Slashdot Mirror
After Online Defamation Suit, Dismissal of Malicious Prosecution Claim Upheld
Christoph writes "I'm the Slashdot user who was sued for defamation (and six other claims) by a corporation over negative statements on my website. I prevailed (pro-se) in 2008. The court found the other side forged evidence and lied. In 2009, I sued the other party's lawyers for malicious prosecution/abuse of process (the corporation itself is dissolved/broke). One defendant had stated in writing their client was lying, but the trial court dismissed my claim for lack of evidence. I appealed, and this Tuesday the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, completely ignoring the defendant's written admission (and other evidence). They further found it was not an abuse of process to sue to 'stop the publication of negative information and opinion.'"
I'm not entitled to what I want... WAHHHHH
That sucks bro. And?
Plain and simple.
We make fun of China and other places, but it seems that our judiciary is now pretty much bought in many places.
Check out this article on how many businesses see corruption as a barrier to entry to markets.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Not an abuse of process? Lovely that they hold themselves in such high regard.
Of course it's an abuse of process, and if they had any self-respect, they'd say so.
Smart move to proceed pro se. I just finished a few years in the feds, paid my attorneys middle six figures total, and they did nothing. Only when I started writing my own civil motions on collateral attack (specifically 28 USC 2255 ) did I get any traction at all. If I had to do it all over, I'd proceed pro se.
Little tidbit: you are indeed entitled to counsel if you are arrested, while you are in criminal proceedings. But if you lose an appeal, and have to proceed with collateral attack, that is civil and you are NOT entitled to counsel. Many people sit in prison because they have only civil remedies left.
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
The problem is, you tried to sue a laywer. The funny thing about judges: they used to be lawyers. You remember that old joke claiming that sharks don't eat lawyers out of "professional courtesy"? Same goes for judges. You can sue a doctor, a corporation, or your ex-wife, fine, but if you sue a laywer the entire legal profession closes ranks and roots for the home team.
Judges don't want the loser of every case suing for it.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
That Jefferson was right.
good luck with that...
i especially like your confusion and hypocrisy over the court's rejection of your admission of a statement by an individual that he is a liar as PROOF that he is a liar...
if you're still too dense to realize the obvious problem with your case: would a liar not be lying?
stop your pouting and learn some logic.
...when hearing appeals in civil cases. They consider only errors of law.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Looks like the OP settled with the non-lawyers early on the MP claims. What result there?
As for the lawyers, the sole piece of evidence the OP seems to have presented that the lawyers knew their clients were lying is a late-October 2007 note. This note was written well after the trial commenced. It doesn't indicate that the lawyers knew or had reason to know from jump-street that the clients were lying. It indicates only (if anything) that perhaps they were not aggressive enough in doing fact investigation or in terminating the litigation already underway.
Am I missing something? If not, the courts' decisions appear to be decent.
Am I missing something?
Yes. This is Slashdot, and we don't much like judges who reach decisions that our cursory inspection of the article summary find wanting.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Lawyers aren't just allowed to believe their client, they're one or two hairs short of being required to. To be guilty of malicious prosecution, they'd have to have conspired with your particular nemesis to fabricate the case knowing full well there was no case. Except for factual claim #28 against Vladimir Kazaryan, none of your alleged facts, if found to be true, would support a finding of malicious prosecution. And you lose that one because count 5 (aiding and abetting malicious prosecution) only works if you can first prove that there was a malicious prosecution.
I hate to tell you this but the judge got it right: "Appellants complaint did not set forth claims of abuse of process and vicarious liability for which relief could be granted."
You should have tried something like, "[lawyer] could not have reasonably believed in the existence of Zubitskiy after [date] but failed to promptly terminate the case." The lawyer is both entitled and expected to believe his client, at least until the client's claim becomes utterly non-credible.
Sucks to be falsely sued. I know from first-hand experience. But you can't bust the lawyer for doing his job representing the client.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The question is what they knew and when.
Did they knowingly make the false representations to the Court?
It is hard for a malicious prosecution type of action unless you can show when they knew it, when they used to false
information. They can always fall back on, well we believed the lying client.
Fight Spammers!
We need laws against SLAPP(strategic lawsuit against public participation). The courts are not for silencing your critics.
Amazing how many people are missing this point....
