Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Wrolf Courtney wrote: > > Katherine V. Irvine wrote: > > > > Scatssa - you need to wake up. The thing does not work, it is a copy of > > a copy of a failed design that has long since been discovered and > > corrected. > > Which failed design does the Buddy Inspiration rebreather copy? > > > There have been SIX incidents REPORTED, THREE DEATHS > > I am only aware of five. Which is the sixth? (See > http://www.concentric.net/~Wrolf/#Inspiration for my list.) > > > You need to start telling the truth. These machines > > have another fifty horror stories of failed electronics, they are > > basiscly unusable by those who bought them, and it is time they all came > > forward and threw this crowd under the bus . > > You definitely know something I don't. Fifty cases of failed > electronics! Do you have a source in the RMA department there? I'll > kiss your A** in Macy's store window if you'll share (I know a manager > there with the key!) > > On a separate note: > > Martin, you are best off with a UK jurisdiction. Libel laws in England > & Wales are much more true to the original - the only real defense is > that the statements were true as written. The other big libel defense > is that the statements were not exactly true, but not damaging > (occasionally you get these famous "smallest coin in the realm" > verdicts), plus some obviously inappropriate ones, like the "I said it, > but it was you that published it" one. > > For a U.S. jurisdiction, you would probably be stuck with Florida. I > have no idea what quirks you would wind up in there, but even Florida > firms often write in their contracts that they are to be construed under > the laws of Delaware, or New York. > > Avoid Louisiana like the plague. The law there is an unholy mixture of > Napoleonic era French law (the U.S. purchased Louisiana, and retained > the legal system); U.S. Constitutional law (which conflicts in its very > philosophy with the Codex Napoleonica), and random local laws since > statehood from some of the most corrupt politicos ever found in a > democracy. > > The U.S. jurisdiction that I would choose, if I had to, would be New > York, with Cravath, Swaine, and Moore as your attorneys. Among other > things (the ease of your commutes, the clean living, etc.), the biggie > is the pro corporate legal culture. I believe that SLAPP suits > (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, i.e. harassment suits > against environmental activists like me) originated here, and I know > that the "massive offense" strategy did. > > The "massive offense" strategy is great. Basically, you have to be > ready to shell for a partner or two, maybe half a dozen to a dozen > associates, plus their army of paralegals, secretaries, etc. Every > potential witness is deposed (required to give a sworn statement). The > depositions get pretty harsh. And very long. And then longer, and > harsher. Every possible document is subpoenaed. Then every document > referenced is subpoenaed. Everyone who is cc'ed on every document is > subpoenaed. Everyone who is mentioned anywhere, has their mother and > their dry cleaner subpoenaed. Etc. > > After you have spent maybe $250,000 to $500,000, finding out on the way > a million things that your opponent does not want you or the world to > know, and crushing their measly financial resources, you settle. > > Here is where I am told you really have to rein in Cravath, Swain and > Moore. Sometimes they want to go to trial, because they want to see the > other guy completely destroyed. It gets pretty personal. > > CSM is renowned as being the Doberman Pinschers of the New York legal > scene - you never want to use them, but you want to be sure that they > are on your side. Plenty of people pay CSM small retainers, just to be > sure. > > Other oddities of libel/slander lawsuits in the U.S. (and I am not sure > whether we settled which one covers Internet speech): in the U.S., you > can only libel a "public figure" if you do it with "malice" or with "a > reckless disregard for the facts". Calling or writing the public figure > before publishing is an essentially complete defense against "reckless > disregard", I assume that one should be pure of heart to avoid malice. > > The other big one is the idea of being "suit proof", like me. All you > can recover is monetary damages (plus for libel & slander you can often > have as part of a settlement a statement in open court, but the court > will not order such as statement after a trial). If a losing defendant > has no money, they literally have nothing to lose. (This does not apply > to defendants with big time jobs as Sears salespeople, who dispose a > large amount of their income on dive gear. You can prove the large > quantity of disposable income, and get salaries and commissions > garnished). > > So all told, I think you are much more likely to get a satisfactory > verdict in an English court, at a somewhat lower cost. The only benefit > of a U.S. court is that they have better jurisdiction over U.S. > employers. And even there, I am sure that companies like Morgan Stanley > Dean Witter Reynolds (with a significant U.K. presence, and seeking > business from HM Gov't), would surely honor an order to garnish salary > and commissions from HM Court. > -- > Wrolf > > Wrolf's Wreck: http://www.concentric.net/~Wrolf > -- > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. > Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. Wrolf: I do not why you would post a message such as this in this forumn. Since you opened the door, please allow me to respond. First, it is illegal to practice law without a license. If you want to play get a license or prepared to be sued and turned in to the authoritys. Second, it is a compensible tort to incite litigation. Do not underestimate the lengths that will be taken to insure that you are invited to the party if litigation develops from your activitys. Third, a person can only be sued where there is personal jurisdiction over him or where he accepts service of process. Mr Irvine accepts service of process in New Orleans LA. The address is on my web site. http://www.divelawyer.com/ Forumn shopping by filing against a company over the nonemployment related actions of an employee will accomplish nothing other than insuring that you are sanctioned by the court. Fourth, judgement proof or not YOU need to seriously consider wheather you want to be involved in this. I would hate to see you lose your computer. Alton -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]