Woman Fined For Bad Review Striking Back In Court

An anonymous reader writes "Here's an update to the earlier Slashdot story about KlearGear.com 'fining' a couple for a bad review left four years earlier on RipoffReport: Not only did KlearGear report this as a bad debt to credit reporting agencies, but KlearGear is hiding behind a DomainsByProxy domain name to making finding their real identities harder. Now Public Citizen is representing the couple and is going after KlearGear for $75,000. The TV station that broke this story, KUTV, now reports that RipoffReport will likely be on the couple's side. The BBB and TRUSTe say their logos were used by KlearGear.com without permission, and credit reporting agency Experian is also investigating."

Comments

Good

[jason777]

I hope they put them out of business. What a scumbag company.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of business is not good enough. I hope the owners/managers whoever responsible for this goes broke personally.

Hope the judge says 75k isn't enough... How about ALL YOUR MONEY! ALL OF IT! GONE! HOW'S THAT YOU SCUMBAGS AT KLEARGEAR!

Re:Good

[FlyHelicopters]

I don't normally wish doom to a private company, but in this case...

Yea, based on the facts as offered, they can go rot...

Re:Good

[__aarzwb9394]

Out of business is not good enough

Dead right.
The right wing are forever claiming that corporations are people. Let's see these lowlifes in jail, and I will believe the rightists for once.

Re:Good

[BattleApple]

I find it interesting that they're already blocked by the proxy server where I work... but, nice.

Your request was denied because of its content categorization: "Business/Economy;Suspicious"
GET "http://www.kleargear.com/"

Re:Good

[linuxrocks123]

Question for anyone who knows: how the hell did KlearGear report a debt to a credit reporting agency in the first place? The credit reports are indexed by SSN, and they only have other identifiers like credit card numbers to go by if you don't have that. They paid by PayPal. Doesn't PayPal hide your credit card number from the merchant? With just a name, how did they report it? Does anyone know?

Re:Good

[jonfr]

They say on the front page that they are experiencing unexpected and sharp increase in volumes of orders. That means they are delaying all shipping for 48 business hours. Since working hours are around 8 hours normally, this means 6 days delay at least on shipping when people order from this website. But that is something they should not do, since it is unlikely they are going to get what they did order.

They are also faking reviews and other such things. Claim and information on the fake reviews can be found in the comment on the site I am linking to.

Details: http://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.kleargear.com

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll probably just pop up somewhere else under a new name. It's like those various "free" credit report companies. They come and go all the time, but most people don't think enough to go after the parent umbrella corporation. So much shady shit in that regard, I'm surprised it hasn't been made illegal.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd how you were modded as a troll but you've identified a major problem - corporations cannot be executed.
PAY ATTENTION SLASHTARDS
This is what's happening - corporations and government are in an ever rapidly speeding game of "fuck someone with money". Corporations fuck people to take their money, and then the government fines corporations to take some of the money from them.

Re:Good

[tysonedwards]

Easy... They had the person's full name and address, probably more relevant contact information.

Think of it this way... a call to Equifax, Experian or Transunion to submit a complaint saying "This person placed a very large order with us, but then reversed payment after the fact. Here is their name, address, phone number, email, dog's middle name, ..."

Re:Good

[khallow]

The right wing are forever claiming that corporations are people.

It isn't the right wing saying that. It's certain anti-corporation types with a weak understanding of global business law. Corporate personhood is not corporations being people. It's a legal fiction throughout the developed world where for some purposes corporations are treated as people for certain court proceedings.

Re:Good

[khallow]

Odd how you were modded as a troll but you've identified a major problem - corporations cannot be executed.

That can work, if it somehow punishes the people who actually made or were responsible for the crimes committed. And it would fail, if it doesn't.

As to punishing corporations, a lot of it is for pretty worthless reasons. For example, EU regulations on goods packaging and electronics connections. Anyone, including evil corporations, should be able to blow off that bullshit. Every nonsensical regulation dilutes society's regard for the law.

Re:Good

[John.Banister]

Corporations can easily be executed, by revoking their corporate charter. The problem is that the individual people who make up the corporation don't necessarily feel the pain, so they gather themselves back together and form a new corporation tomorrow.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

There's probably a good chance that they are planning to go out of business in the next few weeks. Take money from people, ship out whatever you don't think you can sell to others, sell whatever product you have on hand to others for cash, then sweep everything out of the company coffers and let the company get sued into oblivion.

Since the company doesn't own anything, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

The people who own this company might be evil but their not dumb.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Can anyone comment reliably on whether this strategy actually holds up in the US? Here in the UK, I would expect that knowingly and deliberately running a company into the dust like that would be grounds for piercing the corporate veil.

Re:Good

[marsu_k]

It isn't the right wing saying that. It's certain anti-corporation types with a weak understanding of global business law.

What, like this guy?

Re:Good

[sjames]

Unfortunately, all the wrong judges seem to take it literally when it comes to rights. Not so much when it comes tome to pay for crimes.

Otherwise, why should a corporation have a right to bribe^wdonate campaign money to representatives?

Re:Good

[Firethorn]

Youtube is blocked where I am. Who are you talking about?

Re:Good

[marsu_k]

Mitt Romney, I'm guessing you would have seen the clip if you follow US politics even cursorily.

Re:Good

[__aarzwb9394]

EU....electronics connections

You are actually complaining about things like the rule that phones must be chargeable over mini USB?
Apple's refusal to do this properly is one of the reasons I have a different kind of phone, despite happily using their computers.
This rule is a seriously good move, allowing you to be near certain that your phone will be chargeable when you are at a friend's house without your charger.
Corporations would never do this without being forced. In fact they would do the opposite, and deliberately use mutually incompatible charger connections.

Re:Good

[MysteriousPreacher]

I'd certainly find it difficult to imagine Kleargear would see an upsurge in orders. Google results for Kleargear are overwhelmingly negative, and they're swiftly picking up poor reviews in WOT and similar site ranking tools.

The 48 business hour delay is odd. In addition to this, their order status site is down.

http://www.kleargear.com/orderstatus.html

The order status page is now directing customers to their "Kleargear Customer Care Centre" which is this:

https://kleargear.zendesk.com/home

It's a "knowledge base" containing 0 articles. Just try searching for anything - you'll never find a single result. After a pointless search, the user is then directed to submit a question.

Kleargear appears to be circling the drain, or is some cowboy operation (as evidenced by their fondness of "certified/approved by x" banners. Either way, I wouldn't be expecting to receive goods paid for.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Heaven forbid a company make their own decisions! You tell those pricks at Reardon Steel to sell to the government, too!

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, scumbags. It could've been worse. I settle out of court on my terms.
Sue me and your house could burn down, with or without your family in it.
Your secretaries body could turn up in the trunk of your car. Your children
could wind up, pimped off to Arabs in Dubai. Maybe your lawyers will
quit representing you, because of their losses. Hey, you can't hide forever.
Even your lawyers will rat your anonymous ass out rather than lose
another finger. Go ahead, Sue me, I'll fucking Pwn you.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

As to punishing corporations, a lot of it is for pretty worthless reasons.

Nothing wrong with that, since corporations can also punish people for pretty worthless reasons too (its employees directly, and others indirectly by choosing not to sell goods and services to them). I mean, if a private individual doesn't want somebody as an employee or customer over their skin color or gender or whatever silly criteria outside of profits, that's their choice.

Of course, such a business probably won't be as successful as another business that doesn't discriminate. Might even go under. That applies to those who want to punish corporations for worthless reasons too. For example, pretty much every regulation for the last 100 years has caused the US to decline in some way. Keep this up and eventually the US will not have any power (economic, political, military, whatever) to continue its nonsensical regulations. Might even collapse entirely as all empires have in history.

Re:Good

[ganjadude]

while you wont ever see me using an Iphone or other apple products any longer, I actually have no issue with apples decision to use their own connector. *I* have the *choice* on whether or not I want to use it or not. If I find it better to use their connecters, I can since I dont I go with any number of other phones out there. On the other hand I do like standards, but I do not like forced standards.

Re:Good

[khallow]

I watched the video and I have to ask, why didn't you watch it through to the end?

Sure, Romney said "Corporations are people", but it's painfully obvious from his elaboration that he was referring to corporations being used by people, not that they are somehow people in their own right.

So we don't actually have a case of a "right wing" person who believes that corporations are people.

Re:Good

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Crowley's, a department store in Detroit, scammed people when it went out of business a few years back. Right after Christmas, they went bankrupt, and refused to honor gift cards, like the $200 one they sold my dad for my grandma. These frauds knew they were doing this and took the money anyway. Apparently they aren't as good as cash, but rather are a contract.

Re:Good

[khallow]

You are actually complaining about things like the rule that phones must be chargeable over mini USB?

Why shouldn't I? Why should the EU have even the slightest say in the matter?

Apple's refusal to do this properly is one of the reasons I have a different kind of phone, despite happily using their computers.

And there we go. Actions have consequences even in the absence of EU interference. You are applying incentive for Apple to change their ways.

Corporations would never do this without being forced.

So what? I see no reason to force the issue.

Re:Good

[__aarzwb9394]

The reason to force the issue is to bring about the greater good, you fundamentalist lunatic

Re:Good

[__aarzwb9394]

The standard would never exist without being forced.
Plenty of evidence that no-one was going to play the game: myriad connectors until a useful regulation is brought in which makes everyone's life easier.

Re:Good

[__aarzwb9394]

I presume you also object to standards for connections to mains electricity?

Re:Good

[ganjadude]

really? because in america there is no forced standard on connectors yet somehow everyone else seemed to have the same connector after a while, From 2005 on most phones were mini or micro USB today all but apple are microUSB, and no one forced that

Re:Good

[khallow]

I find the greater good often isn't. There are two obvious reasons why: 1) conflict of interest (by the parties deciding what the greater good is), and 2) incompetent and ignorance (namely, that the parties deciding what the greater good is supposed to be, don't actually have a clue).

Re:Good

[khallow]

I presume you also object to standards for connections to mains electricity?

I don't oppose standards. I don't even oppose standards created by governments. I oppose forcing others to comply with those standards.

Re:Good

[khallow]

Why should the EU have even the slightest say in the matter?

I should clarify this. As I say in a reply elsewhere, I don't mind that the EU creates standards. I mind when they force others to comply with those standards.

