I have been informed that I must take down a blog post, this one. Apparently, Answers in Genesis does not own a whole jet, they lease 25% of one, and how dare I quote an investor site that says “The Cayman Islands are considered a tax haven” or that AiG has been grasping at tax breaks.
RE: False and Defamatory Statements
Dear Dr. Myers:
We represent Answers in Genesis, Inc. (“AiG”). We are writing to demand you and your blog, FreeThoughtBlogs, cease and desist further publication of your article Why are creationists so pasty pale at Answers in Genesis? posted at https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ 2024/10/17/why-are-creationists-so-pasty-pale-at-answers-in-genesis/ with a October 17, 2024 publication date (the “Article”). The Article contains several false statements and distortions of fact intended to defame our client.
The Article begins with the following statement: “AiG owns a private jet,” which is false. AiG has a lease for the fractional use of a private jet. In other words, AiG does not own a jet. It owns a percentage of an aircraft’s flight hours each year, approximately 25% of the allocated usage. The ministry has no oversight or involvement regarding the other 75% of use. The reasoning for the fractional use of a private plane is not about luxury but practicality, allowing the ministry to reach more people over a shorter period of time.
With that being said, it could very well be true that this jet “frequently darts down to the Cayman Islands for one-day visits.” However, that does not mean that those trips are taken by AiG. In fact, they are not. No AiG personnel have used the jet (or any other aircraft) for trips to the Cayman Islands.
Of particular concern are the following false statements on your blog:
“What are they doing down there? Why do they frequently fly there and then come straight back?” followed by “Wild guess: The Cayman Islands are considered a tax haven
… making it an ideal place for multinational corporations to base subsidiary entities to shield some or all of their incomes from taxation.”
“AiG has been working so hard to get all kinds of tax breaks here in America, why would they need to evade taxes even more than that?”
These veiled claims have no basis in fact.As you know and intended, when such allegations are directed towards a nonprofit ministry, they discredit and impeach the ministry. The intended implication in your false statements is not only that AiG aims to profit from its mission and that it violates laws for purposes of enriching itself, but it also partakes in additional illicit activity. Since there is no basis in fact, your blog’s publication of the Article (and your authorship of it) constitutes the tort of defamation. Under the laws of Kentucky, where the damage of your misconduct was directed and felt, your malicious defamation exposes you personally to liability, to include for punitive damages.To our knowledge, you made no effort to contact AiG to verify or corroborate the story’s allegations. It further appears that no effort was made to independently verify the allegations via publicly available sources. Even a minimal effort in that regard would have revealed the falsity of these allegations. Indeed, had you bothered to look at the aircraft registration of the plane, which can conveniently be found on the same website your Article links to, you would have discovered that AiG does not in fact own the plane.
You and your blog acted with actual malice in that you knew your statements were false or, at best, you acted in reckless disregard to the veracity of the statements. This is not the first time you have been reckless in your allegations regarding the ministry. The insinuations your “expose” propagates are presented as truths, when in fact they are lies. Your statements have been circulated to the public, to include the media, which increases the scope and corresponding liability for your misconduct.
Implications that AiG has engaged in illegal or criminal activity is unacceptable, as are the enumerated claims above. Your statements damage AiG’s reputation and were done with intent to cause harm, i.e. maliciously. Your followers have circulated your false claims, including to the media.
We demand that you immediately and permanently remove the Article and release a statement retracting the article and enumerated claims above. Please confirm that you have done so within five days of the date of this letter.
In the meanwhile, since you are on notice of legal claims made against you, you have a duty to preserve all communications and documents concerning the Article, to include all communications and investigations relevant to the same. All electronic records, to include all forms of electronic communications, should be preserved. This demand is not a waiver of any other claims my clients may have against you. Do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or desire to discuss this matter.
OK, I’ll admit that they have a solid alibi, and I am removing the post.
I am not at all surprised that Ken Ham is extremely touchy about their money, but have never sicced a lawyer on me for all my posts refuting their creationist bullshit.