You filed a lawsuit basically for copyright infringement and won. Might have been a tough battle, sure. But you won. BE HAPPY. Besides that obviously judges are going to protect other lawyers yada yada yada, no offense, you got greedy. Instead of taking your $19,000 and change and being happy that you were a little guy who won a case against "the man" you had to be juvenile and take it to the next level and file a lawsuit because of what the lawyers tried to do during the original lawsuit? I am glad that you won your original case, and I am glad you lost this case.
If the lawyers admitted that they knew that their client was lying and continued the case after that point how can you not have a finding that they aided and abetted in the fraud?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There is a long list of things that are, in theory, an abuse of the courts. On the other hand, in the USofA, they are seldom successfully prosecuted.
It is standard practice to shut down a competitor by smothering it in legal costs and distraction. The competitor's time is completely taken up with defending against a frivolous law suit and they have no time to run their business.
SCO vs. the world is a great example. The whole thing is based on complete BS. The courts have been only too willing to let SCO keep it garbage going. Ask anyone who follows Groklaw.
The case in TFA is small potatoes by comparison.
He has to prove that the lawyers had ill intent for him. Defending their client, even while knowing he is lying, isn't against the rules, it just opens them up to the liability. But if they were pushing the issue because it allowed them to hurt the OP, then yeah, the should be held accountable.
It's a gray area. And as such, I would expect most judges (being judicially conservative) would error on the side of the defendant.
That, and by siding with the lower court's dismissal, it saves them the hassle of a trial over the appeal, a retrial of the issue, and a whole lot of paper work. Having been in a similar situation, where the judge told me "I am not familiar with the laws you have cited, so I'm going to side with the State," I have no belief that Judges are different from any other group of employees. There are always some looking to do the least amount of work for their 8 hour shift.
Never underestimate the lazy man's desire to do nothing.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
If it were political speech, various states and provinces set a lower bar, and will dismiss "SLAPP" suits with costs against.
Repeated attempts to use legal processing to threaten, harass or abuse tend to get responded to, and the archaic charge of barratry can be laid.
I don't know what fits in the gap between, where you are. Something with "fraudulent misrepresentation" in it, perhaps? I suspect you need at least a part-time lawyer to do a bit of research on what to claim.
--dave
I'm a philosopher, not a lawyer
davecb@spamcop.net
Who gives a shit. Chris runs a stock photos website. His business model is entirely money for jam and if ya can't get it, sue. Did you read the part of the judgment where it outlines the monetary demands and legal threats Chris made? This is classic stand-over copyright tactics and all these slashtards are applauding it because Chris has presented himself as being the little guy who took on the big corporation and won.
My opinion stands.. you're a copyright troll. If it wasn't for copyright law, no-one would ever give you a dime. That's the definition of non-fair trade to me.
How we know is more important than what we know.
than to try to argue it out with them in court, eventually the truth will come out and make them look stupid.
Thank you for summarizing things, but not injecting your opinion or cute sarcastic remarks about the companies involved. Slashdot needs more neutral summaries like this.
You were awarded $19,462 Did that cover the costs of this litigation? Yes, I know you were pro se, but I'll also bet you could have been taking a lot of photos during the time you were researching and writing briefs...
Just curious, but did the ruling happen to have any language that would keep you from doing the same sorts of web exposure for this case and all involved as you did to the original corporation? I mean, it pissed them off enough to engage in a stupid lawsuit, maybe it'll annoy the judge and the lawyers too.
If the lawyers admitted that they knew that their client was lying and continued the case after that point how can you not have a finding that they aided and abetted in the fraud?
But did they "know"? To me the note just illustrates that one of the client's lawyers found his testimony as unimpressive as the judge did, not that the lawyer had access to additional evidence that was withheld.
Prevailing is not relevant, it happens AFTER the abuse. Asing the law and mobilizing judges, jury, etcetera for any other purpose than obtaining justice means the damage is already done. And What about bankrupting the opponent even before prevailing? And what about real crimes that will go unpunished because judges and corporations are suing 14 years old?
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
he would have likely told you if it was meant to be any of your business. to be blunt, perhaps something serious. not an 8000 issue, in other words. (mea culpa, assumption)
i'd recommend you charge up to someone with a "what criminal charge were you charged with?@!" and see whay that gets ya in Real Life. Results may vary.
what did you get charged with anyway, and when? felonious ass-hattery on both sides of your mothers basement door?
