FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:28:10 +0100, (Victor Sack)
wrote:

<snip>

>It is clear that some individuals are using
>the current scandal for actively trying to undermine and ultimately
>usurp the Head Trollop's enviable position under the guise of defending
>the indefensible. The Cabal (TINC) is, for the time being, reserving
>action against the individuals involved.

Victuh, youse totally misunduhstands my position heah, which is
consigliere for dah Trollops, an' in pahticulah da Head Trollop, Dams,
whose legal position is dat TINC ain't got no joorisdiction over Dams
or da Trollops as Dams ain't got no legal ability to waive any of da
Trollops' rights and responsibilities over dere monikers. Ain't no way
no stinkin' TINCs gots joorisdiction here an' I gots case law to prove
it: Trollops v. Peanut Butter and Mayonnaise Sandwich (9th Cir. 1995)
319 F.3d 575, 579 and Anita Bryant v. Trollops (1988) 534 S.Ct. 767,
768 and statchoot: U.S.C. Section 7 Come 11.

Sos, if youse wants a legal battle, youse got one: ketchup-filled
squirt guns at 3 paces, mistuh!

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"