Re:Good

[__aarzwb9394]

Perhaps in response to a very sensible requirement for selling in a market larger than your glorious country? What a coincidence! It's the same one.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like someone's been playing Battlefield: Call of Honour too much.

Look kid, I agree with the sentiment, but your e-chest banging isn't going to help.

Re:Good

[ganjadude]

we were "mostly standard" before your requirement of the standard so again I dont get your point. there was no need for government intervention here

Re:Good

[stoatwblr]

It's entirely possible to use a custom connector which is a superset of micro/mini usb, or add one as well as the usb.

The only requirement is that such a plug can be used to provide power - and several low end makers take this quite literally.

Re:Good

[stoatwblr]

$ host www.kleargear.com
wswww.kleargear.com is an alias for stores.yahoo.net.
stores.yahoo.net is an alias for html.store.yahoodns.net.
html.store.yahoodns.net has address 66.218.72.112

And the DNS is via Godaddy's cloaking service.

Is anyone in a good position to ask awkaward questions of either company?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone comment reliably on whether this strategy actually holds up in the US? Here in the UK, I would expect that knowingly and deliberately running a company into the dust like that would be grounds for piercing the corporate veil.

I've seen far worse behavior before bankruptcy go unpunished. My favorite was a guy who funded his hot air balloon hobby with company funds. He stopped paying his bills almost a full year before filing, but he kept paying his own salary. It came out in court that he'd collapsed many businesses before. He got to keep his company and the balloon, since it had the company logo on it, they couldn't sell it. He paid most creditors 10 cents on the dollar. The banks got more a higher percentage and agreed to the deal.

Fret not

[smittyoneeach]

All of the company staff will get IRS jobs. They've shown the proper mindset.

Re:Fret not

[HellCatF6]

They'll just pop up again somewhere else like bad mushrooms.

Re:Fret not

[DavidClarkeHR]

All of the company staff will get IRS jobs. They've shown the proper mindset.

IRS? Nah. Wall street. We never did fix those problems.

Re:Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

Awww...Look what the public education system produced!

Re: Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

It produced a person who can use his brain?

Re:Fret not

[mcvos]

So basically they should just print money?

Re:Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

A predecessor to the United States already tried this. It was an abject failure. Did you know that rich people who think "someone" should fund the government almost always mean "someone else, obviously, I've got yachts to buy" ?

Re:Fret not

[khallow]

Did you know that rich people who think "someone" should fund the government almost always mean "someone else, obviously, I've got yachts to buy" ?

I haven't noticed that being rich had an effect on that particular mindset. The point of government is to give me free shit. Having me actually pay for that defeats the purpose - whether I'm rich or poor.

Re: Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous Cowards with multiple personality disorder

Re:Fret not

[the eric conspiracy]

Ding Ding Ding Ding

You have identified the fundamental problem with our system of government.

Couple the principle of free shit with that of lack of term limits and fiat money and I am amazed we have gotten this far.

Re:Fret not

[shikaisi]

Ding Ding Ding Ding

Is that you, Hector Salamanca?

Re:Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're out there.

Re:Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of government is to give me free shit.

Please die now if you honestly believe that.

Re:Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

They print it right now with reckless abandon. Its not enough. This nation, even with its recognition as a world reserve currency provider, is still sinking ever deeper in debt.

We have grown dependent on freebies and handouts as our government tries to "domesticate" its citizenry into the role of owned beasts of burden.

Its now at the point if the government handouts cease, there will be rioting in the street that would be remind anyone of the kind of violence one ususally sees in the Middle East.

Re:Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

So America, prior to Roosevelt is your idea of paradise.... I gotta love you right wingers trying to repeal the 20th century as if the 19th century was some kind of utopia.

Re:Fret not

[the eric conspiracy]

Funny I just happen to be watching Breaking Bad on Netflix.

Re:Fret not

[Vladius]

It's because the Right doesn't believe in Freedom or Liberty. They believe in power and control and more importantly being able to decide what rights other people have based on their socioeconomic status.

Re:Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

All of the company staff will get IRS jobs. They've shown the proper mindset.

IRS? Nah. Wall street. We never did fix those problems.

That was my first thought; my dealings with the IRS were actually rather pleasant.

Re:Fret not

[nomadic]

"We have grown dependent on freebies and handouts as our government tries to "domesticate" its citizenry into the role of owned beasts of burden."

What freebies and handouts would these be? By developed nation standards we do not spend that much on social welfare programs.

Re:Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

You're high, right?

Re:Fret not

[dale.furno]

says the AC

Re:Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't find that humorous at all.

Re:Fret not

[khallow]

It is possible that I could have been sarcastic.

Re:Fret not

[Zontar The Mindless]

Yeah, someone who can spell. Will wonders never cease.

Re:Fret not

[Zontar The Mindless]

Stick around for the real fun--next he's going to tell us about his perpetual-motion machine.

Re:Fret not

[ultranova]

The point of government is to give me free shit.

The point of government is to provide overall coordination for the society. Sadly, at some point people convinced themselves that a simple logistics optimization routine - free market - is all that's needed for that, thus making long-term planning of any kind impossible. The result is the current fustercluck.

Oh well, at least world economy makes for a pretty decent farce.

Re:Fret not

[ganjadude]

explain to me how the IRS scandal is bogus when A - the IRS admits it did wrong doing, and B - there are emails that show that it was not a rogue employee but rather sent down the chain of command? Let me guess, Benghazi is really about some guy who made a movie about Mohammad as well?

Re:Fret not

[ganjadude]

as opposed to the left who dont want freedom or control, well except for mandating that we buy a product we dont want, or outlawing drinks over 16 ounces, or.... but yeah, its those EVOL right wingers who want people to keep their own money and make their own decisions who are against freedom.. you know like keeping your own money or making your own decisions..... wait what??

Re:Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

Never did check out what party, cut the marines out of the protection racket for our embassy personnel, have you? Ah!!!!. the stupid burns....
Next part, Who assigned contractors to our embassy personnel? again!!!!
next part? or do you want some tinfoil to cover the tender spots? contractors to cover the ambassador? Oh, come on? Stupid is as stupid does....
Next who was in charge of the CIA at the time? Some republican general, that is nicknames betrayus. Why? he did it once, he did it twice, So, would he do it again?
Betcha he would....And someone died. He had snipers, and a rapid reaction team, along with another safehouse, within a mile, and reports filtered in they were told to stand down. He's now a instructor in a famous college, collecting a millionaires retirement, when he should have been kicked out, forcibly, and dishonored. And the tinfoil boys want him to run for president.....the man sold out our troops, and they died, he sold out an ambassador, who died, and they want him t lead us?

Re:Fret not

[khallow]

The point of government is to provide overall coordination for the society.

Then why is so much of that government spending, entitlement spending? Coordination has nothing to do with pension funds, health care, or near permanent unemployment payouts.

Sadly, at some point people convinced themselves that a simple logistics optimization routine - free market - is all that's needed for that, thus making long-term planning of any kind impossible.

That's patently false. Nothing prevents you (and like minded people, should you wish to pool your resources) from planning as long term as you like.

Also, why you think that an effective, simple logistics routine somehow isn't sufficient for coordination? Long term thinking is actually rewarded, for example.

Re:Fret not

[ganjadude]

what does any of that have to do with what I said?

lets try and follow some simple points instead of going off on a tangent.

The bengazi issue I simply mentioned that we the people we sold a story that they were attacked because some guy posted a video on youtube. This lie continued for days if not weeks.

REGARDLESS of all the point you made, it does not change the fact that the white house lied about the facts as they happened, and instead blame some guy who made a dumb movie.

NONE of what you said, had anything to do with my point, and the point is that the white house , that said it would be the most transparent white house in history, lied (and also lied about the transparency to boot)

Re:Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

"Let me guess, Benghazi is really about some guy who made a movie about Mohammad as well"

No, it was about the murder of CIA agents who were trying to collect weapons from Libya to pass on to their al Qaeda buddies in Syria so they could take out Assad.

Re:Fret not

[fl!ptop]

lack of term limits

You don't need term limits when you can vote for the challenger.

However, this takes an educated electorate, so good luck with that I guess.

Re:Fret not

[Oligonicella]

But far outstrip them in volunteer work and charity. I'll take our methodology.

Re:Fret not

[rochrist]

WTF does this have to do with KlearGear or the article? Are you suffering from some strange form of Tourette's?

Re: Fret not

[lonecrow]

It might be fun for you to take a vacation to a country with no building codes, no food inspectors, no labeling laws, no noise bylaws, no courts to enforce contracts, and all the other "freedom surprresing" rules. Then you should read Hobbs, Mills, and Locke so that you understand exactly why it is that we are more free with street lights then without. One could easily argue that a red street light is a gross violation of your liberty by the gubberment. But do your really want to live in a city without street lights? If you want to discuss the nuances of spefic laws and how balance between personal liberty and common good, there are many people who would love to have that talk. And they would respect your views. But if all you say is that all government and taxes are bad, you will quite rightly be dismissed as an idiot not worthy of listening to. This is the proplem with the tea party. All the valid viewpoints of the right are lost in the noise of all the nonesense.

Re:Fret not

[ultranova]

Then why is so much of that government spending, entitlement spending?

Because you're thinking maintenance costs as entitlements. You're so used to living in a peaceful, lawful society you think it's the natural state of things rather than something that was won by ensuring Joe Beggar has options besides starving or mugging you. Or maybe you're simply subconsciously assuming the opportunities inherent in frontier period America still exist today, and any disenfranchised person can simply go West and grab some land to farm.

Or, to put it another way: Breaking Bad Canada.

Re:Fret not

[publiclurker]

Just because a self-important deadbeat like you thinks that you can leach off of the insurance of others does not mean that the grownups should just sit around and let you, son.

Re:Fret not

[hey!]

Sure, but under your proposal they can't *stop* printing money, even in an inflationary economy.

In effect you might as well tax people; sure *money* isn't changing hands, but your ability to buy things is reduced by inflation, which has the same practical effect as taxation: you can't buy as many widgets with your savings. In fact inflation skews the market away from savings and investment and more toward immediate consumption.

In any case the Fed doesn't literally *print money*. The Treasury does that, but it has ZERO effect on the supply of money to the economy. Under our system you can't get money into the economy just by printing it, because you can't just give it away. What the Fed does primarily is *lend* money, which is different than just handing out freshly minted dollar bills because the money has to be paid back. It can also buy Treasury securities in "open market operations", which is not unlike your solution of the Fed handing over currency to the US government, only (a) it involves a middle-man and (b) the federal government has to pay the Fed when the securities mature.