I get you taking down the post, but still, this letter is a laughable reach. I love how they declare you “acted with actual malice” – a bar that is famously high and difficult to clear in defamation cases, and that’s when they actually have evidence that a defendant knew they were lying, and which certainly wouldn’t apply to a blogger publishing an opinion post in reaction to something he read online, even if mistakenly. I know it’s a threat letter, so that kind of posturing is expected, but it still makes them look like thuggish twits.
Also telling how Ham & co. instantly gave their lawyers’ leash a tug rather than just counter your post on their blog, as they’ve done in the past. Touchy about money, indeed.
That just makes one more mystery.
Who owns the other 75% of the jet’s hours?
Who is flying that jet to the Cayman Islands on frequent one day trips?
I bet Homeland Security, the FBI, and the IRS would like to know the answer to those questions.
Maybe I’ll give them a call and see if they are aware of this jet and its suspicious flight path.
You’ve should’ve never have caved in. You should’ve told them “screw you” and keep the post up in direct defiance. That’s what I would’ve done. Besides if they’re that touchy about who owns the plane, they should’ve went after Dan Phelps who was the one who first brought the plane up months back.
25% AiG, 75% Ken Ham. Dollars to donuts
AiG are cowards who will go all the way to move Heaven and Earth to block anyone from expose their corruption. Seriously! They are as worse as DonOld and his MAGA clowns who do the exact same thing Dumb Idiot Ken Ham does to prevent anyone from knowing just how corrupt they really are!!
#1.
I totally agree with what you’ve said. AiG accusing PZ of acting “with actual malice” while engaging in actual malice themselves reeks hypocrisy in the 3rd degree.
This is a huff and puff letter.
They are trying to scare PZ.
Their threat isn’t much better.
A SLAPP suit, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.
These have to be filed in Federal court because PZ isn’t in Kentucky. Loser pays court costs.
SLAPP suits are hard to win.
AIG and their lawyers sure are touchy about their 25% private jet.
Which could mean they’ve got something to hide here.
What does AIG use that plane for?
Does the Ham family use it as their own personal vehicle for vacations and gambling trips or whatever they do for fun?
If they use it for personal use, is that legal?
I don’t know the answers here at all. I’m Just Asking Questions. Maybe AIG and their lawyers want to explain it to us. This is a public forum, they can post it on this thread.
I thought about a little defiance, but seriously — this is not the subject I want to battle that gang of frauds over.
“We demand that you immediately and permanently remove the Article and release a statement retracting the article and enumerated claims above.”
Owosso Harpist, those are two different demands.
So you’re a bit premature in your judgement, as I see it.
—
Still, once bitten, twice shy and all that. Lawyers ain’t cheap. Not much fun.
Yeah, totally understandable. Everyone thinks being defiant in the face of a lawsuit is great, right up until they actually get sued and have to put their entire life on pause and spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves. And that’s if they win.
PZ: you did admit your claim about AiG sending cash to the Caymans was a “wild guess” (your words). Also, even if your “wild guess” is proven false, you still haven’t shown reckless disregard for the truth. They’ve admitted they use the jet, and that the jet has gone to the Caymans for one-day trips — so it is still possible that it’s AiG people flying it there.
(Also, can they prove their claim that their “ministry” is “non-profit?” Or that they actually use that jet for “ministry” purposes?)
Seems reasonable.
At the least, you really want to have what you write be factual.
Correcting errors is something we all do from time to time.
Except if you are AIG. Creationism is a lie and most of what they claim about science is also a lie.
As you know and intended, when such allegations are directed towards a nonprofit ministry, they discredit and impeach the ministry.
But not if they’re directed towards a for-profit ministry?
Also, if AiG can show that they’ve actually been discredited, that would be good to know, so decent people can discredit them some more.
I thought about a little defiance, but seriously — this is not the subject I want to battle that gang of frauds over.
