Slashdot Mirror
Can a Blogroll Be Defamatory?
An anonymous reader clues us that the wildly litigious Canadian Wayne Crookes, who has been suing the Internet for defamation, has added Michael Geist to his hit list. Geist is a well-known Canadian law professor and blogger. His offense: linking on his blog to site that links to another site that contains material allegedly of a defamatory nature. (Others would characterize that material as historical facts about Crooks's tenure at the helm of the Canadian Green Party.)
One of the differences up here from the American system is that if (and I hope, when) Mr Crookes loses this case, then he can look forward to paying the costs of the defendants.
Usually that acts as a strong deterrent against frivolous lawsuits. I guess it doesn't always work, but it'll be nice to see the big fat bill forthcoming.
An anonymous reader clues us that the wildly litigious Canadian Wayne Crookes, who has been suing the Internet for defamation
Yeah, well, things have really gone down the tubes lately, if you know what I mean.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
it's made of paper after all!
Oh wait, you asked if a Blogroll can be Defamatory.
I thought you asked if a Bogroll can be Inflammatory.
Summation 2
defamation defined by WordNet [google define:defamation] 1. a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions 2. aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name linking isnt an attack on character/name nor is it misrepresenting anything.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Crap, I'd better take down my links to Google.
Considering that there is a large overlap between left-leaning bloggers and Green party supporters, pissing off that demographic seems unwise. Suing websites is, along with comment spamming, probably the fastest way to become hated on the so called "blogosphere"*. Perhaps that's the real reason he was ousted as leader?
*pre-emptive apology for using that term.
I have this friend who has a friend that thinks Wayne Crookes is being like completely non-thorough for using only two degrees of separation when deciding who to sue. This friend of a friend says that if Wayne was a real litigous bastard he'd use a full six degrees of separation.
Quick! Sue Kevin Bacon!
everyone repost the articles in question. lets see him sue everyone. douche bags like him need to be taught the lesson that the courts are NOT there to shut people up who simply don't like you or disagree with your world view.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I'd be anonymous too...
So, is CowbowNeal next?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C1 bottles of beer on the wall. Take one down, pass it round... Oh, umm...
I once had the misfortune to work for a company where the CEO was a litigious [noun censored]. This is not good when you are (in my case) Company Secretary. Basically he used to put together a convincing sounding scenario of what he claimed had happened, consult a lawyer, be told we had a good chance of winning. The lawyer would then ask me, as CS, to submit the documents in the case and I would have to tell him that they said something different or did not exist. The lawyer would then tell the CEO to forget it, and the CEO would vow never to work with that bent lawyer again, especially when the bill arrived. This happened with increasing frequency after he actually won a case which, in fact, was really the other side's fault and was clear cut. The one thing he never for one moment considered was that he might be wrong.
The simple fact is, and I take no credit for saying it because any CS would have done the same, without intervention he would have bankrupted to company and not cared, because all he was interested in was having his own way.
I've since learned it is not an uncommon personality type. I think it has much in common with compulsive gambling and drug addiction.
Not, of course, that I would for one microsecond suggest that it has any bearing on this case, except to demonstrate that you cannot assume that losing cases and paying costs will deter litigious people.
Pining for the fjords
The disadvantage to loser-automatically-pays is that it's extremely risky for an injured individual to sue a large corporation, even if he's right, because the corporation can afford much better lawyers (and therefore has an unequally high chance of winning, even if they're wrong), and usually has much higher legal costs. So if you lose you're not just out your own legal costs and the court's costs, you're out the legal costs of the corporation that had injured you.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
No-one link to http://google.com/ - they've got links to all sort of dodgy stuff on there.
Smart, sue a lawyer who deals with copyright and IP materials professionally, over IP, with a suit that has issues passing a laugh test, let alone a reasonable person test.
Normally this kind of idiocy gets one removed from the gene pool, but judges can't order someone be neutered anymore. Otherwise I'd say nominate the guy.
how the silly fuck can this guy expect to win?
Okay, unless I'm reading this wrong, he's suing the writer of Blog A because it was linked to Site B which then further linked to Site C which may contain information of a defamatory nature?
No, seriously, what the fuck?
How is that even actionable? I mean, if that's "acceptable", then this guy should be suing Google, Yahoo!, the New York Times, hell, just about everyone.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I don't know about Canada, but in Denmark the accuser has to pay what the judge estimates the defense ought to cost, not the actual cost. So if your lawyer is any good, you will have to pay most of his salary yourself, even if you win.
Where are the Canadian press in all this, shouldn't they be reporting on this farce with full (hint, hint) details?
