113
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by dragonfucker@lemmy.nz to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 30 points 2 months ago

If my lawyers pulled some shit like that I'd have different lawyers.

[-] Kookie215@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

I would be suing my lawyer

[-] tal@lemmy.today 5 points 2 months ago

I'm skeptical that, whether-or-not the judge can take issue with it, a dragon in a suit reaches the bar for malpractice or breach of fiduciary duty. Though I suppose that it'd be interesting to see Dragon Lawyer and a backup, non-dragon lawyer fighting that one out in court.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

On what grounds?

EDIT:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1) allows a court to "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Use of this dragon cartoon logo is not only distracting, it is juvenile and impertinent. The Court is not a cartoon.

Lmao, I've never heard of any other watermarks warranting this extreme response. Does the judge just get to decide whatever he wants is impertinent or scandalous?

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 15 points 2 months ago

Yeah, “scandalous” is too much. I can see “impertinent”, though. I don’t agree, but courts are notoriously uptight.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

impertinent

I don't know if there's a specific legal meaning


legal jargon isn't always plain English


but it might be that the meaning there is the other English meaning of "impertinent":

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impertinent

impertinent (comparative more impertinent, superlative most impertinent)

  1. Insolent, ill-mannered or disrespectful; Disregardful.

  2. (archaic) Not pertaining or related to (something or someone); Irrelevant or useless.

I mean, the term right before it in the code is "immaterial", which is very close to the second common-language definition. Just because it's archaic in common-language use doesn't mean that it is in the legal world


a lot of legal terms with jargon meanings were in common use at one point.

kagis

Yeah, sounds like it:

https://www.lsd.law/define/impertinent

Definition: Impertinent means something that is not relevant or important to the matter at hand. For example, if someone is talking about their favorite food and you start talking about your favorite color, that would be impertinent because it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. In legal terms, impertinent evidence or allegations are ones that do not help prove or disprove the case and are not important for the court to consider.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

A lawfirm's watermark being deemed irrelevant or inconsequential as grounds for dismissal of a complaint seems like a rule that never applies to anybody else.

[-] viking@infosec.pub 19 points 2 months ago

It does affect the contrast and thereby readability, so I can get behind that order.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Yeah but the cited reason that it was "impertinent" and they followed with "The Court is not a cartoon", so their reason for dismissal is not about readability.

[-] Chozo@fedia.io 15 points 2 months ago

I knew this story would find its way to you, @dragonfucker@lemmy.nz, I just knew it.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 7 points 2 months ago

fursona

dubiously

Does it count as a fursona if it's got no fur, just scales?

[-] Draegur@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

yes. The furry community at large has tons of people who match this description. Scalie is a subset of furry. There are also furries whose fursonas are birds, covered in feathers. Oddly enough I don't think I've ever heard of them being called anything but 'avians' though, not 'featheries', but I'm willing to be proven wrong on that.

[-] Mirshe@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I even know a few people who have insect fursonas.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

Well, some insects are furry. I mean, bees are furry.

[-] imposedsensation@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 2 months ago

They didn't strike down the complaint, they struck down the dragon...

[-] mkwt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Yep, on the grounds that the dragon is not an allegation, a claim for damages, or a request for relief.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 6 points 2 months ago

Reddit's lawyer forum had some discussion:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1ka9oc1/lets_all_start_filing_pleadings_with_a_giant/


The trial court ordered them to refile without the cartoon dragon, but did not order them to refile without a cartoon dragon.


This needs to be regulated. Like allowable D&D dragon type scales to years in practice

So, are chromatic dragons allowed at all, or just metallic? Or maybe just gold, for the lawful aspect.

Circuit split. Ninth Circuit allows chromatic obvi but Fifth has said only metallic


The judge missed the opportunity to put the order on paper with a sick dinosaur watermark


Go to his website. https://dragonlawyerspc.com/

Our platform integrates AI to lower the cost of legal services


Millennials who grew up on anime are hitting the age of finishing their law degrees and I couldn’t be prouder

[-] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 5 points 2 months ago

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall not file any other documents with the cartoon dragon or other inappropriate content.

Sorry

[-] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

Nah, they addressed that in the thread


I only grabbed a subset. Said that they'd need a more-dignified dragon to address that.

[-] SGforce@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

Millenials?

Three or four years of study at a law school accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA)Oct 20, 2022 https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/ How Long Does It Take to Become a Lawyer in ... That's five years of education followed by maybe 2 years of work on the job training) which works out a lot cheaper.Mar 23, 2025 https://www.reddit.com/ US Lawyers, why is Law school so long in the US ...

Does this person think 40 year olds are just finishing their law degrees? Or is this evidence of a bot with data only dating up to 2013?

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Damn, I'm usually an uptight fuck and think furries often bring this aspect of their identity into places where it isn't appropriate, but I think the judge has a stick up their ass here and 100% agree with drag. The judicial branch is a joke when this fucking chode gets to treat the highest court in the land as his fascist rubber stamp, but these people get their complaint stricken by a magistrate judge for a cute, harmless cartoon of a dragon.

[-] Docandersonn@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago
this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
113 points (98.3% liked)

Not The Onion

17130 readers
390 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS