MADRID - AFTER billions of years the Sun finally has an owner - a woman from Spain's soggy region of Galicia said on Friday she had registered the star at a local notary public as being her property.
Ms Angeles Duran, 49, told the online edition of daily El Mundo she took the step in September after reading about an American man who had registered himself as the owner of the moon and most planets in our Solar System.
There is an international agreement which states that no country may claim ownership of a planet or star, but it says nothing about individuals, she added.
'There was no snag, I backed my claim legally, I am not stupid, I know the law. I did it but anyone else could have done it, it simply occurred to me first.'
The document issued by the notary public declares Ms Duran to be the 'owner of the Sun, a star of spectral type G2, located in the centre of the solar system, located at an average distance from Earth of about 149,600,000km'.
Ms Duran, who lives in the town of Salvaterra do Mino, said she now wants to slap a fee on everyone who uses the sun and give half of the proceeds to the Spanish government and 20 per cent to the nation's pension fund. She would dedicate another 10 per cent to research, another 10 per cent to ending world hunger - and would keep the remaining 10 per cent herself. -- AFP
I think it's pretty stupid how one person can claim "property" of something like a star. What's more ridiculous is this:
Ms Duran, who lives in the town of Salvaterra do Mino, said she now wants to slap a fee on everyone who uses the sun and give half of the proceeds to the Spanish government and 20 per cent to the nation's pension fund. She would dedicate another 10 per cent to research, another 10 per cent to ending world hunger - and would keep the remaining 10 per cent herself.
WTF? "slap a fee on everyone who uses the sun" - basically, the whole world + aliens out there. i, for one, will not be paying her stupid "fees".
When will rationality ever be introduced into law?
Shouldn't there be something in ownership law that says you have to have some claim or form of mastery over something to own it? Something other than the same right to something as everyone else on a planet has?
On November 27 2010 14:06 Magus wrote: Shouldn't there be something in ownership law that says you have to have some claim or form of mastery over something to own it? Something other than the same right to something as everyone else on a planet has?
Sounds pretty ridiculous, but so was the concept of "owning" air space. I imagine ownership of the Sun would become more sensible and viable once we get the technology to set-up military defenses around it.
Amazingly dumb that people like this exist. Even more stupid that they apparently allow/have a system in place in which you can do this. If I were the notary then I'd more likely call for security than actually go through with such a stupid idea.
On a side note, I wonder what the legal process of actually registering ownership is and where the boundary is. Like can I register ownership of a galaxy? Or maybe the whole universe.
On November 27 2010 14:08 Sherbople wrote: Guess she should face jail time for all the people it's killed
What is the statute of limitations on a class-action for melanoma and heatstroke. Its not that there is no law to file suit against the owner of the sun, its just that we at TL were the first to utilize it
If an individual can own the sun then can I register to own the earth since it's a planet? That would be cool. Also if she dies and no one claims the assets, will Spain inherit the sun, causing them to have to give it up, then can I own it? BRB galactic domination
Australia needs to be suing this woman big time for the burden skincancer places on our health care system. Her negligent inability to rein in the harmful gamma rays of her sun have caused death/injury to thousands if not millions of Australians.
Waitaminute, Duran? Upon further review i believe 2 things. One, we need to investigate this woman closely. Two, We need to prepare for the return of the Xel'Naga.
On November 27 2010 14:20 Nadir wrote: Australia needs to be suing this woman big time for the burden skincancer places on our health care system. Her negligent inability to rein in the harmful gamma rays of her sun have caused death/injury to thousands if not millions of Australians.
haha this.
I also blame this woman for trying to wake me up early every morning, when I'm obviously too tired.
Cant wait to see how she enforces her fee. does registering ownership of the sun somehow create an on off switch she can use in the case of nonpayment?
On November 27 2010 14:25 Two_DoWn wrote: Cant wait to see how she enforces her fee. does registering ownership of the sun somehow create an on off switch she can use in the case of nonpayment?
We would all be sun pirates!
What's funnier than her claiming ownership of the sun are the people that are outraged by it.
On November 27 2010 14:27 cca1ss1e wrote: zzz.. gimme a break. cosmos don't belong to ANYONE.
Not true.
As soon as you can control the use of a particular thing, it becomes saleable, i.e. if I could prevent a certain country or region from receiving sunlight, then I can charge for it.
On November 27 2010 14:27 cca1ss1e wrote: zzz.. gimme a break. cosmos don't belong to ANYONE.
Not true.
As soon as you can control the use of a particular thing, it becomes saleable, i.e. if I could prevent a certain country or region from receiving sunlight, then I can charge for it.
This seems silly, why even acknowledge her 'ownership' if no one is going to take her seriously (not that that's a reasonable suggestion, but it just seems contradictory).
Good find Konadora, as Einstein once said "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
The sun doesn't belong to anyone...it's a fucking huge burning STAR floating around in space that makes our existence even possible!
Even if it's a joke...why didn't the romans think of charging people for benefiting from the sun's rays. would make as much sense as the church getting filthy rich from taking people's money for their sins. Thou must pay sun tax for thy god Helios.
If she "owned" it thou, she would be living up there with the sun...as electrons, nucleus and protons in an Hydrogen atom.
On November 27 2010 14:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Someone should register to own the free space around the sun, then charge her for dumping her rubbish on their property.
This. It never fails to amaze how flagrantly STUPID humans can be sometimes o.e
Ownership of land was bad enough for human history
The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.
MADRID - AFTER billions of years the Sun finally has an owner - a woman from Spain's soggy region of Galicia said on Friday she had registered the star at a local notary public as being her property.
Ms Angeles Duran, 49, told the online edition of daily El Mundo she took the step in September after reading about an American man who had registered himself as the owner of the moon and most planets in our Solar System.
There is an international agreement which states that no country may claim ownership of a planet or star, but it says nothing about individuals, she added.
'There was no snag, I backed my claim legally, I am not stupid, I know the law. I did it but anyone else could have done it, it simply occurred to me first.'
The document issued by the notary public declares Ms Duran to be the 'owner of the Sun, a star of spectral type G2, located in the centre of the solar system, located at an average distance from Earth of about 149,600,000km'.
Ms Duran, who lives in the town of Salvaterra do Mino, said she now wants to slap a fee on everyone who uses the sun and give half of the proceeds to the Spanish government and 20 per cent to the nation's pension fund. She would dedicate another 10 per cent to research, another 10 per cent to ending world hunger - and would keep the remaining 10 per cent herself. -- AFP
Ms Duran, who lives in the town of Salvaterra do Mino, said she now wants to slap a fee on everyone who uses the sun and give half of the proceeds to the Spanish government and 20 per cent to the nation's pension fund. She would dedicate another 10 per cent to research, another 10 per cent to ending world hunger - and would keep the remaining 10 per cent herself.