Damn, I thought all you woke college professors were part of a rich librul elite conspiracy to destroy Christianity!
Seriously, though, you probably made the right choice all in all. You’re still able to write about AiG’s disgraceful bogosity, and now they’ve admitted they read your blog!
Understood, PZ.
And yet AiG shamelessly do the exact same thing they accuse PZ of themselves by going out and harassing prominent scientists and pastors who refuses to conform to their young earth ideology in an effort to weed out corruption within them, only to throw a huge, massive tantrum when they end up getting targeted by those who rightfully exposes their corruption.
Best example of AiG hypocrisy – dishing it out against their perceived enemies, but like bullies they are, they just can’t take it when the same thing gets ricochet right back at them!
I don’t blame you. As I recall FtB has been sued before and it was a massive pain in the ass, even if you win. Not worth it, and they know it.
Of course they refute the claim of jet trips to the Cayman Islands. If they persist in the bullying tactics a request for the flight manifests and passenger lists of the jet might send them packing.
PZ, Your article is not lost. I found it in archive.today website via webpage capture.
http://archive.today/UMcNq
I could’ve posted the link from archive.org, the site was having problems with DDOS attack that they’ve suffered many days back and they’re trying to fix it right now. So I got the webpage capture from archive.today, instead.
Do they have a lawyer who sends demand letters in Comic Sans? (or is that just an artefact of sharing it in this post) I mean, they should, because it nicely represents the standard of lawyering…
I can see why they are not happy with being accused of flying cash donations to a known tax haven on a private jet
ownedwith 25% of the allotted flight hours under AiG ownership.Odd that in all those lawyerly paragraphs that they did not specifically deny the hiding cash in the Caymans bit, which was merely idle speculation, though certainly a good guess.
Is this person actually a lawyer, or just someone who went to law school and failed to pass the bar? There seems to be very little actual law cited in support of the many harms they claim to have suffered via a blog post.
Really!? Circulating! Who told what media?
Nevermind the fact that freedom of speech applies to lies and conspiracy theories. The National Enquirer built a whole business out of inventing news.
I don’t think it’s illegal for the media to publish false claims, as long as they aren’t news organizations who devote themselves to lies about voting machines.
Witness every mainstream news organization for the last few election cycles.
The aircraft registry only lists the owner as “Answers Collective Inc” and states that it is co-owned. But aircraft registry are required to list all owners in the case where the aircraft is co-owned. So it seems like their registration is likely out of compliance?
Most likely, Answers Collective is the management company for the jet. Note that is one of the companies in the AiG cluster that all share a common address for their main office. These include the company that owns the hotel near the Ark Park, AiG, the company that runs the Ark Park, and Answers Collective Inc. (which also runs the Ark Park according to some fillings?).
Maybe they feel they don’t need to specify the owners of the plane since they all share an office as well. Regardless, even if AiG is not traveling to the Cayman islands, that means that it’s really likely one of these other corporations (owned and operated by the same people) is the one actually traveling. And it’s incredibly unlikely that the lawyer that drafted the nasty-gram was unaware of this fact, and was just splitting hairs over which shell company at that headquarters address you were referring to.
Perhaps you should stop calling them AiG and instead refer to them as one of Ken Ham’s cluster of shell corporations.
Plus, it’s good fun to make a public statement like “I retract my claim that these liars about creationism are also lying about flying to the Caymans” and have their lawyers have to settle for “Well ok then” unless they want to try to prove creationism in court, which would be a hilarious shiteshow.
Just the fact that they came after PZ tells me there is something amiss with the use of said jet. It probably would have been better for them to just let the post become history, but instead they have put spotlight on their jet and its use.
Whelp, they cannot sue you for having and expressing opinions and those AIG-connected suspicious private jet flights still look dodgy AF to me and something that the relevant authorities should look into very closely indeed and investigate. Hope they’ve been alerted and are aware of this. Especially given the “Protests too much” touchiness of AIG here.
