Novelty Parakeet Maker Sued After Cat Ingests Realistic Plastic Toy

Posted on September 12, 2014 by DvanL

FAIRFIELD, New Jersey –

Have you seen the commercial for the ‘perfect’ pet? It’s not a dog, it’s not a goldfish – it’s not even living! It’s ‘Pretty Much Polly,’ the plastic parakeet that can ‘provide hours of fun, just like the real thing!’

Polly’s colors are vibrant. From a distance, you’d never be able to tell the difference between an actual bird and a mass-produced extruded glob of spray-painted plastic, popped out of a mold in far away China, shipped to America to satisfy the gaping maws of hungry toy consumers, begging for the latest electronic plaything.

Even cats want to get their paws on Polly. Sadly, one curious kitten did just that, and Pretty Much Polly turned out not to be the perfect Polly toy for the small kitty.

TeleToy Corporation INC., distributor of Pretty Much Polly, has been named as defendant in a lawsuit filed by Edna Wannamaacher on behalf of Mittens Wannamaacher. Lawyers and insiders are saying that the case, Mittens Wannamaacher v. TeleToy INC., could be a game-changer.

“Mittens was my newest best friend,” said self-described “cat lady” Edna Wannamaacher during the trial. “He followed me everywhere. One day, I was pouring foundation for that new development over by Harbor Road and Mittens kind of adopted me. Next thing I knew, he was my newest roommate! He followed me home. I don’t know what he saw in me, but I guess he knew he’d feel at home.”

“Cats are inherently curious, we all know that,” said Allison Sandy, counsel for TeleToy, “and in this case, Mittens’ curiosity indeed did kill her, just as the biblical parable says. ‘Polly Wannamaacher’, as she called the toy, and TeleToys, should in no way be held liable for the unfortunate accident that took place. We are not responsible for any damages.”

“Objection, your honor,” shouted Edna’s nephew, Dewey Wannamaacher, during closing arguments. When Dewey was reminded that he was not an attorney and that closing arguments can not be interrupted, he begged for the court’s mercy, asking that his statement be heard and entered into the record. The request was granted over Sandy’s objections.

“My aunt is not a crazy cat lady. She does not train her cats to use the toilet like some nuts. In fact, she has opted herself to just use clumping litter along with her friends instead. A lot of slanderous things have been said about her in court today. Yes, she once took a selfie for Cat Fancy magazine, showing her eating from a bowl of Meow Mix with a slew of cats, but it was just for fun. Sadly, that photograph has now come to haunt our family nine-times over. It’s on the Internet, and…well, people can be so cruel. By my aunt is a wonderful person, and this case should not be about her life, but rather the life, and death, of Mittens Wannamaacher.”

“Millions of toy makers and yarn manufacturers could face loss of livelihoods,” countered Sandy. “Even the entire string industry could be wiped out over a case like this. Is that fair? I think not. We all love cats, yes, but also — members of the jury — I implore you — also think of the sheep. There’s more at stake here than just the future of one toy line. It’s the future of the entire cat industry! This could set a precedent that could potentially wipe out laser pointers and catnip manufacturers as well.”

“Oh, I’d hate to put people out of work,” said Edna, as the jury deliberated for a second day. “A lot of my friends work with toys and string. But what about Mittens? Who is going to speak for her? She was just following her natural instincts and look where she ended up? Dead and under the recliner, that’s where. Mittens would have been better off left in that construction lot, looking back on it.”

Unofficial reports have surfaced hinting that the jury may be deadlocked.

“I took a good look at the jury, said Wannamaacher. “I think half of them are dog people, and the other half are cat people. I hope we win. For the love of Mittens, I hope we win.”

HASBRO Threatens ISIS With Lawsuit, Claims Copyright Infringement

Posted on September 6, 2014 by skullman

PAWTUCKET, Rhode Island –

In a press release from international toy company Hasbro, company executives say that are ‘strongly considering’ a lawsuit against militant terrorist group ISIS, who the company says have ‘stolen the look and nature’ of G.I. Joe characters COBRA.

“For decades, G.I. Joe have been the ‘Real American Heroes,’ and they have fought against their nemesis COBRA, a group of violent terrorists who often wear hooded masks while performing their heinous tasks,” said George Prime, legal spokesman for HASBRO. “With the recent media coverage of the soulless terrorist group ISIS in Iraq and Syria, we were able to get a rather good look at their wardrobe, and we couldn’t believe that they’d resign to using COBRA costumes.”

HASBRO has owned the creative rights to G.I. Joe since 1964, and the toy line has seen many iterations, including action figures, a Saturday morning cartoon, and more recently, a series of feature films.