So the way the Fed gets money into the economy is quite a bit different than just printing currency and handing it over to anyone, even the government, because money created by lending or open market operations is automatically un-created at a later date. Money that the Fed creates will eventually have to return to the place it was created. Simply printing money and handing it over to someone, even the government, is irreversible.

Re:Fret not

[publiclurker]

i.e. I'll go for any conspiracy that makes the black democrat look bad. I'm that desperate.

Re:Fret not

[khallow]

You're so used to living in a peaceful, lawful society you think it's the natural state of things rather than something that was won by ensuring Joe Beggar has options besides starving or mugging you.

I don't think the problem is that I am used to living in such a society, but that everyone else is so accustomed. Your sort of rationalization is what you get when you take freedom and a developed society for granted.

My view is that society needs a peaceful, lawful society more than they need freebies. When the entitlements threaten the viability of your ideals, maybe you'll change your tune.

maybe you're simply subconsciously assuming the opportunities inherent in frontier period America still exist today, and any disenfranchised person can simply go West and grab some land to farm.

Having actually grasped some of those opportunities, I have to say that you're pretty ignorant of what the US still has to offer.

Re: Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, the socialists were put on boats and sent back to the king...

Gotta love that!

Re:Fret not

[gmanterry]

lack of term limits

You don't need term limits when you can vote for the challenger.

However, this takes an educated electorate, so good luck with that I guess.

No you can't. The reason we are stuck with the crappy politicians we have is because the left and the right are so far apart that no red State would ever vote for a Democrat and no blue State would ever vote for a Republican. The politician in office is usually not challenged by others in his/her party so they basically have a job for life no matter how crappy they are. That is what we have now. Senators are especially difficult to pry out of their seats.

Re:Fret not

[ganjadude]

public, What does race have ANYTHING to do at all with what I said, If you got nothing to contribute, keep your trap closed. The only desperate people I see are those who like to deflect from the real issues and revert to name calling and race baiting

Re:Fret not

[ganjadude]

oh look, I have a new stalker I see.

Re: Fret not

[ganjadude]

look, NO one is saying that *all laws are bad* I am saying that the minimum number of laws work best. The poster I responded to somehow believes that democrats are for more freedom when I simply pointed out that cant be true when they are the ones forcing people to buy a product they dont want on the national level, on the local level they try and ban vices (cigs are now only avalable to those 21 and older in NYC, and the soda bans) I really dont get your point about traffic lights and the such. The problem with the tea party isnt that the message is lost, well not at the fault of the actual tea party members. If one simply goes and reads the information presented rather than listen to the news. Lets face it the news will always focus on the 1 loon rather than the core message. Frankly I kind of like hannity's penny plan which is for every dollar we spend, cut 1 penny over a 5 year term.

Re:Fret not

[publiclurker]

Funny how you didn't get defensive on Democrat. I take it you are used to being called out on your bigotry and are, therefore, too defensive.

Re:Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the problem is that I am used to living in such a society, but that everyone else is so accustomed.

That's highly unlikely, since everyone else are liberals who think anything and everything can and will end our peaceful lawful society if we don't spend tons of money to "do something about it"

Your sort of rationalization is what you get when you take freedom and a developed society for granted.

Again, liberal thinking is the opposite: liberals fear the loss of freedom and developed society more than any group. They want "somebody to do something" to keep society going.

My view is that society needs a peaceful, lawful society more than they need freebies.

History disagrees. Bread and circuses and a strong military kept societies going longer than peace and group hugs. It's easier to keep the people under control by giving them freebies instead of freedom. When there are too many people living on freebies, you start some wars with your military to reduce the population (the other country's and yours), and the winner takes the spoils to continue the freebies

When the entitlements threaten the viability of your ideals, maybe you'll change your tune.

Again unlikely and history disagree. Historically, liberals like him won't change their tune. They'll turn violent before that happens. When the violence breaks out, either they'll die or you'll die, and then they take your stuff and continue the entitlements.

Having actually grasped some of those opportunities, I have to say that you're pretty ignorant of what the US still has to offer.

What else did you expect? In a free market, you wouldn't be paying for his education, so he and other poor people won't get any educate. In freebie handout land, you don't get to decide what he's taught: liberals and government does. Either way he's gonna be ignorant.

Re: Fret not

[lonecrow]

The fact that you dont get my point about street lights is kinda the point. Something that on the surface impedes my freedom " a red light" actually provides more freedom. Without street lights I would have to stop at every intersection to check.for oncoming traffic. I am in Canada which has a single payer health insurance system. (A system that most Canadians would kill to defend and I am truly sry you guys disnt get for yourselves). I understand that you would view it has a liberty reducing socialism like a red light. But I view it as liberty increasing. Firstly health insurance is very affordable because risk is spread as wide a possible. This increaes my financial freedom. Second, preventitive measures and harm reduction programs abound. This increses my freedom from infection from others. We have no destitution created because of someones lack of acces to affordable health. This increases my freedom from fear because of less crime. We spend less then you for health care and get way better outcomes. So I am free from getting screwed by a for profit insurance company. Free from getting sub-standard care because I dont earn enough. But I do hear you that you dont want government to fund laws you dont like. Welcome to democracy, if enough other people like those laws they get funded. This doesnt mean government is broken, it just means democracy works. Deal with it.

Re: Fret not

[ganjadude]

Well first off, we are not a true democracy we are a republic. Second of all our country is constantly pushing laws we dont want, for example to soda ban which thankfully was overturned by the courts (the system worked that time) or over taxing of vices, outlawing subsstances that are proven to be not only not harmful but benificial. Its not a perfect system by any means.

Traffic lights are a safety measure, without traffic lights the flow would grind to a hault, have you ever seen the photos of cities around the turn of the century? Horses and cars everywhere no traffic flow that makes any sense it was chaos!

I love the idea of UHC, as long as we have the choice if we want it or not. MOST people under the age of 30 dont need health insurance except for catastrophic. I go to the doctor once every few years (im 28). What *I* think would make the most sense is do away with the concept that insurance should pay for everything, Just like with schools, the cost of tuition went through the roof as soon as the government mandated anyone can get student loans, schools could not charge more money knowing the government was footing the bill. the same thing happens in the HC world in america. If I have a cold or something minor and go to a doctor for an antibiotic, it will cost memore time in paperwork, and more money that it has to because of the overhead needed for insurance, UHC would resolve a portion of that but it would also restrict everyone to deal with things one way. Why cant i go to a doctor pay him 50 bucks out of pocket to give me an antibiotic? because of the system.

Re:Fret not

[ganjadude]

defensive? hardly, At this point being called a bigot or a racist by the likes of liberals is a sign that you have no real argument. As I said, instead of debating what I said, you throw insults. The thread speaks for itself.

Re: Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

"I love the idea of UHC, as long as we have the choice if we want it or not. MOST people under the age of 30 dont need health insurance except for catastrophic"

That is as funny as it is sad.

The sad part is that you seem to miss the the whole point of insurance which is to spread risk widely. If the only people who bought insurance were the people most likely to need insurance, then it wouldn't be insurance it would be more like paying for health care directly.

The funny part is that you can't wait for something catastrophic and THEN buy insurance can you?

However, I think we can find a place of agreement. You guys totally screwed the pooch by mandating health insurance from a private market. Its like you only pulled the rip cord half way so your chute won't deploy. Its like mandating that everyone hire their own security guard instead of just creating and managing a police force. Its really kinda insane. Fuck the private health insurance market, they should have lost their privilege to play after being dicks for so many years.

I guess it's just the USA's teenager like rebellion to be different then everyone else. Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, shit almost everyone else has a great functioning public health care except you guys. Your health outcomes suck and yet your politicians and talk show air bags keep going on about having the "best health care in the world". Wait I have to stop, thinking about how much one half of your country lies to the other half gives me a tummy ache.

Re: Fret not

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but the IRS admitted they did use extra scrutiny with conservative groups.

Re: Fret not

[diablo135]

I'm sorry, but the IRS admitted they did use extra scrutiny with conservative groups.

Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The main claim is that the puchase was a contract that imposed the condition of "never acting to harm KlearGear". That could encompass pretty much anything you do. Did you consume a resource that resulted in higher costs to them, did you loan the item to a friend and the friend did not like it. So many accidental ways to breach the "contract"

We the people need the right of fair dealing. We can't have weird contractual conditions imposed. I am not a lawyer so don't know how to put it.
Normal actions, including criticism should not result in violations.

Re:Waiver of rights

[arbiter1]

that "never acting to harm KlearGear" clause is not legally binding IMO. Since in this case it violated her first amendment right to say that she had bad service from KlearGear. For them to say in a contract she couldn't do that is complete BS. as for suring for 75grand, i would sued for a lot more then that.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless KlearGear is run by either the Federal or a state government, how can they be violating the First Amendment?

Re:Waiver of rights

[BronsCon]

Even moreso, my understanding is that the transaction, upon which the contract was reliant, was cancelled by KlearGear, which would render the contract null and void, would it not?

Re:Waiver of rights

[cirby]

The problem with that line of attack is... KlearGear apparently added that part after this all happened.

No, you can't take action against someone for a "contract" you put up after you did something wrong. They also deleted the web page with the "contract" after someone pointed that out.

Not to mention that KlearGear never actually sent the items in question, and PayPal cancelled the purchase automatically.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

that "never acting to harm KlearGear" clause is not legally binding IMO. Since in this case it violated her first amendment right to say that she had bad service from KlearGear. For them to say in a contract she couldn't do that is complete BS. as for suring for 75grand, i would sued for a lot more then that.

Well, since KlearGear never actually shipped her the product, it's hard to make any claim that there is a contract in place at all, and if there is, KlearGear broke it by accepting payment and not shipping product.

Re:Waiver of rights

[russotto]

Yeah, the "fine" fails on so many levels. A contract term added after the formation of the contract, enforced based on a contract that KlearGear breached (by not delivering), enforced on someone who was not the contracting party (the person posting the review was not the person who made the purchase), and unconscionable to boot.

Based on all this and my knowledge of the integrity of the legal system, my bet is the Palmers will lose their suit and KlearGear's fine will be upheld, with the Palmers paying KlearGear's attorney fees.

Re:Waiver of rights

[tgd]

First amendment is about what the government can't restrict you.fromdoing, not anyone else.

Re:Waiver of rights

[d'baba]

+1 Cynical

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to recall it beeing seedier than even that.