I supose hiring priuvate investigators to check them out and discover what’s actually going on is too costly although one posible option? An opportunity for someone to do some real investigatory journalism perhaps?
I also think there should be laws – national and international – against tax havens generally and those who use them to hide ill-gotten and dubiously aquired excessive wealth. Using tax havens and maybe even visiting them should be made difficult if not illegal and the govts of those countries pressured to change their laws and tax dodging status and become better global citizens rather than enablers of toxic wealth hoarders in my view.
Thinking of laws, the use of legal bullying and the legal system generally sure could do with seriously major reforms to make it a lot more ethical and actually Just rather than merely legal.
Yeah.
After reading this thread, I’m coming to the same conclusion.
It looks like AIG is panicking and lashing out any way they can.
I seriously doubt they have any intention or desire to have all this go through the Discovery process in a court of law.
I do have some obvious questions for AIG and their lawyers though.
.1. Who does own this jet?
.2. Is it a company related to or wholly owned by AIG or related companies?
.3. How many shell companies does the AIG group have anyway?
.4. Why do they need all these related corporations anyway, especially if they are a nonprofit.
.5. Who owns the other 75% of the flight hours?
.6. Why are they making a lot of one day trips to the Cayman Islands which are after all, known for their money laundering and a tax haven?
.7. Isn’t AIG even a little worried about being associated, however unintended it is, with whoever is flying that plane in day trips to the Cayman Islands?
There is after all, more than one private jet plane in the USA.
Looks like the AIG cluster of companies and their lawyers have some questions that need answering.
I’m sure we aren’t going to get word out of them without a subpoena. Or an arrest.
PS. I wonder if a revised version of the original post could be put up corrected so as not to be legally actionable but still making the same key points and alerting folks as to how very, <i.very suss the whole Cayman’s flights thing is..
@StevoR #25,
IMO, this post is that revised version.
@22. stuffin : Two words : Streisland effect. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect )
Huh, which is actually and aptly appears ahead of its author in the wikipedia search box results.
didn’t FTB just recently manage to pay off a massive debt from WINNING a lawsuit?
This is a major problem with U.S. law, where you only really benefit from legal protections if you can afford to pay lawyers to defend you.
I don’t blame our host for taking down the post, although it does seem somewhat suspicious to me that it gained so much attention, so fast…
Perhaps use “I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram”, rather apt given the Ark bit…
Most of the theories about the jet in the comments are a little out there — conspiratorial, even — to be honest. As I said in a comment on the previous thread, if there is one thing Ham has been careful to do over the last few decades, it’s to stay on the right side of the law (financially, at least) while building his anti-science empire.
AIG is a very wealthy ministry, no doubt, and takes advantage of every tax break and government handout they receive, including some created just for them. They’ve cultivated powerful allies in state and federal government and used those connections to promote their bullshit on a scale that’s rarely been possible before.
Another thing they have been very careful to do is separate out their for-profit and non-profit enterprises. As the Baptist News Global website says “Although Answers in Genesis is a nonprofit organization, the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum are classified as for-profit businesses and are subject to local property taxes — which has been a matter of ongoing regional dispute.”
Of course, small donors and the paying public are very unlikely to know that significant parts of the whole enterprise are for-profit, and I doubt they would care anyway. So it’s perfectly possible, as @IX-103 suggests, that “Answers Collective Inc” is another one of those for-profit businesses in their portfolio that owns the jet and leases “flight hours” to the AIG non-profit ministry, potentially at a significantly discounted rate. Regardless of the optics or ethics, if they’re separate legal entities, then it’s all perfectly legal.
Who leases the other 75% of “flight hours?” Well there’s no shortage of other very wealthy ministries whose pastors think nothing of luxury travel — purely for the convenience and expeditiousness, of course 😉– but I’m sure the company is happy to lease to any wealthy person or business who will give them their business, and if that includes the for-profit part of Ham’s network of business interests, who’s to know?
