Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Wrolf, Was there a point in here anywhere remotely related to cave diving, rebreather diving or technical diving? If not, keep this crap off the lists. In a message dated 98-08-11 03:40:02 EDT, wrolf@co*.ne* bored us all with: << 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 >> -- 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]