Don't trash the whole profession just because you hired a lousy legal team.
he didn't.
innocent until proven guilty takes on non subtle shades of new meaning when the six figures (yeah, i was there once. no, its not your fucking business why exactly.) pile up in the middle of that statement.
as a courtesy to your need to be authoritative on something, a spelling error has been inserted for you to find and correct, have a nice day son.
heh heh, your mother...
- I'd prefer not to.
yes the reason why if they knew thier clients lied why the story submitter has not had thier bar cards destroyed.
First, you misunderstand. The case wasn't dismissed because of evidence, it was dismissed because if all of the factual claims were proven to be 100% true they wouldn't add up to malicious prosecution.
Second, check the timeline. The note was written 10/27/2007 by the head of the law firm, not the particular lawyer. Nearly all the claims had been dismissed months earlier and the rest of the case ended the following week. Even if you were to conclude that the lawyer could not have reasonably believed the client following the note, the case was over! There was no more prosecution!
The OP probably has a decent tort against this Kazaryan fellow, since he was (allegedly) found to have participated in manufacturing the case. Libel or something, I don't know exactly the right tort. But the OP went after the folks with deep pockets instead.
I can't say I blame him for wanting to be paid but you don't get to go after the lawyers for doing their jobs.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I'm an attorney, and I agree. If attorneys could rely on "professional courtesy" they wouldn't each pay thousands of dollars per year in malpractice premiums. There's no lack of legal malpractice suits, but I would say that attorney discipline, including disbarment, doesn't happen often enough. Just look at how long it took Jack Thompson to get disbarred.
Yup. The problem is that the legal system has gotten way out of hand.
In theory the way it is supposed to work is that two parties with a disagreement go to court, and the court decides who is in the wrong. Maybe the person in the wrong gets punished by the court via damages of some kind depending on the nature of the dispute.
The problem is that today simply going to court is effectively punishment, and the actual damages are just outrageous quite often. Courts do not value the time of participants, and a trial takes many hours of preparation and motion practice let alone showing up in court. The result is that simply being named in a suit is finacially ruinous. Even going pro se doesn't help a great deal, as it takes countless hours that you aren't paid for to go to trial. It might also cost you your job. If you go pro se you could end up messing up and paying sanctions for the other side's legal expenses. Oh, but if the other side messes up they won't pay for your legal bills since you don't have any, and your time is considered worthless since you aren't an attorney. When it comes to scheduling the opposing counsel can point out to the court various conflicts with other litigation that they need to pursue and the court will respect this, but the court will care little for a pro se defendant's other commitments, since they aren't court-related.
They really need to switch to a system where legal costs are balanced. Courts should stipulate a budget for each side, and the court pays the expenses of all counsel. It will be illegal to pay a lawyer, and lawyers cannot parter with other services/etc as a way to get money in the back door. Lawyers will work for the court, and not for parties themselves, essentially. Then, after the trial the entire cost of the trial becomes one of the matters at issue and the loser generally pays. Oh, wealthy plaintiffs will have to put up security in advance.
With such a system neither side can out-lawyer the other as the legal budgets of both sides are fixed and equal. Poor defendants are not subject to death-by-process either.
Actually thinking about it there might be a way to fix this broken system. simply have BOTH SIDES forced to use public defender style lawyers, and if the corp wants better then they have to pay into a fund that half the money goes to opposing council thus insuring that neither side can just use "hired thugs" to overpower the other. After all the courts have ruled money is speech, so it should be only fair that in a court of law BOTH sides get free speech, yes? Because as it is now the law is a bad joke. The rich can do anything to anyone and short of taking the law into their own hands the poor have NO redress, simply because the rich can afford to drag a case on for decades.
I have seen this in action when a local ISP was screwed out of their backbone access by a big corp who basically said "Don't like it? Just try to sue us" and they were told by their lawyer "Oh no doubt you'll win, but it'll take a decade and cost a million and a half just in lawyers fees". Needless to say they just gave up their ISP and walked away. And THAT is the power the law has given the multicorps with this broken system today. You don't like competition? Well then just bury any startups in so much legal bullshit they can't even breath and will be forced to spend all their money on the courts.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Perhaps those malicious pests at Allen and Overy will stop hassling me about my article, Long live the Streisand effect.
My web domain.
But chalking decisions like this up to "professional courtesy" or a broken legal system is overhasty.