I thought it was the same way in American Courts as well?
I seem to remember it used to be.
But then again, I was stopped at a stoplight in broad daylight and got hit by a lady in a very nice new cadillac. She not only didn't see me and just failed to stop in time, she never had the brakes and hit me so hard I slid forward as she bounced off my Jeep's rear spare and managed to hit me again. All of this was of course in front of a hospital. So the ambulance arrived and they insisted my neck was tender enough I need to get it x-rayed. So as the police arrive late, I leave my license, registration and insurance on the seat while the EMTs take me away on the board. The cop stops us at the ambulance and says my insurance isn't there. The EMTs push me back over and the wind blew it over onto the passenger seat, where I can't reach because I'm taped down. Plus the EMTs are pushing me to get to the hospital ASAP because I have a history of pain complications making me barf. So I point at it and he says "sorry lady, you have to hand it to me, i'm citing you for failure to prove insurance". He tickets me and sticks it under my neckbrace. I'm like wtf silently? In the ambulance the guys explain to me that the lady who hit me is the widow of a fireman. They tell me that its a loyalty thing, cops and fireman stick together so he has to give me attitude.
Three weeks later in court with my letter to prove I had insurance. I'm sitting up front waiting for my turn, its the time I was given to show up. The DA calls a familiar name. Its the lady that hit me. (She never bothered to get out of her car to see if I was alright, btw.) I'm in a freaking neck brace because she herniated a disc. So she goes up to the DA and starts crying about her former husband, and tells him she didn't see me at the stop light because the sun was too bright. BS she coming at me from under an overpass. She is only 4 feet tall though. She might not be able to see over her caddy's dashboard. The DA hugs her and says he won't charge her because of her husbands loyal duty to the city of Aurora. He then asks her if she can afford her court costs of $60. She starts crying and tells him no, that since her husband has been gone, she can't make ends meet. (except for that fancy loaded Caddy out there) and firemen get a pretty good pension in CO too, so I think she was just greedy. The DA says ok, don't worry, we'll work it out, you go home and rest up. Then he calls my name.
His demeanor changes. He tells me that I was driving without proof of insurance and will have two points removed from my license for a year unless i have a letter to prove otherwise. I show him the letter and he begrudingly accepts it. He lectures me that leaving a license, registration or insurance card on a seat for a police officer to pick up is not allowed. I must hand them to the officer. I interrupted to explain the situation with my injury, and he said that doesn't matter--you are still obligated to hand all three to the officer. So I asked the DA, if I'm unconscious and bleeding to death shall I have someone staple them to my hand? He got pissed but so was I at this point.
I said, I read the police report, I went and got a copy of it under the freedom of information act. The lady that hit me has a record of several reckless driving warnings recently and she failed to prove any insurance at the scene of the accident. The police officer not only didn't ticket her for that, but he let her off for reckless driving because she's a widow of a firefighter. Now, I respect what her husband did for Aurora, but I don't think she should get treated differently than I do. Especially if she is endangering other's health with her careless driving, and has no insurance to help pay for damages she causes. She has no insurance. He agreed to that. But then he said. She is on a fixed income, whereas Ms. XXXXX you are making a generous income and so I am going to require you to pay both parties court costs
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
didn't he invent the internets?
he better lawyer up....and all that speculation about him waiting to announce a surprise run for 2008--this could be its undoing!!
~tsk tsk tsk~ ~smirk~
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
Because it links to a site that links to a site that links to a site that ....
erm... hold on, I lost count.
A screw it, why doesn't that guy simply sue the whole internet, it's much easier.
What a bunch of Crookes.
All those new ways of suing people. I am in the wrong business.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
Isn't that called a countersuit when you are the defense, and you want the other side to pay the costs if and when you win?
If you don't mind me saying so, and chances are you're probably going to be offended, but here it goes. It was stupid to sign that, agreeing you will pay. You should have fought the case. It would have been honorable to fight the system. By signing it, weren't you admitting you were in the wrong, not them?
If no one bothers fighting a corrupt system, they are essentially justifying what they are doing. With numbers, the system will change. If everyone who is wronged stands up for what is right, instead of doing what is easy, things will have to change because it is too big to ignore.
Does this have the appearance of a prewritten tale to anyone?
I know nothing about the Canadian Green Party, but the Dutch green party (Groenlinks) is actually one of the most internet-savvy parties, big supporters of Open Source, free speech and privacy. Sometimes I'm surprised of the nutcases that seem to represent the green parties on the other side of the pond.
Ofcourse the US Republicans also have some notable computer-illiterates. And the previous Dutch prime minister (Wim Kok, one of the best PMs we've had, actually) didn't even know how to use a mouse.
