Slashdot Mirror

Barratry was abolished as an on offence in the UK in 1967 (along with a range of other "out-dated" crimes). There are remedies against vexatious litigation, though, involving a Court placing a "civil restraint order" the repeated claimant (there's even an official list of them) and one of the possible remedies suggested by the judge in this case was something similar; effectively preventing MediaCAT taking any further action (including just sending letters) without the court's permission.

That document is about criminal prosecutions, not civil actions for damages. I think you're looking for this.

In the UK the courts can declare somebody a vexatious litigant which requires them to apply to the court for leave to make an application to the court. Is there something similar in the US?

And for the inevitable posts that berate the UK and make reference to CCTV, libel law etc. etc., the list of vexatious litigants is quite small and made up of people entirely like Mr Thompson who are, "batshit fucking insane". I know because I had to deal with one of the people on the list - a full weight cock-jockey of the first order. That list of people could bring any country to its knees.

you are right, and deserve justice!

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/claims/small/index.htm

Oh.. or maybe it's because your laws make it a criminal act to write about cases that are ongoing or sealed?

We have our trials, and our freedoms.

-GiH

About 15 minutes later it was cool enough to drink.. if still uncomfortable.

I think most people that drink McDonalds coffee regularly will be familar with the sensation of burning your tounge when you don't wait long enough... it takes a day or two to go away - but dosen't cause real harm if you sip only a little bit and don't let it sit on your tounge... which reflex action handles for you.

If this is reasonably acurate 150F isn't much safer. As far as juries go--innocent people have been sentenced to death with "shadow of doubt" burden of proof, it may be a good system overall, but it's not anywhere near perfect.

There seem to have been a number of cases against McDonald's over their coffee. I quite like this account. Seems a reasonable response to the issue.

Further, in the UK it's normal practice for costs to be awarded against the losing party in a lawsuit. That's not all positive since even if you're careful about your costs an opponent with plentiful resources may spend hundreds of thousands on legal costs and if you lose (and you can never be sure in a lawsuit) you can end up liable. So this also acts as a deterrent to "the small guy", but perhaps less so than in the US?

Actually, the costs are generally limited by the civil procedures. E.g., in a claim for up to £10,000 (which is the category I believe the case discussed here would fall under) the maximum award of costs on the "fast-track" claim track would be £500 trial costs, plus £110 commencement costs. Hardly an offputting possibility, yet there are many lawyers who are perfectly willing to represent people on the basis that they will get this money if they succeed. I don't really see much downside for this practice.

Plus the UK legal system can turn quite nasty if they think you're playing games with them like the RIAA do in America.

That's true. Apart from awarding anything to the defendant that they feel are "in the interests of justice", a judge can order that you be entered into the register of vexatious litigants, after which you are required to seek permission before bringing further claims. I suspect the BPI would seriously consider the possibility of this happening before embarcing on claims like the one discussed in this brief.

If there was no dispensation to copy the material to make use of it, copyright would be violated by simply playing the CD or DVD.

That is a "ludicrous" result (and yet some people have been prosecuted for making such an illicit copy -- of licensed material. There is precedent here.)

Rulings mean a lot more than prosecutions. Perhaps you should refer to, for example, this, where part of the reason mod chips are ruled illegal in the UK is because to play imported games, an unauthorised and illegal copy of some of the data is made in RAM. (I don't disagree with most of your message, by the way.)

Hmmm... I thought I knew of a more recent case where making a RAM copy of software in contravention of the wishes of the vendor turned out to be an offence, but it was actually a British case:

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/ j2680/sony-v-ball.htm

(Which ruled the "Messiah 2" PS2 modchip illegal because it created and modified a copy of programs it was used to run in RAM as part of the loading process -- which would appear to be specifically protected under the legislation you cite)

WTF? Why does everyone keep saying Smithycode. It's Smithcode. There's no is no Y in it. See for yourself!

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/images/judgment -files/baigent_v_rhg_0406.pdf

No it isn't

FFS, Her Majesty's Courts Service is slashdotted! [0@42 downloads]$ wget http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/images/judgment -files/baigent_v_rhg_0406.pdf --14:30:51-- http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/images/judgment -files/baigent_v_rhg_0406.pdf => `baigent_v_rhg_0406.pdf' Resolving www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk... failed: Temporary failure in name resolution.

FFS, Her Majesty's Courts Service is slashdotted! [0@42 downloads]$ wget http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/images/judgment -files/baigent_v_rhg_0406.pdf --14:30:51-- http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/images/judgment -files/baigent_v_rhg_0406.pdf => `baigent_v_rhg_0406.pdf' Resolving www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk... failed: Temporary failure in name resolution.

The first boldface italicized letters actually spell out "Smithy code"; you can see the 'y' in section A.1.3 of the ruling (PDF).

Not quite the same thing, but there's a concept of the 'vexatious litigant' in some places. They're forbidden to sue anybody, because they've abused the courts repeatedly and egregiously. The British courts' killfile is here, and I notice from the wikipedia link that the notorious Christian extremist Fred Phelps is listed as a vexatious litigant in the US.

If you have a problem with Google, follow them up with your local Trading Standards, or take them to the Small Claims Court.

In the UK, this become increasingly easier to do - http://tradingstandards.gov.uk/ (free, quick and easy) and http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/ (£30 for a small claim which you will get back if you win).

If Google won't tell you what they cancelled your payment, then I am sure that they are legally required to give you your money.

It's these sort of frivolous cases that make me believe that something stronger than tossing the case out is needed. This company should permanently be prevented from ever suing anybody for any reason, no matter the merits.

In the UK, (and many parts of the USA and elsewhere), this can actually happen. If you are declared a vexatious litigant (ie, someone who issues spurious lawsuits), you can not begin proceedings in a court without specifically applying to the High Court for permission (and you pay the costs of the application, whereas your potential defendant pays none).

Clearly, this is an extreme case. Denying or hindering someone's quick access to justice is not a step that the courts take lightly. Hence the relatively few people on the VL list. It's viewable here

--Ng

I think a more correct term is Vexatious Litigant. I don't think it's in US dictionaries.

When a government is willing to imprison an innocent man for defending himself from criminals
tony martin is hardly an innocent man he was convicted of manslaughter by a jury, the only reason the charge was reduced from murder was Dr Joseph found Martin to be a paranoid nutcase and not able to make rational decisions.

the man shot an unarmed teenage boy in the back, with a gun he was not legal entitled to (his shotgun license had been removed when he started shooting at people scrumping apples.)

in short tony martin is exactly the sort of person i want locked up, one un-able to distinguish between revenge and justice.

the only other case i can think of where the "victim" of crime was jailed for "defending" himself involved a factory owner who set a man trap in his factory for burglars (notice BTW burglars are UNARMED unlike robbers), he then proceeded to brutally torture captured burglar.

Now if you are sitting there and thinking good, it should be his job to meet out punishment to criminals, then you also are confusing revenege and justice and should go back and join the mob weilding pitchforks to which you obviously belong,as you are clearly not a civilised human being.