That might be the case but it is hard to have confidence in a system where the lawyers police themselves. Would you be happy going to a doctor if you knew that, no matter how badly he might mess up a treatment, you would only be successful in suing him if a panel of other doctors agreed he had mistreated you? If it is fine for lawyers to police themselves then how about all the other professions as well?
What has this got to do with news, or nerds?
"In the end, lawyers are held responsible for their--and even their clients'--actions all the time. We get fined, suspended, disbarred, held liable, and otherwise disciplined on a regular basis. Does it happen often enough? Sometimes I doubt that."
For criminal prosecutors, as I understand it, not remotely often enough. Need some more of that:
"Significantly, of the 4,741 public disciplinary actions reported in the California State Bar Journal from January 1997 to September 2009, only ten involved prosecutors, and only six of these were for conduct in the handling of a criminal case. That means that the State Bar publicly disciplined only one percent of the prosecutors in the 600 cases in which the courts found prosecutorial misconduct and NCIP researchers identified the prosecutor."
http://thecrimereport.org/2010/10/04/justice-on-trial/
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
But chalking decisions like this up to "professional courtesy" or a broken legal system is overhasty.
Don't fool yourself, the system is broken. It's broken bad.
Patents, Blagojevich, DUIs, family law, OJ, cops, big-pharma, it just goes on and on. Taking things to court means little chance of justice. Our courts have become just another tool of the rich and powerful.
Congratulations for being a political troll, when otherwise you might have something interesting to say. Ripping on Al Franken as a senator is not only unnecessary to the discussion, but akin to ripping on someone for picking the average kid to be the high jumper on your track team when everyone else is wheelchair-bound.
The main benefit that "the rich", be they corporations or individuals, currently have with the legal system is that people forget very quickly. Right now there is no simple way to check, if you are considering to enter a contract with someone, buy from somone, what their legal record is. Should my city council contract with XY to build Z? Do they have a history of lawsuits where people sue them for contract violations? Well, for the ordinary citizen there is no way to find out. Who's filed more lawsuits for non-commercial copyright infringement, Sony or Viacom? Well, you probably won't be able to find out. Who is running a lot of "defamation" lawsuits where people said bad things about them? Well, no dice. Who is Microsoft suing at the moment? Who's filed a patent law suit in Texas, even though both parties aren't really much engaged in Texas? Who has a really bad record in filing lawsuits and then settling or losing? We do not know, and thus we cannot make decisions based on what we may perceive as abuse of the legal system. Imagine, corporation X sues corporation Y and the newspaper article you read about it points out that 90% of such suits filed by X end in a out-of-court settlement, imagine how much more informed we would be. Are software patents a good idea? How many lawsuits have there been, what was the result? Does anyone not professionally engaged in the legal system know? Did you read about that on Slashdot recently? Well, I don't, and I haven't, but arguments about things like that would sure be a lot simpler if I could just look it up online in a click or two.
Well, maybe not.
You motherfucker, motherfucker !!
My 12th Step !!
Self deprecation is apparently no longer funny. That is telling of this site...
I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
The other party claimed I did not create the photo I had a copyright registration for, and his attorneys claimed the real owner was a man the client met in a sauna and paid $850 in cash. This mystery seller had no address, no phone number, and was completely untraceable. When I subpoenaed the phone company for any unlisted phone number for this man, "Micheal Zubitskiy", the other side's lawyers tried to quash the subpoena. This is called "willful ignorance" under the law. The federal judge in the case ruled there was "no credible evidence to support the belief that Zubitskiy existed".
If you bring a suit with no evidence, no personal knowledge of who created the photo, no basis to deny the other party's legal title of ownership, you lack "probable cause". If you didn't know if at first, they had 2.5 years to figure it out. Even after the notary lost his commission for notarizing the fraudulent sales agreement with Zubitskiy, they did not drop their claim he was a real person.
www.cgstock.com
We can say that, and indeed had he done so he probably would have prevailed at trial. The problem is that the people he should have sued--the corporation, ie, the people who actually lied--were bankrupt and he didn't feel it worth the time to sue them. He's probably right. But rather than go "this sucks but there's nothing I can do," he instead decided to look around for somebody who did have some money he could sue for and he went after their lawyers.