That is the most ridiculous story I've ever heard. If that's a true story then the entire system from the police up to the DA is not only untrustworthy, but corrupt. I would have refused to sign and taken it higher, but as a story I can hardly believe it. The US legal system just can't be that bad.
The solution to this was worked out some time ago.
The loser should pay a value based on their own costs to the winner. This means that both sides have a vested interest in only spending as much on legal fees as neccesary.
Is there any way we could trick this guy into suing Jack Thompson? That would be almost as cool as the infamous Storm Troopers vs. Redshirt Ensigns battle.
The prosecutor bluffing. You should have fought it instead of agreeing. Also your story is not applicable to the present situation because, the judge never even got involved. You were just arguing with the prosecutor, if you had stuck with it the judge/ jury would have sided with you.
File a complaint against the prosecutor, in the state bar or with the state attorney general, if you feel you were treated wrongfully. They are not as willing to bend to local politics.
Why did you need to use FOIA to get a copy of the police report? You can't defend yourself if you do not know the charges, therefore you have to be given all the evidence against you by the police. If you were not given a police report, that is grounds for immediate dismissal of the case against you. My friends have used this point to get out of stupid tickets numerous times.
Mr. Crooke's case is a civil case. In a civil case there is the plaintiff and the defendant. In a criminal case there is a prosecutor (the state) and a defendant. In a civil case if the defendant wins, and proves some additional facts (like that the suit was BS) then the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's costs.
Mr Crookes [removed to avoid potential liability], however [removed to avoid potential liability] and [removed to avoid potential liability]. So, in fact [removed to avoid potential liability] and to be honest [removed just in case].
Have a nice day. DISCLAIMER: The author of this post does not guarantee that your day will be nice. Moreover, the author of this post is not responsible for any damages resulting in your trying to have a nice day.
If posting a link on a blog, you would normally provide a commentary and description relevant to the link. As opposed to simply a big list of links to various pages. This commentary might take the simple form of something like "look what he also has done:" or "this site describes some of NN's behaviour that I have a problem with". In fact, I consider it more likely than not that a blog posting a link contains a commentary asserting the truthfulness and/or applicability of the contents of that link.
If it does, then he would not "be sued for linking", he would "be sued for describing a third party's materials as truthful and linking to them".
Again, I consider this more likely than not. The question is also very relevant, since the two situations are very different. (I would even suspect that if someone put defamatory material on a page and you walked around town with a placard with a tinyurl.com reference to it you would not be found liable, while if you wrote "This is truthful: [link]" you would be.) I can see exactly zero comments voicing that question or making their condemnation conditional on it. This is an example of why I find it difficult to respect your average slashdotter.
If you don't mind me saying so, and chances are you're probably going to be offended, but here it goes. It was stupid to sign that, agreeing you will pay. You should have fought the case. It would have been honorable to fight the system. By signing it, weren't you admitting you were in the wrong, not them?
If no one bothers fighting a corrupt system, they are essentially justifying what they are doing. With numbers, the system will change. If everyone who is wronged stands up for what is right, instead of doing what is easy, things will have to change because it is too big to ignore.
I'm not sure if its called a countersuit, I'll ask my sister who is a DA and reply.
And I agree, It was stupid to sign it, because yes, it basically admitted I was less financially burdened than she was. I didn't sign anything saying I was at fault for the accident though or that I wasn't insured. Who knows, maybe the car she was driving was some rich friend's car. Maybe she is burdened and her firefighter husband didn't get his pension because of some other factors I don't know of. I made my point to the DA in very loud voice in front of a court room full of people that were bored and several of them were paying attention. No thats not an excuse for fighting the system, but in truth, I was working half time because I suffer from severe treatment resistent depression. That makes it hard enough for me to stand up for what I believe in.
I chose the easy path because most of the time its all I can do to make it through the day and get my job done before falling apart and going to bed. I spend so much time fighting my disease I didn't have enough fight left to do what I would have done before the disease changed me.
Your points are important none-the-less. Even though I couldn't make the difference, I don't think everyone takes the attitude that "why bother, I'm only one person". My sister certainly didn't, she went and got a law degree. She became part of the system in the hopes to change it that way. And I admire the hell out of her for that. She's darn good at what she does.
When I finally get well enough from this disease to start functioning better, I will stop putting up with crap like that, because I agree full-heartedly with your final statement. If I happen to get chosen to moderate in the next 12 hours I'll mod your post up as insightful too.
Thanks for the info and insight and reading my dang long post. I'd send you a cyber Guinness or drink of your choice if I could.