“Throughout all of it, though, we have owned the rights to names and likenesses, and that includes dark, hooded masks, at least when they are being used in a terrorist or menacing nature,” said Prime.

The company has sent an ultimatum to ISIS leaders to change their look, or they will bring legal action.

ISIS, short for the militant group named Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, have been waging an offensive that have seen large chunks of Northern Iraq fall out of government hands. ISIS is an al Qaeda splinter group that wants to establish an Islamic state that would stretch from Iraq into northern Syria.

“In the G.I. Joe world, COBRA is run by an evil, shadowy figure aptly named Cobra Commander. In the real world, ISIS is also run by a shadowy operative, and although it is not 100% known if he partakes in the same dark headwear often, one can only assume that he’s taking cues directly from our action figure line. We at HASBRO can only hope that they are, because in the end that means those monstrous sons of bitches will be quickly dispatched by real military heroes.”

HASBRO says that they have sent multiple messages to try to meet with ISIS leaders, but to no avail.

Kim Kardashian Sues Owner of Roadside Diner Over ‘Fatback’ Sandwich

Posted on August 7, 2014 by DvanL

SANTA MONICA, California –

Sandwich shops and delis across the nation are known to name popular items after famous celebrities. It’s a trend made popular by New York’s Carnegie Deli, which boasts among other items, the “Woody Allen” – made with corned beef and pastrami, and familiar to fans of Allen’s 1984 film Broadway Danny Rose.

Many would say to be immortalized in food would be a badge of honor, but reality star and social media personality Kim Kardashian disagrees. She has taken legal steps to disassociate her name from one menu item she finds distasteful.

Kardashian filed suit against “Baggazi’s” a small Santa Monica roadside diner, over her novelty sandwich made up of “a generous portion of fatback, topped with 2 steaming poached eggs.” “Fatback” is a layer of fat and skin cut from the back of a domestic pig.

“It’s just going too far,” said a weeping Kardashian during a press conference attended by Kardashian family members including mother Kim, sisters Kourtney and Khloé, and half-sisters Kendall and Kylie Jenner, also weeping. Kardashian’s husband Kanye, who was not present, was busy preparing for an upcoming concert in Kyoto, Japan.

“I’m having trouble taking off the last few pounds of my baby weight,” Kardashian explained through sobs, “and this sandwich is mean spirited, insensitive and just not fair. I work hard at things and this isn’t something I endorse for my public image and it also invades my family’s privacy and our good name.”

Proprietor Joe Baggazi doesn’t get what the fuss is all about. “It’s a sandwich for Christ sake, like ham and eggs, just with a famous name is all,” said Baggazi from behind the counter of his small shop. “What am I supposed to do, name a skinny sandwich now after somebody skinny? The skinny people would be complaining I guess about that then.”

The attention brought by the lawsuit has been good for business, admits Baggazi. “I got lines out the door and around the corner,” he said. “If I have to change the name of the sandwich I guess I will, ‘cause I don’t have that kind of money if they sue me, but everyone’s gonna know which sandwich it is anyway, so I’ll call it the ‘You-Know-Who’ sandwich instead if I have to,” he added with a wink.

Baggazi then excused himself to tend to waiting customers who were beginning to form a long line.

Tennessee Woman Sues Her Husband For Getting Her Pregnant

Posted on July 31, 2014 by JP

JACKSON, Tennessee –

A trial is set for a new lawsuit filed last week after a wife decided to sue her husband of 15 years after he got her pregnant. Tracy Smith, a resident of Jackson, is taking her husband Carl to court after he accidentally got her pregnant. The case is not about rape, but rather an alleged action of ‘personal neglect,’ after Smith’s husband promised not to get her pregnant.

“He told me he wouldn’t get me pregnant, but here we are and I’m pissed,” said Smith. “I love the man to death, but this is serious neglect on his part, and he will pay for what he has done to me!”

The lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, but Smith’s husband and his lawyer don’t think that the judge will take this case too seriously.

“This is a very strange case, and to be honest my client shouldn’t be fined or charged for something some people would kill for,” said Harvey Feinstein, the defendant’s lawyer. “It takes at least two people to perform intercourse, and each party should be responsible for their safety and well-being. If Mrs. Smith didn’t want to get pregnant, there were many ways that she could have taken her own precautions against it. Relying solely on her husband to wear a condom or to pull-out is just ridiculous.”

Attorneys for both sides are set to make their opening arguments to the judge on August 5th. Mrs. Smith is seeking damages in the amount of $25,000, and if she wins her case, the money cannot come from their joint account.