Now you have an entirely different ballgame. Not because of some "judges protect lawyers" conspiracy, but because you're now suing a tangential party. Lawyers are their clients' advocates and they operate on an assumption of good faith. Proving the client lied is not enough; now he has to prove the lawyers knew, when they knew, and that they then acted in bad faith to the courts by continuing the case either without informing the respondent or by continuing a case that no longer had merit with the lies exposed -- all of which are tricky.
He knows he sued the wrong people, he says as much in the summary when he mentions the corporation went bankrupt. He just seems to believe that their wrongdoing was also their lawyers' and is acting like a petulant child when two separate courts disagreed with him. What happened to him sucks. The fact that somebody can get away with it because he did it from behind the veil of a corporation sucks, and is, in my mind, the real issue to be gleaned from this situation and addressed. The ruling I'm fine with.
Christoph, well done overall and I'm certainly on your side with respect to the copyright issue, but your position on the lawyers doesn't hold up as well.
Attempting to quash a subpoena is almost standard procedure. Under precisely what law is that "willful ignorance"?
Your response mixes together what the other party knew and did and what his lawyers knew and did. It also mixes together the court's findings-of-fact with what the lawyers knew, should have known, were told, and were required to do. Moreover, you are simply wrong about what the lawyers' responsibility was. Lawyers need not have "personal knowledge" of the facts claimed to be true. They need only believe the facts claimed to be true based on information from the client. We could certainly argue about whether that's good public policy, but that's the way it is. And finding out midway that the client's story may be false does not necessarily equate to malicious prosecution or abuse of process.
Dismantle the civil court system.
It just doesn't work and mainly serves to make a good living for lawyers at everyone else's expense.
I was once sued by a slime ball attorney for his own gain. It was very unexpected, very expensive and I am still very bitter about it. Yes. It can happen to you.
Bunch of thieves. Nothing more.
The other party tried to quash a subpoena to the phone company. The judge asked at the hearing, "What is your standing? You don't represent the phone company." Their answer: "Well, we have no standing."
The phone company did not object to the subpoena, so they tried to interpose an objection on behalf of the phone company. That is not standard at all, and they lost.
It's willful ignorance because I showed early on that "Michael Zubitskiy" did not exist, and they never so much as opened the phone book to see if he was real.
www.cgstock.com
The client testified years earlier at deposition he had no evidence to back up his story. That is something his lawyers should have believed. The client also said he was not challenging my copyright. The lawyers decided to challenge my copyright on his behalf despite his truthful statements he had absolutely no evidence to do so.
I personally "believe" everyone in the world stole my car last night. A lawyer cannot take that case based on "believing me". There must be probable cause -- evidence. There was never the slightest hope the claims against me could prevail, which is why one was dismissed as pure speculation.
www.cgstock.com
Unless you're lucky and happen to live in a jurisdiction like Quebec, which has anti-SLAP ("baillon", or "Strategic Lawsuit Against Participation") legislation in place, you have no little or no recourse. In Quebec you could ask for 10 grand of lawyers fees up front from the corporation and you could ask to have to court throw out the defamation lawsuit prior to it going to court.
It needs to be transformed from a system that is based on control, ownership and seniority, to one based on merit, accountability, and transparency. I have said it time and tie again - with our economy wrapped up in capitalistic fervor, we simply can not allow its influence in our governance - its the ultimate checks and balances in our founding documents, yet complete ignored....
....).
What pundits, muckrakers, naysayers, and evangelists fail to recognize and purposefully glance over is the fact that Democracy gives birth to Economy, not the other way around - and it is in fact our governments DUTY to reign in on action limiting the prosperity of its PEOPLE, domestic or otherwise!.
I tend to think its intentional - the confusion and diversion to an argument that they themselves present to us. Article one, section eight of our Constitution has been shredded - its now owned and distorted as much as your brain watching Steven Jobs sell you a music player you don't want made in a country you never heard of (disclaimer I have two, and iphone, and
And it has to do with the systemic infiltration of practices that could downright be viewed as a form of slavery in some cases.
It just seems to me a bit more prudent to not have the FOX guard the hen house if we claim to be a consumer driven free market economy. Sounds to me like double speak the more I think about it - and with Face Crime becoming a reality, we have no reason to think other wise.
They - the really bright fuckers that set this thing up - did, however, give us the power to vote, but we are to glazed by donuts, whiskey, kindbuds and the simpsons to even care about that, or at least put these idiots in office all.