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
Don't be stupid, you pay ALL my cost or else I sue your dumb ass.
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
The only thing you achieve by submitting to corruption, is encourage it. Yes they deserve respect for their jobs, but that doesn't give them the right to trample over your rights in the process.
Saying that, reality can be pretty harsh on ideals, but if it was me, i would of done everything in my power to make that officer regret ticking me. But perhaps thats just me, as my friends know i go off like a cracker over corruption/abuse of power
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
____
nico
Nico-Live
(On a side note, I don't drink alcohol.)
The problem is, that if you're using any sort of excuse not to fight the system, the system can use that against you. If someone isn't fighting because they are sick, injured, etc., then it is entirely possible, somehow, for the system to keep that someone down just so they cannot rise up.
Fortunately, we don't have to fight ourselves. We have other people there to do the things we cannot do without severe exhaustion.
I for one won't stand for defemation of character, if it were to happen to me. If I feel I'm being wronged, and if I firmly and absolutely believe I'm in the right, I won't let the issue drop, regardless of how easy it may be to deal with it by just accepting the events.
Of course, there are other "interesting" ways to deal with being wronged. One way is to fight it in another ways. Contacting politicans, the ACLU, etc., until something is done. I find signing one's name to something, even if it isn't mentioning guilt, is still accepting the blame. (Kind of like when filling out forms, and it asks you if you have ever been convicted or PLEADED NO CONTEST to a crime.)
Can't you at least get the guy's name right?
-- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
Out of curiosity, why didn't you take your insurance case before a judge?
Also, you should have sued the old lady for your vehicle damage and injuries. Most personal injury lawyers will work on contingency.
Section 298 and onward defines Defamatory Libel in the Canadian Code.
So far "linking" to a page that links to a page that publishes libel isn't illegal. So Geist is very safe provided he doesn't publish [or cause to be published] anything libelous on his own.
The paper analogy would be like suing the corner store that sells a newspaper that happen to have carried a libelous story. That wouldn't hold up in court, neither will this.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Also, you should have sued the old lady for your vehicle damage and injuries. Most personal injury lawyers will work on contingency.
The Aurora, CO court system is overloaded and so small cases like that one only go to ADAs or DAs. I had no idea I'd have to pay "court costs" let alone for both of us. The letter I received from the court said I just had to show up at a time and place with my letter proving I had proof of insurance at the time of the accident.
As for your second question, the State of Colorado was a "no-fault" state at the time of that accident, so it wouldn't have mattered. The laws in a no-fault state protect her from any liabilty toward damages to my vehicle and person. Thankfully CO changed that about 5 years ago.
Arr! Read The Government Manual for New Pirates!
the system is designed to pick out and screw over those who don't know better. it wasn't an accident that the connected old bat got let off and you got hosed.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
If no one bothers fighting a corrupt system, they are essentially justifying what they are doing. With numbers, the system will change. If everyone who is wronged stands up for what is right, instead of doing what is easy, things will have to change because it is too big to ignore.
What if a company was doing something wrong and the system won't fight for you? I know someone (let's call this person X) who was a personal trainer at the YMCA in Ottawa. X was technically considered an employee who was paid by the hour that X worked. X worked there for a couple of years and volunteered a minimum of 2 hours a week as h/she had been told that it was part of the job. This volunteering was essentially an intro for any new clients.
The last year this person was there, the last couple of weeks there were no actual work hours as no one had requested personal training but X still had to go in and do the volunteering. X decided to quit. X also started looking into the labour laws and found the following out:
1. A company cannot force you to do volunteer work as part of your job inside or outside the company (be aware that the YMCA the charity and YMCA the gym are actually two separate entities; the first is a not-for-profit and the second is under the umbrella of the first but is definitely for-profit).
2. Any work i.e reading, preparation etc outside the office that the employee does is supposed to be compensated for and anytime X had a new client, work was done at home setting up an exercise plan.
3. Any mandatory meetings, employees had to be paid for (guess what?)
Anyways once X realized this, the Ontario Labour Board was contacted and was given evidence (emails, dates, times etc) of the above infractions. The person that X was talking to figured that the Y owed about $1000 for all the "mandatory volunteering" that was performed.
So the Labour Board started an inquiry and the result was that someone above the person doing the investigation said that they were not going to pursue this but yes what the Y was doing was illegal.
Sad yes?
The question is X would love to blow the lid off of this but not get identified as it may affect and further employment opportunites so what do you do?
Even if your costs cannot be justified as required to support your case?
In the UK both sides have a requirement to mitigate any losses incurred, which INCLUDES legal fees. For example, hiring 100 expert witnesses which do not really have a bearing on the case would get those costs removed as frivolous.