IIRC, at the time the transaction was said to take place, KlearGear had not yet even PENNED that clause in their contract, and as such any such term was never a term even presented to the customer at the time of said transaction.

In the venerable wors of Darth Vader: "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it further."

Essentially KlearGear is claiming a breach of contract that was never even presented to the customer, as grounds for their dickishness.

If true, the woman's lawyers are going to can their spammy asses.

Re:Waiver of rights

[jmac_the_man]

The Constitution doesn't grant ANY rights. The Bill of Rights recognizes is a non-exhaustive list of rights of the natural rights of free people. These rights predated the Constitution, and people are entitled to them with or without the Constitution.

As the USOC [sic - the Supreme Court???] recognized, the first amendment only grants the right from government restrictions on free speech. Other entities such as... schools are not required to grant you the right to free speech.

Again, the government didn't GRANT you the rights listed in the first amendment (because the rights were there already), but the government is required to RESPECT the rights that you already had. This applies to all governmental institutions, which includes most schools.

Please stop treating the Constitution like a religious document. It is not.It is very limited and very specific.

It's obvious you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

Re:Waiver of rights

[AK Marc]

They can't. They aren't going after them for civil rights violations. Try to keep up.

Re:Waiver of rights

[mysidia]

We the people need the right of fair dealing. We can't have weird contractual conditions imposed. I am not a lawyer so don't know how to put it.

My understanding is: while the buyer placed an order and paid: the retailer never delivered their order. Therefore, the order was unfulfilled, AND, there was not completion of the "contract" as agreed; therefore, if true, then there was no contract, or the retailer was in breach, because:

Certain elements must be met for a contract to exist:

• An offer
• Acceptance by competent persons having the legal capacity who exchange consideration to create mutuality of obligation
• Proof of some or all of these things may be done in writing --- although contracts can be made entirely orally, or by other conduct.
• Remedy for breach can be compensatory damages or specific performance. Only the party at loss of the benefit of the bargain; or expectancy damges ("injured party's interest in realizing value to be gained from the expectance of the other party fulfilling their promises")

However..... If the buyer never received the gear from KlearGear --- then Consideration was not exchanged; therefore, the terms of the sale weren't fulfilled.

The other word is contract of adhesion, or standard form contract or ("shrink wrap agreement") ----- terms and conditions are set by one of the parties. The other party has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms and is thus placed in a "take it or leave it" position.

While these types of contracts are not illegal per se, there exists a very real possibility for unconscionability. In addition, in the event of an ambiguity, such ambiguity will be resolved contra proferentem against the party drafting the contract language.

The doctrine of unconscionability is a fact-specific doctrine arising from equitable principles. Unconscionability in standard form contracts usually arises where there is an "absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to one-sided contract provisions, together with terms which are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person would accept them." (Fanning v. Fritz's Pontiac-Cadillac-Buick Inc.)

[...] Courts in the United States have faced the issue of shrink wrap contracts in two ways. One line of cases follows ProCD v. Zeidenberg which held such contracts enforceable (e.g. Brower v Gateway), and the other follows Klocek v. Gateway, Inc, which found them unenforceable. These decisions are split on the question of assent, with the former holding that only objective manifestation of assent is required while the latter require at least the possibility of subjective assent.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that 'people have natural rights' is not falsifiable. Your disgreement with the OP is an entirely religious one.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Shakrai]

Actually the idea is readily demonstrable in the real world. Take the right to keep and bear arms, which society still hasn't figured out how to effectively take away even in the most controlled of environments, as evidenced by the plastic shank sticking out of some poor bastard in the prison shower. It is the quintessential 'natural right', one that all human beings are born with, and one that is impossible to completely deprive them of. Free speech is the same, you can punish someone after the fact if you're an oppressive regime that doesn't recognize it, but you can't actually stop them from exercising it in the first place.

Re: Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The term is ex post facto... 'After the fact'. The constitution expressly prohibits this, not that it stopped Bush from pardoning telcos from eavesdropping after the fact.

Re:Waiver of rights

[artor3]

By that logic, we have the right to rape and murder.

Re:Waiver of rights

[tpstigers]

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. Period. It grants no rights, nor does it assume that anyone has any sort of "natural rights". The Bill of Rights is simply a list of things the federal government is not allowed to do.

Re:Waiver of rights

[mysidia]

IIRC, at the time the transaction was said to take place, KlearGear had not yet even PENNED that clause in their contract, and as such any such term was never a term even presented to the customer at the time of said transaction.

That is even worse for KlearGear; as it changes the violation from harassment, FCRA violations (for reporting a false loan, from which no goods or services were exchanged) and FCBA violations --- into fraud.

Changing your "terms" after the fact, and pretending as if your new terms apply to a previous sale, so you can extort your customer, is fraud.

Re:Waiver of rights

[mysidia]

First amendment is about what the government can't restrict you fromdoing, not anyone else.

The government includes the courts, and all the laws passed by the federal government and state legislatures ---- including contract law.

No contract that purports to accomplish something, that is illegal or outside the government's power in the first place, has the force of law.

Re:Waiver of rights

[meerling]

Courts have already declared that those kinds of 'agreements' (this includes EULAs) can not remove rights, no matter what the agreement says.
They're allowed to talk about it, and in a negative fashion, so long as they stick to facts and their opinions. (NDAs are a bit different.)
For that matter, the clause saying you can't badmouth them apparently didn't exist at the time those people interacted with that company. So the company is trying to retroactively change the agreement, which is illegal.
The threats the company sent, sure look like blackmail, or at least some form of illegal attempt to influence imo. (ianal)
Don't forget that the company never delivered the contracted goods, so the contract was invalidated by them for failure to fulfill the contract. Heck, even the credit card company agreed to that and revoked payment.
That company also used the logos of the Better Business Bureau and TRUSTe improperly, without permission, and I believe, illegally. I know of know other reason to fake having endorsement by such "trust" organizations as those for any reason other than to run a con. Add that with the companies attempts at avoiding contact and keep as many details secret as they can, and you really have to wonder about their motives. In my case, it's more of a just how extensive and widespread their guilty actions are rather than a more common question of their guilt.

By the way, if that company were to legally prevail, it would be a horrible precedent. It would probably by about 3 seconds before most companies had the same kind of B.S. 'agreements' employed. You wouldn't be able to say or do anything bad about any company lest you be 'charged' a huge penalty. You probably couldn't even recommend a competitors product or store to a friend, since that would be an action that negatively affects a company. And when it comes to abusing laws, it's it's not a matter of if, it's only a matter of when.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

technically yes, you do have the right, but you will be accountable for what you did

free speech works the same way, you will be held accountable for it

and i believe this is also the reason why anonymity and free speech is very powerful combination,
you can freely say anything you want without being held accountable

Re:Waiver of rights

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> The idea that 'people have natural rights' is not falsifiable. Your disgreement with the OP is an entirely religious one.

BS. The "government" doesn't exist -- only people and things exist. To say "the government" grants you rights means other people grant you rights. How in god's name did they get this awesome power? Why do you think it's proper to get on bended knee and beg for rights from them?

People can't "grant" rights, but they sure as hell can take away others' rights. Stop lying supine for your masters, begging for your life, and your right to live, liberty, property, and happiness.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Kjella]

That must be the most ill-conceived post I've seen in /. on all my years here, and that's saying something. Just because you can't prevent anyone from doing something (murder, rape or holding a speech) doesn't make it a "right". Punishing someone after the fact does take the "right" away, you really think saying something then facing an execution squad is free speech? As for "natural" rights, I consider that a joke. Try arguing your "right to life" with a hungry lion, rights only exists between entities that recognize those rights. If your government doesn't recognize freedom of speech, the difference between having it and not having it is entirely philosophical.

Most people, even those who like to pretend they only care about negative rights care about positive rights. If you say something and the government wants to hang you from the nearest tree but the law won't let them that's a negative right. If you say something and the community wants to hang you from the nearest tree but the police or the law won't let them that's a positive right. What's really your "freedom" of speech worth if the Taleban will kill you for it and nobody will care? Not very much.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Solandri]

Contracts restrict the first amendment right to free speech (which only applies to the government) all the time. A non-disclosure agreement is a perfect example.

The problem in this case is that KlearGear failed to fulfil their part of the contract (didn't deliver the goods), but then are trying to say the other party is still bound by the contract terms. You cannot hold the other party accountable to a contract while you willfully ignore it. There is no longer a valid contract because KlearGear broke it. The negative reviews are basically the woman saying KlearGear broke the contract.

Re: Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The term is ex post facto... 'After the fact'. The constitution expressly prohibits this, not that it stopped Bush from pardoning telcos from eavesdropping after the fact.

This would be relevant if Kleargear was the government and their ex post facto sales clause was a law they passed to retroactively prosecute. As they are not the government, the constitution doesn't regulate their operation. This sales clause is not legal, but you'll need to find a lawyer to tell you why.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you bother reading what I responded to?

Since in this case it violated her first amendment right to say that she had bad service from KlearGear.

Re: Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not disagreeing that what you mention was wrong, but that segment is in regards to ex post facto punishments. Generally you can't pardon someone until after they've done simething wrong, so it's (almost) always ex post facto.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Pinhedd]

The first amendment has nothing to do with this. It simply prevents the government from creating any law which abridges the freedom of speech. The freedom to speak about certain matters is something that the government cannot take away from you without a damn good reason, however the freedom to speak about certain matters is something that individuals can sign away on their own.

Non disclosure agreements are incredibly common contracts in the business world that in effect are in effect unilateral or bilateral restrictions on one's freedom of speech. Breaching an NDA can result in civil liability as well as various criminal offences under some trade secret acts.

NDAs have been found to be enforceable many times in the past as they are often necessary to protect sensitive private information and provide a legal vehicle for redress in the event of such disclosure. However, I agree that a judge would find that a clause prohibiting criticism of a product would be unconscionable, but not for reasons of violating the first amendment.