IT IS in fact a Socialist concept to reign in on the economy where necessary but we are far from socialism.... I stil cant get oive what people miss about making sure some basic essentials are provided like power, water, education and healtcare - until you relize who keeps you from really getting those things - invariable and asshole like this judge lets the cat out of the bag.
- and simply put, our lawmakers and leader have been bought out / or sold out, a LONG, LONG, LONG time ago.
If we are serious about changing this thing we call government and economy we need roll back 1973 laws about corporation's rights, and ANY subsequent expansion of these ideal up to and including the recent Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited campaign contributions - when in reality there should ONLY be contributions from CITIZENS.
Especially when that article summary is written by someone with a vested interest in the case, coloring their whole account of events.
"In the end, lawyers are held responsible for their--and even their clients'--actions all the time. We get fined, suspended, disbarred, held liable, and otherwise disciplined on a regular basis. Does it happen often enough? Sometimes I doubt that. But chalking decisions like this up to "professional courtesy" or a broken legal system is overhasty"
Rubbish.
Affidavits should be called legal lies. People rarely go to Jail for making false ones - divorce cases and custody being a classic. And after being caught out lying on an affidavit - know what - new ones are accepted with the same 'strength'.
Lawyers act on affidavits.They tell their clients if you say this - we wont take your case. If we have an affidavit that says it occurred this way, then we will take the case. Some even 'prompt' them what to say or write - even though that is 'naughty'. Banking does it on reports, opinions and risk reviews - but the end results are not pretty.
The degree that lawyers take incredulous cases depends on how much money the client is waving - SCO being a rather low point. The Smoking/Cigarette companies and lung cancer another.
Smart lawyers know how to cover their backsides, and try not to look. Unlucky ones can get 'done'
but that is uncommon - a bit like bill/hour padding
and now you come to /. and whine because?
No, seriously, I looked for the point, purpose, goal, meaning, whatever-you-want-to-call-it of this article, and I can't find one. You intend to do what by posting this? Wouldn't this blurb be much better as a Facebook wall posting?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There is very little disbarment as a percentage. It occurs only when the lawyer does something wrong and is unable to defend himself. If a lawyer pushes a judge hard, and threatens appeal over lack of due process (or some other non-factual issue - especially claims of bias), the judges back down. I have seen this on several occassions. There are all types of lawyers, "nice ones" and "assholes", dont confuse this with "good" and "bad". However, the assholes tend to be able to push the extremes and stand up to the judges so hard that the judges tend to lose some power (a portion of their power is indimidation... if they actually want to hold a lawyer responsible for some misconduct it will mean a lot of work for the judge to have to prove it).
So, because many judges are just looking to get to the next level (appellate, supreme court, etc), if a lawyer wants to make waves and does so in a righteous manner, then the judge likely to give that person a lot more leeway than someone they can intimidate?
What does this mean? Capable trial lawyers are pricks with big ego's. Doesn't mean they are bad at their job.
The above does not have a high relevance to non-trial portions of law like corporate/inhouse counsel, contract and patent lawyers.
Sounds like a fair idea to me... Same principle might radically alter criminal cases too, since as it is now, the gov't (prosecution) has effectively unlimited funds, while the defendent doesn't (and is unlikely to get equal value from a public defender, either). Would likely put an end to the trick of using the plea-bargain system to get a conviction against shaky evidence.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Sounds like a classic SLAPP suit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
And then you figure out where your money is coming from, and for 99.9% of lawyers, which duty to fulfill becomes obvious.
I'm Michael Zubitskiy!
I just have to download this 900 gig Geocities torrent so I can properly RTFA.
hmm so if I spend $100 on my defense 50% goes to the prosecution. If the prosecution spends $100 50% of that goes to my lawyers. Thus we both end up with the same amount of money to fight each other. I like I like. This might work well for all legal cases civil or criminal.
The client -- the corporation's owner -- testified under oath he had no evidence to support his version of events, and no personal knowledge of who really took the photo. His lawyers were the architects of the litigation knowing their client admitted having no evidence.
A law firm in Minnesota was sanctioned $20k for continuing to defend a claim after their client admitted at deposition they were essentially liable for the suit against them. Under the rules of civil procedure, all claims are supposed to be supported by evidence, or you may face sanctions (having to pay the other party's costs).
www.cgstock.com
"I showed early on that "Michael Zubitskiy" did not exist"
How?