WTF? "slap a fee on everyone who uses the sun" - basically, the whole world + aliens out there. i, for one, will not be paying her stupid "fees".
When will rationality ever be introduced into law?
p.s: can i claim ownership over air?
Yes, you may claim ownership over the air. Just as you could in any free society. And as in any free society, we can (and probably will) claim you're out of your gourd and should rightfully be ignored.
This woman's claims (as well as the guy who claims to own the moon) are BS. They bear no legal weight, and will be ignored by all parties with the actual power to "pay" her for the use of her "property". So there is plenty of rationality with respect to law.
On November 27 2010 14:27 cca1ss1e wrote: zzz.. gimme a break. cosmos don't belong to ANYONE.
Not true.
As soon as you can control the use of a particular thing, it becomes saleable, i.e. if I could prevent a certain country or region from receiving sunlight, then I can charge for it.
If we ever have interstellar technology and colonize the moon or something those individuals who claim ownership of the planets and stars will quickly realize that the varying nations of Earth don't give a shit what some paper they have claims.
On November 27 2010 14:27 cca1ss1e wrote: zzz.. gimme a break. cosmos don't belong to ANYONE.
Not true.
As soon as you can control the use of a particular thing, it becomes saleable, i.e. if I could prevent a certain country or region from receiving sunlight, then I can charge for it.
When will rationality ever be introduced into law?
p.s: can i claim ownership over air?
We are farmers in California. A long time ago, the state separated out "minerals rights" from "surface rights" and sold all the "mineral rights" underneath our land to oil companies. The law also says mineral rights trump surface rights. The result is that the oil companies can (and have), without warning, clear out a couple acres of our orchards and make a mess all over our property with pipelines stretched across our roads and through our fields, etc. whenever they choose.
If the air in question can be bottled and sold for a profit on the free market, you betcha you could claim ownership. Rationality notwithstanding.
The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.
pretty sure humans have always had the idea of territory. The shift you're looking at is claiming land for the individual as opposed to the group...
'There was no snag, I backed my claim legally, I am not stupid, I know the law. I did it but anyone else could have done it, it simply occurred to me first.'
If that's the case, then when people will discover first 'habitable' planet I'll definetly be the first one to own it on my name. Then I'll take taxes from everyone who moves there, and be rich.
I really just want to find this woman. I'll find her, and in my overdose of rage I will just sit there because I'll be in a stupor so great I won't even know what to say or do. Hell I may just sit there and compliment her on something because I can't even think straight enough to be pissed.
Okay, I'll go ahead and get a notary (can they really do that is what I'm wondering) to legally register me the owner of the Milky Way, then I'll charge everyone a fee for living in it, exemptions given to those who do not have (apparently) legal ownership over stars which have orbiting planets that contain life.
This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. It's people/stuff like this that makes me just want to stand in front of her and be like "LOLOLOL I'M USING UR SUN. SUE ME BITCH~". Yeah... Good luck with getting that fee system implemented.
I was under the impression that this had allready been done, butt it was settled that the owner of the sun had to pay a fine to every one who had skin-cancer first...
Truly this is what Marx meant when he said that capitalism would eventually meet its end. The abolition of private property is now our only recourse! WORKING MEN OF ALL NATIONS, UNITE!
You need not even restrict the sueing to sckin cancer. Take ozone for example. Lots of elderly people die eachyear because of too high ozone which - as most people know - is produced by high EM radiation such as emitted by the sun.
Sueing stupid people whi think they can outsmart the world - princeless.
I currently own 0.00002% of the electrons that are transmitted with this post. If this post has been loaded onto your screen, you must pay me a fee yet to be determined for using my electrons. If you refuse to pay this fee, you must remove the electrons from your screen. The cost of removing the electrons is your own expense and I cannot be held liable.
I plan to use 100% of the funds to invest in neutrons, quarts, and maybe some dark energy.
On November 27 2010 18:01 .Aar wrote: This would be just plain lulzy stuff if she hadn't blurted that whole fee thing. That reduces this to pure idiocy.
That idea of taking pictures of the Sun and mailing them to her.. that's awesome.
its obviously not serious given the arbitrary percentages. you know like when you're a kid and somebody asks "what would you do with a million dollars" and you say "give half to charity and keep half for myself"
Lol fee for people that use the sun? I bet some people would be happy to send her to the sun so she can live there. ow btw now anyone can sue her for sunburns? or even the fact that she forces them to "use" the sun?
On November 27 2010 14:16 mprs wrote: hmmmmmm this is deep!
I'm wondering if the water would sue her for evaporation
lol
I hope she succeed with her idea to charge a fee on 'sun using'. (lol sounds so ridiculous xD) Of course I won't pay one single cent to her but I'd show how retarded our bureaucracy is. Claiming possession of something like stars/planets... Love the TL community for delighting me once again with this thread
MADRID - AFTER billions of years the Sun finally has an owner - a woman from Spain's soggy region of Galicia said on Friday she had registered the star at a local notary public as being her property.
Ms Angeles Duran, 49, told the online edition of daily El Mundo she took the step in September after reading about an American man who had registered himself as the owner of the moon and most planets in our Solar System.
There is an international agreement which states that no country may claim ownership of a planet or star, but it says nothing about individuals, she added.
'There was no snag, I backed my claim legally, I am not stupid, I know the law. I did it but anyone else could have done it, it simply occurred to me first.'
The document issued by the notary public declares Ms Duran to be the 'owner of the Sun, a star of spectral type G2, located in the centre of the solar system, located at an average distance from Earth of about 149,600,000km'.
Ms Duran, who lives in the town of Salvaterra do Mino, said she now wants to slap a fee on everyone who uses the sun and give half of the proceeds to the Spanish government and 20 per cent to the nation's pension fund. She would dedicate another 10 per cent to research, another 10 per cent to ending world hunger - and would keep the remaining 10 per cent herself. -- AFP
Everything on this planet lives because of the sun. If she thinks people will really pay her, she is stupid. This is more like a real-life troll.
Haha, why is this crazy lady getting any attention? If she's doing this to point out some loophole in the system, cool. I get the feeling she's just looking for her fifteen minutes of fame, though.
Meh, she has nothing on Teamliquid. We banned Sun even after he made threats about using the bear ("The Bear is arguably one of the best international lawyers in the world." according to Sun) against the people "editing" his posts. So we owned Sun long before this lady.
