BY KARL CHANG
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ames.
)Karl CHANG ) and )1,000 viewers of the Harvard )Law School Parody ) ) PLAINTIFFS ) Civil Action Docket No. 24601 ) v. ) )Justin SHANES, Director of ) Harvard Law School Parody, )et al ) Trial by Single Combat Demanded ) DEFENDANTS ) )
Since people seem to be filing complaints against the Parody, I thought I’d add mine.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ames
KARL CHANG and 1,000 other viewers of the Harvard Law School Parody who did not view it on the premiere night, Plaintiffs v. JUSTIN SHANES, director of the Harvard Law School Parody, et al, Defendants
Civil Action Docket No. 24601
Trial by Single Combat Demanded
Nature of the Case
1. This suit seeks to remedy the grievous injuries that Shanes and other “Head Writers” of the Parody have wreaked upon Karl Chang and the Harvard Law School community through the abomination that they called “Lawst: The Harvard Law School Parody 2006”
Parties
2. Karl Chang is an investigative satirist for the Record. You may know him from such columns as “Roger Pao: Oriental or Orientalist?” “Kagan’s Folly,” and its follow-up, “Sucks to Your Folly, Dean Kagan.”
3. Justin Shanes “directed” this year’s Harvard Law School Parody and is listed as a “Head Writer.” Esteemed investigative satirists like Karl Chang have described him as an “access comedian” who depends on currying favor with Dean Kagan for jokes rather than laboring the hard work of comedy.
Jurisdiction and Venue (boring legal stuff)
4. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.