Carl Smith has denied to comment on what he calls ‘the stupidest thing that’s happened to him since he got married in the first place.’

Woman Sues Movie Theatre After 12-Year-Old Son Is Admitted To PG-13 Film

Posted on July 22, 2014 by Bob The Empire News Potato

TULSA, Oklahoma –

A mother in Tulsa, Oklahoma is suing the local movie theatre after her 12-year-old son was allowed to purchase a ticket to a PG-13 film without her consent. Mary Lambert, whose son Joe is only 12, says that she dropped her son off at the movie theatre to see the PG-rated film Minions with his friends, but instead they went to see the PG-13 rated film Pixels.

“My son knows that he is not allowed to watch those adult films until next year, and don’t you worry, he’s being punished at home, for sure,” said Lambert. “But someone has to be to blame for letting him into that movie, and that fault lies on the movie theatre itself. These ratings were put into law for a reason, and they’ve broken that law. They are going to pay for the warped mind my son will now have after seeing such adult content.”

“The movie ratings system is not a law, and this woman has no case whatsoever,” said Joe Goldsmith, owner of the Magic Lantern Cinema in Tulsa. “The MPAA, the group that gives these films their ratings, they only created this system to keep people, namely parents, informed about the content. They are not passed into law. Anyone can come in and buy a ticket to see any movie they’d like whenever they like. Our theatre, as well as most, do try and not allow children under 17 into R-rated movies, but that is a policy of our theatre, not a law. Even if the film was NC-17, that’s not law, that’s just a thought.”

Goldsmith is correct in his description of how the ratings system works, but Lambert is not alone in assuming that the MPAA ratings system – G for General Audiences, PG for Parental Guidance Suggest, PG-13 for Parents Strongly Cautioned (May Contain Content Inappropriate for Children Under 13), R for Restricted (Must be 17 or Have A Parent With You in the Theatre) and NC-17 for No Children 17 or Under Allowed – are laws that the movie theatres must follow. Over 85% of movie theatres, both independent and chain-cinemas, follow the rules of not allowing children under 17 to R-rated films, but that’s pretty much the only area the rules are enforced.

“We don’t play NC-17 films, like most movie theatres,” said Goldsmith. “If we did ever play one, we would not let anyone under 18 into that, either. Again, though – not because it’s a law, but because we feel that’s the right thing to do for the parents of this community.”

Lambert has said that she will take the case to the supreme court if necessary, and force them to uphold the MPAA ratings.

“Why make these ratings if you’re not going to enforce what they stand for?” said Lambert. “Why should I have to monitor what my kid watches? Do I actually need to get out of the car, stand in line with him, buy the ticket, and hold his hand all the way into the theatre? My God, next they’ll suggest I actually just watch a movie with him. Obviously these people have no idea that parents just don’t have time to pay that much attention to their kids. I should just expect them to monitor his films for me. He’s 12 – he is not allowed to see PG-13 films. End of story.”

Lambert has brought her case to a local attorney who will be filing the suit against the Magic Lantern at the end of the week.

Daughter Forced To Get ‘Tramp-Stamp’ Tattoo of Dad’s Face; Sues for Removal Costs

Posted on July 14, 2014 by Angela Baker

RICHMOND, Virginia –

Daddy’s little girl is now old enough to sue. 19-year-old Tiffany Kendell is suing her father, Jeff Kendell, for laser tattoo-removal costs plus $5,000 pain and suffering. Three years ago, Tiffany’s father convinced her to get a portrait of his face tattooed so he would always be with her.

“It’s on my lower back. At first, I thought, okay – I won’t have to look at it, but now I can’t wear a bikini without my dad like, staring at my friends. It really creeps guys out and my dating life is non-existent,” said Tiffany.

Jeff’s bitter ex-wife, Rebecca Kendell-Jackson, is paying for her daughter’s attorney and plans to drag Jeff through the mud.

“When I saw it I thought, ‘this is sick.’ People are going to think there’s something perverted going on,” said Kendell-Jackson.

According to Tiffany’s lawsuit, her father bribed her into getting the portrait of his face on her lower back in exchange for a pink 2009 Chrysler Sebring Convertible. At 16, she was too young to get a tattoo in their home state of Virginia without parental consent, so her father accompanied her. Because of this fact, the artist who did the tattoo is not being named in the lawsuit.

Tiffany’s lawyer, Tom Twain, says at age 16, “Ms. Kendell didn’t understand the implications of this tattoo. Forever is forever, and this isn’t a little butterfly we’re taking about. Mr. Kendell was abusive and negligent, and he should be responsible for fixing his parenting mistakes.”

