They're spectacular.

I'm weighed to my Blackberry, I've got to pay for sodas, I've got nothing left to look forward to but these ...

Ah, there's nothing to grab onto! You're like a boy down there!

I don't get the pageant lawyer's argument. The contents of her breasts remain private regardless of whether or not she parades around in a bikini. Perhaps a plastic surgeon, upon careful examination, might be able to determine whether they're fake, but the general population cannot tell by looking at them, on TV, covered up.

"Had she heeded the guidance of the Gospel of John, who admonished only those who are without sin to cast stones in judgment, she might have avoided this legal battle — which will ultimately reveal the hypocrisy of Carrie Prejean"

This is in the complaint? Seriesly?

I suppose that no woman who walks around in a bikini on the beach is entitled to keep her medical history private, at least with respect to breast augmentation.

-4

Enhanced or not, I'd do her.

Isn't it hottt that Kash handles all the sexy posts?

"Prejean took sued the..."

5:

Wow, the lawyers can't even get their sources right. It's the Gospel [according to] John, in which John quotes Jesus re: casting of stones. John did not so admonish.

-4

She's got creepy eye in the right photo. You can't be a beauty queen with a lazy eyelid. Totally throws off the symmetry.

Comment removed by moderator.

The minute a woman wears a bikini...WTF? The pageant hired a lawyer that said this?

This still goes back to the fact that the only problem they had with her was her answer. They try to disparage her based on the hypocrisy that a Christian would have implants while saying that gay marriage is wrong. How dare she be such a hypocrite.

This also goes to the ridiculousness of non-Christians trying to turn the Bible back on people for their hypocrisy. It never sounds right and just looks ignorant.

Why does no one realize how important my comments are on this website?

Her religious beliefs also encourage implants...

--Captain Obvious.

5. You are a jerk and an illogical one at that. I don't mind sharing air with people whose critical thinking capacity is so limited because I know I can destroy them in court, where reason prevails (usually).

There is simply no connection/contradiction between being against same-sex marriage and taking some topless photos. They have topless beaches in some states that don't allow gay marriage.

That second photo is pretty obviously (to say, clumsily) touched up for the face. Particularly the eyes. Who is to say the boobs weren't touched up?

But the California pageant officials are sure working to goose the book sales. They probably deserve a cut.

The don't look any bigger in the after shot.

Kash, are you a natural woman down there or are you more of the Brazilian type?

The don't look any bigger in the after shot.

wait a minute... so still no word on Elie? wtf?

He posted earlier today, so apparently he's still here.

Elie has been Zorned, they took away his offensive play calling duties. He will be fired when ATL starts the bye week.

Can we moderate 12 please?

18/20 - you are blind. 4 is too.

24 - Clicking on links that commenters post on this site may be disasterous to your career.

--Captain Obvious

he's still here, but where's the story. come one atl... you post on all the juicy gossip except YOUR OWN?

maybe we need another site... below the law (sorry, that guy had some truly lame shtick)... but seriously, who is going to report on the juicy gossip at ATL? i need Marin to do a True/Slant post or something.

I'm with 4/6. Any lawyer should be able to come with better than this.

But, even accepting their premise, are we to assume that some substantial portion of viewers have tivo's, backed up the tape, froze the frame on her tits, then compared to earlier images of her? Because the augmentation isn't even obvious in side by side photos. It surely wouldn't be obvious in passing to tv viewers.

Kind of a lame counterclaim, really. They have plenty of good claims against her, like for breach of contract and failure to repay the money owed. No reason to make outlandish statements about giving up her right to privacy. They should get better counsel who doesn't stoop to her level. The nature of that for which she was lent the money doesn't really need to be a part of the claim. They're just trying to smear her and they will probably get smacked down for it.

16--5 here. I don't think I'm the author of the post to which you took offense. Please retract your views that I am a jerk. Thanks.

5

24:

If you can't figure out for yourself that clicking on that link is a bad idea, you deserve whatever is on the other side of it.

10:

The Greek is translated as either "Gospel of John" or "According to John." Some pastors I know say "The Gospel according to John" in sermons, but that's not a literal translation.

31:

Agreed; there are multiple ways one can translate the title. I phrased the title like I did to emphasize that Jesus admonished people not to cast the first stone - not John, as the complaint reads.