The bottom line is that you don’t have to be a criminal to get rich from running a non-profit. Ham’s reported salary was a quarter million dollars last year, from the AIG non-profit alone. Who knows what other income he has from his other business interest, including the for-profit parts of the “Answers” business empire, but if you’re taking home a million dollars every four years, that puts you in the top 5% of all working Americans. That’s very wealthy by any objective standard.
Unfortunately it’s not illegal (apparently) to break promises of local investment by avoiding paying taxes as a non-profit while using your for-profit companies to take advantage of local tourism tax incentives. Who needs to funnel bags of cash to a tax haven when you can hire a team of expensive accountants and lawyers to maximize your income and make all the money you need?
Ham is the master of manipulating the system to enrich his companies (profit and non-profit) and is more than happy to lie and obfuscate along the way. That’s just bog standard right-wing Christian grifting at the expense of local communities they profess to support and people already gullible enough to believe the world is only 10,000 years old.
This is reasoning that only self-important, willfully blind rich people use. Of course it’s a luxury — one that 99.9% of all other ministries and non-profits in the US can’t hope to afford, most of whom would be horrified very idea of spending donors’ money on private jet travel for any reason. The very idea that it’s not a luxury is simply preposterous.
[This is informed legal commentary, but is not legal advice for any person or situation. For that, you need a lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction and will pay for it.]
The attorney demand letter as quoted above does not rise to the minimal level of professional competence and propriety (and I’ve litigated enough of these things to have a pretty fair idea of the applicable law — even before considering the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, which Minnesota adopted in May of this year and provides PZ with a portable, personal defense that can be asserted no matter where AiG tried to sue him). In no particular order:
• The PZ’s statement of “ownership” implying 100% ownership might (or might not, depending upon the reality of the relationship between AiG and Answers Collective) be literally false. The gist of the statement, however, is that AiG has an ownership interest in and right of possession/dominion over the aircraft, and the lawyer letter actually (foolishly) admits that. The lawyer letter should have just denied that AiG “owns the aircraft,” and perhaps asserted that the aircraft’s FAA certificate would prove it. But since the gist of the only part of PZ’s statement that is clearly factual is close to true, AiG would have serious burden-of-proof problems.
• The elements of defamation are that the speaker:
1. made a statement of fact,
2. that was false (to the appropriate standard),
3. that materially damaged the reputation
4. of a person with legal standing to assert that reputation
But AiG is not a person; it is an organizational entity (technically, under Kentucky law, a “business entity” regardless of profit/nonprofit purpose). “Business disparagement” and similar “attack on an organization” torts have additional elements, and aren’t properly called “defamation” in the first place. The lawyer letter entirely ignores that.
• Most of the other material — especially the parts labelled as guesses! — is speculation and therefore not actionable. You have to know that to pass the bar exam, counsel. It’s a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct to make assertions of law you know to be untrue in a communication directed to an unrepresented party. (Not that the profession actually cares about following the inconvenient parts of its own rules…)
• Perhaps most importantly, there’s a loophole regarding the purported factual assertion/actual speculation concerning the Caymens. The letter asserts that “No AiG personnel have used the jet” going to/from the Caymens. This leaves open whether any family members of AiG personnel have done so, or any “transfer agents” contracted by AiG have done so, or whether any personnel of affiliated entities that are not literally AiG have done so, or whether individuals have done so in their private capacities. <sarcasm> I conjecture that any hypothetical accounts connected to AiG in a tax haven, should such accounts exist, would most likely be in an individual’s name. The bank secrecy laws are more easily overcome when the owner of an account is an entity and not a natural person or trust for which a natural person is the beneficiary. So it would absolutely make sense if I were writing a really bad “legal thriller” to have the relevant account in the name of one of Ham’s/another officer’s relatives — someone who is not “AiG personnel.” </sarcasm>
It’s not like there’s never been a ministry involved in tax evasion and dubious accounting. The speculation is not so outré that it would be defamatory per se as to Mr Ham (but couldn’t be as to a business entity, no such thing!).
