "positive" in the case of trade dress actions) and my speculation is that Larry was merely a gibbering 200 pound hunk of semtex - probably under the radar until he met the detonator called "Temple".


This is perhaps one of the finest sentences ever posted here. Goddamn it.
My little brain can't even comprehend how deep that is.

--beefsupreme, commenting on his super rare Deep Blue wartche

**(@
User avatar
Falstaff
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 7546
Joined: August 31st 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Falstaff » July 11th 2012, 10:56am

Lawsuit's not about the shape of the watch - it's about the references to the "Men in Black" movie made by Timbo et Cie while selling the Stuhrling. Swatch paid serious CHF for that product placement and rightly resent Dimple's gratuitous use of it.
"Were you not close enough to a great king to learn from his example?"
Salah-Haddin Kingdom of Heaven
User avatar
ChronoMATT
Master of Time
Posts: 2431
Joined: June 8th 2011, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Sun Diego, California
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by ChronoMATT » July 11th 2012, 11:12am

I agree to a point.

MIB III was not specifically named by Dim Temple during his gum flapping, and as you know, most movies have product placements often including watches whether they get noticeable screen time or not. Dim's reference could have been in reference to any number of releases, but it's he near style and design cloning by Turdling, including the shield shape, that makes the connection and plays just as important of a role in the complaint.

Or sumthin like dat.

Falstaff wrote:Lawsuit's not about the shape of the watch - it's about the references to the "Men in Black" movie made by Timbo et Cie while selling the Stuhrling. Swatch paid serious CHF for that product placement and rightly resent Dimple's gratuitous use of it.
Image
User avatar
Falstaff
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 7546
Joined: August 31st 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Falstaff » July 11th 2012, 11:36am

ChronoMATT wrote:I agree to a point.

MIB III was not specifically named by Dim Temple during his gum flapping, and as you know, most movies have product placements often including watches whether they get noticeable screen time or not. Dim's reference could have been in reference to any number of releases, but it's he near style and design cloning by Turdling, including the shield shape, that makes the connection and plays just as important of a role in the complaint.

Or sumthin like dat.

Falstaff wrote:Lawsuit's not about the shape of the watch - it's about the references to the "Men in Black" movie made by Timbo et Cie while selling the Stuhrling. Swatch paid serious CHF for that product placement and rightly resent Dimple's gratuitous use of it.




Undoubtedly, the watch shape will figure in nailing the lid on tight (yes, that's the one, your Honor!), but I believe the kicker was that the MIB movie was still in current release. So, yes, it could have been any number of movies, but I'll bet everyone made the connection Dipwad intended - including Swatch. Without the movie reference, there'd probably have been no suit.
"Were you not close enough to a great king to learn from his example?"
Salah-Haddin Kingdom of Heaven
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 9646
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Hawk » July 11th 2012, 12:05pm

I don't believe not specifically mentioning MIB3 will count for very much. Count 42 of the complaint alleges only the "movie connection". The publishing site is resistant to "copy / pasting" for non-members so my memory might go a bit off here.

One thing that stands out quite apart from the merits we non-legal types might debate is an ominous looking little snippet of text stating:
Respectfully submitted for plaintiff
Jess M. Collen
Collen IP Intellectual Property Law, P.C.

It took a while for that to ring any bells in my head but that name should be familiar - remember Omega v. Costco? I thought the ninth circuit had gone off the rails and SCOTUS was asleep that day but you have to give the devil his due.

I believe it's member Barzini that could actually comment on the trade rep of this guy but from my "outside looking in" perspective he's somewhere between "rock star" and "the hulk". This isn't David v Goliath this is David v the entire Cylon fleet. I believe I may have to reassess my speculation on the sanguine attitude of Larry's legal team - I can't offhand think of anything more terrifying than sitting across from that guy with a blatant rip-off and a Temple recording in my sweaty little hands. If Larry's lawyer pops off with "there are other triangle watches" he'll be stomped like a bug I'd expect similar icky squishy results playing the "Tim didn't specifically say 'MIB3'" card.
And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle.
...bobbee
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 9646
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Hawk » July 11th 2012, 1:04pm

AJC wrote:I wonder if this trial will be open to the public. I only live a short 2 1/2 hr drive from nyc. It would be a fun little field trip.


I'll crap a green brick if it gets to that stage.

Sure would be fun though.
And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle.
...bobbee
User avatar
ocean
Master of Time
Posts: 3040
Joined: June 12th 2011, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Daytona Beach
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by ocean » July 11th 2012, 1:46pm

Hawk wrote:
AJC wrote:I wonder if this trial will be open to the public. I only live a short 2 1/2 hr drive from nyc. It would be a fun little field trip.


I'll crap a green brick if it gets to that stage.

Sure would be fun though.