"The truth about Prejean’s breasts “ceased being private during the swimsuit competition of the nationally televised Miss USA pageant, in which Ms. Prejean walked the stage in a bikini”

WTF?

Also, we want news on Elie. Is he fired? He really should be. The Quinn fiasco has to be the last straw.

anyone who can't, at first glance, tell those are fake boobs needs to look at more boobs.

Was she able to get through airport metal detectors after the surgery without being stopped?

meh. She looks better in the 'before' picture, imho.

36 has no appreciation for the female form.

Maybe you should take the time to proofread your posts BEFORE posting them rather than posting first and proofreading second. If you're going to edit a post after it has been published, at least have the good sense to note that it has been updated to fix typos. Otherwise, how are we supposed to know when you are revising posts to cover your major mistakes or just proofreading - trust you? FAIL.

I would rather see Kash's beautiful breasts than see Mystal's moooobs.

SMU2L

The most offensive thing to gay people should be "The Bachelor" or "The Bachelorette." It's like telling gay people: "You can't get married because that would sully the holy institution of marriage, but we'll be over here getting married for celebrity's sake on a TV show for a few months until the book deal goes through."
It would be like back in the 50's if there was a black guy trying to drink from a broken colored water fountain and the white people were using their drinking fountain to wash their dogs' ass. Religion is cancer.

Wow can we get a bit of a warning that Miss CA is going to be show in two full screen shots. On another note.....

13 nailed it. This case is a no-brainer.

First !

I'm sure the California Pageant committee would have taken these exact same steps if Prejean hadn't been crushed by the liberal media for her views. Surely no other pageant contestant has ever been bitchy or mean to someone. The real issue here is the fact that liberals want to destroy any public figure who doesn't go along with their agenda. Truly, we live in a fascist society where someone cannot express their views without sacrificing their career and livelihood. If she had come out in favor of gay marriage and this stuff had happened, everyone would be freaking out and calling the ACLU or whatever. Hypocrisy at its finest!

13, 42,

I'll have to see more "evidence."

@37 - I do, actually. I just appreciate the *real* female form rather than the silicone-enhanced, air-brushed variety.

45,
As a Christian, we all want to see more evidence of the talent in our ranks.

Sincerely,
13, not 42.

40 -- I laughed out loud, nice post -- thoughtful and funny.

I want to know what it takes to get your comment removed by the moderator.

Good job 40.

Now can we go back to posts on gay things?

-a Gay

44,

Did you actually watch the pageant? No one in their right mind who did could actually think that she deserved to win. It's not the fact that she opposed same-sex marriage that was the problem, it was the fact that her answer was rambling nonsense. "I think it's great that we can choose to have same marriage or opposite marriage" and then goes on to support laws banning "same marriage." It was rambling and entirely incoherent, as opposed to the intelligent answer presented by the pageant's winner.

Then look at the timeline. Her answer got no media attention for several days because, well, no one cared that she opposed same-sex marriage. She then started bringing attnetion to herself going around whining that she lost because she opposed same-sex marriage, not because her answer was rambling nonsense, and then it suddenly became a "vast, liberal conspiracy" against her. Bullshit. You conservatives really need to pick some better heroes.

I like how every single post by a female ATL contributor is either some snarky attack on a better-looking/more successful woman, or tedious, uninteresting dating/relationship tripe.

Women take note: this is why men don't respect you.

Actually, she's paraded around *in public* in a bikini without implants, then with implants. Either she went through a growth spurt in her 20s or she got breast implants.

13, this has nothing to do with the nonsensical fairy tale that both you and she subscribe to. It has to do with contract law.

Religion is for the mentally weak.

I hope this argument comes back to bite liberals in the ass. They are essentially arguing that there is no right to privacy since she wore a swimsuit.

That would essentially invalidate everyone's (judicially created and imaginary) right to privacy who appeared in public. The only people with the right to privacy would be agrophobes.

If they win on that count this will be great, I will enjoy the asshole liberals trying to recreate the right to privacy they want (but pissed away by being short-sighted) while trying to explain why her right to privacy wasn't important.

Is that my popcorn I smell?

51,

I have yet to yet to witness a great oralist coming out of the pageant.

54, see my comment above. She didn't keep her cleavage private. She chose to expose herself nearly nude in public on several occasions where the sudden change in the size of her breasts is clearly visible. It's not like they're prying into her records to find the 8 or 9 abortions she's probably had.