Re:Waiver of rights

[dwywit]

But for nearly all intents and purposes, the government *does* exist. It is a legal construct, and the people elected to represent our interests possess the power, via legislation, to affect many aspects of your life. You're right that "other people grant you rights", but they don't do it as individuals, they do it via the legal entity known as government. One of the things that's handy about having a "government" grant you rights, pass legislation, etc, rather than individuals is that you don't have to re-affirm legislation every time there's an election. Collectively, we agree to the legal construct because life would be chaos otherwise.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Kjella]

Playing the devil's advocate here, I'd see many situations where it'd be reasonable to ask that the details be kept secret even if the transaction is not completed, for example if you're negotiating a buyout under an NDA. What if you're negotiating the sale of the entire inventory? A big part of it? A small part of it? A single item? I can sort of understand companies that want to say we want this resolved by the terms of the agreement and in court if necessary, but you can't try to publicly blackmail us by going to the media with it. On the other hand, I really feel you should be able to tell about someone who screwed you over.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Sique]

You got it reverse. Of course people can grant rights. All your rights are granted by other people. You as yourself don't have any rights. It's just an agreement between people that you have rights. They are not inherent to your being. If you don't believe it go into the next civil war zone and then tell me about your rights to property or free speech or due process. Those rights don't exist in a civil war zone, because there are no people there willing or able to grant you those rights.

It's that big association of people often referred to as "society" or "state", that is able to keep up the rights you seem to believe are your own. As soon as you move out of that association, you also lose the rights you were granted.

Re:Waiver of rights

[gnasher719]

that "never acting to harm KlearGear" clause is not legally binding IMO. Since in this case it violated her first amendment right to say that she had bad service from KlearGear. For them to say in a contract she couldn't do that is complete BS. as for suring for 75grand, i would sued for a lot more then that.

Bad but correct reviews are not harmful. To the contrary, they force the company to improve their products and services, which can only improve their profits in the long term.

Re:Waiver of rights

[AK Marc]

Yeah, parse that for me. If "the legal system" allowed her to be punished for exercising her right to speech, then Congress (or someone else) passed a law abridging the right of freedom of speech.

Re:Waiver of rights

[jthill]

We the people need the right of fair dealing. We can't have weird contractual conditions imposed.

We do. The legal term for terms like these is "unconscionable".

Re:Waiver of rights

[byornski]

Non-citizens apparently are denied quite a few of these rights thought...

Re:Waiver of rights

[artor3]

But with free speech, the government cannot punish you, only your fellow citizens (at least, that's how it's supposed to work). Surely you don't think it should be the same with murder?

If your idea of a "natural right" is anything a human being is physically capable of doing, then the term loses all meaning.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. Period.

Where did you read that? The preamble says:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Why would they waist so much ink if all they meant was:

We the people of the United States, in order to limit the power of the federal government, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Maybe because the constitution also established the federal government and delegated its powers to executive, legislative and judicial branches, defined what they would be and how they would be chosen (etc, etc, etc...)?

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

...As for "natural" rights, I consider that a joke. Try arguing your "right to life" with a hungry lion, rights only exists between entities that recognize those rights. ...

You fail to understand what "right to life" means. Right to Life is not the "Right to never die" or "not be killed".

Right to Life means you are not compelled to lay down and let the lion eat you. You have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if your life is threatened. For animals, right to life is defended with tooth and claw. For humans, our best weapon is the brain, and the ability to create and use tools that come with it. Your right to life is preserved by shooting the lion in the face when he attacks.

Now replace Lion with Mugger, Thug, Gang-Member, or some other name for criminal goblin-types that have no respect for your rights.

Rights exist, but you must exercise and protect them. They are not a magic shield.

Re:Waiver of rights

[ArbitraryName]

Where did you read that?

The 10th Amendment.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, there could be no contract ... as there was a total failure of consideration by Kleargear by not providing the goods the couple bought. No consideration ... no contract.

Second, You can't subsume people's rights in a contract (be they consumer rights, constitutional rights or whatever).

Third, these turkeys really need to be reamed badly. They give US private enterprise a bad name, and they are lower than whale poo. Fines are probably out of the question, as they'll hide behind some corporate veil ... what is REALLY needed is some jail time for the officers of the company, some shareholder asset retention and some serious aggravation to be showered on all and sundry who had anything to do with running this turkey.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The 10th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

How does that support your statement that "The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. Period." ? It doesn't. All it says is that according to the 10th ammendment the rest is up to the states or the people. No where does it say that the purpose of the constitution is to limit power of federal governement, because the purpose was to define it. Perhpas you meant that the purpose of the 10th ammendment of the bill of rights was to limit the power of federal government?

(yes, I am an incorrigible pedant, but this is important shit!)

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this insightful? It is fucking idiocy, like the rest of anti-gun thinking.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a contract, but it became void as a result of non-performance.

Re: Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

To allow a pardon before the fact would be to say that the president might authorize whatever sort of illegal activiity he pleases whenever he feels like it.... wait a minute. They seem to do that anyways.

Re:Waiver of rights

[drinkypoo]

You fail to understand what "right to life" means. Right to Life is not the "Right to never die" or "not be killed".

Right to Life means you are not compelled to lay down and let the lion eat you. You have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if your life is threatened

Well, that's not how the so-called "right-to-lifers" use the term at all. They mean it such that you have the right to not be killed. Unless, of course, you're an abortion doctor.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why would they waist so much ink

Why would they put ink around their waists? I've never seen any evidence of that. Got any proof of your right-wing, insane claim?

Re:Waiver of rights

[nomadic]

Actually, that's a breach. Voiding a contract and breaching a contract are two different things.

Re:Waiver of rights

[nomadic]

Ehh, sort of. A contract certainly existed because the consideration was memorialized in the order form, any email receipt, etc. There was just a breach.

Re:Waiver of rights

[nomadic]

No, there was consideration, and the contract was valid -- KlearGear just breached it.

Re: Waiver of rights

[O('_')O_Bush]

"technically yes, you do have the right"

No, technically, you don't. You are arbitrarily redefining "right" to mean "capability", which it doesn't, because if it did, the whole discussion about natural vs granted or rights at all would be moot. Everything one could possibly do would be a right, which would remove the need to legally describe rights at all, and there'd be not protection under the concept of a right.

Just admit, your first idea about rights was clearly incorrect, and you might as well abandon it because your attempt at defending yourself is only making it worse.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Gary Perkins]

Rights can neither be granted, nor taken away. Basic rights are something that no one can give or take; they're more like ideas than actual things. Privileges are what most people think of today when they talk about rights. Guns are a good example: Let's say the Government finally decides citizens can't own pistols (for whatever reason). What's to stop me from owning one? I could own an unregistered pistol the rest of my life. Now, if I get caught with it, all kinds of nasty things may happen to me. Technically, my right to bear arms wouldn't have been infringed... I acted on my right. However, all sorts of other privileges may be taken away. But my basic human rights would still be there. If I wanted to arm myself, I could probably think of something to grab or use for protection, even if it's not a projectile weapon; I'd still be free to speak my mind however I choose; the list goes on. I may be doing all that from a jail cell, having lost most of my privileges of citizenship, but there's really not a lot government can do to actually "take away" rights except to make laws that scare you enough to not *exercise* those rights.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case the baby is the lion or the Thug. Actually, babies are more like goblins.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Aighearach]

Natural Rights are those rights that are universal, that arise naturally from the human condition, human evolution/creation/existence. It is a "soft law" concept, that can only be assessed imperfectly and on a case-by-case basis. However, it encompass a basic set of moral concepts that are common in nearly all human cultures, and indeed many of them are true for other creatures too. Do not murder (hunting isn't usually counted), do not steal/lie, do not rape, do not commit adultery. This is generally the basic set, and they will exist even in primitive culture with no formal laws.

Re:Waiver of rights

[umafuckit]

free speech works the same way, you will be held accountable for it

It's amazing how often people forget that.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up you stupid fucking republican troll

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem in this case is that KlearGear failed to fulfil their part of the contract (didn't deliver the goods), but then are trying to say the other party is still bound by the contract terms. You cannot hold the other party accountable to a contract while you willfully ignore it.

Yes, you can. The other party has the relief to sue for fulfillment of contract once concludent acts have established the contract, , but cannot act like the contract vanished.

Re:Waiver of rights

[rossz]

Also, "The Federalist Papers". A must read for anyone who wishes to understand the thinking behind the creation of our Constitution.

Re:Waiver of rights

[eWarz]

both myself and the courts would beg to differ. While it's true that the Constitution of the United States DOES only cover government, it also covers cases of abuse by corporations. Remember that the court system itself IS an arm of the government...

Re:Waiver of rights

[dryeo]

Hasn't there been amendments that extend the coverage of the Constitution? The 14th comes to mind

Re:Waiver of rights

[Mr. Shotgun]

Oh it gets even better than that, the husband was the one placing the order. Meaning Kleargear is trying to assert a contract that was never fulfilled ( never delivered the product) using a term that was not present at the time of signing (Non-disparagement was added after) based on the actions of the wife, who didn't agree to anything. IANAL, but I am pretty sure that is against the law, fraud being at least one.

Re:Waiver of rights

[qbast]

Now replace Lion with Mugger, Thug, Gang-Member, or some other name for criminal goblin-types that have no respect for your rights.

... or US soldier. Oh wait, in this case you have no right to protect yourself, your family of your house because it makes you "illegal combatant".

Rights exist, but you must exercise and protect them. They are not a magic shield.

So we are back to one simple rule: might makes right.

Re:Waiver of rights

[jonbryce]

This company is asking the government, in the form of the courts, to stop someone from saying bad things about them. If the court were to grant this request, it would violate the 1st amendment, therefore it can't grant this request.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Zontar The Mindless]

Also, "The Federalist Papers". A must read for anyone who wishes to understand the thinking behind the creation of our Constitution.

A most worthwhile read, yes, but it does not constitute any part of US law.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Zontar The Mindless]

The classic example is signing a contract whereby you sell yourself into slavery.

Even if you willingly sign such a contract, and receive the money from the buyer, it still has absolutely no force under US law, since it's against the law there for one human to own another.

Re:Waiver of rights

[rocket rancher]

Just because you can't prevent anyone from doing something (murder, rape or holding a speech) doesn't make it a "right".

Try arguing your "right to life" with a hungry lion, rights only exists between entities that recognize those rights. If your government doesn't recognize freedom of speech, the difference between having it and not having it is entirely philosophical.

Hmmm. Excellent post. But I'm having trouble reconciling these two assertions.

From the point of view of a warlord, superior military force confers the right to murder and rape. Indeed, it confers any right the warlord chooses to assert. Ditto your hungry lion -- his right to eat me stops at the muzzle of my rifle.

It would seem to me that you need something more than just the other party recognizing that you have rights. You have to be able to successfully assert those rights. In French, it is "preter main forte" or "show the strong hand." In English, it would be "might makes right."