PLus, we have a great small claims court system - for up to £5k claims a filing fee of about £35 gets you a hearing in front of a magistrate. Costs are capped and in general no lawyers are involved - in fact a magistrate is likely to look ill on a company that brings a horde of lawyers to defend a case brought by a member of the public. As a result most companies settle - it costs them too much to want to go through it unless they are 100% sure they'll win.
As poignant as your story is, I don't understand your subject title. And this all has to do "with this administration" in.... what way? Like the same thing wouldn't have happened during the Clinton admin., or the whoever-comes-next admin? C'mon... the system is corrupt on all sides.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
Did you have an attorney present on your behalf? The DA sold you on a bad deal, but done is done. Sorry to hear about this though.
Dear DrEldarion,
Thank you for helping our site attain a higher PageRank by linking to us. We could not have done it without you. As a token of our appreciation, please enjoy a free month of GoogleMail.
Regards,
The Google team
Here are some options.
Find a lawyer who will sue pro bono.
Find a lawyer who will sue, only getting paid if the case is won. (Even if they take 50%, it is still bringing justice against the company.)
Contact news organizations.
File a complaint against the Labour Board, if someone feels strongly they are not doing their job.
Contact legislators.
Ask friends for ideas on what to do.
Shouldn't he be an american?
My blog
You can't take the sky from me...
It needs to be made of paper to spark anger and outrage?
You`re looking for imflammable.
Dr Nick - It means flammable? What a country!
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
And /. links to that site, that links to that site, that...
Hell, just sue the Internet.
I was working half time because I suffer from severe treatment resistent depression
;-)
When the day comes that you are truly a geek girl, you will rejoice and be rid of this blight!
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I don't think a blogroll can be defamatory or fattening... ...But I prefer my rolls with butter and jelly ;)
[this post has been deleted by decision of the court]
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
IX CCXLIX XVII II CLVII CXVI CCXXVII XCI CCXVI LXV LXXXVI CXCVII XCIX LXXXVI CXXXVI CXCII
Keywords: No fault state. Vehicle damages are the drivers responsibility(you can sue for your deductible). Other suits are difficult if you can't demonstrate substantial($20,000+) damages.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Please contact immediately your lawyer for information regarding your particular case.
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
If all that is true, you should have sued the DA for corruption. After blowing away his family for being related to such a shit in the first place.
The government can't help you. They're too busy helping themselves.
IANAL but I think its significant that Mr. Geist is being sued in the province of British Columbia. I remember hearing that BC has significantly different, and more wacky, defamation laws compared to the rest of Canada. Even if we all think the suit is baseless and retarded, he may actually have a case since he's sueing in BC. I don't have the time to look up the law in BC, but is anyone else familiar with it?
Though...what kind of idiot sues a high profile and talented lawyer? Thats just asking to get your ass handed to you.
So, you get screwed by the local cops, a local (elected) DA, and an idiot judge (probably also elected) and somehow it's because of the "Administration"?
Please explain.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It's not easy being green... Sue me.
Yep, you are correct. No frivolous lawsuits were ever filed under the previous administration.
Well, trying to crook(es) Michael Geist doesn't sound like a wise move to me. Here in Canada the Mounties always get the crook(es) and they end up in the slammer.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
on a business trip in Boulder -
she was turning right (had green light) when a bicycle messenger who was illegally riding on sidewalk then illegally through a crosswalk t-boned her passenger side. luckily she had an off-duty police officier a couple of cars behind her who witnessed it and vouched that he was completely/wholly at fault (bicycles have same rights as cars but are required to abide by same rules => law frowns on driving on sidewalk/through crosswalks). cyclist was cited for both/report showed as at fault while wife not cited/checked "no contributing factors" on report.
couple of weeks later we get a call from said cyclist demanding payment for his ER bills/replacement of bike - apparently under CO law a motorist is liable for any/all damages to a cyclist REGARDLESS of fault.
nice...
and I thought my state (Georgia) had some idiotic laws...
If you're referring to the person hit by the fireman's widow (WannaBeGeekGirl) well, I don't know what city she lives in, who the DA was, etc. I have no details at all. So this particular post to /. wasn't a very good way of getting the word out -- and besides, 498 of those 500 people who read it probably don't live anywhere near her.
She should talk to a lawyer. Really, she should have talked to a lawyer as soon as things started going wrong in the court room. She should not have signed anything (but let the lawyer make the final say there.) She probably should have contacted the local news -- a `corruption in the courts' story could be very compelling, and it sounds like there was lots of witnesses in the courtroom -- hopefully somebody would corroborate her story. And if there's a court reporter or recording, then it's a slam-dunk. (Is traffic court recorded in the state of X, whatever state this is?)
