An Alabama law firm is disassociating itself from a racist commercial released by a Florida company that claims the law firm provided the script.

Vice reported on Monday that Definitive Television has blamed McCutcheon & Hamner, P.C. for the copy used for the ad, in which a white man portraying an “Asian” caricature complains about an insurance company “messing [him] over” and that “Confucius” led him to the firm’s website.

But the attorneys denied any connection to the commerical on the firm’s Facebook page on Nov. 25, writing, “McCutcheon and Hamner’s You Tube Channel has been hacked. Hamner also released a statement to the legal affairs blog Above The Law, saying Definitive Television refused to honor a cease-and-desist letter, as well as a request that Definitive owner Jim DeBerry “disclose the party that allowed my partner and I to be portrayed in such a negative and misleading light.”

For his part, DeBerry — who plays “Mr. Wong Fong Su” in the commercial — has defended the ad on Twitter, where he has argued, “I’m not a racist, I’m a member of the NAACP who has black relatives.” In his own statement to Above The Law, DeBerry denies his company tampered with the firm’s YouTube page, saying, “We run a production company that creates ‘Cheesy B-Rate Commercials.’ We have never had any involvement with McCutcheon & Hamner, P.C’s Youtube Account.”

They say there’s no bad publicity.

  1. Dipity DooDoo says:

    I swear! I seem to recall that Jim DeBerry (the head lawyer here) was on some investigation show like 60 Minutes or 20/20 or something for some other reason. I can’t seem to find it.

    In any case. What did you expect from a bunch of ambulance chasers? Competent legislators (Congressmen) or something? Or maybe he’s getting ready to head north and run for Mayor of Toronto! I mean, don’t all crazy people start their political careers in Florida these days?

    What else is new?

  2. dusanmal says:

    So for every group and culture no performer can play it if he/she is not a part of it nor can anyone outside of that culture compose an art/craft containing it? Are we going mad?
    Not racist. People who claim it as racist – they are real racists and fascists. Cultural revolutionists.
    Ad may be in poor taste but we must have a right for poor taste or there is no right for free expression. We (still) do not have EU-fascist-like “hate speech” limits on speech and that is what is behind this recent rush to paint anyone “racist”. Progressive Left does not like true free speech and are working hard to limit it.

    • Jodi says:

      “Not racist. People who claim it as racist – they are real racists and fascists. Cultural revolutionists.”

      Okay, I’ll bite.

      1) How is calling this racist, racist?
      2) How is calling this racist, fascist?
      3) How is calling this racist, cultural revolution.

      I eagerly await your (Likely hilarious) answer.

  3. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    What was that?

    I can look at that 15 different ways then flip it over and look for the wet spot and STILL all it does is want me to turn it off. I can’t see it as a “real” ad nor as a false flag. No viable wet spot either…… ha, ha.

    Must be much better names.

    The dude needs a lawyer?……Mi Su Yu. …… Can’t get too complicated with Pigeon Engrish.

    • Tim says:

      Hmm. I recommend rolling it in flour first and then bouncing it around under copious luminance of germicidal hard UV to aid in identifying small wetness interesting to human perception {it always looks like butterflies — bloody, bloody, butterflies; Feasting on a veterinarians’ death pit of festooning, fetid and foul failed fawns and kittn’s and sunlight.

      Then again, Ron Paul R3volution!!

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Let me fix the alliteration: “….failed fawns and felines and flickering flares.”

        That you characterize Ron Paul as a failed faun is surprising. What did you do… finally read his policy position statement? (Hint: he’s a Teatarding Libertarian totally irrelevant as a working/pragmatic legislator. Good as a cartoon character though. Should come out as a Halloween costume any year now: I’ll have one Superman, one Batman, and two Ron Pauls.)

        • Tim says:

          …and flickering flairs foisting far flashing filth-jets of phantasmagoric light green swamp gas bursting forth from bilious boils of rot…., the nubile, young girl knelt down and sipped oft of the sumptuous and sanitarily-uncertified stream….

          • Tim says:

            Dappled in dessicration, spattered with chum, shit, and time, as she was, the timid charon-stream recoiled and froze into a ghastly green and glossy Nativity-muck backdrop from the singularity-stretching pristine horror of this Miley-little malignant hellspot of an apparition. Had there been a human observer, Nature still would not have allowed a sound — She was too ashamed of the absurd and perverse ‘self’ of it all….

  4. MikeN says:

    >“I’m not a racist, I’m a member of the NAACP who has black relatives.”

    Tell that to George Zimmerman, who led local NAACP to argue against the cops for looking the other way when a homeless black guy was beat up by a cop.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Did you say that right Mickey? As stated: Zimmerman did the right thing and therefore was not a racist.

      I do note the liberal msnbc news outlets do treat the Zimmerman (initial) case as one of racial profiling and Zimmerman clearly at fault. Seems to me, the reported facts were not so one sided. But maybe I’m a racist?

      • MikeN says:

        Yes I said it right. Only you would ask that.

        > But maybe I’m a racist?
        Ask them.
        Of course your refusal to rent to druggies makes you a racist as well.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Well Mickey, on that confirmation, I must note that your command of English grammar (better word?–anyone??) suffers from the Pedro Complex==> you don’t understand what you have written.

          “Tell that to” is a preface with the common usage that what follows is an example of someone who is wrong. But as stated, what Zimmerman did as you state it was in fact correct. The Z man did what he thought was right and HE WAS RIGHT. So Mikey–just what is it that Zimmerman is supposed to be told?

          See how understanding Engrish and its idiomatic constructs is subject to art and learning? As in===when its pointed out to you and you press on as if it was an issue that was disputable?

          Ha, ha. The whole world ain’t politics.

          • MikeN says:

            No, that’s not the only usage of ‘tell that to’. When you deal with your reading comprehension issues, note that there is something called context. I agree that the usage you state is perhaps the one you are most familiar with, as I think I and others have frequently posted ‘tell that to bobbo’

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            See Mickey—you just refuse to be honest. When told and shown that you are wrong, rather than admit it and change your position, you double down on stupid and add a lie. “Tell that to” has no secondary meaning such as you suggest (thats your refusal to learn) and neither you nor anyone else in the History of this blog has ever said “tell it to bobbo.” Now, there may have been expressions that referenced me with some opprobrium, but that is not just quite what “Tell that to” means either.

            You’re just wrong. Stay ignorant…. I wouldn’t want you to lose standing among your cohorts

          • MikeN says:

            This really isn’t that complicated. Hint, add in the rest of the Zimmerman story that you know. What happened to him.

      • Jodi says:

        Zimmerman was clearly at fault. I’m sorry, I’m far more threatened by a man who stalks people while armed, than I am over someone walking through my neighborhood while black.

        Zimmerman has a much more violent history than Martin, and since then has gone on to commit other offenses.

        Did Zimmerman hit Trayvon first or did Trayvon hit Zimmerman first? I personally think Zimmerman hit first, but frankly, it’s irrelevant. Even IF Trayvon hit first… HE was the one who had the right to feel endangered. He was the one who was being stalked. IF he hit first, HE was the one standing his ground. Zimmerman was a thug looking for trouble.


Bad Behavior has blocked 6666 access attempts in the last 7 days.