Re:Waiver of rights

[jmac_the_man]

The idea that 'people have natural rights' is not falsifiable.

Good thing that's not the assertion then. Instead, the Founders asserted that "Free people have a bunch of rights, and a government that tries to deny the people these rights does not govern over a free people. Since the American people are to be free, Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech. And the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. And so on."

The Bill of Rights is a definition, intended to define governments into two categories based on how free their people are. The category that the Founders intended the US to fall into was "A government that governs free people." Other governments, ones that don't recognize the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are "Tyrannical governments that lord over their citizens." Because the Founders gave us a definition, the statement "The US is a Free country" is falsifiable.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Zeinfeld]

The contract clause is unenforceable for multiple reasons. The first amendment has a bearing on one of them.

First there is no contract, The goods were never delivered, KlearGear failed to perform its obligation, there was never an exchange of a consideration. Therefore no contract.

Second, the original agreement was with the husband, the comments were made by the wife.

Third, the contract terms were added after the original agreement as is demonstrated by the Way Back Machine archives

Fourth, even if there had been a contract it would be a contract of adhesion. The seller defines the terms and the buyer has a weak negotiating position. In such cases civilized jurisdictions (i.e. not necessarily a corrupt jurisdiction) generally strike out clauses that are surprising or contrary to normal practice absent clear proof that the buyer was aware the term existed. A line of text in a fifty page contract in 6pt type is not normally enforceable.

Fifth, the term in question was unconscionable which means that it offends the basic principles of commerce and/or society. Constitutional precedent and in particular the first amendment is frequently used to establish that a clause is 'unconscionable'. Kleargear is not 'violating' the first amendment but the courts are not going to enforce a contract term whose purpose is to take away constitutionally protected rights.

Sixth, even if all the above were not so, the claim for $3,500 is a liquidated damages clause and thus invalid. As a matter of public policy, corporations are not allowed to set fines.

Seventh, the amount was clearly in dispute. Thus the reporting to Experian was in breach of the fair credit reporting act.

I am sure that there are weaker claims out there, but I can't think of one offhand.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Zeinfeld]

The breach led to the contract being voided. KlearGear never delivered and Paypal refunded the money. So there was no exchange on either side.

The buyers might have had a claim for non-performance but the idea that the seller could enforce their one sided terms is ridiculous.

A clause that prevents reporting the failure to perform is certainly not going to be valid, not even in Texas.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Zeinfeld]

The Bill of rights is also enforceable on state governments.

KlearGear is attempting to enforce a purported contract term, guess what regulates contracts, oh yes, its the courts. And guess what the courts are part of, oh yes they are part of the government.

One of the sources of the Bill of Rights was precisely a concern about the government 'privatizing' censorship. That is how the British libel laws came into being, the purposes were to reduce the number of duels by providing an alternative dispute resolution process and to enable the rich and powerful to suppress their critics. It is no coincidence that in the 20th century the UK libel laws were used by a long series of corrupt bastards to suppress legitimate criticism, from John Major, the adulterer suing the New Statesman over an allegation of adultery, to Robert Maxwell the guy who stole almost a billion dollars worth of pension funds, to Jeffrey Archer and John Aitken who went to jail for perjury after making fraudulent libel claims.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Zeinfeld]

Oh and there is an eight:

The claim to be rated by the better business bureau has been shown to be false. KlearGear makes several such claims that have been shown to be false for the purpose of gaining business. That meets the legal definition of fraud. In addition to creating the possibility of criminal sanctions, fraud voids a contract.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

This clarifies reality nicely. You're welcome.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

A most worthwhile read, yes, but it does not constitute any part of US law.

Agreed. Nor should it, because it is not any more a part of the US constitution than Atlas Shrugged.

Re:Waiver of rights

[mysidia]

based on the actions of the wife, who didn't agree to anything.

Ah.... that is indeed another wrinkle. Marriage does not give a spouse the ability to legally sign and bind the other spouse to contracts. Utah is not even a community property state. Therefore, any value from the Kleargear contract would be separate property --- the wife would not be party to the agreement, and would have received no consideration from it. The husband is legally unable to bind the actions of the wife.

Clearly, they would have known that the order was not placed by the reviewer, by examining the contents of the order form. The fact that Kleargear chose not to, can only be attributed to an attempt to maintain a false pretense (deception); for the purpose of damaging another individual, by impeding their rights, and/or eliciting financial gain ("defrauding the husband out of $3500").

Read: 18 U.S.C. 1343 Wire fraud

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Courageous]

> Again, the government didn't GRANT you the rights listed in the first amendment

Irrelevant. The Constitution is a document which restrains the power of the Federal Government. Your "rights" as you otherwise call them out are not otherwise meaningful.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you read that?

The 10th Amendment.

The person who wrote this probably never read nor understood the tenth ammendment to the United States Constitution. This is a knee-jerk response, with little or no thought put into it. Please read the post you are responding to, at least skim the constitution and re-read the bill of rights, and try again. After all, it's a free country...

Re:Waiver of rights

[blackest_k]

Almost right, if the human brain had been working in the first place, then pissing off the lion and having to kill it wouldn't be necessary.

There are people who live around Lions on a daily basis and they don't feel that they have to kill the Lions. Of course they need to treat the Lions with a little respect and courtesy to co-exist peacefully.

     

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution doesn't grant ANY rights. The Bill of Rights recognizes is a non-exhaustive list of rights of the natural rights of free people. These rights predated the Constitution, and people are entitled to them with or without the Constitution.

As the USOC [sic - the Supreme Court???] recognized, the first amendment only grants the right from government restrictions on free speech. Other entities such as... schools are not required to grant you the right to free speech.

Again, the government didn't GRANT you the rights listed in the first amendment (because the rights were there already), but the government is required to RESPECT the rights that you already had. This applies to all governmental institutions, which includes most schools.

Please stop treating the Constitution like a religious document. It is not.It is very limited and very specific.

It's obvious you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

More importantly, this is not a constitutional case. So you're both talking about items that really have only a remote impact on the matter.

This is contract law. The protections provided by contract law are sufficient to decide the case. In the event that they were not, then one might attempt to override current contract law on Constitutional grounds; but, you would first have to prove your inalienable rights had been violated, which is most easily done by losing a case.

There's no chance they will lose the contract case, so her freedom of speech is not violated. Unfortunately it will have just come at a cost of great inconvenience, of which I hope she is properly compensated for in the civil courts.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, "The Federalist Papers". A must read for anyone who wishes to understand the thinking behind the creation of our Constitution.

A most worthwhile read, yes, but it does not constitute any part of US law.

Just as source material in the reference section of a research paper doesn't constitute the text of the research paper, and yet, it is all so necessary to understand the said hypothetical paper.

If you get hung up on only reading the laws, then odds are good you will not have a working system; as the laws don't get created without context, and arguing that the context of the law doesn't apply to the current situation is one of the only arguments that is valid when abuses of over application of a law occur.

Re:Waiver of rights

[nomadic]

Actually voiding a contract is a term of art in the law and refers to a court finding that a valid contract never existed. Just because the terms were never fulfilled doesn't mean the contract didn't exist; the contract isn't the completed transaction, it's essentially a binding promise on both parties to perform. Just because performance wasn't made doesn't mean the promise never existed.

Arguing that the contract is void is basically trying to say that the promise never existed, and is a defense by the breaching party to invalidate the contract (and thus not be responsible for fulfilling its terms), not the plaintiff in a breach of contract action.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Zomalaja]

And of course the Lions, even if hungry, understand that those people are courteous and respectful. What a crock.

Re:Waiver of rights

[jmac_the_man]

Again, the government didn't GRANT you the rights listed in the first amendment (because the rights were there already), but the government is required to RESPECT the rights that you already had.

Irrelevant. The Constitution is a document which restrains the power of the Federal Government. Your "rights" as you otherwise call them out are not otherwise meaningful.

Wait, how is that not relevant? The Founders intended for the United States to be a nation of free people, so they listed some of the rights people had under natural law, along with instructions that the government must respect (or, in your parlance, "is restrained from using its power to infringe upon") those rights.

Also, you took take half of the quote to pick an argument, while leaving the out the relevant context. (I italicized the part I added back in.) Next time, rather than doing so, exercise your fifth amendment right and shut the hell up.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as source material in the reference section of a research paper doesn't constitute the text of the research paper, and yet, it is all so necessary to understand the said hypothetical paper.

If you get hung up on only reading the laws, then odds are good you will not have a working system; as the laws don't get created without context, and arguing that the context of the law doesn't apply to the current situation is one of the only arguments that is valid when abuses of over application of a law occur.

Right. Because after all, what was going on in 1786 is much more important than what was going on in 1986. Therefore, the context of anything written in the constitution should reflect the former, and should be applied to 2013 as such, irrespective of the anything we have learned since. I'm glad we have cleared that up.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Courageous]

Whatever naked force the people bring to bear through their government, representative or badly so, overrules just about everything. This belief in "natural rights" is a fantasy, unfortunately. You have no more rights than your and your neighbors can enforce with locally applied military power, and have none at all to the degree you fail to do so. Believing in these "natural right" is about as fantastic as believing in unicorns. A pleasant fantasy, perhaps, but only that. "God is on my side" would have no more appeal than this fiction.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor is the idea a hypothesis. It is presented as an axiom. You are neither required to accept it nor derive benefits from it. The world is a big place - go where (or stay where) you'd be happier with its absence.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

We evolved the wherewithal to construct tools and techniques to ward off and or kill hungry lions. This came neither unnaturally nor supernaturally to us.

Re:Waiver of rights

[blackest_k]

Some people do die each year from lions, but even some of those could be avoided. Lions seem to prefer cattle pigs and other animals in preference to humans. Hopefully the statistics show that getting killed by a Lion is a relatively rare occurance. If you read the reference extract I've quoted. It seems going out in the fields in the evening is a bad idea, as the lions are hunting. Thats the kind of thing i'm thinking of when I talk about respect and understanding. Now you could choose to ignore that you are likely to find lions in the fields in the evenings in which case it may well end up as a matter of kill or be killed but why blame the lions for that?

http://www.lionaid.org/blog/2011/12/lion-population-number-declines-problem-animal-control-or-trophy-hunting.htm

Human/lion mortality

Much has been made by Packer and others about the estimated number of human deaths in Tanzania from lion attacks. In total, Packer recorded 563 human mortalities from 1990 to 2004, or about 37 per year, translating to about 8 people per 10 million in the Tanzanian population. The attacks were registered from numerous districts in the country. Without diminishing the tragedy of those deaths they have to be put into perspective as they have led to a demonization of lions and a strange justification for trophy hunting â" essentially the sport hunters are doing the rural communities a favour by keeping man-eaters under control. Not only is this complete nonsense, but human deaths caused by lions are actually miniscule when compared to other sources of annual human mortality in Tanzania.

For a short list, in Tanzania 193 to 1499 people per year die of rabies-infected dog bites, 600 from snake bites, 1,900 from falls, 4,700 from drowning, 6,000 from asthma, 13,000 from road accidents, 14,000 from violence/homicide, 21,000 from malaria, 23,000 from diabetes, 35,000 from diarrhoea, and 122,000 from HIV/Aids/tuberculosis. Tanzania ranks 21st highest among 220 countries in terms of an infant mortality at a rate of 6.7 per 1000 live births as of 2010. The number of humans killed by lions in Tanzania per year (37) is equivalent to the number of people killed in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants by lightning strikes. Lion attacks might make the news much as shark attacks do (over the past 50 years, only one person has been killed by a shark each year in Australia compared to 87 people who drown at beaches annually), but in reality the number of people killed by lions in Tanzania is miniscule compared to the hyperbole that such attacks have generated.

Most people killed by lions are out at night and unprotected. Packer and colleagues were able to assign specific times to such attacks â" after sunset and between 6pm and 10pm in the evening on moonless nights. People were out at such times protecting their crops from elephants and other herbivores, and were attacked either in the fields (lion were also hunting crop raiding animals like bush pigs at the time) or on their journeys back and forth from their villages. As with livestock depredation, there would seem to be practical solutions available to avoid such mortality. But as mentioned above, the long-term probability of a dangerous predator population continuing to live in close contact with humans must be considered insignificant .

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words:

up
/p/
adverb
The direction in which KlearGear has just fucked.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah it's in the US constitution I'm pretty sure. If not, you guys should get moving on that. Seems ridiculous to have the right to kill each other without the right to have some fun while doing it.

Re:Waiver of rights

[strikethree]

That must be the most ill-conceived post I've seen in /. on all my years here, and that's saying something. Just because you can't prevent anyone from doing something (murder, rape or holding a speech) doesn't make it a "right".

That is because you misinterpreted it.

A murder is something done to someone else. A rape is something done to someone else. Having a weapon is a completely different property. Once could argue that a speech is something you could do to someone else... so that may not be entirely different.

Regardless, his point is valid: The right to self defense is clearly "inalienable" despite all efforts to make it so. You can argue that being armed enables rape but nowhere did anyone claim that doing something to anyone else (other than self defense) is an inalienable right.

Perhaps your blinders are on too tightly?

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the idea is readily demonstrable in the real world. Take the right to keep and bear arms, which society still hasn't figured out how to effectively take away even in the most controlled of environments, as evidenced by the plastic shank sticking out of some poor bastard in the prison shower. It is the quintessential 'natural right', one that all human beings are born with, and one that is impossible to completely deprive them of. Free speech is the same, you can punish someone after the fact if you're an oppressive regime that doesn't recognize it, but you can't actually stop them from exercising it in the first place.

By your logic murder and rape are natural rights. You might be a sociopath.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The classic example is signing a contract whereby you sell yourself into slavery.

Even if you willingly sign such a contract, and receive the money from the buyer, it still has absolutely no force under US law, since it's against the law there for one human to own another.

No it isn't.

Prison:
http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/is-slavery-legal-in-america/

Conscription:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/05/conscription-is-slavery.html

Not that the debate is over...
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-military-conscription-a-form-of-slavery

The state can make you a slave - despite the 13th amendment:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.".

Also regarding force of law, if I give you $1 million to be my slave and you get paid, although the court may not force you to be my slave, I wonder what they would decree for the money (or balance thereof).

The general principle of yours is correct and adds another wrinkle. Let's say we're both libertarians and I want to buy some crap from your e-store. Suppose your T&S isn't perfect and has several invalid clauses. Am I bound to them as a libertarian who believes in a fuller version of contract abilities? OR..... knowing that the clauses are invalid, I simply disregarded them from consideration.

The ability to have invalid clauses in a contract makes a "meeting of the minds" harder to come by.

Re:Waiver of rights

[RespekMyAthorati]

And none of this matters.
Anymore than the invalidity of many patent claims by patent trolls matter. In the end, it all comes down to: can you afford to fight it?
If not, they win, no matter how sleazy or illegal their activities are.
And, the credit reporting agencies who spread false information cannot be held liable as long as they "have reason to believe that the information is correct".

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd agree with you except that the BBB is going after KlearGear too and Experian is "investigating" which could mean anything but suggests they will want money from KlearGear too.

Re:Waiver of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So, yeah. STFU, try actually reading the friggin' document.

Re:Rip Off Report

[__aarzwb9394]

Do you have an interest that you need to declare?

Whatever happened to...

[Anonymous Coward]

good ol' fashioned ass whippings? I mean a lot of things like this would come to a screeching halt.

Re:Whatever happened to...

[Concerned Onlooker]

I don't think so. A lot of people are into that sort of thing.

Re:Whatever happened to...

[c0lo]

I don't think so. A lot of people are into that sort of thing.

Yeah... think of the lost jobs and taxes... what would happen if nobody has to pay for spanking or whipping any more?

Re:Whatever happened to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tar and feathers, then.

Seems to me that's a fine American tradition which is sadly out of favor these days.

Just wait for more EULA's and the TPP / ACTA

[Joe_Dragon]

As with some EULA tied to software than can have stuff it in that says if you don't follow our rules then you are licensed to use this site.

Now under the unauthorized access to a computer network law that can make it an felony.

also the ACTA / TPP can set the bar real low as well.

Re:Just wait for more EULA's and the TPP / ACTA

[ledow]

Nothing trumps basic consumer law and contract fairness.

Too many people forget this.

The EULA's can say what they like. If it's deemed unreasonable, especially if it's one-sided, courts will just ignore those portions of it.

I think commenting your own opinion on a product/service you used can't really ever be deemed unreasonable until it becomes harassment, and that's relatively easy to determine and prose cute for.

Fact is, all this company have done is said they'll sue their own customers unless they never have a problem and/or never tell anyone about it. It's a perfect way to lose customers.

They can claim anything they like, but that doesn't mean that a court will back them - especially not when they breached the contract themselves first (thus making all the other party's obligations under that contract null and void).

Just because someone says "But you signed/agreed to this", it doesn't mean that you are bound by it. It's a complete fallacy. It just means that you have to prove it's unreasonable rather than, in the case of not signing it, do nothing.

There was a lot of cases about whether automatic "if you park here, you are agreeing to pay a £100 'fine'" signs put up by private landowners. Loads of people ignored them and paid fines. And then courts said that it was unreasonable and not legal. And now those landowners are having to pay all that money (and expenses) back.

A contract has to be fair and reasonable, or it's not a contract at all. And yet you can still be held by your side of the contract (e.g. providing the damn service you were required to) while having all your provisos (e.g. NDA's or termination clauses) rendered void. It all depends on the balance of contract law.

But, honestly, don't agree to such things in the first place (this person says they didn't, for instance), and don't let people get away with such things when they can't keep their own side of the agreement.

Re:Just wait for more EULA's and the TPP / ACTA

[Nerdfest]

Well, it used to be that nothing trumped the Constitution, but that seems to have changed too.

Re:Just wait for more EULA's and the TPP / ACTA

[jklovanc]

The First Amendment bars the government from making certain laws. It has no bearing on clauses put into private contracts.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is there anything in that about creating a contract that states that certain things can not be said and setting up penalties for breaking the contract? The First Amendment is about Government/citizen interaction not citizen/citizen interaction.

Re:Just wait for more EULA's and the TPP / ACTA

[mysidia]

The EULA's can say what they like. If it's deemed unreasonable, especially if it's one-sided, courts will just ignore those portions of it.

It's true, but the EULAs also typically require binding arbitration, and preclude class actions ---- the courts tend to respect those terms.

Also; the arbitrators used to conduct the binding arbitration, tend to be more sympathetic to the business than to the consumer.

While consumer law may always win in theory ----- it becomes more muddled, when the big company is able to select the venue, in which any challenge to the agreement will be conducted.

Re:Just wait for more EULA's and the TPP / ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

The EULA's can say what they like. If it's deemed unreasonable, especially if it's one-sided, courts will just ignore those portions of it.

Oh? Is that what happened when the court ruled that Blizzard's EULA retroactively caused sales to not have really happened, thereby making their game only playable by the terms of the suddenly-binding EULA, which is what contained the words, that once they were retroactively made binding, caused the retail transfer of title to have not occurred (thereby making the EULA become binding)?

(If what I just said sounds stupid and circular, don't blame me.)

Re:Just wait for more EULA's and the TPP / ACTA

[Arker]

There are a lot of protections built into contract law here.

Unfortunately they all seem to be ignored lately. No way is a EULA a valid contract on its face, yet courts have enforced them nonetheless.

Re:Just wait for more EULA's and the TPP / ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it used to be that nothing trumped the Constitution, but that seems to have changed too.

It's not a violation of her 1st Amendment rights that she will win the court case under contract law.

It would be a violation of her 1st Amendment rights if she legally lost the case, and in doing so, lost her right to complain.

It's not a Constitutional issue, as the 1st Amendment merely agrees that her right to complain will not be removed. It doesn't say that her right to complain will never result in other people acting like dicks.

KlearGear.com - geeks rule...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some geek's rules: "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.", "Thou shalt not covet.".

Interesting,..

[labiator]

Only the one link to Inc 500 works from their recommendations / As seen in...
Maybe we need to contact Media relations Maven
Margaux Banet
Media Relations
KlearGear.com
2939 Wilson Ave SW
Grandville, MI 49418-3502
Phone (616) 965-2426
Fax (616) 965-2427

One question

[jonr]

Not that many people check or even know what it is, but why would any sane person give money to a website who uses domainbyproxy?

Re:One question

[Fringe]

Many small businesses use DomainsByProxy. As do many individual domain owners. If you don't have a permanent business address distinct from your home address and aren't using it, you're being foolish.