Pretty girl, certainly. Might be out of her depth on this. Still, I'd really like to know the substance of those conversations.

Interesting point, #51.

@ #54, I'm sorry you're so hateful, but I nonetheless think you might have a valid point.

-- ET!

Let me be clear, this will not happen after my healthcare reforms are adopted. A women such as Ms. Prejean who wanted to augment her appearance through surgery would have to wait so long for a government plastic surgeon she would no longer be competitive due to advanced age. Additionally, after I have taken the profit out of plastic surgery, any remaining plastic surgeons will be incapable of doing such fine work and augmented breasts will be deformed/lopsided and thus uncompetitive.

In summation, no woman should have the option to have such fine breasts until all women can have the exact same breasts. In other words, enjoy them now because soon we are going back to mother nature.

Barack x.

Her face looks much better in the before shot.

First the Craigslist Penthouse letter, now this? Huge improvement over the usual ATL tripe.

51- actually, I think her comments were picked up by entertainment news shows pretty immediately (particularly since Perez Hilton was Twittering his reaction to it or responses to other's reactions). But I agree...her being a whiny biotch about it didn't help her cause.

As for breast implants-- I'm a straight chick and feel pretty sure she got a boob job based on the photo's, but...it's entirely possible she didn't have them...with enough tape to create cleavage and cutlets to create the shape of a boob in the cups of the bikini-- short of seeing her naked it would be hard to be certain, since her boob job didn't go all crazy with the size increase.

55- no...being a great "oralist" possibly got them into the competition or the finals. Ha ha ha.

Spinal Tap bit (unimaginatively rehashing bits from the movie without legal connection)=STILL EPIC FAIL

The attorney writing the counterclaim needs to quit writing for the PR machine and focus on the claims he/she really wants to win. I don't know about the rest of you, but I find that judges generally view these outlandish pleadings as a sign the case is shit and the party bringing it really doesn't have anything to support it besides the bluster.

Boob job tastefully done, which is a refreshing change. I'll never understand the chicks who think it's hot to go from totally flat to 50EEEE -- don't they realize how freakish they look? And yes, I'm looking at you Ivanka Trump.

meh...she's ok. Could use a couple of ass lobster implants, imho.

54-

The fact that she appeared in public, "nearly nude," with what appears to be a different breast size doesn't prove that she had augmentation. With a difference that slight, she might be wearing a push-up bra.

This is a terrible argument and it will be laughed out of court. Oh, wait - was this suit filed in CA? - then nevermind.

One more reason to convert to Islam. Mohammad (PBUH) would never allow this

One more reason to convert to Islam. Mohammad (PBUH) would never allow this

Er, I meant to address 56, not 54.

-66

As a duly elected representative of the IBTC, the correct answer is: BEFORE.

66- I'm sure in Texasistan or Saudi Dakota whatever theocracy you live in something like that might fly when your plaintiff is a "save traditional marriage" mouthpiece.

There are *dozens* if not hundreds of shots of her in very skimpy bikinis, not "push up bras."

PS- traditional marriage (or "opposite marriage") involves women being property of their husbands and handing over all their personal property at marriage. If you "save traditional marriage" jeezus zombies are down for that, I'll have some respect for sticking to your true beliefs. California was the first state to ban such practices in 1949 (I think, someone can look that up). Took the rest of the fly- over and ignore states a couple decades to catch up.

66- I'm sure in Texasistan or Saudi Dakota whatever theocracy you live in something like that might fly when your plaintiff is a "save traditional marriage" mouthpiece.

There are *dozens* if not hundreds of shots of her in very skimpy bikinis, not "push up bras." We're not talking about comparing one "before" to one "after" picture, there are entire catalogs of pictures both before and after. When you're a famewhore, you get lots of pictures taken.

PS- traditional marriage (or "opposite marriage") involves women being property of their husbands and handing over all their personal property at marriage. If you "save traditional marriage" jeezus zombies are down for that, I'll have some respect for sticking to your true beliefs. California was the first state to ban such practices in 1949 (I think, someone can look that up). Took the rest of the fly- over and ignore states a couple decades to catch up.