• Then there’s the “material damage to reputation” issue that the lawyer letter just assumes away. I’ve been here before, and religious organizations in particular have a hard time with that; just look at Jack Chick comics! The only thing that might be damaged is the business entity’s self-image… and that’s not actionable.
If Mr Ham wanted to join in as a coplaintiff, that would be even funnier regarding showing material damage to reputation, especially under Kentucky law (my guess as to where they’d try to litigate, and appropriate since any actual harm would be expected to be felt there). There’s core Kentucky case law that took me less than five minutes to find (without using paid legal resources) holding that criticizing a religious figure’s business dealings does not qualify as defamatory per se, and therefore he’d have to show actual damages (which are not just hurt feelings — no physical presence means no intentional infliction of emotional distress-type torts).
• • •
What PZ decides/decided to do in response to that letter is his decision, which is necessarily informed by FTB’s past litigation experiences and PZ’s personal situation. That if such a letter were sent to me, my response would boil down to “Don’ drag me in dat dere courtroom, Br’er Fox,” is not a criticism of PZ’s own response.
By the way, the president of “Answers Collective Inc.” to which the jet in question belongs (at least in part), Joe Boone, is also the president of Answers In Genesis, so no surprise there.
Someone in a comment on Panda’s Thumb also listed the other part-owners of the plane:
Not much I can find on these entities, and it’s time I went to bed anyway!
They may be in a co-ownership situation, but according to the FAA, the registered owner of the aircraft is “Answers Collective Inc.”
https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResult?nNumberTxt=190JK
The other owners are listed as:
OJB ESTATE LLC – a real estate company (https://bizimage.ohiosos.gov/api/image/pdf/202035604314)
MT HEALTHY AVIATION LLC – presumably an aviation company (https://bizimage.ohiosos.gov/api/image/pdf/202117501626)
CS AVIATION HOLDINGS LLC – an aviation company (https://bizimage.ohiosos.gov/api/image/pdf/202123702296)
Whether or not they are leasing the aircraft is not really relevant.
Also, the jet made these trips on the day of October 17: Hamilton, Ohio to Vero Beach, Florida to the Cayman Islands to Cincinnati, Ohio to Hamilton, Ohio
https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N190JK/history
So, somebody was busy that day. I might imagine that one of the aviation companies might be using the hops to Florida and the Cayman Islands as a training exercise, but it is impossible to say.
If you look up Answers Collective Inc, the owner of the plane, one name splattered all over the place is John E. Pence. He’s the nephew of former vice president Mike Pence, and is married to a cousin of Kellyanne Conway. Family reunions for that guy must be hell on Earth.
He’s a fanatical Republican operative, so there are lots of shenanigans that plane could be up to. It also tells you how deeply AiG is entangled in Republican fuckery.
Another flaw in that ‘legal’ letter is that it is much, much longer than the post it is complaining about, and in fact quotes every single point I made. I could take down the original and post this letter instead and it preserves the entire content!
Jaws, thanks a lot for your informed commentary.
I/We Are Not Lawyers and I’m not even playing one on the internet.
If I do ever need a real lawyer for something serious, you would be on the top of my list.
AIG and Ken Ham’s collection of shell companies would have a hard time proving that anyone, no matter how hard they tried, “materially damaged their reputation.” At least in many circles.
What reputation?
This is a guy who got rich claiming the universe is 6,000 years old, the mythical ark was loaded with dinosaurs, a worldwide flood happened during the Egyptian Third dynasty that killed almost everyone and no one saw it, and attacks almost all of modern science as being wrong. These are cult religious beliefs and otherwise just flat out obviously wrong.
Don’t forget that AIG and related companies are a family business.
Ken Ham’s close relatives work there and get salaries plus good benefits as well.
and
and
I’m not going to bother chasing down all the family members working at AIG etc. and their salaries and benefits.