You know what - I would because it would cut down on the crazy medical malpractices awards and maybe, just maybe, make healthcare affordable.
Would you be happy going to a doctor if you knew that, no matter how badly he might mess up a treatment, you would only be successful in suing him if a panel of other doctors agreed he had mistreated you?
Yeah, the only folks who should pass judgement on medical treatment are plumbers. And the guy down at the 7-11, you know the one, he clearly knows a lot about prescription medication!
Well, maybe for surgical cases, we should allow master carpenters onto the board.
</sarcasm>
and his attorneys claimed the real owner was a man the client met in a sauna and paid $850 in cash.
Did they wipe off the sauna bench, and throw the condom into the trash at least?
This mystery seller had no address, no phone number, and was completely untraceable.
The mystery seller probably just preferred to stay in the closet...
When I subpoenaed the phone company for any unlisted phone number for this man, "Micheal Zubitskiy", the other side's lawyers tried to quash the subpoena.
... and rightfully so. How would you feel if the opposing party tried to nose around about what you do in bed? My God, Slashdot where have you left the respect for "thy neighbour's privacy"?
Why you prevailed when being sued:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids all men to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread -- the rich as well as the poor."
- Anatole France, Crainquebille, 1902
Why you lost your suit:
The purpose of government is to defend the rich from the poor (Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations")
Not really, most of the times I've seen it's been pretty lacking. Meaning that they're using evidence which is easily forged, allowing for time travel conspiracy theories and generally abusing the process.
The described series of events so far do appear to be negligent to me, at best.
While it might be difficult to prove their actions WILLFUL, this situation stinks of "willing to take money to fuck someone over when the whole situation sounds like a crapfest."
Paid for it in a sauna. LOL. Don't expect me to believe they believed that.
C//
He knows he sued the wrong people, he says as much in the summary when he mentions the corporation went bankrupt.
I'm a little confused, though. Why sue the corporation? Sue the bad actors, whoever it was who lied and made shit up. Did THEY declare bankruptcy? Just because they were working for a corporation does not protect them from civil prosecution.
C//
How did I show "Michael Zubitskiy" didn't exist?
They explained he simply lives underground and is impossible to find (yet is a working digital photographer who was able to produce ID to have his signature notarized).
At trial, only a fraction of this evidence was admitted before the judge put a stop to it, calling it "cumulative". In other words, it's beyond any doubt.
www.cgstock.com
The other party allegedly gave "Zubitskiy" his phone number when they met in a sauna. I asked at trial to explain how he did so, since people don't usually bring either a cell phone or pen and paper into a sauna. "My phone number is easy to memorize". The phone number had no pattern to it, and the judge ruled this story to be a lie.
www.cgstock.com
Wins again. Not right, but not surprising.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That's true of EVERYBODY that sells their copyrighted work for money, not just photographers. Filmmakers, computer programmers, musicians and artists all rely on copyright law to let them make some money off their works without someone pirating them and selling them without giving anything back to the author. I know slashdot has a lot of people on it with pro-piracy views, but give me a fucking break. He didn't create this system, and its not unfair of him to use the current laws to make some money in exchange for the efforts he puts in to take these photos.
It costs people time and money to take photos, to write novels, etc. If you don't want to pay for them, go take your own fucking photos of the factory conditions in China. Its not that hard, right?
My guess is that nobody wants to be on the bad side of any prosecuting attorney's office, which is what would happen in all but the most egregious cases.
At one extreme end, you could really be dealing with an office capable and willing to abuse their authority, which could mean jail time or at least thousands spent defending yourself against prosecutorial attacks. Even at the mild end, everybody wants leverage at the prosecutor's office. Being a whistleblower doesn't get you that leverage.
Sue this person personally. His corporation being bankrupt has little to do with it, as a corporation does not provide a liability shield in cases of personal misconduct of its employees or executives.
Do a title search on him. You want to find if he has a home. Equity and the homeowner's liability umbrella are what you need to target.
If he doesn't have a home now, bide your time. Most states give you about 7 years leeway.
C//
I would be happy to do that too - but only so long as the panel of doctors was answerable to some higher, non-medical authority. Policing your own profession works fine up to a point but professions have their own view of the world and need to at least be reminded to keep in touch with the rest of society from time-to-time. Making them answerable to nobody but themselves is a recipe for disaster in the long term...at least if the legal profession is any sort of example.
