August 19, 2006


Blown Save

...Earlier this year—around Mother’s Day to be precise—we had to read about the pathetic story of Los Angeles psychologist Michael Cohn, who filed a lawsuit against the Anaheim/Los Angeles Angels after he became offended when he didn’t receive a Mother’s Day tote bag at an Angels game. He wanted one, too, but the club didn’t give him one because they were reserved for women who were 18 years of age and older. Cohn didn’t understand the concept of Mother’s Day equating to women, and as such filed a lawsuit against the baseball team and the college that sponsored the tote promotion.
...After reading about it, I had figured that the suit would have been thrown out due to its sheer stupidity. I failed to keep a few things in mind, however: (1) This is America, and things don’t make much sense when it comes to the judicial system anymore (read this post for evidence of that); and (2) the lawsuit was filed in California, where laws seem to be invented by judges as opposed to the legislature.
...So, with that in mind, I wasn’t too shocked to read the following on ESPN’s site today:

SANTA ANA, Calif. – A judge refused Thursday to dismiss a lawsuit claiming the Angels discriminated against men by giving tote bags to women during a Mother’s Day baseball game.


The lawsuit, filed by Los Angeles psychologist Michael Cohn, claims thousands of men and fans under age 18 are each entitled to $4,000 in damages because they were treated unfairly during last May’s promotion. Women over 18 received the gifts.

...The only forms of compensation that should be given out in this case are pacifiers and clean diapers for both Michael Cohn and Orange County Superior Court Judge Jonathan Cannon.
...I’ll let you know if Cohn names me in a lawsuit in the upcoming weeks. I’ll just counter-sue for discrimination if he does, but doesn’t name the rest of the world’s population in the suit.
UPDATE: It turns out that shady lawsuits are nothing new for attorney Alfred Rava, who is representing Michael Cohn in this suit against the Angels.
...In 2003, Rava was part of a discrimination lawsuit aimed at San Diego-area nightclubs because the clubs offered “Ladies’ Night” discounts on drinks and didn’t offer the same for Rava and his friend (I’m guessing that Rava and his friend were going on Ladies’ Night to meet women but still got shot down—thus, they sued the clubs for their inability to garner attention from women).
...Rava’s discrimination suit squeezed $125,000 out of seven clubs ($20,000 each from six nightclubs, but a seventh could only shell out $5,000 because they ended up going out of business) and forced bars all across the San Diego region to end Ladies’ Night, which to that point had proved to be beneficial for business.
...I take back my previous comment about giving the judge and Michael Cohn pacifiers and clean diapers. It would probably be more worthwhile to give both Cohn and Rava something which both are in dire need of: a penis.
Source: ESPN


Blogger a.m. said...

Ok wait. This guy has a history of bringing on lawsuits of this nature and the judge in the newer case is letting this proceed? Is the legal profession seriously losing it's grip on reality? Are you telling me that when I go to San Diego this fall for a conference there won't be any ladies night specials for me to go to? Thanks to this doofus!?

I think that if this guy wants to be treated like a woman he should start his hormone injections now. God only knows how he'd kick and scream once he grew breasts and his voice changed, and I wonder just what he'd do when the surgeon showed him the 'ins and outs' of gender reassignment surgery. Wonder who he'd sue then?

This dude is pathetic. I sure hope he's not married.

August 19, 2006  
Blogger J.P. said...

Considering that the 2003 suit against the Ladies’ Night clubs was successful, it might be all the more reason that the judge allowed the Angels suit to continue.

Not to side with Cohn and Rava, but maybe these lawsuits are some of the things that equal rights supporters didn’t foresee.

August 19, 2006  
Blogger a.m. said...

I think one can safely say your last point is an accurate point.

August 20, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home