OT: ShaggyTexas owner sued, loses ownership to site

Submitted by UMxWolverines on March 26th, 2018 at 12:02 PM

I venture over to that site from time to time ever since I started reading Thujone's MS Paints and I happened to venture over today, and to my shock found a thread saying the owner is losing the site and there will be a new site created by his friend. 

It looks like the story goes the owner was in a bad business venture at some point, and the guy suing was also part of it. The guy suing, Kevin Morgan, is the CEO of a chain of convience stores in Texas called Eskimo Hut and doing it out of spite. 

The best part is Morgan's lawyer obtained a reddit AMA that the Shaggy owner did, and when someone asked how much the website was worth, he said ''about tree fiddy''. Then that was attempted to be used against him in court. 

I wonder if the CEO dick knows that everyone is going to leave the old site and it'll be worth nothing? Nobody tell him. 


the new site will be surlyhorns.com



March 26th, 2018 at 12:10 PM ^

It never ceases to amaze me how blatantly out of whack our legal system is.

Basically, if you have money you're going to win regardless of the facts.


March 26th, 2018 at 3:17 PM ^

"A wealthy person has a much better chance of winning with everything else being equal."  Okay, let's put that aside for a minute.  That isn't the statement I was responding to. 

The comment above was:  "Basically, if you have money you're going to win regardless of the facts."

I am not normally one for defending the American legal system.  I tend to be more frustrated by its many shortcomings than impressedby what it does well.  But legal cases are decided by judges and jurors, the vast majority of whom try their best to treat the parties fairly and decide cases based on the law and evidence.  It's simply not true that "if you have money you're going to win regardless of the facts."  Having money can give you an advantage in some aspects of litigation, it is hardly a guarantee of victory.  

Of course, that statement was obviously intended to be hyperbolic, my disagreement was mostly with its overall message.  So let's now turn to your slightly more modest contention that "a wealthy person has a much better chance of winning with everything else being equal."

What "everything else" are we talking about?  Are we talking about the facts of the case?  Are we talking about the law of the jurisdiction?  Because those are the fundamental determinants of litigation outcomes in the vast majority of cases.  

Money can make the difference between havng a lawyer and having none, or between having a skilled, dedicated attorney and having inadequate representation.  In that type of scenario, the wealthier party's advantage is undeniable.  

Some types of litigation may require expensive expert witnesses or other forms of evidence that may be cost-prohibitive for some litigants to obtain--again, this would be a scenario where wealth supplies a distinct advantage.

But for the most part, a wealthy litigant is not likely to prevail in court against a party who has a solid factual and legal case.  Our legal system is flawed.  It's not meaningless.






March 26th, 2018 at 12:39 PM ^

I love that the lawyer asked if he said the website was valued at $350,000 because he interpreted "about tree fiddy" to mean as much. Not sure if this is a lawyering attempt to actually try to get the website valued at that or if this lawyer is just dumb


March 26th, 2018 at 2:44 PM ^

That court transcript though. Omg I was not prepared to laugh so hard while in a meeting. I had to stop reading.  I died. Mistake on my part. Worth the read. 


March 26th, 2018 at 3:01 PM ^

So Eskimo Hut is a hilarious place.

It's a drive-through where you order a slushy with alcohol. They tape a lid over the styrofoam cup and now it's not an open container. Straw included.