But it's easier to just let it slide, and fighting the system is rarely rewarding -- even when you win, you tend to lose. And often when you should win, you lose, because everything is stacked against you.
Yes. Yes it can.
If you don't have the money, the guts, and the gusto to use them all and risk everything, you don't have a chance.
Even if you do, you're still just talking about a small chance.
sue sue sue sue sue sue
But then again, sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue
sue sue sue sue and more
sue sue sue suesue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue Crookes sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue wacko sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue 1310 people sue sue sue This thing is getting a little out of hand, dontcha think?.
And the really funny thing is, I'm a lawyer.
Of course, the people who need to know the story aren't in Texas like me. They're in Aurora. And /. will only reach a small number of them.
The local news is probably the best bet for getting the story out. If it's even worth it -- getting the local police, fire department and DA mad at you, even if you're completely justified, is rarely a good policy. If you're going to do this, it might be wise to leave the city or the state immediately after.
Wow, and I thought Broomfield was bad...
/.'ers now know to clutch insurance, license, and registration in our dying hands until the police pry them out.
That strikes me as criminal, the way that woman was coddled by the system. If someone causes an injury via reckless driving, they should be punished criminally, and if they really pissed you off, you can nail them with a tort for negligence. But that you should bear the cost of court when you obviously did nothing wrong (that insurance thing reeks of bullshit), that is unconscionable. I mean, really...last time I checked, rear-ending someone puts the speed demon at fault...even in a "no-fault" state...that's for stuff like if you swerve to avoid a deer or toddler or something and clip another car.
So what if this woman, since she's apparently not flush enough to cover fees after that Caddy, decides to knock over a couple liquor stores and ends up capping someone, does she get off the hook from armed robbery and aggravated assault/murder, just because she is a fireman's widow? Quite a slippery slope. Same reason I don't believe in cutting people slack for being in the military: despite having given much and deserving some respect, they are not above the law...the law grants specific benefits to veterans and retired cops / firefighters, and that's fine, but they and their survivors are bound by the same legal responsibilities as you and I.
As much as I hate litigation, I think you should sue the city, if you have the means, just to make a point that it's bullshit. Of course, it might be just as easy to simply drop it...odds are you won't be in such a jejune situation again, and the rest of us
The problem with this scenario is that the court system is inefficient and drawn out. For the average working person with a life, where you have to miss work to show up in court, it's easier to just pay the stupid little fee and go on with your functional life. It would certainly be more satisfying to hold out until justice is truly served (and then hire someone to put the widow out of her misery), but in this case she paid $85 to make this cascade of insult and injury go away.
To me, that right there is more than sufficient proof to show that the system is failing the very people it's supposed to protect. It's one thing to grieve the loss of a spouse, but it certainly doesn't give someone a hall pass to skip out on the rules of society. The whole legal system and constitution were originally intended to ensure the stability and sustainability of a nation, to weed out the bad apples and protect those who make the world go round. A widowed space cadet who can't even wrap her worried head around such basic things as auto insurance and safety, I have no respect nor pity for her. If my spouse were to suddenly die, am I expected to just give up on life and cease to be a functional member of society ? I'm sorry, but I just don't see myself trawling about the city like a lost soul, not now at age 27, and not when I'm 67 either. I certainly wouldn't want to be dragging others down into a spiral of loathing and deceit like the fireman's widow did.
We need to rethink the way the game is played. Decades of corruption on all levels is quickly leading the civilized world into chaos and defeat. We don't worry about global warming and overpopulation because deep down, we all know we'll end up killing each other long before mother nature does.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Well, I'd argue that simply getting the information out there is a good step. If it's out there, people like us will find it. It's already stimulated debate, which is a positive step already. And while it may not get the poor lady her eighty-five bucks back, it might mean the next person in a neck-brace who gets lip from a traffic cop will sue the city for damages.
THUD~*
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blogroll &oldid=1384520
That's crazy. I've never heard the term before.
I dunno what talkback radio is like in your area, but in my city it's the place to go for something like this. If the breakfast guy, a motor-bike riding ex-lawyer with a passion for French automobiles, likes what you have to say, he'll bring the weight of his radio-mules to bear.
Unfortunately, I tend to go for petty solutions. If it were me, I'd just wheat-paste the windows of the YMCA shut...
THUD~*
I hope that day comes soon, WGG. My mother has the same thing, she can't work full time either.