Short of reconstructive breast surgery after cancer, women get breast implants for attention. I haven't met one girl who has gotten breast implants, and then covers them up 100% of the time. Every single girl with implants is out there wearing a bandanna as a shirt with no bra. So, when they claim that breast implants are private, I find that laughable and convenient.

-A woman

72-

Spend all day looking at boobies, eh? You sound like a jealous lesbian feminazi.

I hope the dumb slut gets what she deserves: having her tits taken away and being sent to Iraq. What a spoiled, entitled whore.

The bigger the chest fruit,
The meaner the law suit,

Or so I have read . . . .

71-

consider all options. Perhaps she's on the pill. That can significantly enlarge breasts, certainly to the degree we are seeing. If the pageant lawyers want to invade her privacy, the burden is on them to show that she had augmentation and to exclude other reasonable possibilites. What say ye to that?

-66

62 is nitpicking, like all of our critics. Good post David.

isn't the pill against her religion? Shouldn't she be pushing abstinence?

that way you can save yourself for your opposite marriage, just like she undoubtedly has. Because if she opposed gay marriage because of her religious beliefs while having premarital sex directly in violation of her religious beliefs, she would be a hypocrite. Oh yeah, all christians are hypocrites.

Do you own slaves? (Lev 25:44, OT, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Peter 2:18, Titus 2:9 NT) If you're not pro- slavery, you're not a proper christian.

Have you ever eaten figs? (matthew 21:18, mark 11:12 jeremiah 29:17)

Just a couple of your own pieces of mythological bullshit thrown back at you.

And finally, if she *is* on the pill and having premarital sex, she's supposed to be stoned to death. Deut 22:20 and since christians are by definition absolved/ forgiven of sin, they can all cast stones since they are without sin.

So I doubt she's on the pill, since she's such a good christian girl.

Please, silly religious person, don't try to match wits with a freethinker. They shoved that nonsense in there back when you had a soft spot on the top of your head and you're stuck with it for life like herpes.

79:

Throwing feces because you lost a legal argument. Classy.

The pill can be taken for reasons besides birth control. Hormonal imbalances and acne are examples.

Even if she took the pill for birth control, it is irrelevant to the issue, which is privacy. Her religious beliefs have nothing to do with her right to privacy, at least not in this context.

Your references to Scripture are misplaced. Anyone - "freethinker," Christian or otherwise - who has even picked up the Bible sees the ignorance in your comments. For example, your paragraph regarding slavery are meant to teach a humble spirit, not to promote slavery per se. If slavery in itself was a good thing, the Book of Exodus would be pointless. I can't even understand what you're trying to say in your paragraph about figs. You made no assertion. Your paragraph about stoning to death is answered exhaustively in the Book of Galatians. That book also answers "freethinkers" who object to Christians' not practicing the ritual laws of the Old Testament.

As far as matching wits with a "freethinker" - I made a calm, cogent argument on the issue, and you started a hysterical, breathless rant about figs and slaves. I think the readers here know who won this match of wits.

-77

Throwing feces? I quoted the bible! Are you calling the bible feces? Bad christian! bad! No everlasting life for you!

Let's weigh the argument: her breasts grew because either she has a hormone imbalance or because she had breast implants to improve her modeling career. Hmm... I wonder which is more likely?

Maybe her breasts grew because she prayed for them to grow.

All this fun aside, (and it's great fun making fun of jeezus freaks, but sometimes too easy) this is a case based in *contract.* Her breast augmentation (that she got because she wasn't happy with the body her god gave her- more hypocrisy) was paid for as a part of that contract, ostensibly. She should have known that every single clause of that contract could be aired out in court if she decided to violate it. If she felt that her breast implants were so private, maybe she should cover up a little more and not solicit donations for their acquisition in legally binding documents.

81:

Your "feces" is your mischaracterization of Scripture, your hatred for Christians and Muslims (i.e., Texas and S.D. references) and people of faith in general, your bigotry and stereotyping, and your general mean-spiritedness.

Regarding your first point: It doesn't matter which is "more likely." She's suing for invasion of privacy, accusing them of revealing that she had augmentation. They're defending themselves by arguing that the augmentation was public knowledge. They need evidence to support their argument that the augmentation was public knowledge. For this evidence, they point to her being in public with larger breasts. The burden for this defense is on them. Unless they can establish with certainty that her breasts are larger because she had augmentation, their defense fails. They cannot so establish because her breasts could appear larger for any number of reasons, ergo, their defense fails.