As soon as he pays all the bills for every demage done by draught, sunstroke, radiation, sun-burnt skin etc, i'm fine with paying tax for her for the Sun's benefits
But seriously I hope the lady never makes a dime off of it. After reading the post above me maybe we can sue her because her star gives us skin-cancer? lol.
I think if she were to attempt to charge the world for the use of the sun then the world should sue her for all the problems caused by the sun. It's pretty ridiculous that this is a possible law. I don't even know what it means for her to own the sun. What rights and responsibilities does she have as the owner of the sun?
So then if she can charge us for using the sun, we should sue her for her unwanted presence of the sun, if she owns it she should remove it from our side of the world.
On November 27 2010 22:28 Eatme wrote: Meh, she has nothing on Teamliquid. We banned Sun even after he made threats about using the bear ("The Bear is arguably one of the best international lawyers in the world." according to Sun) against the people "editing" his posts. So we owned Sun long before this lady.
On November 27 2010 23:32 Danze wrote: Honestly, people like this need to be slapped.
You can not sue someone for being stupid or even for being an asshole ... sadly ... but then all the lawyers for these cases fall into one of these two categories as well.
If she ever tried to extort money out of a country and she had any sort of legal ability to do so, I would not be shocked if she ended up face down in a ditch somewhere.
Everyone who has skin cancer, start suing her. When the sun blows up, everyone blame her. If it releases a long stream of world-ending dust -- blame her.
Seriously though, this must be one lonely woman to think of this type of thing...
A fee for everyone who uses the sun? Good luck with that, lady; I doubt you can get that through the public without protest. Even if she "owns" the sun, she has to realize that with great ownership comes great responsibility. =P
edit: wait a minute....
Ms Angeles Duran
I sense an evil "zerg + protoss hybrid-related" plot coming out of this o_o
Ahah... well I have some faith in the legal system that she won't ever get a penny from anyone for their "use" of the Sun. It's pretty radical that she thinks she could do it... like finding a loophole in a law automatically enables it to be manipulated for great wealth.
tbh i sincerely hope there will be some sort of legal bind to this ownership... first of all she could hardly charge anyone for a ware that she keeps shining down on people involountarily all the time
but imagine the lawsuit me and ALL of the worlds skin-cancer victims are going to throat her with? im pretty sure her product has not udnergone ANY thorough clinical trials or testing - further more she might even be subject to a few charges of assault vs all the people fainting/dying frmo the heat arround the world...
Aight, she can have the sun, I take every other planet and moon, except for our moon. HELL, I take the rest of the universe as mine. You all owe me 1% of your income, for every other star, moon, and planet out there, and dont even get me started on the asterioids.
edit: everyone should just move to antartica or alaska so we only have to pay for the sun for half the year.
Obviously sensationalist bullshit, but it is a bit interesting to think about how we as humans have come up with the concept of ownership.
It reminds me of Tolstoy who wrote about horses that questions the logic that humans think they can own other creatures.
I think I follow Locke's logic, that you can only own something if you have created it, there are as many and as good to make it from, and you can use it. This woman (if she were real) would fail that philosophy on all three counts. If that woman built a house on the sun and lived there, she could own the property which that house sat, but as it is, she has no way of enforcing her ownership and no one would listen to her, certainly not people she is expecting to pay her.
On November 27 2010 14:08 Sherbople wrote: Guess she should face jail time for all the people it's killed
What is the statute of limitations on a class-action for melanoma and heatstroke. Its not that there is no law to file suit against the owner of the sun, its just that we at TL were the first to utilize it
Quoted for awesomeness. Would be awesome to check it out and fight her in court over that. Fight holes in the law with holes in other laws.
I am actually not even that surprised. Stranger things have been owned / pattented. For example it is possible for companies to own pattents on genes, and a lot of companies now actually hold these pattents.
There will be a problem though with determining what she means by people "using" the sun. For example can we really see the light being emited by the sun as still being part of the sun? If we were to answer that question by yes you would ahve to concider the following. The only reason people can see me is because of (at least during the day) sunlight bouncing of of me. So does that mean she also owns the image of my persona? In fact you would have to pay for EVERYTHING you look at during the day.
On November 28 2010 01:26 DisneylandSC wrote: I am actually not even that surprised. Stranger things have been owned / pattented. For example it is possible for companies to own pattents on genes, and a lot of companies now actually hold these pattents.
There will be a problem though with determining what she means by people "using" the sun. For example can we really see the light being emited by the sun as still being part of the sun? If we were to answer that question by yes you would ahve to concider the following. The only reason people can see me is because of (at least during the day) sunlight bouncing of of me. So does that mean she also owns the image of my persona? In fact you would have to pay for EVERYTHING you look at during the day.
If I fill a bucket with water and splash it on you, can I collect money from you for "using" my water (assuming I drew it from my house, so I bought it and therefore own it)? I doubt it.
If she throws photons at us, do we have to pay for it? I doubt it.
If I splash said water on you, can you sue me if you got hurt/caught a cold in the process? I think so.
If I get skin cancer from exposure to the sun, can I sue her? I think so.
EDIT: Anyway - she might own the sun on the paper, but she does not own the sun physically. If I don't pay she won't be able to actually do anything, except for maybe killing me, (which would then result in a civil war, leading to her death) or putting me in the jail which would make no sense. at all.
Seeing as she nows owns the sun, she should also be responsible for anyone going blind staring at it. I mean people have sued McDonalds after being burned by hot coffee, what's the difference?
lol i actually thought this was about the newspaper "The Sun" when I ve read the title first and was really confused, why it is topicworthy that a women owns it now. ololol^^
EDIT: Anyway - she might own the sun on the paper, but she does not own the sun physically. If I don't pay she won't be able to actually do anything, except for maybe killing me, (which would then result in a civil war, leading to her death) or putting me in the jail which would make no sense. at all.
On November 28 2010 02:36 Zero.Tha.Hero wrote: Seeing as she nows owns the sun, she should also be responsible for anyone going blind staring at it. I mean people have sued McDonalds after being burned by hot coffee, what's the difference?
LOL, I remember that dumb bitch. Mcdonalds should have her face up at every single mcdonalds and everytime she comes in, they should serve her cold coffee that's 3 days old, and that was burnt before being chilled.
On November 28 2010 02:10 humansherdog wrote: holding ownership requires you to be the first possessor.
In order for the law to recognize you being a possessor, you must hold physical control, as well as a manifest intent to exclude.
She wins on #2, but loses on #1, she does not hold physical control of the sun.
