My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Andy Martin says British author J. K. Rowling is a judicial terrorist

Andy Martin says Harry potter's "mommy" is a witch. Martin says Rowling's lawsuit filed in a federal court in New York is an insult to the intelligence, and the law. "We need a British judge sitting in court with a pile of horsehair on his head, to call Ms. Rowling's claims horse manure and give her a sound thrashing," Andy suggests.

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”




(NEW YORK)(April 16, 2008)(Exclusive) Great Britain's latest export to the United States is judicial terrorism. A lawsuit has been filed in federal court in New York by a psychotic egomaniac. She also happens to be billionaire J. K. Rowling and author of the Harry Potter series.

Ms. Rowling has been quoted as saying that Harry Potter "saved my sanity." (N.Y. Post April 15, 2008) Sadly, that is not the case. Ms. Rowling is still nutty as a loon.

Rowling and Warner Brothers have sued a hapless fan of Harry Potter for compiling an online compendium of characters in Potterland, which the fan now wants to publish in book form.

Rowling claims that her own frivolous lawsuit has "decimated her creative work" over the past month. In other words, she claims to have shot herself in the foot over anguish at her own legal claims. Sure. If she were any nuttier, the trial would have to be suspended to allow her to be hospitalized. The billionaires psycho travels surrounded by "so many lawyers and bodyguards in tow, it looked as if she were expecting an attack…" (N. Y. Post, April 15, 2008). Paranoia anyone?

Rowling claims she has been planning a Potter encyclopedia for a decade, and has had plans to distribute profits to an undisclosed charity. But she has done nothing for ten years. This is the first time I am aware that inchoate "plans" to do something have precipitated a lawsuit against someone who has actually taken action.

Along came "librarian" Steven Jan Vander Ark to compile his online "Lexicon" which, in Rowling's own words merely listed characters in alphabetical order while adding no commentary or analysis (NYP). Rowling claims that Ark's compilation is "sloppy" and "lazy." Then why is she filing a federal court lawsuit to block publication of something that can't succeed? Oh, Rowling admits to having used Mr. Ark's material herself, because of its usefulness. Maybe Ark's work was not as sloppy and lazy as she testified in federal court.

In her rather insulting claim to "Britishness," Rowling appears to assert that residents of the United Kingdom do not cry. Really? This is testimony in a U. S. federal court? Rowling not only claims to own the copyrights to her own books, her testimony seems to suggest she owns her readers as well. Rowling not only wants to control Ark; she wants to control the purchasing decisions of millions of Potter fans.

It is obvious that Rowling is still very mentally unstable, and that she is protected from reality by a gaggle of high-powered and high-priced handlers and bodyguards who insulate the poor loon from the real world. Does she have a psychiatrist? She needs one. Instead of filing a lawsuit, she should have asked Harry Potter to intercede.

Why is Rowling's lawsuit nutty? Because even material that is copyrighted can be used in "fair use" ways. I can quote from the New York Post, for example, formally attributing longer quotations and grabbing a word or two with quotation marks in a short piece. The New York Post is copyrighted. I can compile a compendium of newspaper articles, all of which are copyrighted, without violating the copyrights.

Rowling's travesty of the juridical system is indicative that even with a billion dollars in her pocket she is still unstable and, it appears, insatiably greedy and manipulative. The opening statement of defendant Ark called her a megalomaniac and control freak (NYP) and she is at least that and probably worse. But then no one ever said authors or creative people had to be nice people. They usually aren’t.

Rowling claims her work is being "exploited" and that is her reason to file a frivolous lawsuit in federal court in New York. Rowling's lawyers do establish one principle, however. If you are a billionaire, even a nutty client and a nutty claim can get to trial before a federal judge. If an ordinary person had a similarly vacuous argument he or she would have been dismissed long ago. Merely because of who she was, Rowling became entitled to "justice" in New York.

The United States Supreme Court in Feist v. Rural Telephone, 499 U. S. 340, 111 S.Ct. 1282 (1991) seems to have come close to addressing Rowling's argument, and rejected the claim. Thus, Rowling knows she probably won't win in the end. She probably filed her lawsuit to harass, intimidate and financially break a fan. Disgraceful. We need a British judge sitting in court with a pile of horsehair on his head, to call Ms. Rowling's claims horse manure and give her a sound thrashing.

I have a pretty good track record of predicting which way litigation is going to go. And, while I don’t want to hex Mr. Ark, I think he should win his lawsuit. Rowling is filing an arrogant, petulant, mean-spirited lawsuit in the hopes of terrorizing Mr. Ark and other admirers of her work.

As for me, far be it to invoke Harry Potter. But if I could, I would ask Master Potter to cast a spell on Ms. Rowling, and restore her sanity. She is a complete nutcake.

I hope she doesn't sue me for this.
------------------------------------------ Chicago-based Internet investigative columnist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at;


Post a Comment

<< Home