The counterclaim is for breach of contract, to which you allude in your final paragraph. Everything we've discussed thus far has not been for this counterclaim; it has been for the invasion of privacy claim. Keep your claims separate. You're confusing the two.

I don't wish to debate the merits of the contract counterclaim because we don't have the contract in front of us and we would not make any progress.

This discussion has run its course. I do hope you read the Book of Galatians so that you can educate your "freethinking" brethren on the facts. I assume you are interested in the facts and not merely in thinking just like your "freethinker" friends. Hopefully, that is a valid assumption.

-77

81:

I apologize for making a couple of misleading statements. I said that it doesn't matter which is "more likely." Of course it matters, given the standard of proof, but it doesn't matter which is "more likely" to you or me - spectators without all of the facts. It is just as possible that she does have a hormonal imbalance. It's exceedingly common. It may seem to you that it's "likely" she had augmentation and not an imbalance, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is what the jury believes after seeing the evidence. And that evidence must prove with certainty (at least up to the standard of proof) that it was augmentation and not some other reason for enlargement.

77 doesn't understand what "absolute privilege" means in the context of a legal complaint. 77 should be banished back to Liberty U, never to "practice" law again.

77 went to Regents, not Liberty U. Priests taught him the law during the day, and molested him at night.

84 = 85 = 81

84:

Apparently, I don't. Please enlighten me.

-77

I must have missed it in my cursory read, which law school is Ms. Prejean attending? Is this another UNC Law Hooters hostess turned law student? Or did Florida beat them to it with some scholarship cash?

80, you need a mustache ride. Stay classy.

"Prejean and the organization agreed that she needed bigger boobies to compete nationally."

Wow, our society sucks. A woman's natural (god-given, in the language of a couple of the commentator's) body isn't good enough for a beauty pageant.

Oh, and the rants on these comments were fun to read but the only thing I learned was that Christians don't like figs. Neither do I! Wait - I'm Catholic! It's true!!

84,

If you're suggesting that absolute privilege applies to the pageant's disclosure of her supposed augmentation, you should realize that the disclosure wasn't in the pleadings, it was to reporters/media.

The evil liberal media strikes again.

Rush

sorry for the late comment... boss pulled me away on actual work but...

Look what I found!

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5856280/Carrie-Prejean-Miss-California-Contract

that's the second google hit under "carrie prejean contract."

I love the tubes.

In any event, check out Clause 1 (h), Clause 2, 3(b), and the best part is the middle of 4(b) where she promises to return any prizes *or compensation* for being a bad, bad girl.

She breached by 1) making appearances without MU's consent and 2) failing to make appearances as ordered by MU. Therefore, she must return any compensation, including payments for a boobie job.

Now, when faced with stone cold contract clauses like that, you have to blow an "airhorn issue" and scream about religious discrimination and hope that it's loud enough that people are distracted from the fact that she has no legal basis for her counterclaim.

93:

Good find. I don't disagree with you on the contract counterclaim. MU seems to have the stronger case, IMO. My arguments were directed to the invasion of privacy claim. I think she has a better case there. They'll settle.

-77

Shouldn't that be Exhibit A (cup) ,and Exhibit C (cup) ?

Thanks, Nige.... You're right, these commenters are all nit picking, or tit picking, if you will.

E7-
If religion is for the weak of mind - based on your arguments, it must be for you.

Trashing Christianity will not free you of your sins.

Kash is jealous!

93 - good find, but its still a major stretch to say that the photos constitute a waiver of her right to privacy. She might lose for other reasons but she won't lose for that one.

Nobody looks at those two pictures and says "whoah, she definitely got a boob job". Yes they look a little bigger in the second one, but google any celebrity and you'll see that the different lighting, clothes, angles etc will make them look different sizes in different shots. I think her violation of privacy claim is a slam dunk if their only defense is this ridiculous photo argument.

1, She will win her suit hands down
2, Not posting the topless shots on ATL = FAIL

Much better case of square crotch in the 'before' pic. Either way, I'd love to bottom that little white girl out.

It's obvious they're fake. Seriously.

And why do surgeous put them so far apart like that? I think they totally could've been done better.

--FlawLESS

Where is PE? He should be all over this.

Nige and David - astute comments.