We are protected from unwanted  sexual behavior in our place of employment.  We have the right to be free of unwanted sexual advances,  sexual innuendo,  demands for sex in exchange for job advancement or keeping a job. The list goes on and on. There is an entire body of law and several Supreme Court decisions that give  us that protection and tell us what we should do if we are harassed.  If you are to believe two New York Police Department(NYPD) male police officers we are also protected from unwanted crotch itch.  That’s right. if your co-worker does more ball handling than Steve Nash you can get him fired and  sue for sexual harassment.

A gay NYPD lieutenant was recently found guilty by NYPD of sexually harassing two male sergeants.  Lt. Kieran Crowe, a 23-year NYPD veteran, was  initially suspended 60 days without pay for rubbing his crotch, simulating masturbation and wiggling his tongue at the male sergeants.  Crowe admitted that he may have scratched his groin area, but said it was because he suffered from “jock itch”. He even had a note from his doctor.  The “jockered” cops have now filed a federal sexual harassment suit against Crowe.  Crowe’s attorney stated:

“Does it make sense that this gentle, homosexual man would seek to coerce and seduce two large, burly heterosexuals?”

Believe it or not “crotch grab” harassment is not unusual. It unfortunately is a common gesture used by  neanderthals to reach a higher sexual and intellectual plane.  What is the message being sent with the “grab”?  If the message is, “I shouldn’t have slept with that girl last night” then the intent is probably not to sexually harass. The guy should get some powder and a penicillin shot.  In Crowe’s case however he was allegedly doing it whenever he was in the presence of these two ‘jockophobic” sergeants and was also moaning loudly whenever he scratched.

Should this “crotchety” police officer been canned?  There are those who would argue that “crotch-grabbing” has actually become the in thing among the Hollywood elite as a sign of respect for co-workers.  This trend was allegedly started by Oliver Stone and Josh Brolin during the filming of the movie “W“.  Brolin insisted his co-stars break up serious scenes by flipping off the director and grabbing their crotches.  I wonder if Stone and Brolin will be called as experts in crotch grabbing at Crowe’s the civil trial.

I suspect that Crowe’s dismissal will be overturned and he will be reinstated to the NYPD.   Hopefully minus his jock itch.

Motto of story?  If it doesn’t itch you must acquit.

In what appears to be a unique case, a Federal Court in Tampa Florida has ordered a company to use ‘negative keywords’ to avoid being associated with another firm’s trade mark.

In the case of Orion Bankcorp Inc. v. Orion Residential Financial, the court ruled that Orion Residential was basically devaluing the trademark and intellectual property value of the keywords people use in search engine searches that would take them to Orion Bankcorp. The court ordered Orion Residential to insert “negative keywords” into their website.

Without going into to all the legal shmegal, the court basically stated that Orion Residential was infringing Orion Bancorps trademark by inserting keywords that Orion Bancorp has trademark protection for in their name as used in keywords and such. The court entered an order:

“barring defendant from purchasing or using any form of advertising including keywords or “adwords” in internet advertising containing any mark incorporating Plaintiff’s Mark, or any confusingly similar mark, and shall, when purchasing internet advertising using keywords, adwords or the like, require the activation of the term “ORION” as negative keywords or negative adwords in any internet advertising purchased or used.”

This frankly is not unusual in terms of trademark cases. Please are always getting sued for trademark infringement in trying to siphon off business using someone else’s established good will.

Search engines often get sued for devaluing trademarks in this way. Google has been sued several times for selling key words in its’ Google AdWords program that a company may feel are protected trademark. Until the American Airlines suit however they have been primarily obscure companies not making big news . It is however the first time I have seen a court order a company to insert safeguard in their web site to protect the trademark of another company. If anyone has seen other cases like this I would would love to hear about them.

This is very similar to the issue in the much more prominent and publicized case of American Airlines v. Google. Without going into all the intricacies of the case American Airlines sued Google for allowing other companies to have their banners come up when Google searches for American Airlines and related words were done. The basic argument is that these banners devalue the intellectual property and infringe on the trademark of American Airlines. In layman’s terms? American Airlines was sick and tired of companies getting a free ride on the back of trademark value they worked so hard to establish while Google made a killing.

