RELEASE FROM BONDAGE, appropriate to this forum

oldnick's picture

On advice of counsel, until I receive a definitive answer to the email cited directly below, all of

which follows this disclosure shall be deemed to be hypothetical. Consequently, as soon as the sole

question asked in said email is answered to my satisfaction, I will release all who may read these

and the following words from their bond of Willing Suspension of Disbelief, at a time and in a

manner of my choosing. My word is my bond.

Here begins the formal recitation, copied verbatim and pasted unaltered herein:

Logical Inconsistencies in Online Information‏

[Mark this message as unread] [Delete this message]
[Keep this message at the top of your inbox]
8/16/12
Reply ▼

NICHOLAS CURTIS

kipnick@msn.com

To cvasil@supremecourt.gov
Sir,

As a party to a potential lawsuit involving actual monetary loss and irreparable damage to my

personal and professional reputation, I leave it to your discretion to advise me of my best course

of action as outlined here—

http:/ /www.supremecourt.gov /ctrules/ tocounsel_07rulesrevisions .aspx

Note: two additional single spaces have been placed between otherwise contiguous elements in order

intentionally to avoid algorithmic misinterpretation of the contents of this message.

My dilemma: I have a potential lawsuit form monetary damages, which makes me an interested party.

The potential plaintiff, curiously, controls the most extensive inventory of Supreme-Court-approved

typefaces. Therefore, there are no disinterested parties to this suit, and therefore the majority

of the parties involved—defendant, plaintiff, nor the Supreme Court itself—have an enormous

disincentive to comply with the amicus curiae provisions of this ruling—unless, of course, the

meaning of the term "certain" is certainly, indisputably and indubitably unambiguous when said

brief is filed.

For reasons which should be painfully obvious by now, should the highest court in the land become a

party to this hypothetical suit, who is duly authorized to disambiguate.

Yours in confusion,

Nicholas J. Curtis
Citizen of the United States of America
7523 Republic Ct Apt 204
Alexandria, VA 22306
703-765-1636

Communications through the most secure channels highly recommended.

Here ends the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth of the email first referenced above.

Given by my hand, and entrusted to my soon-to-be-former colleagues and assigns, so that they may

bear witness to the veracity of all of my forgoing words.

[Signed] Nicholas J. Curtis
Citizen of the United States of America

WARNING; LEGAL NOTICE. ANY INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY AVAILABLE FROM PUBLIC RECORDS IS WILLINGLY

DIVULGED BY THE SIGNATORY. ANY EFFORT TO PROTECT SAID SIGNATORY FROM UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF

THESE ACTIONS SHALL BE DEEMED A PRIMA FACIE EFFORT TO DESTROY RELEVANT EVIDENCE. YOUR COMPLIANCE

IS, OF COURSE, OPTIONAL, BUT YOUR COOPERATION WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

oldnick's picture

Just curious…is the name "Century" trademarked by anyone?

Also, other than competitive fairness, is there any reason why a typeface can't have the same name as another typeface, even if they look nothing alike?

Syndicate content Syndicate content