Ah yes, but the man who "owns" the moon does not possess any of it as well...
No, he doesn't own the moon. Ownership is a relationship and requires that the state will protect your property for you. I assure you he doesn't own the moon, and this woman doesn't own the sun.
On November 28 2010 02:36 Zero.Tha.Hero wrote: Seeing as she nows owns the sun, she should also be responsible for anyone going blind staring at it. I mean people have sued McDonalds after being burned by hot coffee, what's the difference?
LOL, I remember that dumb bitch. Mcdonalds should have her face up at every single mcdonalds and everytime she comes in, they should serve her cold coffee that's 3 days old, and that was burnt before being chilled.
Why ought they do that? She was served coffee at a temperature of 185 degrees (+/- 5), whereas most coffee is served between 135 - 140 degrees. I'm sure you can figure out the ramifications of such a high temperature.
On November 28 2010 02:36 Zero.Tha.Hero wrote: Seeing as she nows owns the sun, she should also be responsible for anyone going blind staring at it. I mean people have sued McDonalds after being burned by hot coffee, what's the difference?
LOL, I remember that dumb bitch. Mcdonalds should have her face up at every single mcdonalds and everytime she comes in, they should serve her cold coffee that's 3 days old, and that was burnt before being chilled.
Why ought they do that? She was served coffee at a temperature of 185 degrees (+/- 5), whereas most coffee is served between 135 - 140 degrees. I'm sure you can figure out the ramifications of such a high temperature.
So what if it was too hot? She ordered coffee and expected to get it hot. In other words, she was just looking to complain. She deserved to get burnt for being a dumb bitch and dropping it on herself. Honestly, who spills shit nowadays, I haven't split a drink (even when drunk) since I was like 8 years old. Classic woman being idiot.
On November 28 2010 02:36 Zero.Tha.Hero wrote: Seeing as she nows owns the sun, she should also be responsible for anyone going blind staring at it. I mean people have sued McDonalds after being burned by hot coffee, what's the difference?
LOL, I remember that dumb bitch. Mcdonalds should have her face up at every single mcdonalds and everytime she comes in, they should serve her cold coffee that's 3 days old, and that was burnt before being chilled.
Why ought they do that? She was served coffee at a temperature of 185 degrees (+/- 5), whereas most coffee is served between 135 - 140 degrees. I'm sure you can figure out the ramifications of such a high temperature.
So what if it was too hot? She ordered coffee and expected to get it hot. In other words, she was just looking to complain. She deserved to get burnt for being a dumb bitch and dropping it on herself. Honestly, who spills shit nowadays, I haven't split a drink (even when drunk) since I was like 8 years old. Classic woman being idiot.
Well hats off to you for not spilling a drink ever. Unfortunately most of us arnt' as magically balanced and expect food and drink to be served at temperatures that don't turn it into a health hazard.
If I sold candy canes that were chiseled to a tip sharp and hard enough to impale you if you tripped while eating it do you think that would be ridiculous?
AHAHAHA rofl @ the imbecile thinking she can charge people for using the Sun; she believes that she alone can succeed where so many software and media companies have tried and failed hard. good luck, kangaroo luck ridiculous lady.
On November 28 2010 02:36 Zero.Tha.Hero wrote: Seeing as she nows owns the sun, she should also be responsible for anyone going blind staring at it. I mean people have sued McDonalds after being burned by hot coffee, what's the difference?
LOL, I remember that dumb bitch. Mcdonalds should have her face up at every single mcdonalds and everytime she comes in, they should serve her cold coffee that's 3 days old, and that was burnt before being chilled.
Why ought they do that? She was served coffee at a temperature of 185 degrees (+/- 5), whereas most coffee is served between 135 - 140 degrees. I'm sure you can figure out the ramifications of such a high temperature.
So what if it was too hot? She ordered coffee and expected to get it hot. In other words, she was just looking to complain. She deserved to get burnt for being a dumb bitch and dropping it on herself. Honestly, who spills shit nowadays, I haven't split a drink (even when drunk) since I was like 8 years old. Classic woman being idiot.
Well hats off to you for not spilling a drink ever. Unfortunately most of us arnt' as magically balanced and expect food and drink to be served at temperatures that don't turn it into a health hazard.
If I sold candy canes that were chiseled to a tip sharp and hard enough to impale you if you tripped while eating it do you think that would be ridiculous?
I would think it rediculous that you wasted 80% of the candy cane turning it into a spear, and no, I wouldn't think it rediculous, because I'd just chew it...
i swear every time someone brings up the mcdonalds coffee case as an example of a stupid lawsuit, i want to strangle a kitten. read the fucking case, that lawsuit was anything but frivolous.
On November 28 2010 03:24 JeeJee wrote: i swear every time someone brings up the mcdonalds coffee case as an example of a stupid lawsuit, i want to strangle a kitten. read the fucking case, that lawsuit was anything but frivolous.
Would she have sued herself if she had spilled boiling water on herself at home? Or the stove company? Or kettle company used to boil the water? If you know how an industrial grade coffee maker works, it BOILS the water then filters it through the coffee and into the pot...in peak times mcdonalds doesn't have time to let the coffee sit around and cool down, otherwise people would be waiting 20 minutes+ for a cup of coffee. This was just a dumb lady who spilled on herself. Probably happens everyday. I should go to mcdonalds, and ask for a cup of boiling water, and spill it on myself. Then sue. Whatever judge granted her success on this lawsuit is a total moron and should not be put in a position of power.
On November 28 2010 02:36 Zero.Tha.Hero wrote: Seeing as she nows owns the sun, she should also be responsible for anyone going blind staring at it. I mean people have sued McDonalds after being burned by hot coffee, what's the difference?
LOL, I remember that dumb bitch. Mcdonalds should have her face up at every single mcdonalds and everytime she comes in, they should serve her cold coffee that's 3 days old, and that was burnt before being chilled.
Why ought they do that? She was served coffee at a temperature of 185 degrees (+/- 5), whereas most coffee is served between 135 - 140 degrees. I'm sure you can figure out the ramifications of such a high temperature.
So what if it was too hot? She ordered coffee and expected to get it hot. In other words, she was just looking to complain. She deserved to get burnt for being a dumb bitch and dropping it on herself. Honestly, who spills shit nowadays, I haven't split a drink (even when drunk) since I was like 8 years old. Classic woman being idiot.
Her complaint was one of over 700 complaints against McDonalds on this issue. The spill itself also resulted, if I remember correctly, in third-degree burns on 6% of her body (including her groin) and two-years of medical treatment.
McDonalds proffered the same defense, "Customers know the coffee is hot", but it fails for two reasons: 1) Customers aren't aware that the coffee is hot enough so as to cause third-degree burns, and 2) McDonalds was aware of the issue, having received 700 similar complaints, yet took no action to correct the issue (that is what's known as negligence).
On November 28 2010 03:24 JeeJee wrote: i swear every time someone brings up the mcdonalds coffee case as an example of a stupid lawsuit, i want to strangle a kitten. read the fucking case, that lawsuit was anything but frivolous.
Would she have sued herself if she had spilled boiling water on herself at home? Or the stove company? Or kettle company used to boil the water? If you know how an industrial grade coffee maker works, it BOILS the water then filters it through the coffee and into the pot...in peak times mcdonalds doesn't have time to let the coffee sit around and cool down, otherwise people would be waiting 20 minutes+ for a cup of coffee. This was just a dumb lady who spilled on herself. Probably happens everyday. I should go to mcdonalds, and ask for a cup of boiling water, and spill it on myself. Then sue. Whatever judge granted her success on this lawsuit is a total moron and should not be put in a position of power.
Post-case investigation revealed that McDonalds dropped the resting temperature of their coffee from 185-190 degrees to 158 degrees. The significance is that if Leinbeck's coffee had been only 158 degrees, she most likely would have avoided any serious personal injury. This goes beyond 'dumb women' and 'boiling water'.
The obvious thing to do is sue Ms. Duran everyday it is cloudy, cold, overly hot, etc. for poor management of her legal holdings. That'll shut her up about the damn fee
It doesnt really matter if she owns it or not, nothing will happen. No one one earth will pay anything, she will get dicked into the face if she claims to recieve her money, she's on newspaper and thats all she gets, law doesnt mean shit if you are messing with the right people and she is messing with the whole word, so screw her
just annoys me when people think "herp derp of course coffee is hot dont spill it on yourself dummy" =( im sure y'all expect (in liebeck's case) days of hospital stay to undergo skin grafting and losing 20% of your bodyweight if you spill a coffee on yourself, right
On November 28 2010 03:35 JeeJee wrote: thanks gnosis
just annoys me when people think "herp derp of course coffee is hot dont spill it on yourself dummy" =( im sure y'all expect (in liebeck's case) days of hospital stay to undergo skin grafting and losing 20% of your bodyweight if you spill a coffee on yourself, right
All im saying is, she should've been more careful. If you purchase a lambo and drive it on the autobahn at 300km/h and crash it and paralyze yourself, would you sue them because they made a car go too fast?
Mcdonalds can't be responsible for other peoples stupidity. If this case holds up, then why hasn't every fat person in the US sued mcdonalds for making them fat?
The difference to McDonalds: We never asked her to give us sunshine. She has bombarded us with potentially dangerous photons without being asked to do so.
yeah. that things too damn bright. Tell her to turn it off, or I'm suing. And skin cancer. SUE! sunburns go to 3rd degree burns. sue. Someone call Mark. E. Salomone
sheesh. On the reality side of this. Just because someone claims ownership in Spain, doesn't mean any other nation has to respect that claim. Quick, someone go see if they can register ownership in their own nations. Lets see how many people can 'own' the sun.
I hope she pursues this fee thing, just so she wastes her time when no one pays it...like what is she going to do if we refuse? turn off the sun until we pay? lol
On November 28 2010 02:36 Zero.Tha.Hero wrote: Seeing as she nows owns the sun, she should also be responsible for anyone going blind staring at it. I mean people have sued McDonalds after being burned by hot coffee, what's the difference?
LOL, I remember that dumb bitch. Mcdonalds should have her face up at every single mcdonalds and everytime she comes in, they should serve her cold coffee that's 3 days old, and that was burnt before being chilled.
Why ought they do that? She was served coffee at a temperature of 185 degrees (+/- 5), whereas most coffee is served between 135 - 140 degrees. I'm sure you can figure out the ramifications of such a high temperature.
So what if it was too hot? She ordered coffee and expected to get it hot. In other words, she was just looking to complain. She deserved to get burnt for being a dumb bitch and dropping it on herself. Honestly, who spills shit nowadays, I haven't split a drink (even when drunk) since I was like 8 years old. Classic woman being idiot.
Her complaint was one of over 700 complaints against McDonalds on this issue. The spill itself also resulted, if I remember correctly, in third-degree burns on 6% of her body (including her groin) and two-years of medical treatment.
McDonalds proffered the same defense, "Customers know the coffee is hot", but it fails for two reasons: 1) Customers aren't aware that the coffee is hot enough so as to cause third-degree burns, and 2) McDonalds was aware of the issue, having received 700 similar complaints, yet took no action to correct the issue (that is what's known as negligence).
On November 28 2010 03:24 JeeJee wrote: i swear every time someone brings up the mcdonalds coffee case as an example of a stupid lawsuit, i want to strangle a kitten. read the fucking case, that lawsuit was anything but frivolous.
Would she have sued herself if she had spilled boiling water on herself at home? Or the stove company? Or kettle company used to boil the water? If you know how an industrial grade coffee maker works, it BOILS the water then filters it through the coffee and into the pot...in peak times mcdonalds doesn't have time to let the coffee sit around and cool down, otherwise people would be waiting 20 minutes+ for a cup of coffee. This was just a dumb lady who spilled on herself. Probably happens everyday. I should go to mcdonalds, and ask for a cup of boiling water, and spill it on myself. Then sue. Whatever judge granted her success on this lawsuit is a total moron and should not be put in a position of power.
Post-case investigation revealed that McDonalds dropped the resting temperature of their coffee from 185-190 degrees to 158 degrees. The significance is that if Leinbeck's coffee had been only 158 degrees, she most likely would have avoided any serious personal injury. This goes beyond 'dumb women' and 'boiling water'.
She still got a huge windfall. People who even have 1% comparative negligence shouldn't get punitive damages because those are damages intended to punish the offender. She should only get compensatory damages. I actually think punitive damages should go to charity. They're ridiculous and one of the primary causes of the abuses in the system we have right now.
Looks like someone beat this chick to the punch. She should do her research first next time.
This guy also does it the right way by first and foremost saying he isn't responsible for Skin Cancer, Sunburns, etc. He was also introduced by one UN offical to another as "The Man Who Owns The Sun" so I think this guys claim is more legit. Also this guy isn't trying to charge for the use of the sun like other wannabe sun-owners.
If i had to pay to use the sun then I refuse to use it. GO pay a couple of thousand dollars to put a shield over my house to block the sunlight, I don't care. I like the shade, anyways. I get my food from the store, I don't have a vegetable garden.