“He not only bribed me with a car, he threatened to like, follow me and my friends around until I was thirty if I didn’t get it done,” said Tiffany. “Plus my car got totaled, so it’s not even fair. I don’t have that car anymore, but I still have this stupid tattoo. It’s humiliating, and I just want it off.”

Jeff Kendell argues that he was just trying to be a loving father and a good dad.

“I’m a good father. I just wanted to protect her. If she hadn’t crashed her car while texting, I bet there wouldn’t be an issue at all right now. What’s the big deal, anyway? I’d get a tattoo of my daughter ‘s beautiful face anywhere she wants. Fair is fair.”

When asked if he was concerned Tiffany would never be able to do it doggy-style with any of her future boyfriends, Jeff said ”The right kind of man won’t be turned off by a little tattoo, but hey – Wait, that’s my daughter you’re talking about!”

California Waitress Asked To ‘Provide Proof’ She Was Menstruating In Order To Leave Work Early

Posted on July 6, 2014 by AlabamaWhitman

PLAYA VISTA, California –

Almost everyone has had to leave work early at one time or another, however for Andrea Greene, a 19-year-old waitress at The Red Oyster in Playa Vista, California, her management staff not only accused her of lying to leave early, but also demanded proof when Ms. Greene said that she was experiencing sickness due to her menstruation.

According to Ms. Greene, she arrived for her shift as scheduled on the 4th of July, eager to make some holiday money.

“I always like to work holidays, especially the 4th of July and St. Patrick’s Day. People always drink a lot, and tip me really big,” Said Andrea. “But in the middle of my shift, I started feeling sick, and I knew my period was coming on strong. I was the only female staff member scheduled that day, and the tampon dispenser in the restrooms has been broken for months.”

Andrea asked her coworker to cover her tables while she tried to assess her situation.

“I tried to, um, clean up, but it had already soaked my panties, and I was really starting to feel extra sick. I put toilet paper in my underwear, but I had a really long night ahead of me. I had to cut my losses on a big night of tips and try to go home early,” said Grenne.

Ms. Greene went to Alex Figueroa, her general manager, and asked that she be “cut”, which is the term used in the service industry meaning that she wouldn’t have anyone else sat at her tables, and after she finished her regular duties, she could go home.

Ms. Greene claims that her boss would not listen to her, and refused to relieve her, calling her a liar and mocking her, citing the ‘heavy flow’ of holiday diners.

“I seriously needed to go home. I was almost bleeding through my pants. I was so uncomfortable, I decided to go over Alex’s head and speak with our executive chef, hoping he would understand. I figured that it had to be a health violation or something,” said Greene.

Despite her embarrassment, Ms. Greene went to speak with Thomas Roberts, The Red Oyster’s Execute Chef. She explained her situation to Roberts, who assumed she was just lying to get out of work so she could go party with her friends.

“He laughed in my face and told me I’d have to ‘come up with a better excuse than that’ if I wanted to go party. Then he told everyone I was on my period. I was mortified,” said Andrea. “I started to cry and told him I wasn’t lying and that this was an emergency, and that I really needed to go home. What he said after nearly made my jaw hit the floor.”

Ms. Greene claims that after ridiculing her and mocking her, Roberts told her that if she wanted to go home, she’d have to prove that she was, in fact, on her period.

“[Roberts] said that I either needed to pull down my pants and prove it, or I could just ‘hand over my bloody toilet paper and then be gone,’ which he said in a weird pirate accent. The entire kitchen staff was laughing hysterically at me. I couldn’t believe what this man just asked me to do, how he embarrassed me. I didn’t know how to handle the situation.”

Andrea states she ran out of the kitchen and called her mother, who instructed her to leave immediately and that she would help her with bills until she found another job. With her mother’s support, Andrea plans to file a lawsuit against chef Roberts, her manager, and The Red Oyster.

Figueroa thinks Andrea is blowing the entire situation out of proportion, and that no one mistreated her at all.

“Andrea has quite an imagination. There was no mistreatment of her by me or anyone on my staff. Her story is complete fabrication. I was never informed she was feeling ill at all – she just threw her apron down on the bar and ran out of the restaurant. She’s a young, needy girl searching for attention, and that’s all I care to comment pending any sort of litigation. I’d just like to mention, though, that The Red Oyster is open late, we’re affordable, and we’ve always got crabs. It’s the perfect dining destination for any occasion! Call today to make a reservation!”

Kanye West Files Lawsuit Against His Reflection

Posted on July 4, 2014 by iamjoshjohnson

LOS ANGELES, California –

Kanye West stays in the news for his outspoken nature and, at times, outlandish behavior. However his most recent crazy behavior may have topped all others. One of the world’s most renowned rappers is filing a lawsuit against his own reflection.

West was curiously completely unaware of his reflection until a few weeks ago when he was apparently walking down a hallway in Milan and bumped right into a mirror. After the collision West demanded that the man across from him apologize. Although not a direct quote, onlookers reported hearing West screaming at himself in the mirror, swearing and saying “watch where you’re going.”

Ever the prima donna, West then called his stylist demanding that he be fit for new clothes as his current outfit, supposedly one of a kind, was being worn by someone else. Kanye only became more infuriated when he noticed the figure was mimicking his movements.

When informed that it was Kanye’s reflection in the mirror, and then someone patiently explaining what a reflection was, he protested that it was impossible.

“I’m way better looking than this fool!” West screamed, causing a wave of laughter by onlookers.

After coming to terms with the fact that he could not fire his own reflection, he flew back to America and filed a lawsuit. Kanye is suing his reflection both for the assault that occurred in the meeting, and misrepresenting him for 37 years. His lawyers reluctantly filed the suit, despite hours of trying to explain why the case would make him look horribly stupid. Kanye rebuffed their attempts, and now West and his reflection are set to appear in court September 31st.

In the meantime, West has filed a restraining order against his reflection, which has already been violated several times in the past few days. Police were called to Kanye’s home the morning after the suit was filed, as Kanye’s duplicate was accused of commiting a home invasion. West claimed he was startled by the very man he was at odds with while getting dressed in front of a full-length mirror.

Officers who arrived were led to the room where the incident occurred, but they found nothing. West entered the room moments later only to act alarmed, screaming that the intruder was behind them. The police had to stifle their laughter and told West that they’d “get their best men on that matter.”

In spite of his current ordeal, West is still very hard at work in the studio and tweeted to his fans that “There may be a thousand of him, but there’s only one of me.”

Man Files Lawsuit After His Horse Is Mocked By Neighbor’s Cow

Posted on June 10, 2014 by Bob The Empire News Potato

BEAR LAKE, Pennsylvania –

Charlie Carey, whose horse got stuck in the fence while trying to get out of his corral, is suing his neighbor, Richard Lewis, after Carey tried to get a photo of his horse, and Lewis’ cow “photobombed” the stuck and frightened animal.

“This isn’t the first time Tank [the horse] had gotten stuck trying to get out,” said Carey. “I went out to take a photo, because I hired a team to build a new fence, and wanted to show them exactly what Tank kept doing so they could make something that would prevent it.”

Carey says that when he went out to take a picture, Lewis’ cow, Bessie, jumped right in the picture “with a huge grin on her face.”

“That cow hates me, and it hates Tank, and it was mocking us both.” Alleges Carey.

Carey filed suit in the Warren County Superior Court, citing both Lewis and his cow, saying that Bessie “intentionally mocked, with intent to annoy and humiliate.” He is seeking damages of $180,000, for his “wasted camera film” and emotional distress caused by the incident.

When Lewis was asked about the notion that Bessie knew she was “photobombing” Carey’s horse, he blew off the idea, saying it was all nonsense.

“This whole situation is a damn joke.” Says Lewis, who bought the house next door to Carey’s only about 5 months ago. “Bessie is a cow. She certainly doesn’t have any animosity towards anyone, except for maybe Ronald McDonald. Possibly the Burger King. Definitely not Carey. She doesn’t know him from Adam.”

Lewis and Carey have a history of bad blood, and according to police reports each man has already called them multiple times with various complaints against each other.

“He [Lewis] is the worst neighbor I’ve ever had.” Said Carey. “Ol’ Joe Parsons, he lived there before [Lewis], and he was the damn nicest man you’d ever want to meet. I’ve had nothing but problems since he moved in.”

Police reports show complaints from both men, ranging from “too many chickens running around loose” to “walking around the house naked with the curtains open.”

Martin Hastings, captain of the Bear Lake police department, said that he’s never seen two men have so many disagreements over what he claims is “absolute bull[expletive].”

“It’s gotten to the point where our dispatcher knows both men very well, and calls them by their first names. This photobombing cow thing – I’ve been on the force for 23 years, and now I know I’ve seen it all.”

“Like I said, Charlie is just a [expletive]. Suing me for my cow “mocking him?” Get real. He’s just milking this for all it’s worth. Er, no pun intended, Bessie.” Said Lewis.