By Jack Titanium-Nickelloy
Special to YNOT

LOS ANGELES – It seems like every time you turn around these days, there’s another story about a deeply biased judge sticking it to an innocent party in their courtroom.

Whether it’s some Mexican unsealing documents that paint a prestigious non-university in a negative light, or a panel of liberal activists upholding a completely unfair set of sanctions filed against fearless defenders of intellectual property, the judicial branch in this country has turned into a gaggle of politically correct player-haters.

As I explained in an exclusive interview with YNOT last year, despite all the anger directed at me by freeloading hippy content thieves on the internet, I’ve never actually been associated with any law firm, especially those of which at one time or another I appear to have been a named partner.

This doesn’t mean, however, I’m going to sit idly by while my former non-colleagues get railroaded by an unfair justice system, or panned as “copyright trolls” by bloggers, journalists and their co-conspirators in the legal profession.

To be clear, despite what you’ve heard about the settlement demand letters I was never a part of sending in the first place, all of we lawyers unaffiliated with Aderpa Law, Hagendaz & Titanium-Nickelloy and Piracy = Bad LLLEP ever wanted to do by sending those letters was to protect our clients’ valuable, copyrighted pornographic works from exploitation by content pirates.

While you may not believe sending disabled pensioners a demand for thousands of dollars under the threat of outing them as depraved perverts is the best approach to stopping porn piracy, what you don’t realize is this is exactly how the FBI took down John Capone — or maybe it was Al Dillinger. Either way, the point is the same: Threatening old people with financial and reputational ruin is just how things get done in this country’s legal system, whether you like it or not.

I’m sure some of you also doubt my assertion there was manifest bias in the 9^th Circus Court of Lapels decision to uphold the sanctions against me and the other attorneys with whom I used to share an office and marquee, but with whom I was never actually associated. Once I present my evidence, though, I’m confident you’ll be persuaded, just as everybody now agrees Donald Trump was 110-percent right about Judge Gonzalo El Mexicano Viva La Raza Curiel.

What if I told you all three judges on the panel that heard the appeal of our sanctions is a known downloader of illegal porn? I’m not saying I can prove this, mind you, but I think we can all agree it stands to reason. I mean, why else would they rule against me and my former non-colleagues? You think they did so acting on the so-called “merits” of the case? Don’t make me laugh!

Look, I’m trying to build a wall between my clients’ content and the pirates who are overrunning the borders of our internet, raping our data and taking our porn industry jobs, so the mere fact these judges have eyeballs with which they could watch pirated porn introduces an obvious conflict of interest.

As to the alleged merits of the case, according to the judge who originally sanctioned me and my former non-colleagues, we supposedly “lied” to the court. But when it came to proving we had done so, the only evidence anyone could offer against us was a series of official documents and on-record statements that appear to be entirely false and/or contradict one another.

It’s important to remember, however, just because someone is saying something they know to be completely untrue doesn’t necessarily make them a “liar.” The person saying the untrue things could be confused, mentally ill, highly forgetful or one of my former unaffiliated paralegals, a position for which I never actually hired anybody, but was for a brief time, admittedly, filled by a close friend of mine who turned out, in retrospect, not to exist.

As much as I regret the mistake of hiring a nonexistent friend not to serve as a paralegal in my non-firm, I can’t be held responsible for untrue things he may or may not have emailed using my personal email account, nor can I explain why he’d occasionally use my signature block, answer my cellphone, or hire and contract with other nonexistent individuals with whom I also have never been associated.

What I can say, with total confidence, is my nonexistent former friend and non-employee is inscrutably honest — assuming I’m right that the word “inscrutably” means he’s very unlikely to ever get laid by being as honest as he is.

As for the fight over the sanctions, believe me it’s far from over. I’m confident the irrational, unfair, incredibly unjust decision rendered by the three-judge panel will be overturned when the matter is heard “in bank” — which is, for those unfamiliar with legal parlance, a Latin term meaning “by smarter judges.”

On the other hand, the 9^th Circus is known for being an invariably pirate-friendly jurisdiction, so it’s possible even when our case is heard in bank, things might not go our way. Should that happen, rest assured we’ll appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, where I’m sure we’ll get a fair shake from Chief Justice Diana Ross and his backup judges.

Most importantly, though, I want producers and creators to know I and my non-colleagues remain committed to protecting our clients’ intellectual property via our latest innovative method: Declaring pornographers to be a protected class, then suing college students for violating the civil rights of minorities by illegally downloading interracial gangbang videos.

Hey, don’t laugh. That’s exactly how the FDA took down the KKK, or maybe it’s how the NAACP took down the AFL-CIO.

Either way, the point is that our tireless fight for our clients’ intellectual property rights goes on… At least until the printer runs out of toner again.