THUD~*
Unfortunately, well, if you were a lawyer and a determined litigant with deep pockets came along and made it clear money was no object, would you tell him he had no case or would you tell him that it would take a lot of work to get his case ready for hearing, then phone Sunseeker and ask them to send round the latest brochure?
Pining for the fjords
If that's a true story then the entire system from the police up to the DA is not only untrustworthy, but corrupt.
Since the entire system nationwide is _in fact_ corrupt, your assertion does nothing to advance any argument that the story is implausible.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
Given that Slashdot has the temerity to run an item directly or indirectly linking to other links which link to articles or links linking to the links Crookes objects as he tries to sue the entire Internet, does it mean slashdot will soon see itself listed as a defendant in a Crookes case?
Those guys put their lives on the line for strangers all the time.
That's great and all but at the end of the day they still do it for a paycheck and that's all we should be forced to give them. If people want to show their support and be nice and generous to civil servants I'm all for it. I'll probably help out too. It's when THEY start taking OUR generosity for granted that pisses me off. Anyone that thinks they deserve special treatment above everyone else is an asshole. I don't care whose life you saved. If you can't grasp the concept that we are all equals then I say fuck you and whatever state agency you work for.
Sardines in the locker room...
Here in the states, I'd of suggested that the trainer go to small claims court with the evidence from the labor board saying that the YMCA was paying wrong. Even if they declined to do anything further about it, it's a heck of a piece of evidence in court.
I don't read AC A human right
>For the average working person with a life, where you have to miss work to show up in court, it's easier to just pay the stupid little >fee and go on with your functional life
It tends to be, and we tend to hear horror stories about being sued or facing charges. The thing is, those horror stories very rarely involve a situation where the individual is actually completely innocent, not at all responsible for the damages being claimed, etc. Those kinds of cases are usually very quickly settled with nothing more than an absentee motion for summary judgment, etc.
The problem arises when a party is actually guilty (or responsible, etc.) and seeks to mitigate the damage by persuading a court, using the legal system as a tool, etc.
If a case actually gets to the court-date point, let alone, goes for more than a single day, it is rarely if ever a simple matter of one party being completely innocent of what's being claimed against them by the other.
I have used such common misconceptions to my advantage from time to time, and prevailed.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Congrats, this has got to be the most successful troll I've seen. And to think I thought the one about the CD-store owner not being able to buy his daughter good clothes was overdone. But they ate it up, so I guess you did something right. Maybe it's the choice of topic? That must be it, if the topic and moral of the story are in alignment with people's biases then they don't give a damn about the details. The CD one for instance promoted the wrong side of the debate, namely, anti-piracy. Funny, that the same phenomenon that slashdotters endlessly complain about and satirize (with phrases such as "Think of the children", "Child porn is the root password to the Constitution", etc.) turns out to hold no special exemption for themselves.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
In the Aurora, CO area we are having some problems with corruption in the judicial system. It ironically echos the US Attorney General's sudden memory loss, so I put it in the subject. I should have never posted in the first place because I forget that politics is flamebait and I'm poor at making a point.
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
Now that I've gotten a good nights sleep I really wish I had never posted my story about the traffic incident, the firefighter's widow, my insurance card being out of my reach and having to pay the court fee's of the person who broke the law and caused the accident and injury to me.
I'll admit it was a poor example, and I didn't make my point well. Perhaps I didn't raise a bunch of h*ll over a crummy court fee. I don't think that justifies calling me a liar which someone did in some thread. I was young, sick, a bit scared and naive when that accident happened, I've grown and learned a bit since. I still wouldn't go back and make a big deal over that stupid court fee.
I do choose my battles when it comes to attempting to fix the system.
I am disabled so I can't go out and build houses for people but there are things I can do. I am a registered voter that votes. I keep up with public policy and let my local, state and national representatives know my opinions. I am involved in advocacy for many groups that advocate breaking negative mental health stigmas. Many websites online contain writing about tolerance toward other human beings. I spend a great deal of my personal time volunteering to listen to youth with mental health problems that no one else wants to listen to. I've stayed online with them while they have the gun to their head, the pills lined up in front of them spelling out "I WANT TO DIE" and had them go offline and had to live with wondering if they made it or not.
As for me fabricating the accident, shame on you. That data is public record in Arapaho County, CO. I didn't give out my name and the date because I'm sick of the death threats I already get for advocating not beating up people with mental illness.
So to all those people whining at me about not pursuing a lousy court fee and some minor corruption in the system driven by the loyalty of people that stick together because they put themselves in danger when they go to work every day I say "screw you."
What are you doing to make our world better?
