Have you read the complaint and researched the rights of action under the Lanham Act and the Washington DC common law right of/to publicity? Are you an experienced attorney even capable of doing the above? Somehow, I would make a rather large bet the answer to all these questions is no. Your article here is a heck of a lot closer to being frivolous than the Chamber complaint. You have no idea in the world what you are talking about, but flap your lips anyway.

To those guys, lawsuits are only considered ‘frivolous’ when ruthless businessmen are the target.
Another case of the Reich Wingers declaring themselves the victims of actions they perpetrate on others.
The ‘Chamber’ is just another elitist organization that needs to be drained and the ill gotten wealth confiscated and put to work for the public. ‘OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!’

As if we needed more evidence of criminality and an intent to keep the hostilities going to make themselves ‘useful or necessary’…

http://www.nytimes.com /2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel .html?hp

CIA becomes a major player in the opium trade and the enforcer for a well connected druglord/warlord. Do they not realize that by doing that they are actually helping the enemy? In a war, that is high treason, isn’t it?
If it’s a real war on terror shouldn’t we start with our own terrorists? Isn’t that the premise behind ‘take the log out of your own eye before you presume to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye’?
Perhaps the global war is not really on terror but on TERRA and its species, particularly the humans.

A frivolous suit? The Yes Men clearly violated fraud and impersonation laws. You cant go around claiming to speak for some entity, and then cause them to lose business/money, just because you think its hilarious. At the least its in bad taste, at worst, slander and defamation. The first amendment allows you to say what you want, but not to impersonate someone else and cause them personal harm, including economic harm.

This case is not frivolous, but a very serious one about identity fraud, which can do real damage to one’s personal reputation.

Methinks you would not think it so frivolous if the Yes Men impersonated Tim Dickinson making wild claims and slandering your reputation…it’s always frivolous when it affects someone else, right?

Jed Clampett

It wasn’t done for it’s hilarity, even though it was pretty funny to see ‘The Chamber’ scrambling to prevent the world from hearing they might have decided to do the right thing. This was lobbying the public to call attention to ‘The Chamber’ preventing the necessary progress away from practices that damage our environment. It is a protected for of expression; after all the lip service you’ve provided to protecting ‘free speech’ when it was favorable to your side even though it was deceitful, I’m glad to see you making such statements. It just one more way in which you prove your hypocrisy.

Fraud implies monetary gain, it is done to extract money in the form of fees and other forms of payment. Wall Street conducting transactions with imaginary as.sets is a fraud. That fraud destroyed what was perceived to be a vibrant economy but was really based on trading in imaginary as.sets. This practice still continues, but I’ve heard nothing from you protesting such brazen, widespread and all consuming fraud.
I wonder why that is?

Jed– Free speech is fine so long as it doesnt infringe on someone elses reputation, or causes them harm. What the Yes Men did, i.e., impersonating a Chamber of Commerce Official, making detrimental statements about the Chamber, and causing harm to said Chambers reputation crosses the line.

Had they been protesting outside the Chamber, or simply said upfront that they were a parody, then I would have no problem with it. But to impersonate someone and to impugn their character is something else entirely, and falls under slander and defamation, which is why those statutes exist. So to clarify, the Yes Men speaking their peace as the Yes Men is fine…the Yes Men impersonating someone else, and disseminating said viewpoints through that persona which then in turn damage the reputation of those being infringed, are not. Surely, even one as dense as you can see the difference, yes? If I remember correctly, I’ve never been the one who has called for denying rights to anyone, though YOU have (anyone who disagrees with you, it seems)…and I’m the hypocrite?

Besides, Jed, you’re so full of cr@p your eyes must be brown…I’ve done nothing but rail on lack of regulation and bad business practices. In a true free market system, this scheme would have crashed and burned, and we would have moved on. Unfortunately, Obama seems to be as enamored with the architects of the crash as Bush was, putting them into high ranking positions…yet YOU have not said a word about that…I wonder why that is?

So, if you have proof otherwise Jed, please produce it…oh wait, you wont cuz you never do. Its much easier to pull grand, unsubstantiated statements out of your @ss…

So you don’t think calling someone a secret Muslim harms their reputation?
Or using a major media outlet to question their nationality?

You are either really stupid or blinder than a bat.

Love the term “Reich Wingers” it is SO appropriate.

Not only was US C of C roundly punked, now they’re squealing about it like little children.

Abbie Hoffman would be proud.

“it wasn’t so long ago.. ”

It was over 5 years ago, not exactly last month!