A Hawk laying a green egg that would be a sight. Image
To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them. George Mason
User avatar
Mortuus Fakeuus

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Mortuus Fakeuus » July 11th 2012, 1:51pm

@ChronoMatt - Cut & paste, yes; from 'geekland,' no. (Not sure why the gratuitous 'geekland' reference was made here, but c'est la mort...) There is no way in the world that I could even begin to seriously compare a Stuhrling to a Seiko, much less the Hammy Ventura; as my paternal grandad would have asserted, it would be like "comparing a turd to a tearose."

@ et. al. - I suppose I should have done more than just post the picture, but here was/is my point: If this case was filed in a Superior Court in one of the larger cities in the U.S., and I was one of Megan's/SNBC's/Dim's attornies, I would push very hard for a jury to hear and decide the outcome of this litigation. During the voir dire, I would eliminate as many potential jurors as possible who showed any signs of being a WIS, unless I could figure out some line of questioning that might tell me if a potential juror is a so-called "TV Watch" buyer; I'm not being entirely tongue-in-cheek when I assert this, because many, many lawyers (for the defense) will aim to get as many pliable - even downright dumb - jurors as possible before their summary dismissals run out.

Gents such as yourselves obviously know where the turds and tearoses are, and you make your buying or other decisions about watches based on this knowledge. As a defense attorney, I wouldn't want you near that jury pool for very obvious reasons. I want jurors who will look at that 'geekland' cut & paste and say, "Yeah, that looks the same to me." Put simply, they'll see the shape and little else because they're not WIS's. And I will do everything within reason to make sure they don't become anything close to a WIS...

Obviously, the plaintiff will make every effort to 'educate' the jurors vis-a-vis watches, using experts when and where they can to highlight the differences. But they'll have to tread very carefully and [seriously] use small words in their descriptions. Most jurors don't like experts because they feel as if they're being "talked down to."

And Dim's blathery spoken error? I would go back over the last 10 (?) or more years and show as many clips as I could get away with (In other words, before the jury nods off for the day - right around 1400, or so), establishing a pattern of rambling, mistake-laden gibberish which is the Dim Demple way of hawking watches. You close that little demo out by saying to the jury, "Would any of you want to be held liable for something you said in a moment of confusion?" Heck, I might even consider having the Dimster testify so they can see in person what a ramblous buffoon he can be. (Or maybe not; the guy's a loose cannon and he could easily shoot himself in the foot - or elsewhere.)

Sorry about the overlong response, guys. What I'm basically trying to say - acknowledging in full my cynicism about the gene pool, let alone the pool of Jurors one tends to see on a regular basis - that litigation requires that the plaintiff establish facts beyond reasonable doubt (lower standards than the 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' in, say, cases of murder, arson, kidnapping, etc.) The defense will do everything he can to blur the line between factual complaint and simple allegation. "Look at these very similar watches from Seiko and Technomarine...why didn't Hamilton file complaints about these?" Yes, I know what the law says, but that is sometimes easy to obfuscate without the judge catching it. However, a good attorney for the plaintiff will catch it and object like crazy. Again, though, the defense will have to continuously and repeatedly ram home the point that it's the triangular shape that's the issue, not all those nasty wheel-and-gear assemblies.

Yes, most WIS certainly know of the huge differences here between these watches, but 'a jury of our peers?' A good litigator (or, if you prefer, a good 'showman') would have no trouble getting an already-malleable jury to see things his/her way by - I hate to say this - 'dumbing down' the technical differences and emphasizing the shape; once more, that's the biggest - and probably only - detail they'll see.

Of course, if we have a trial by judge, all bets are off...unless the judge happens to be as downright stupid as those ass clowns on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But you can't count on that...well, not that often, anyway. Image

Hope that all made some sort of sense.

MORT Out.
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 9646
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Hawk » July 11th 2012, 2:10pm

Mortuus wrote:
Good stuff snipped for issues of bandwidth only


Interesting observations.

However, I'm wondering if Swatch's demand for a jury trial (page 20 of the second issuu posting by Koi) is "boilerplate" or not.

It seems that Swatch, or at least their Clarence Darrow clone, thinks it will suit them just fine. They are going out of their way (barring "boilerplate" issues) to demand a jury trial.

In New York.

Given the history and reputation of the legal firm representing Swatch I don't see such a thing going well for Larry - my opinion only but I wouldn't be surprised if Larry did everything in his power to put if before a judge. If before a judge he's merely doomed; if before a jury we're looking at a potential "Stella Award".

For whatever infinitesimal thing it might be worth, I have not accused my correspondent of geekishness - your perspective has appeared, less compellingly, in other corners of the speculative-sphere. But, IMHO, Larry ain't no Costco and that firm has brought bigger fish to their metaphorical knees - they're not afraid of a jury trial, look forward to it and Larry, peering into the abyss, sees doom.