The problem is, you have no control over your registration data. You use your legal name and mailing address, necessary not just for billing and because the contract requires it but in case of future ownership disputes, but then the automatically get posted on whois. Meaning any crackpot or spammer or salespeople can simply grab that database and call you - yes, by telephone - or drive by. And they do. And it gets aggregated into all sorts of other data. Suddenly everything you've ever done is more easily connected, with a simple Google, than before.

I've had domains since very early on. It's not a nice world out there. Initially I didn't pay extra for that service. Not my best choice ever. You can't put your home address and phone number back into the bag, you can only let them out.

Small businesses often provide better services or custom work than large ones do. And it can be riskier. But hey, I bought a Ford (new) in the mid-80s, I can tell you all about how even large businesses can be evil.

The biggest problem for KlearGear

[Tancred]

in the case, it seems to me, is that they never delivered on their end of the sale, yet still seek to enforce the other side of the contract.

Of course, it's a BS, should-be-unenforceable clause of the contract that may not have even been in the contract at the time. The above seems like the easiest way to win the case, but hopefully Public Citizen can get some precedent set for it as unenforceable.

asdf

[BradMajors]

"KlearGear is hiding behind a DomainsByProxy domain name to making finding their real identities harder.

KlearGear.com Legal Department
2939 Wilson Ave SW
Grandville, MI 49418-3502
Phone (866) 598-4296

Re:asdf

[Anonymous Coward]

KlearGear.com Legal Department
1060 West Addison Street
Chicago, IL 60613

FTFY

Re:asdf

[Anonymous Coward]

KlearGear.com Legal Department
1060 West Addison Street
Chicago, IL 60613

FTFY

the address above leads to Wrigley's Field!

Re:asdf

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad John Candy is dead, otherwise I'd send him out to that address to find KlearGear...

Re:asdf

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the address of a post office http://companies.findthecompany.com/l/16693588/United-States-Postal-Service-in-Grandville-MI

Accoding to BBB
 

The 2885 Sanford Avenue SW, Suite 19886, Grandville, Michigan address being used by this company is actually that of a company who rents out mailing addresses and provides mail forwarding services (Mail Forwarding, Inc.).

Review of the company's website as of November 28, 2012, lists the company address of their legal department as 7122 Oaklawn Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229-3021.

Contact Information

Principal: Mr. Randall Prescott (Legal)

- See more at: http://www.bbb.org/western-michigan/business-reviews/novelties-retail/kleargear-in-grandville-mi-38143064#sthash.XgQrOua9.dpuf

Also see http://www.blagnet.net/2013/11/18/my-review-of-kleargear-com/

On LinkedIn, Rob Key appears to be the CMO of KlearGear.

  Lee Gersten is the president of KlearGear

Re:asdf

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404869,00.asp

http://edgar.secdatabase.com/2115/150017010000001/filing-main.htm

Lee Gersten runs Kleargear, which is a branch of Chenal Corp. Will Bermender is on the SEC filing and someone got a photo of him

good news for Everclear!

[beckett]

Any publicity is good publicity! we're talking about the drink, right? oh crap.

Re:Rip Off Report

[Anonymous Coward]

The "company" (I use the term very loosely because I am sure it's just some dinky server sitting in your mom's basement) KlearGear is guilty of fraud for changing contract terms after the fact and for stealing this woman's money without providing her with the product she ordered.

I hope you enjoy getting pounded in the ass, because fraud carries a prison sentence of 5-10 years.

Arrogance plus ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

I always find it amazing how the companies/individuals exhibiting the greatest levels of both arrogance and ignorance are also just plain stupid enough to think they're the only ones who will get away with acting like an all-time dick.

Just these two posts on this site will likely cost them several to many thousands of dollars. My suggestion: People here should help spread the word about this mess to friends and relatives. Since KG.com is so concerned about their image, I think we should help people see what they're really like.

The squeaky wheel

[themushroom]

gets replaced.

Uhmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

The sale was never completed, so how can they be bound by the terms of service?

Also, what about the contact information on your credit report? Didn't they fight the collection agency?

Google Streetview says

[Anonymous Coward]

Their 'Legal Department' is in a strip mall next to a railroad track.

Subjects?

[Runaway1956]

"subjects of the USA"

Stop trying to pass yourself off as an American citizen. There are no subjects of the USA. Never were, never will be - at least not as long as I live.

Great Britain has subjects. A lot of other countries have subjects. The US only has citizens.

Are you working for the New World Order, or what? Why would you want to be a subject, rather than a free man?

Re:Subjects?

[dryeo]

Try to keep up. There was a war back in the 1860's about whether Americans were citizens or subjects to the federal government. By forcing some of the subjects back into the union it was pretty well established that you're subjects to your government, denied basic rights like the right to leave the union.
Citizens have basic rights such as in Great Britain where if Scotland decides to leave, they are allowed as long as it is done in a democratic manner. (There are still some subjects in the UK, namely Irish who didn't go along with leaving. Not citizens but still part of the country)

Re:Subjects?

[Runaway1956]

The right to secede is still in the Constitution, despite a myriad of "laws" that would define secession as "treason".

As for the "subjects" thing - when I am disarmed, we'll discuss that again. Until then, I am a free man. I've watched policemen browbeat submissive people - and I've seen plenty of videos in which they physically beat them.

I refuse to be browbeaten, and no cop has ever felt confident enough to try physically beating me.

I am a free man. The fact that my neighbor may or may not choose to be free has no bearing on my status. If/when my neighbor surrenders his freedom, then he effectively surrenders his citizenship.

Re:Subjects?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure talk a good fight, asshole.

Re:Subjects?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The right to secede is still in the Constitution, despite a myriad of "laws" that
> would define secession as "treason".

Where?

In other words, [citation needed]

Basically, bullshit.

Kleargear is maildrop, claims 2% tornado donations

[Anonymous Coward]

The Kleargear.com address at 2885 Sanford Ave. SW in Grandville MI is really a mail forwarding/disguised address popular with companies doing horrible things to people, and is run by a company called Mailbox Forwarding, Inc.: The mail-forwarding service is not unfamiliar to the BBB. “Over the years, we’ve had many issues with businesses that use that address”

Here's another address for them, thanks to this press release through United Business Media's PRNewswire. If they try to retract it, here's a copy at The Sacramento Bee:

Christophe Monette, CEO of Kleargear parent Descoteaux Boutiques, has been pleasantly surprised...

Margaux Banet
2885 Sanford Ave SW #19886
Grandville, MI 49418
United States

Descoteaux Boutiques
ZAC Paris Rive Gauche
118-122 Avenue de France
75013 Paris
France

And this press release also says "Kleargear is donating 2% of net sales between November 17th and December 17th to The American Red Cross in support of our friends and neighbors affected by Sunday's devastating tornado outbreak across the Midwest." Who wants to bet any of their money gets to anyone who's ever seen a tornado? Best to check on the legitimacy of these charity solicitations of course. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has been making charity fraudsters one of this pet projects lately: See "A Michigan Crackdown On Charity Fraud". I'll bet Schuette's office would be more than happy to hear about any problems from companies that happen to officially give their state of residence as Michigan and claim to help Michigan tornado victims. The Michigan Attorney General has a specific phone number for Questions About Charities.

Of course, maybe the French address is fake too. They're a bit pickier about that in France though, I think. Anyone have the contact info for the corporation regulators or charity regulators in Paris?

Also: The BBB gave Kleargear.com an F rating, before Kleargear.com inserted this ruin-your-customers-lives clause in their terms and then faked the A+ rating on their website. For those of you who can't see popups on the BBB site: As of November 28, 2012, the BBB became aware that the company's website is displaying a BBB Accredited Business logo and BBB Rating A+; however, the company is not a BBB accredited business and the BBB rating is not A+. The BBB contacted the company regarding these issues and this matter is pending the company's response. As of November 28, 2012, the BBB discovered that some pages of the company's website display the BBB Accredited Business Logo and state "BBB Rating A+", when neither is true. The BBB contacted the company at the Michigan mail drop address instructing the company to immediately remove the incorrect BBB logo and reference from their site. This matter is currently pending.

Lives of Corporations

[Firethorn]

Personally, I've been of the opinion that corporations should be harder to form than $50 and a sheet of paper, such that there are numerous people, even with incomes under $100k, that are sole owners of multiple 'corporations'.

The thought off the top of my head is 'require a $50k surety bond' to ensure that there are some resources available if the 'corporation' behaves badly. Second would be to kill the idea that corporations are 'people', and restrict corporation's rights to own other corporations.

Re:Lives of Corporations

[John.Banister]

I thought it took three people to incorporate, but maybe that's just a rule for a particular state. I think it would be nice to give corporations fewer legal rights than individuals, since I think that (without a special organizational structure I haven't seen yet) they're inherently less capable of moral behavior than individuals, but now that they can legally donate to politicians, I doubt I'll see that result anytime soon.

Re:Lives of Corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a horrible idea. So instead of allowing anyone to rise up, you just want the rich to be able to form corporations.

There is no such things as natural right

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck protecting anything you see as natural right. There are only rights which are enforced by government ultimately. Anything else does not exists. No government ? Then "might makes right" and if you have no might you have no right. See the parts of the world where government falls for example of this. I am sick of hearing people talking about "natural right" independent of governments. It is really stupid as without a government, you have no right whatsoever except the one you can enforce with your own weapon, at the cost of the one the wrong side of the weapon.

It's in your laws.

[Anonymous Coward]

And is there anything in the constitution that says a government cannot defend any citizens' rights? No?

Then the constitution allows the federal government to pass laws fodbidding unconscionable contracts from being legal.

Re:Rip Off Report

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look, a casual yet intimidating rape reference. How classy.

Good Luck with Experian,

[Cammi]

Good Luck with Experian, Only dumb arses work there, and they are unable to find their own tail. As it is, they are criminal in itself and should be shut down.

What about the credit reporting agency

[cnaumann]

That seems to the be the real problem here. Why can any flight-by-night company kill your credit rating like this?

someone capable of calling you out...

[publiclurker]

on your ignorance? And to think that you were provided a chance to educate yourself and instead chose to wallow in ignorance.

Re:Rip Off Report

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no less than you and everyone who works at your "company" deserves, scumbag.

Take being the key word here.

[publiclurker]

Since the concept of you doing something for others appears to be an alien concept.

Re:Rip Off Report

[Anonymous Coward]

No I think these folks are fraudsters and deserve justice, but you aren't doing service to your cause by appearing as a troglodyte.