The Joel Bieber Firm

A Seinfeld episode in 2004 became “talked about” TV because the subject matter dealt with discrimination. It was known as the Anti-Dentite episode. Kramer accused Jerry of being a rabid anti-dentite. That’s someone who is discriminating against dentists. The script of the show included the following:

So you won’t believe what happened with Whatley today. It got back to him that I made this little dentist joke and he got all offended. Those people can be so touchy.
KRAMER: Those people, listen to yourself.
JERRY: What?
KRAMER: You think that dentists are so different from me and you? They came to this country just like everybody else, in search of a dream.
JERRY: Kramer, he’s just a dentist.
KRAMER: Yeah, and you’re an anti-dentite.

JERRY: I am not an anti-dentite!
KRAMER: You’re a rabid anti-dentite! Oh, it starts with a few jokes and some slurs. “Hey, denty!” Next thing you know you’re saying they should have their own schools.
JERRY: They do have their own schools!
KRAMER: Yeah!….

The reason behind the Seinfeld episode was obviously humor. However, it also was a message that not everything is done as an attack, with discrimination being the reason. Disagreement doesn’t have to be discrimination.

Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder would probably differ with that last statement. That’s because He has filed suit (copy of lawsuit) against the “Washington City Paper”, claiming that they defamed him and made anti-Semitic references, based on the picture above, that they included in the story.

Snyder filed suit for 2 million, plus damages, and claimed (story) that the drawing of the facial hair and horns, were an attack on his Jewish heritage, and that the story was “lies, half-truths, innuendo and anti-Semitic imagery (the picture) to smear, malign, defame and slander Snyder”.

The orginal article in the “Washington City Paper” (attached here), outlined many “hilarious or heinous deeds” (per the article) that they claim are things that occurred by the way that Snyder has conducted business in many of his dealings with the Redskins, and his other business.

As to these “deeds”, the newspaper says that “we believe that we have the facts right”. As to the photo, they say that it was meant to “resemble the type of scribbling that teenagers everywhere have been using to deface photos for years.”

The newspaper’s response to the lawsuit, set forth by editor Amy Austin, (Here) is too long for the blog, but also full of nuggets, like the original article.

Some of the allegations that are set forth in the original article that has brought the lawsuit, include Snyder selling peanuts at the stadium, that had a bankrupt airlines name on them. That’s not too serious, except that the airline, Independence Air, had been bankrupt for a year and peanuts are supposedly not to be kept in those containers, for more than 3 months.

Another, to give you a taste of the story, is the reaction of Health officials, when they learned that Snyder had been selling beer in the restrooms. Snyder allegedly sold 9/11 caps for profit, which amounted to a Redskin Hat with “commemorate September 11″ on the side of the hat. No other team did that for profit or otherwise. It was also noted that Snyder had added a $4 “security surcharge” to the tickets, following the 9/11 attacks.

This Snyder lawsuit appears to be brought to make the newspaper spend a lot of money, to defend the case. I’m surprised that, in his probable vindictive motive,  Danny would be bringing all his business dealings to the courtroom. Plus, already, there are Snyder enemies who are raising a defense fund for the paper.

 Throughout this blog, my tone is questioning the reason to bring the lawsuit. Of course, I also have to question the venue, where Snyder filed this suit. It’s filed in New York and my guess is that, there probably aren’t a lot of Redskins’ fans in that area.

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!