I’m a southerner. That was a perfectly executed “bless your heart,” 10/10 would bless.

I will take literally any excuse to eat more carbs, so Japanese potatoes it is!

Thanks!

PERFECTLY SAID.

The Court is NOT on Dr. Luke’s “side.” The Judge merely applied the law to the facts. As an attorney one of the hardest things to deal with are bad facts. They are what they are and we do our best to construe them most favorably to our clients but ultimately Judges have no discretion to choose a “side” they like.…

You would think but the vast majority of their articles dealing with legal issues are completely bereft of actual legal analysis. Another example is them trotting out the Answer filed by Wal-Mart’s defense attorneys in response to the Tracy Morgan lawsuit wherein they assert the affirmative defense that his failure to…

Thanks. I’m damn sure the guy’s a monster, but the fucking treatment this story is getting is ridiculous and legitimately problematic.

The court didn’t step in and say “hey - I see a contract not being performed, get your asses in here.”

Yes, every non-lawyer loves to scream that justice delayed is justice denied. There’s only one problem with that... justice denied is justice denied.

That’s like saying just because a guy supposedly beat up his wife in the past, there’s no point slapping him with a restraining order because no one can predict whether he’d do it again.

Haha. I scrambled to get this comment submitted ASAP (despite being in the middle of like 7 work things) so it would be noticed. I too wrote something in one of the previous posts but it was lost in the vast sea of comments.

Gawker media in general needs a legal analyst—I applaud them for publicizing these stories, but without any legal consultation the coverage can border on irresponsible, as it has here. I think the fact that pretty much every regular commenter with a J.D. has taken issue with how this case has been presented to the…

Gods of Kinja, I call on thee to grant me more stars to give this post. I wanted to comment yesterday but the thread was 1,200+ strong. So happy to find this at the top today.

I don’t think she’s obligated to work with, or be around Dr. Luke—and I don’t think she alleged that she’s in imminent physical danger here. I doubt she’s alleging that she suspects he’s going to rape her again.

But nobody is forcing Kesha to work with Dr. Luke. She has every right to have no contact with him. All the court is saying is that she doesn’t have the right to break the terms of her agreement by working for someone else or independently. The court does not award specific performance on employment contracts. That’s…

Or maybe Jezebel should ask one of their lawyer commentators for some assistance before drafting posts about legal issues. I’ve been volunteering for years. Just like when Gawker posted that awful article lambasting the aunt who sued her nephew for a broken arm without any context for why or how that could happen…

Thanks for voicing this. You can be pro-Kesha to the Nth degree (as I am), but people have to recognize this isn’t what the civil suit is about. Until he is convicted, there’s no legal reason to void her contract. It’s awful, but the correct application of the law.

I’ve been fuming over the reporting of this case here as well, mainly for the uninformed bashing of the Court and Judge. It’s really frustrating. There are over 400 docket entries in this action—it’s a pretty complicated litigation yet these authors and the comentatriat continue to lambaste the court without having…

Jez really needs some legal advisors. The generalizations and misinterpretations for the sake of drama/outrage generation tend to undermine their arguments. I mean, the court isn’t exactly dry-washing its hands with evil glee while they kick back a few with Dr. Luke and Sony’s legal team and drown kittens in a sack.

it’s not even a question of like or dislike, at this point the judge has only been confronted with a shit storm of allegations. A factual conclusion can’t really be made so early in the proceedings.