A rough estimate would be that all the Ham family members combined get well over 1/2 million a year and heading towards $1 million.
There is no biblical commandment against nepotism.
The facts are:
– AiG is a fractional (25%) owner of a 29-year-old Citation Jet N190JK (just google the registration). I could not find the other owners, though a 25% stake was for sale (see https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/198951549/n190jk-1995-cessna-citation-v-ultra )
– The aircraft is legally owned by ‘Answers Collective’ in the name of attorney John E Pence. Likely this is the same guy who was political advisor to Donald Trump. Mike Pence is his uncle: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pence. See also https://www.bizapedia.com/ky/answers-collective-inc.html
– The flight log shows 12 trips in the past 2 months, two of them to the Cayman Islands. Most of the trips are to Allentown, PA. In the past year, there were only 4 flights to the Cayman Islands. All others were domestic. The majority of the excursions seem to be to Allentown.
– Since it is partial ownership we cannot conclude that those Cayman flights were for AiG or carried Ken H. Also, tax evasion does not require trips.m
The hourly cost to operate a Citation Jet of that vintage is about $2800. The more hours are flown annually, the lower the cost. That is one of the reasons why many small airplanes are collectively owned by a separate legal entity. Another advantage of the construction is to obfuscate ownership and to deflect some legal and tax liabilities.
Yes, ‘refuting their creationist bullshit’ is a noble calling. Say what needs to be said, but, always use weasel words such as ‘it appears to me’, or other means of legal obfuscation so you don’t open yourself up to lawsuits from these evil miscreants.
All these private planes burning millions of gallons of fuel to transport a couple of aholes at a time long distances is horribly wasteful and irresponsible. While, Pete B. (sec. of transportation) flies on commercial jets with all the other passengers.
And, now the FAA (f*cking Ahole Association) owned and run by millionaire ‘jet setters’ is approving and encouraging thousands of ‘air taxis’ and private vtols to crowd the skies, waste resources and endanger us further. WTF.
Ha ha, it seems that post touched a sore spot indeed!
Even if it’s no longer visible, we remember AND we’ll remember also AiG chapped ass (the Streisand effect strikes again).
Here’s an Italian commonplace: la lingua batte dove il dente duole, the tongue hits the sore tooth.
Sore indeed and it seems that prayers did not help much in this case.
@36: The motto of lawyers everywhere is “never use five words where fifty words will do.” It’s a lot easier to justify outrageous bills that way.
I’m obviously a disgrace to the profession (sometimes long sentences make for shorter papers!), but y’all probably guessed that already.
@43 Jaws. Didn’t Lawyers literally get paid by the word back in the day? Or is that just a myth?
This connection to major Republican names (notably, “Pence”) has me even more wondering if there might be a sex tourism thing going on. We all know the proclivities of Republican higher-ups, and that their main former pimp (Epstein) is no longer a going concern. Plus, they all but confessed it, by projection when they accused Dems repeatedly and vociferously of such things.
@44: There almost certainly were some instances of lawyers being paid by the word, but that’s never been a default (or even significant) method of “invoicing” — not even in the days long before invoices were used, primarily because all of the clients including the kings were functionally illiterate. In common-law jurisdictions (England and her former colonies, including the US) since the mid-seventeenth century, the predominant ways lawyers have been retained have been based on piecework, or time-and-third-party-fees expended, or master-servant relationships (like “employee” and “retained, on-call outside counsel”).
Indeed, the pressure of time-based evaluation of lawyer “worth” probably encourages longer documents; the adage “I didn’t have time to make it shorter” fits legal writing more than anything else. The process of legal writing involves either (a) trying to imagine all of the possible loopholes and then trying to imagine ways to either exploit or close those loopholes, or (b) intentionally writing around one or more loopholes so that they won’t be noticed. Sometimes both at once. Verbosity is an aid to achieving both… even when there’s a word limit on what one can say, as in most filed-with-the-court litigation documents. (But not the judicial opinions thereafter!)