Apart from that we can set up, with Koi's permission, a betting pool. I, however, remain of the opinion that it will never resolve. Larry will distance himself from SNBC like a camper finding a rattlesnake in his sleeping bag, he will (already has) scrub the Ricochet from the intertubz and go into full grovel mode.
And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle.
...bobbee
User avatar
ChronoMATT
Master of Time
Posts: 2431
Joined: June 8th 2011, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Sun Diego, California
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by ChronoMATT » July 11th 2012, 2:12pm

Whew! That was no cut and paste from GeekLand. I'll say that. I, for one, was just giving you some crap. Thanks for the explanation.

Mortuus wrote:@ChronoMatt - Cut & paste, yes; from 'geekland,' no. (Not sure why the gratuitous 'geekland' reference was made here, but c'est la mort...) There is no way in the world that I could even begin to seriously compare a Stuhrling to a Seiko, much less the Hammy Ventura; as my paternal grandad would have asserted, it would be like "comparing a turd to a tearose."

@ et. al. - I suppose I should have done more than just post the picture, but here was/is my point: If this case was filed in a Superior Court in one of the larger cities in the U.S., and I was one of Megan's/SNBC's/Dim's attornies, I would push very hard for a jury to hear and decide the outcome of this litigation. During the voir dire, I would eliminate as many potential jurors as possible who showed any signs of being a WIS, unless I could figure out some line of questioning that might tell me if a potential juror is a so-called "TV Watch" buyer; I'm not being entirely tongue-in-cheek when I assert this, because many, many lawyers (for the defense) will aim to get as many pliable - even downright dumb - jurors as possible before their summary dismissals run out.

Gents such as yourselves obviously know where the turds and tearoses are, and you make your buying or other decisions about watches based on this knowledge. As a defense attorney, I wouldn't want you near that jury pool for very obvious reasons. I want jurors who will look at that 'geekland' cut & paste and say, "Yeah, that looks the same to me." Put simply, they'll see the shape and little else because they're not WIS's. And I will do everything within reason to make sure they don't become anything close to a WIS...

Obviously, the plaintiff will make every effort to 'educate' the jurors vis-a-vis watches, using experts when and where they can to highlight the differences. But they'll have to tread very carefully and [seriously] use small words in their descriptions. Most jurors don't like experts because they feel as if they're being "talked down to."

And Dim's blathery spoken error? I would go back over the last 10 (?) or more years and show as many clips as I could get away with (In other words, before the jury nods off for the day - right around 1400, or so), establishing a pattern of rambling, mistake-laden gibberish which is the Dim Demple way of hawking watches. You close that little demo out by saying to the jury, "Would any of you want to be held liable for something you said in a moment of confusion?" Heck, I might even consider having the Dimster testify so they can see in person what a ramblous buffoon he can be. (Or maybe not; the guy's a loose cannon and he could easily shoot himself in the foot - or elsewhere.)

Sorry about the overlong response, guys. What I'm basically trying to say - acknowledging in full my cynicism about the gene pool, let alone the pool of Jurors one tends to see on a regular basis - that litigation requires that the plaintiff establish facts beyond reasonable doubt (lower standards than the 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' in, say, cases of murder, arson, kidnapping, etc.) The defense will do everything he can to blur the line between factual complaint and simple allegation. "Look at these very similar watches from Seiko and Technomarine...why didn't Hamilton file complaints about these?" Yes, I know what the law says, but that is sometimes easy to obfuscate without the judge catching it. However, a good attorney for the plaintiff will catch it and object like crazy. Again, though, the defense will have to continuously and repeatedly ram home the point that it's the triangular shape that's the issue, not all those nasty wheel-and-gear assemblies.

Yes, most WIS certainly know of the huge differences here between these watches, but 'a jury of our peers?' A good litigator (or, if you prefer, a good 'showman') would have no trouble getting an already-malleable jury to see things his/her way by - I hate to say this - 'dumbing down' the technical differences and emphasizing the shape; once more, that's the biggest - and probably only - detail they'll see.

Of course, if we have a trial by judge, all bets are off...unless the judge happens to be as downright stupid as those ass clowns on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But you can't count on that...well, not that often, anyway. Image

Hope that all made some sort of sense.

MORT Out.
Image
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 9646
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Hawk » July 11th 2012, 2:27pm

ocean wrote:
Hawk wrote:
AJC wrote:I wonder if this trial will be open to the public. I only live a short 2 1/2 hr drive from nyc. It would be a fun little field trip.


I'll crap a green brick if it gets to that stage.

Sure would be fun though.


A Hawk laying a green egg that would be a sight. Image


Well, it's the rectangular nature of a "green brick" that promises the most pain.

But, if it goes to trial, I'll do my utmost to comply.
Image
And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle.
...bobbee
Post Reply

Return to “The Frugal Connoisseur's Corner”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests