The “Lawyer” shall now explain why I chose the titles I used in my response to the “Gripesite Operator” motion for attorney fees. I wrote my motion as a play, a theatrical work, in order of course to impress Judge Seeborg with my creative flair. See, I always wanted to be a writer. Hence my many highly regarded ebooks available online. I am a man of passionate creativity and a romanticist; I cannot help that my legalese came out as poetic prose really.
A few questions asked of me:
Q – Why use “Gripesite Operator” which is 18 characters long rather than Plaintiff which is half as long at 9 characters in length?
A – It’s a blatant attempt to bias readers against the evil Illuminati Libertarian Popehat pawn.
Q – Why use the title the “Lawyer” rather than your last name when multiple lawyers are envolved in the litigation? Isn’t it confusing?
A – I am the only real lawyer envolved in the litigation. I also refuse to acknowledge one of the Gripesite Operator’s counsels.
Q – Isn’t it “Gripe site” not “Gripesite?”
A – Your correction of my misspelling is infringing upon my First Amendment rights, as such I shall exercise my First Amendment right to vexatiously threaten you with lawsuits.
Now that I have answered your pathetically dull questions, I must go and buy myself some more glue. Throwing theories at a judge hoping that one will stick requires a ton of Elmer’s. Don’t tell anyone, but I think someone in the house has been eating a bunch as well…
Practically Shakespeare,
Charles Carreon Esq.
censoriousdouchebag 
mykitsmom
/ March 23, 2013I like the way you phrased that: Levy retained the Gripesite Operator as a client. What do you suppose Levy paid the Gripesite Operator? Enquiring minds want to know. Do you think Levy and the Gripesite Operator might be involved in dinosaur cloning themselves, planning to go into competition with you?
Satirical Tara
/ March 26, 2013Charles – please pick up some paste on your way home from the Jurasic DNA repository.