If I owned the sun, I'll try to destroy it the first chance I get.
This really shows that many government agencies just approve everything while barely analyzing it. It's similar to the Australian lawyer who managed to patent the wheel a few years ago, though the guy did it to show how flawed the system is.
It's the same thing in the US with patents. The patent office is understaffed and just approves everything, even when they are obvious. Then the patent holders troll the US for small towns with the most uneducated citizens and sue there, because people with lesser education are more easily fooled by their hocus pocus.
On November 28 2010 03:35 JeeJee wrote: thanks gnosis
just annoys me when people think "herp derp of course coffee is hot dont spill it on yourself dummy" =( im sure y'all expect (in liebeck's case) days of hospital stay to undergo skin grafting and losing 20% of your bodyweight if you spill a coffee on yourself, right
All im saying is, she should've been more careful. If you purchase a lambo and drive it on the autobahn at 300km/h and crash it and paralyze yourself, would you sue them because they made a car go too fast?
Mcdonalds can't be responsible for other peoples stupidity. If this case holds up, then why hasn't every fat person in the US sued mcdonalds for making them fat?
It's reasonable to expect a normal person to know that crashing a car when you're going real fast will hurt you, a lot. It's not so reasonable to expect coffee to do so much damage you need skin grafts. I mean, we've all spilled boiling water or coffee or whatever on ourselves before, how many times did it result in such serious injury we needed to go to the hospital?
There actually was a lawsuit against McDonald's for making two kids fat (Pelman v McDonald's Corp) and they had a legitimate case (although it failed) as, while it might be reasonable to expect fast food to be unhealthy, it's unreasonable to expect people to know just how incredibly bad it can be - ie cause massive obesity in children. It sparked off a wave of lawsuits against McDonald's in many states for corporate liability and the huge anti-fast food wave of the early 00s was what led to such "health food" reform and nutrition focus in fast food chains.
Plainly speaking, it's okay to blame people for being stupid and not knowing the risks of something they're doing, but not okay when there's no way of them knowing just how incredible those risks are (because you never tell them).
This is fucking ridiculous lol, not only does she 'claim' the sun as 'hers' with absolutely no justification but she also wants to charge us all for 'using' the sun?
I vote we send her to live on 'her' new property, who's with me?!
nice, so now I can sue her because she owns something that directly kills tons of people, and also another ton of people dies indirectly thanks to the sun. (Forest fires, deserts & other stuff)
Rofling at the "galacit trolling" (first time i've ever see somebody use this jajaja) going on here.
On November 28 2010 03:35 JeeJee wrote: thanks gnosis
just annoys me when people think "herp derp of course coffee is hot dont spill it on yourself dummy" =( im sure y'all expect (in liebeck's case) days of hospital stay to undergo skin grafting and losing 20% of your bodyweight if you spill a coffee on yourself, right
All im saying is, she should've been more careful. If you purchase a lambo and drive it on the autobahn at 300km/h and crash it and paralyze yourself, would you sue them because they made a car go too fast?
Mcdonalds can't be responsible for other peoples stupidity. If this case holds up, then why hasn't every fat person in the US sued mcdonalds for making them fat?
It's reasonable to expect a normal person to know that crashing a car when you're going real fast will hurt you, a lot. It's not so reasonable to expect coffee to do so much damage you need skin grafts. I mean, we've all spilled boiling water or coffee or whatever on ourselves before, how many times did it result in such serious injury we needed to go to the hospital?
There actually was a lawsuit against McDonald's for making two kids fat (Pelman v McDonald's Corp) and they had a legitimate case (although it failed) as, while it might be reasonable to expect fast food to be unhealthy, it's unreasonable to expect people to know just how incredibly bad it can be - ie cause massive obesity in children. It sparked off a wave of lawsuits against McDonald's in many states for corporate liability and the huge anti-fast food wave of the early 00s was what led to such "health food" reform and nutrition focus in fast food chains.
Plainly speaking, it's okay to blame people for being stupid and not knowing the risks of something they're doing, but not okay when there's no way of them knowing just how incredible those risks are (because you never tell them).
I worked at tim horton's when I was in grade 10, it was my first job...and I KNOW for a fact that I spilled an entire coffee pot of boiler WATER (not coffee) on my hand and arm, this water also had cleaning chemicals in it, and I did not get serious burns, infact there was no blisters and after about 2 minutes of cold water being run over it, it did not hurt whatsoever. This lady must have been wearing NO PANTS or any clothes at all for that matter if it caused burns of that severity. Either that, or she just has some of the weakest skin known to man. But boiling water isn't that hot, I've been burned in my shower worse than when I've dropped boiling water on myself. Maybe I just have troll skin or something, but I think it's totally bullshit that she got away with that lawsuit. As much as I don't like mcdonalds, that's just retarded. Also, 185 degrees fehreinheit is only 85 degrees celcius which is 15 degrees lower than boiling point. So obviously the coffee wasnt THAT hot, maybe this lady just had some sort of medical condition that caused her to burn much easier than most people, because I know for one when I make kraft dinner, I routinely put my fingers in the water to see if its about to boil and I've never been hurt by it. Even if I leave them in there for a few seconds. This lady was just a pussy. End of story.
Could I sue a company for burning my mouth on a beverage? Say...it ruined my taste?
On November 28 2010 03:35 JeeJee wrote: thanks gnosis
just annoys me when people think "herp derp of course coffee is hot dont spill it on yourself dummy" =( im sure y'all expect (in liebeck's case) days of hospital stay to undergo skin grafting and losing 20% of your bodyweight if you spill a coffee on yourself, right
All im saying is, she should've been more careful. If you purchase a lambo and drive it on the autobahn at 300km/h and crash it and paralyze yourself, would you sue them because they made a car go too fast?
Mcdonalds can't be responsible for other peoples stupidity. If this case holds up, then why hasn't every fat person in the US sued mcdonalds for making them fat?
It's reasonable to expect a normal person to know that crashing a car when you're going real fast will hurt you, a lot. It's not so reasonable to expect coffee to do so much damage you need skin grafts. I mean, we've all spilled boiling water or coffee or whatever on ourselves before, how many times did it result in such serious injury we needed to go to the hospital?
There actually was a lawsuit against McDonald's for making two kids fat (Pelman v McDonald's Corp) and they had a legitimate case (although it failed) as, while it might be reasonable to expect fast food to be unhealthy, it's unreasonable to expect people to know just how incredibly bad it can be - ie cause massive obesity in children. It sparked off a wave of lawsuits against McDonald's in many states for corporate liability and the huge anti-fast food wave of the early 00s was what led to such "health food" reform and nutrition focus in fast food chains.
