« Raconteurs | Main | Friday night's all right for fighting »
May 24, 2006
Playaz fight for right to untamed bush
Playaz' attorney Wayne along with Larry Holmes staged a rally yesterday, protesting for the Playaz' right to untamed shrubbery growth.
Currently, the Playaz are facing a civil lawsuit and a letter of reprimand from city authorities, both separate matters and both pertaining to unkempt bush.
The lawsuit stems from Playaz Headquarters, where it contends the Playaz' bush should be trimmed and it's growth managed. According to the lawsuit, our bush is said to "block the circulation of ocean breezes" and prevents the plaintiff from viewing the scenery that is otherwise obscured by our bush.
The letter of reprimand relates to the Guv'na's palatial estate in Georgia. The city has accused Guv'na of having an "impenetrable bush", and it is keeping the water meter reader from penetrating the bush to gain access to the meter.
Photo of The Guv'na's unkempt bush, which Guv'na contends it should be quite easy for a meter reader to penetrate
"I have never pruned or trimmed my bush before and do not feel I have to now," Guv'na states. "It is all natural and has been that way since I came to own it," he added.
Guv'na claims he will ask Wayne to file a suit against the city citing civil rights violations. When asked to site examples of such violations, Guv'na would only say "I bid you good day, sir."
* Phil's note: You think this is a joke, but it is not.
Posted by Phil at May 24, 2006 12:31 PM
Comments
Not that these topics are (necessarily) related, but whatever happened to the Girls of DC calendar?
Posted by: Wayne at May 25, 2006 11:40 AM
It is still in the works.
Also not related, thanks to the unbelievable amounts of spam I've been getting, I inadvertently deleted all the previous comments in this section.
Posted by: Phil at May 25, 2006 12:01 PM
Awesome!
Posted by: Pagan Marbury at May 25, 2006 12:23 PM
Was it spam involving our bush?
Posted by: Bon at May 25, 2006 12:45 PM
That is the worst kind, Bon.
Posted by: Phil at May 25, 2006 1:26 PM
yeah. I made a funny. And now I forgot it. Something about Bush and that being so 1990's. Eh, it's gone now...
Posted by: Velvet at May 25, 2006 1:58 PM
Yes - you were suprised to see these issues were still problematic in this day and age. Then Wayne Ordinary American stated he preferred a little greenery on the field.
Posted by: Phil at May 25, 2006 2:03 PM
Yes, that was the gist of it.
Posted by: WOA at May 25, 2006 2:47 PM
In McIntosh v. City of Toolsboro, 132 U.S. 483 (1974), the Supreme Court held that untamed shrubbery is constitutionally protected speech. "Though it may not be expressed in print or spoken word, the Plaintiff is cleary exercising his right to symbollically say 'I just don't give a fuck' to the rest of the world" Id. at 492.
Posted by: rock creek rambler at May 25, 2006 3:45 PM
I'll post it again...
Lick Bush in '06.
Posted by: Steve Skalish at May 25, 2006 4:37 PM
I'm down with the seventies. A big fucking bush just adds one more layer of mystique. "What's behind that big old bush? Is it friendly? Does it have teeth?"
Posted by: AUA at May 25, 2006 5:49 PM
That is an excellent precedent, RCR. I believe favorable rulings were also issued in "Seka vs. Sherman Oaks".
Posted by: Phil at May 25, 2006 7:10 PM
I much prefer a simple landing strip...but whatever floats your boat.
Posted by: DC_Cookie at May 25, 2006 8:23 PM
Cookie, that is what's known as a "picture violation".
Rock Creek, I cannot find the cite to that case. Perhaps my Westlaw is not updated.
Posted by: Wayne at May 25, 2006 11:33 PM