This case is still pending. Google is fighting back hard. They make a killing selling these keywords to companies. A win by American Airlines will have financial ramification for Google and set the standard for future suits of this nature.

We all know that keyword abuse in the business world is rampant. How many company specific keywords do you have on your business site in the hopes that people looking for the more established company will be decided to check out your web site instead when it appears in the search rankings. There is no getting around the fact that this practice tends to run afoul of U.S. trademark law.

I believe that these keyword suits will become much more common and high profile over the next decade as the internet becomes more and more integrated in the the everyday shopping experience. The American Airlines Suit is just the first high profile salvo.

I had better go take my Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse key words out of my web site for Mickey’s House of Hookers…..

I just read a story on Fox about a Tennessee couple who lost their son in Iraq suing an Arizona T-Shirt seller for 40 billion Dollars for the survivors of slain soldiers whose names are on the T-Shirt.

A complaint seeking class-action status for the lawsuit by Robin and Michael Read says Dan Frazier of Flagstaff has no right to profit from commercial sale of products that use the dead soldiers’ names without permission. Frazier’s “Bush lied — They died” T-shirts, sold at his site CarryaBigSticker.com, list Iraq war casualties’ names, and Frazier contends he is covered by First Amendment free-speech protections.

I understand the theory in principal as ridiculously flawed as it is. Fraziers position is also ridiculously flawed. This is not a First Amendment case. You can have First Amendment protection and still not be allowed to profit off that protection at someone’s expense….

There are so many examples that I wont even get into it.

What I will ge into are these ridiculous class action lawsuits that have no agenda other than money for the attorneys. Anyone who thinks this is about anything other than that is delusional. There is no agenda of social concern, free speech right or even those who have lost their lives in Iraq.

This is about some guy with a T-Shirt that makes money trying to keep what he has. This is about some slimy attorney or law firm preying on the grief of those who have lost loved ones trying to get a piece of the pie…..

I challenge whoever is handling this case to step forward and explain why he or she is not some “McDonald’s Hot Coffee Chasing” “As Seen On TV”, Picture on the Back Of A Bus” class action ambulance chaser….

Please tell us there is some “greater public social good’ here other than your climbing the social legal ladder on the backs of Iraq soldiers and vets and their families.

Am I singling out the attorney when I should also be castigating the seller of the T-Shirt? I sure am. I hold the members of my profession to a higher standard of social conciseness. The legal profession and social responsibility does not have to be a contradiction in terms……

In closing, I would personally like to thank the attorney who took this ridiculous case for perpetuating every negative stereotype and cliche out there……  You’re a hell of a humanitarian…..

Texas Law and the U.S. Supreme Court are coming together in a timely fashion to determine my right to blow your brains out…..

The Dallas Morning News published an interesting piece the other day about Texas new “Castle Law“.   Without going into details, this law significantly broadens the circumstances under which a homeowner or vehicle owner can use deadly force to protect his/her home or vehicle.   There is now a broader “presumption” that under certain circumstances the use of deadly force is reasonable.   This will certainly make it easier for a grand jury to say “but for the grace of god” and let someone walk…….

I share the concern of Dallas prosecutors that it will de-criminalize acts that should be classified as murder but then again I have never been the victim of a home invasion. (Knock on wood).   I have no doubt I would feel differently if I had…..

This article is also a timely intersects with the argument about to take place before the U.S.  Supreme Court interpreting the “right to bear arms” provision of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.   They are being asked to determine whether the right to bears arm as outlined in the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective right. Arguably one of the most important  and polarizing cases before the court since the Constitution was drafted….

We have now shifted from “What’s mine is mine” to “What’s mine is mine and by the way… F***K you!”    I am not going to going into the specifics of the law but the laymen’s version for me to know and for the next person who I catch trying to steal my IPOD out of my car is that law under certain circumstances now gives me a much broader presumption that   I was acting properly when I put one between your eyes to protect my 400 dollar IPOD.  

 My prediction is that we are now going to have roving groups of what I will call “IPOD VIGILANTES”  who will  park their vehicles  in high crime areas with their pricey electronics gadgets in the front seat  laying in what for that unsuspecting music lover to attempt a snatch…..  

I wonder if Ben Franklin hid with gun waiting when someone tried to steal his fife off his horse….

What good is the right to bear arms if there is no right to pop a cap in someone as I see fit?