Yoko Ono...wins legal proceeding in NYC! Lennon footage exclusively hers...

Twitter pal - Yoko Ono - must have been jumping up & down with joy over the past twenty-four hours when a court ruling in her favor was entered into the public record.

Judge Rya W. Zobel, at the U.S. District Court, found that Lennon's widow was not liable for damages arising from a copyright-infringement lawsuit which was lodged against her at a Boston courthouse by a Massachusetts-based company seeking exclusive title to rare footage of the former mop-head.

At issue, were ten hours of footage shot on location in jolly old England at John's tony estate in February (1970), in which the controversial member of the Fab Four (still a Beatle at that time) openly smoked marijuana and wickedly joked about slipping a hit of LSD into President Nixon's tea.

Although the court has ruled that Yoko is (and was) the rightful copyright holder, there is still one niggling detail that intrigues us (former "heads") in respect to the psychedelic end of the insidious plot to get tricky "Dick" stoned out of his gourde.

Was there a particular underground brand of LSD that John favored?

Purple microdot - or windowpane - perchance?

What say, Yoko?

http://www.julianayrs.com

Bank of America...U.S. District Court settlement!

Today, I received a rather official-looking legal document in the mail from the United States District Court.

In a prior post, I noted that the "Evil Empire" - the Bank of America - was being sued in a class-action suit for dinging credit card holders with questionable charges from 1996 until 2006, respectively...and that I was a plaintiff in the proceedings.

According to the notice, the U.S. District Court has arrived at a settlement agreement with the banking giant.

Plaintiffs in the proceeding may choose one of three settlement options.

In the first refund option, parties to the action may choose what is referred to as an "easy refund" or flat sum. This offer is suggested for individuals who travelled outside of the U.S. for less than one week, or had foreign transactions of less than $2,500.00, using eligible credit cards during the 1996 to 2006 period.

In the alternative, a plaintiff may choose a second option - a total estimation refund based on typical spending - supported by particulars in respect to travel outside of the U.S. The second offer is recommended for those who travelled abroad for more than one week or had foreign transactions of more than $2,500.00 using eligible cards during the same time span cited in Option No. 1 above.

The third settlement offer amounts to a refund based on information provided concerning annual estimated foreign transactions during 1996 thru 2006. This choice is recommended for those with extensive foreign travel or foreign transactions who are willing to submit year-by-year documented information in support of the claim. Refunds, in this instance, will be a maximum of 1% to 3% of foreign transactions.

Well, I'm settling for Option 1.

Heh, Christmas is coming up; the extra cash will come in handy!