Yeah, the only folks who should pass judgement on medical treatment are plumbers. And the guy down at the 7-11, you know the one, he clearly knows a lot about prescription medication!
You misread my post - I did not say that doctors should not police themselves but that they should not be solely responsible for policing themselves without any oversight (as is currently the case for lawyers). Having no self-policing is just as bad as having only self-policing: as is the case with most things you need a balance.
To a rightist, any time there is a conflict between our corporate overlords and a mere peasant, the peasant is always wrong. Peasants who don't know their place need to be smacked down a little harder lest the other peasants get ideas.
You have two options the way I see it; and I'm not a lawyer;
1) Approach the Attorney General's office, and ask them to press perjury charges against the person who lied in a court action
2) Approach the state bar association with a complaint against the lawyer who acknowledged his client was lying. You may consider going to that lawyers law firm, get a meeting and ask them first "Why would I not want to take this evidence to the bar association that your employee/contractor was aware that his client was lying"
Hi MR AC! You get the idea! As it is now a rich person can hire endless experts, endless paralegals to research every nook and cranny for loopholes, and the poor man has no redress because they simply can't afford to put their argument upon equal footing. By forcing each side to pay half their costs into a fund for the other then BOTH sides can afford experts, BOTH sides can afford paralegals, and in the end it will come down to the quality of your case and not the amount of money in your pocket. I didn't think about criminal but I don't see why this couldn't work here as well, as it would keep the state from railroading a poor defendant and forcing plea bargains on shitty cases.
In the end it is about bring the judicial system back to what the founding fathers originally intended: For each side to make their best case before a judge or jury and allow each to be decided by the merits of their arguments and NOT by who can hire the most legal thugs, which is what we have now. Now legal cases are simply wars of attrition, which always favor he who has the most gold.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
My God, it(/.)'s full of lawyers!
Note: IANAL
Suing lawyers is notoriously difficult. Judges, generally having been lawyers themselves, aren't necessarily going to make it easy for you.
And you'll do better on the procedure. You gotta make a prima facie case; didn't do it here.
Should have been happy with your pro se win in the first trial.
It's great to hear all sides of this. Someone posted that malicious prosecution is legally defined in Minnesota law as: (1) an action is brought without (a) probable cause or (b) reasonable belief that the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits
if (b) was true we would have record of a plaintif's lawyer memo stating: Myclient has no chance in hell of winning due to x,y, z, but I'm taking the losing case to soak my plaintif client for $300 per hour.
if (a) was true we would have record of a plaintif's lawyer who knew his client was lying ( aka no probable cause)
It sounds like (a) is true here. People on slashdot have advised you to seek a re-hearing or appeal to the MN Supreme Court.
Christoph, thanks for the China factory photos. You sound like a great citizen. I'm glad you celebrated your pro-se win and took this one step further. You will face judges who don't want to see you sue lawyers and win. These plaintif lawyers accepted a lying client because they are bullies, they knew you were an easy victim (some dude with a website) . If you had a legal team they never would have taken the case. Keep us updated. We need you to win and make this a precedent case. But stay human, don't let it consume you.
When you look to the Rules of Professional Conduct of your state, and research cases of your state's supreme court disbarring or sanctioning lawyers, you will notice just how egregious conduct must be in order for attorneys to be personally liable for wrongdoing.
Proving that they knew before they filed is quite difficult; the standard should be outlined in the commentary for your state's RPCs....
well,
it looks like its on to the stat supreme court. I am not sure about the money issues, but getting a conviction for malicious prosecution would definitely work in the favor of others who are currently being victimized for much the same thing. here is hoping that you win. I find the lower courts ruling that the evidence gathered was insufficient to be way out of line with known rules of law and logic. anyway, good luck in getting this matter resolved.
Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
Sounds like a good thing to write into the next constitution!
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Lots of mods appear to give either Interesting or Insightful instead of Funny because Funny doesn't award karma.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Rising healthcare costs have little to do with malpractice awards -- malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of healthcare spending. Malpractice costs have been estimated to be about $12 per American a year. So, if you completely eliminated them, you'd have...a dollar a month. Whoop de frickin' do.
"Tort reform" is a shibboleth for the right wing and a way to distract people from the enormous profits that health insurers and Big Phama extract from the system, not a serious proposal to reduce costs.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood