dreddsnik it helps you win a civil judgement. a criminal court case proves they did it to a higher standard than civil court requires. if they are found guilty in a criminal trial there will be a financial colostomy for not only prenda but every operation like it in the country
can you sue for infringement that has not occurred yet?
no, the court has time and time again affirmed you can not civilly sue for damages that have not happened. this is nothing more than their Kafkaesque attempt to intimate through lawyers and fee's much like how the mafia intimated store owners.
the saddest part of this civil asset forfeiture system is the fact there needs to be a law telling the cops this. it should have been explicitly known you had to be convicted before the property could be seized, but then again lawyers are involved.
this man's behavior isn't any different than a lot of peoples behavior today. he has the "all about me syndrome", a disease caused by the fact that your mommy and daddy filled you with the belief that your special and deserve things.
you want to fix the problem? you make them all charge the same prices. one hospital might charge 500 dollars for an x-ray and another 1500. the first step is forcing mandatory prices they can't charge more than.
his parents need to sue the heck out of the school for suppressing his religion. now i know the kid probably isn't a "literal" satanist but the school can't prove that and i'm tired of some middle management idiot doing shit like this.
some of what he says is hyperbole the same why i say i'm the only sane man in family. is my family insane? no they are just selfish narcissist's constantly engaging in foolishness.
but some of his claims are in fact troubling showing he may be at least mentally unstable and paranoid. we can only hope this turns out for the best of the citizens and not the law enforcement agencies
the ncaa is going to be screwed. this is a first amendment case, the ncaa's case boils a contract matter. free speech has historically been chained under contracts. that's why celebs with huge endorsement deals have morality clauses and the courts have ruled them legal. and the courts have also penalized people for acting in bad faith or illegal business behaviors in employment contracts.
the question is that he's been using the logo for ten years and disney has never once attempted to sue or claim he's infringing their IP. i think that might be a huge question come to trial, if everyone chips in on his legal fees do you think we could have the court decide that disney loses their trademarks involved in this because they didn't protect them.