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
Two words come to mind: Second Amendment
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
True, but even one day wasted over these petty quibbles is one day too many. If anyone is to blame, it's the police officer for completely distorting the facts at the crime scene. It could be argued that the officer created a bigger problem than the brain dead vehicular sodomizer.
Now look at it this way: if you just got rear-ended, are injured, and the one person you're counting on to take care of the situation, the police officer, does the exact opposite of what you expect... your sense of reality just got shaked up right there, compounded by the state of shock you're in. That series of events triggers fear and distrust, instinctive emotional reactions. You're not so sure if you're innocent anymore, because someone in a (false) position of authority has challenged that common sense.
There exists a point where police ceases to be effective, and starts attracting trouble. Sadly that always gets spun around as justification for even more control. It's an equilibrium, more cops, more problems, more criminals.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
No, this is the most successful troll you'll see. My OP wasn't a troll. I don't lie, deceipt is evil. I don't care about my karma on this one because you're the one defaming me.
Blow goats for calling me a liar. Then blow them again for doing it in a topic about defamation on the internet.
Did you miss the point?
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I think the post stood on it's own merits and I think you made your point very well.
It was just obscured by what appeared to be an off the wall political attack.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Put it this way: if she's telling the truth overall, then she added in such an astounding amount of bias into the description of her plight that any sympathy I could muster was preempted by disbelief.
Perhaps I am using the wrong definition of troll. I realize that one usage of the word is for a recurring and overused dramatic story based on lies, for the purpose of eliciting a response or emotion from readers. In this case, if you take out the word recurring/overused and keep the part about it being a dramatized lie, that is what I was accusing the poster of.
> "For another, it was posted by an established slashdot user and not an AC. [...] and replies to too many posters to fit the "troll" profile."
Point.
> "Third, she gives too much specific detail"
Actually it was the detail that made me suspect her in the first place. If she hadn't laden the whole thing with so much fluff that I wanted to grab a very very small fiddle, then I probably would not have questioned her post. As it is, given everyone else's response (including hers to mine), I'll grant maybe she's not lying, but she sure as hell didn't do any favors to her credibility in my eyes by framing the original post the way she did.
> "What is your doubt based on?"
Ok, I'll try to explain that. Here are some of the things that tripped my instinct:
First paragraph:
- Accident occurred during broad daylight at full speed at a stop sign - places the poster entirely in the clear and the other lady entirely at fault; how righteous of the protagonist and how vicious of every other character for mistreating her in the face of such a blatant wrongdoing. It's not that this by itself is implausable, it's that it's so open-and-shut that it seems to leave no leeway or gray-areas for corruption to play a role.
- Occurred in front of a hospital, officers arrived late, and wind blew ticket off seat - none of these are particularly unlikely, but each of them is necessary for the progression of the story. Her experience would not have ended up the way it did without all three of these occurring by chance alone, so that chance compounds the unliklihood of the whole tale. If the officers did not really arrive "late" but that's rather an emotional characterization the victim added on her own, then that actually helps me believe the situation.
- Officer acts in an absolutely outrageous manner - I don't know how to justify my disbelief here. It's just that I'd think there'd be better technicalities to bust someone on than "failure to prove insurance by physically touching a paper", and I also doubt the officer would just slip that ticket in her neckbrace. For that matter, why would the officer pick on the poster at all? Making her life hell doesn't lesson the liability of the antagonist or aid her in any other way. Either the original poster did something to seriously piss the officer off and omitted that part in this tale, or she must've gotten the crabbiest guy in the force.
Remaining paragraphs:
- Again, what's with picking on the victim? Did she do something to piss off the entire city? I still don't see how all this is in line with looking out for the little old lady.
- I have trouble imagining how all these facts are clearly in support of her side and the DA still felt it was safe enough to corruptly protect the guilty party.
- It's all just too damn melodramatic for me to bear. The cadillac is the icing on the cake.
I will grant her this to her credit however: In my original reading of the post, I assumed there were a judge and court stenographer present during the conversation with the DA, and thus that this tale relied on the injustice of many important parties in the legal system despite all the evidence and dialog being in the public record. In my second reading I notice no mention of either persons, but she does say it was in court. As IANAL, I don't know whether it's possible to have such a proceeding without the judge/stenographer.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
You just didn't prepare well enough. Almost the same thing happened to me so when the DA got on his high horse I began to read the police report in open court in a very derisive tone. The DA objected and then told me that he's drop all charges if I would pay court costs and I very loudly asked him if he was soliciting a bribe. He got very angry and said then lets take this to trial. At this point the judge intervened and reamed the DA a new one and loudly proclaimed "Case dismissed."