Plainly speaking, it's okay to blame people for being stupid and not knowing the risks of something they're doing, but not okay when there's no way of them knowing just how incredible those risks are (because you never tell them).
I worked at tim horton's when I was in grade 10, it was my first job...and I KNOW for a fact that I spilled an entire coffee pot of boiler WATER (not coffee) on my hand and arm, this water also had cleaning chemicals in it, and I did not get serious burns, infact there was no blisters and after about 2 minutes of cold water being run over it, it did not hurt whatsoever. This lady must have been wearing NO PANTS or any clothes at all for that matter if it caused burns of that severity. Either that, or she just has some of the weakest skin known to man. But boiling water isn't that hot, I've been burned in my shower worse than when I've dropped boiling water on myself. Maybe I just have troll skin or something, but I think it's totally bullshit that she got away with that lawsuit. As much as I don't like mcdonalds, that's just retarded. Also, 185 degrees fehreinheit is only 85 degrees celcius which is 15 degrees lower than boiling point. So obviously the coffee wasnt THAT hot, maybe this lady just had some sort of medical condition that caused her to burn much easier than most people, because I know for one when I make kraft dinner, I routinely put my fingers in the water to see if its about to boil and I've never been hurt by it. Even if I leave them in there for a few seconds. This lady was just a pussy. End of story.
Could I sue a company for burning my mouth on a beverage? Say...it ruined my taste?
Bullshit. Boiling water fucking burns. I went to the hospital with 2nd degree burns on my hand after spilling a pot of boiling water on it, had to keep the hand bandaged in some sort of shit paste for a week, and I had marks on the hand for a month after that.
And I'm young and tough, and used to burning my hands with pots and pans and shit.
I'm not an 80-year old lady and it was just my hands, not my cock and balls.
Now, why don't you dip your cock and balls into BOILING water for two minutes and come back and see if you still think the old lady was a "pussy".
Just wondering but uh... Why exactly does she think that shes so above everyone to own the sun, much less impose a fee on people using something that we need to live and has been free for billions of years?
Is there some kind of like application process or test or something for that?
If she owns the sun, she then powers the earth. producers, consumers, secondary consumers, solar panels and everything that uses energy in our heliosphere owes a fee to her. somebody slap this woman silly.
btw: just because something is legal doesn't mean you are/n't + Show Spoiler +
I don't see her name on it. But I wonder since it says only countries if in the future huge corporations will go out and explore and claim stuff. Oh well by that time the Earth will be unified like in Mass Effect and then we will all own stuff in space, hopefully.
On November 28 2010 03:35 JeeJee wrote: thanks gnosis
just annoys me when people think "herp derp of course coffee is hot dont spill it on yourself dummy" =( im sure y'all expect (in liebeck's case) days of hospital stay to undergo skin grafting and losing 20% of your bodyweight if you spill a coffee on yourself, right
All im saying is, she should've been more careful. If you purchase a lambo and drive it on the autobahn at 300km/h and crash it and paralyze yourself, would you sue them because they made a car go too fast?
Mcdonalds can't be responsible for other peoples stupidity. If this case holds up, then why hasn't every fat person in the US sued mcdonalds for making them fat?
It's reasonable to expect a normal person to know that crashing a car when you're going real fast will hurt you, a lot. It's not so reasonable to expect coffee to do so much damage you need skin grafts. I mean, we've all spilled boiling water or coffee or whatever on ourselves before, how many times did it result in such serious injury we needed to go to the hospital?
There actually was a lawsuit against McDonald's for making two kids fat (Pelman v McDonald's Corp) and they had a legitimate case (although it failed) as, while it might be reasonable to expect fast food to be unhealthy, it's unreasonable to expect people to know just how incredibly bad it can be - ie cause massive obesity in children. It sparked off a wave of lawsuits against McDonald's in many states for corporate liability and the huge anti-fast food wave of the early 00s was what led to such "health food" reform and nutrition focus in fast food chains.
Plainly speaking, it's okay to blame people for being stupid and not knowing the risks of something they're doing, but not okay when there's no way of them knowing just how incredible those risks are (because you never tell them).
This lady must have been wearing NO PANTS or any clothes at all for that matter if it caused burns of that severity. Either that, or she just has some of the weakest skin known to man...This lady was just a pussy. End of story.
There is a third alternative - your ignorance. As already stated, the temperature of the coffee had the potential to cause third degree burns, which did in fact happen. Worse is that this woman was wearing cotton sweat pants which stuck to her skin as a result of the spilt coffee. But why am I explaining this to you? Go read the case for yourself, maybe then you can come back with something that hasn't already been argued.
So, as of this morning, I have filed claims to the Milky Way area of our Universe.
For now I do not plan to charge people for living in my territory, I might in the future charge $1per person. This fee will have to be paid every year of course, as I am fairly reasonable person.
p.s. I am in no way shape or form responsible for cosmic events that might destroy your property and or planet.
On November 28 2010 03:35 JeeJee wrote: thanks gnosis
just annoys me when people think "herp derp of course coffee is hot dont spill it on yourself dummy" =( im sure y'all expect (in liebeck's case) days of hospital stay to undergo skin grafting and losing 20% of your bodyweight if you spill a coffee on yourself, right
All im saying is, she should've been more careful. If you purchase a lambo and drive it on the autobahn at 300km/h and crash it and paralyze yourself, would you sue them because they made a car go too fast?
Mcdonalds can't be responsible for other peoples stupidity. If this case holds up, then why hasn't every fat person in the US sued mcdonalds for making them fat?
It's reasonable to expect a normal person to know that crashing a car when you're going real fast will hurt you, a lot. It's not so reasonable to expect coffee to do so much damage you need skin grafts. I mean, we've all spilled boiling water or coffee or whatever on ourselves before, how many times did it result in such serious injury we needed to go to the hospital?
There actually was a lawsuit against McDonald's for making two kids fat (Pelman v McDonald's Corp) and they had a legitimate case (although it failed) as, while it might be reasonable to expect fast food to be unhealthy, it's unreasonable to expect people to know just how incredibly bad it can be - ie cause massive obesity in children. It sparked off a wave of lawsuits against McDonald's in many states for corporate liability and the huge anti-fast food wave of the early 00s was what led to such "health food" reform and nutrition focus in fast food chains.
Plainly speaking, it's okay to blame people for being stupid and not knowing the risks of something they're doing, but not okay when there's no way of them knowing just how incredible those risks are (because you never tell them).
This lady must have been wearing NO PANTS or any clothes at all for that matter if it caused burns of that severity. Either that, or she just has some of the weakest skin known to man...This lady was just a pussy. End of story.
There is a third alternative - your ignorance. As already stated, the temperature of the coffee had the potential to cause third degree burns, which did in fact happen. Worse is that this woman was wearing cotton sweat pants which stuck to her skin as a result of the spilt coffee. But why am I explaining this to you? Go read the case for yourself, maybe then you can come back with something that hasn't already been argued.
Two minutes of continous contact with water at 65C, the recommended temperature at which to drink coffee, will cause third degree burns too. Water at any temperature over 45C is dangerous if you are exposed to it long enough and the method of her exposure ensured that she was exposed to it for long enough.
On-topic, its funny as hell and lol at all the people taking it seriously.
At one point in history people use to claim ownership of other people. The only reason people take any kind of ownership of things that they did not produce or earn is because of the threat of force. If it was China or the US claiming ownership of the sun I am sure this claim would be taken seriously but because this women can't do !@#! to any of use we can just laugh and ridiculer her.
Haha I hope lots of people sue her for damages done because her sun destroyed stuff. She already owes me 1 carton of milk + a set of curtains + emotional stress.
Looks like someone beat this chick to the punch. She should do her research first next time.
This guy also does it the right way by first and foremost saying he isn't responsible for Skin Cancer, Sunburns, etc. He was also introduced by one UN offical to another as "The Man Who Owns The Sun" so I think this guys claim is more legit. Also this guy isn't trying to charge for the use of the sun like other wannabe sun-owners.
I would love if this guy read the report and decided to make a fool of her. He clearly dislikes this sort of thing, so he should indeed set an example.
im gonna claim the planet Mars and SUE NASA For getting into my planet without my approval. they are working on a new high tech developed robot that can operate and find out if water or what kind of mineral it is when it has drilled them rocks, they will launch it soon 2011-2013
On November 28 2010 11:48 Mawi wrote: im gonna claim the planet Mars and SUE NASA For getting into my planet without my approval. they are working on a new high tech developed robot that can operate and find out if water or what kind of mineral it is when it has drilled them rocks, they will launch it soon 2011-2013
Man im gonna be rich :3
And all that water will be yours! Think of all the tea you can make!
On November 28 2010 11:48 Mawi wrote: im gonna claim the planet Mars and SUE NASA For getting into my planet without my approval. they are working on a new high tech developed robot that can operate and find out if water or what kind of mineral it is when it has drilled them rocks, they will launch it soon 2011-2013
Man im gonna be rich :3
And all that water will be yours! Think of all the tea you can make!
sorry to break it to you but mars has already been claimed.
On November 27 2010 17:04 freezeframe wrote: So who's up for boycotting the Sun?
Truly this is what Marx meant when he said that capitalism would eventually meet its end. The abolition of private property is now our only recourse! WORKING MEN OF ALL NATIONS, UNITE!
The concept is valid, though it's unenforceable in this particular case. It's called 'claim of right' and you probably use it every day.
For example, you're in a room full of people and there is an apple on the table. You take it and say: "Hey guys, do you mind if I take this apple?", and if nobody objects to that within 'reasonable' time (the claimer decides how much is 'reasonable'), the apple is 100% yours and you can do with it whatever you wish.
Unbelievably powerful and all you need are words and a correct attitude.
One dude had an idea to stake a claim to a prison and the land it is on, and then say to prisoners: "What are you doing in here? Get out of my property!" :-)
On November 28 2010 18:13 greendestiny wrote: The concept is valid, though it's unenforceable in this particular case. It's called 'claim of right' and you probably use it every day.
For example, you're in a room full of people and there is an apple on the table. You take it and say: "Hey guys, do you mind if I take this apple?", and if nobody objects to that within 'reasonable' time (the claimer decides how much is 'reasonable'), the apple is 100% yours and you can do with it whatever you wish.
Unbelievably powerful and all you need are words and a correct attitude.
One dude had an idea to stake a claim to a prison and the land it is on, and then say to prisoners: "What are you doing in here? Get out of my property!" :-)
i wonder if this lady is going to go after national geographic for selling documentaries in which the sun appears and make some bullshit claim about IP rights
Let's say that tomorrow I go to a notary to claim the ownership of the center of the earth, that no one has claimed before. Then governments will have to pay me for using "my" center of the earth to have their countries on. That's just ridiculous.
lol those star registers or w/e they're called have no legal authority to give ownership in any galactic entity. They only exist so guys can impress their girlfriends lol. Just like you cant own the clouds by saying you own them, you actually have to use it, or alter it in some way. If she went there and decided to live on the sun, she could claim the land that she could reasonably use on the sun. But she would also be liable for all of the reasonably foreseeable harm caused by her property lol. I want to see a class action suit against her with like 3 billion people suing for sun burns and heat stroke
The thing that makes me laugh the most about this whole topic is that it is so insanely similar to intellectual property law...
1. Not enforceable 2. Your usage of it is independent of others usage 3. Morally reprehensible 4. Provides a great example of why "first" is a retarded way to think about ownership 5. You really can't take credit for it
ROFL, this woman's gotta GTFO. Especially since I now claim all of the air within the ozone layer as my own. People can't claim a gas as their property, but no one said you can't own gases. She better start paying me or die of hypoxia, or she's gonna get sued!
Ms Angeles Duran, 49, told the online edition of daily El Mundo she took the step in September after reading about an American man who had registered himself as the owner of the moon and most planets in our Solar System.
wait wait wait.... whaaat? why did no one stop this retard?
There was no snag, I backed my claim legally, I am not stupid, I know the law. I did it but anyone else could have done it, it simply occurred to me first.'
I love how stupid people always love to say they aren't stupid.
I have a couple of lawyer buddies that are actually gearing up to file for mass genocide against this woman. Unfortunately they can only apply damage done since she obtained property. Fortunately Africa is in a constant losing war with the Sun.
She's obviously just a troll. And a pretty dumb one; I wonder how much the legal fees are. The true winnar here is the notary who probably got paid a pretty penny to sign the papers, or even just her lawyer.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://gerrycanavan.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/simpsons-sun-744577.png?w=287)
![[image loading]](http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:gLiuV7Wg6zJxfM:http://claytravis.net/mailbag/uploaded_images/montgomery-burns-700445.gif&t=1)
![[image loading]](http://noticiasdiarias1.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/sol_duena_angeles_duran-1.jpg?w=250&h=162)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/8FptV.jpg)
