Rosh! BEWARE!

SuAside

SuAside

Testament to the ghoul lifespan
Admin
Our beloved (and/or hated) deathclaw might one day face serious litigation for ripping people to shreds!

BEWARE: a tale of caution... *cough*

An american jury awarded a woman 11.3 million dollars due to damages sustained by 'slander' on an internet forum by another woman who wasn't happy with the service she received. The defendant had lost her house and had no money due to Katrina, and failed to appear in court. *Boom* -> 11.3 mil in ze pocket.

Gotta love american justice.

ze link
 
Scheff said:
People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."
Click to expand...

Oh well. I guess us fallouteers should just stick with them Sharpened Spears and Turbo Plasmas to destroy people.
 
Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."
Click to expand...

Right, so we should use the courts to do that. Dumb bitch.

I guess the concept of defending oneself against criticism has been lost on people. It's not like she can't gain access to a messageboard.

Stupid judges, stupid jury. It almost makes me wish we could be judged by machines.
 
That bitch must have posted as her self and/or been VERY well-known on that site to have had any real damage as a result of slander. I mean, shit, most boards have people from all over who only know each other by their screen names. Besides which, slander is spoken. she shouldn't have been able so sue for it at all. She should have sued for libel, :twisted: .

Shit like this is just too ridiculous.
 
I had heard of instances such as these before. Where one party said something insulting to the other, and the latter was too dimwitted to retort, and instead approached the authorities. These of course were in person, and there was often much screaming involved.

But I have never heard of that much money being awarded, ever. Makes me really wonder what the defendant said.

"Your presence in the world is sucking the quality of life down for everyone else in the world, thus because I am better than you, and also a good citizen, I must time travel into the past and punch your pregnant grandmother in the womb. It is my hope that when you no longer exist, war, poverty and death itself will no longer exist."

Something along those lines maybe?
 
The one thing people forget to mention is that the defendant stopped defending herself due to money troubles. Once you stop defending yourself you are essentially giving up the case, and the judge has no choice but to judge so that the other person is in the right. That's how the law works and hence this has nothing to do with the laws themselves, but merely with the fact that the defendant stopped showing up.
 
Silencer said:
Oh well. I guess us fallouteers should just stick with them Sharpened Spears and Turbo Plasmas to destroy people.
Click to expand...
I'd rather use the internet to rape people's brains with things like tubgirl, lemonparty, and goatse.
 
Yup, when people give up, then it allows the idiots to win.

However, if you can defend yourself with proof, judges won't give a shit about how much the other side can hire in more lawyers. Intimidation by money doesn't really work if people don't let it.

And I have plenty of evidence for an attorney should anyone care to contest anything I've said, generally from handling these forums to critiquing game developers or even GC.

Hell, artists with real degrees could and have proven John and GluttonCrapper to be full of shit.

So, after that has been proven, FAIR GAME! :twisted:
 
Sander said:
The one thing people forget to mention is that the defendant stopped defending herself due to money troubles. Once you stop defending yourself you are essentially giving up the case, and the judge has no choice but to judge so that the other person is in the right. That's how the law works and hence this has nothing to do with the laws themselves, but merely with the fact that the defendant stopped showing up.
Click to expand...
i did say she failed to appear.

and yes, it's a default win for the other party, but that doesn't mean the moronic judge gets to award 11.3 million US dollars? that's just plain moronic.
 
SuAside said:
i did say she failed to appear.

and yes, it's a default win for the other party, but that doesn't mean the moronic judge gets to award 11.3 million US dollars? that's just plain moronic.
Click to expand...
No, that's the way the law works. One person doesn't show, hence the other person automatically wins, and as such the judge must proceed from then on and decide on a fitting punishment. Whether or not that person then had showed up is completely irrelevant, since that person's been judged to be guilty.
 
Sander said:
as such the judge must proceed from then on and decide on a fitting punishment.
Click to expand...
reread your sentence and think for a milisecond.

how is 11.3 mil dollars a fitting punishment for some opinions stated on an internet forum by someone that has a regular job and just lost their house and everything she owns due to a hurricane? how exactly is one voice on a forum able to generate 11.3 million dollars in damages? now, if it were Bill Gates posting about malfunctions in Vista and revealing a shitload of classified crap, ok. but a simple person on a simple forum about kids in boarding school? sjeez...
 
SuAside said:
reread your sentence and think for a milisecond.

how is 11.3 mil dollars a fitting punishment for some opinions stated on an internet forum by someone that has a regular job and just lost their house and everything she owns due to a hurricane? how exactly is one voice on a forum able to generate 11.3 million dollars in damages? now, if it were Bill Gates posting about malfunctions in Vista and revealing a shitload of classified crap, ok. but a simple person on a simple forum about kids in boarding school? sjeez...
Click to expand...
The problem is that that doesn't matter. The woman was found guilty of slander and libel (I believe), hence he finds a fitting punishment for slander and libel, not for telling a story on the internet. He has to assume that the plaintiff was right on every count of her story, including how she portrays to have been damaged etc.
 
alright then Sander. take a look at this:

http://fornits.com/index.php is the website where the person posted. it's a webby that states: "These are open and, for the most part, unmoderated forums, primarily dealing with the Troubed Teen industry, with a couple of lifestyle/general interest topics into the mix."

the board has a forum subsection called "The Troubled Teen Industry" which would be the most logical place for the person to have posted a rant. it also warns: "This is an uncensored, unmoderated forum where all viewpoints are both welcome and fair game for debate. It's a snap-shot of the Teen Help industry. Some days it's inspiring and heart-warming. Other day's it's pretty damned ugly. Enter at your own risk."

the defendant called the suer a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud" on this forum.

the suer (is that even a word?) is from: http://www.helpyourteens.com/ Parents Universal Resource Experts (PURE)

they are consultants. in their faq they state that an average contract with a boarding school costs boarding school $20,000.00 annually.

now, one thing of notice is that the defendant commented on a situation where PURE was advising the defendant when she wanted her sons removed from a boarding school that was abroad. this is not PURE core business.

a few posts about a subject that isnt really related with core business equals 11.3 mil dollars in damages? that's the equal of 565 contracts for boarding schools. boarding schools that have nothing to do whatsoever with the scenario that the defendant had painted. do you actually mean to say that PURE missed out on 565 annual contracts due to one person flaming on an unmoderated, open and public forum about a subject that isnt directly related to PURE's business?

yeah, sure sander, how about you wake up and smell the bullshit?
 
I think Sander was trying to make the point that, since the defendant didn't appear, she was considered guilty by default.

Also, the judge had nothing to do with the amount awarded for damages. It was a jury, and as we saw in the OJ Simpson trial, juries can be swayed by a skilled attorney.
 
Talisien said:
I think Sander was trying to make the point that, since the defendant didn't appear, she was considered guilty by default.
Click to expand...
reread what i've said up til now... i'm not disputing that.

Talisien said:
Also, the judge had nothing to do with the amount awarded for damages.
Click to expand...
euhm, i was under the impression that the jury decides on guilty or not guilty and that the judge decides the proper punishment if guilty?
 
SuAside said:
alright then Sander. take a look at this:

http://fornits.com/index.php is the website where the person posted. it's a webby that states: "These are open and, for the most part, unmoderated forums, primarily dealing with the Troubed Teen industry, with a couple of lifestyle/general interest topics into the mix."

the board has a forum subsection called "The Troubled Teen Industry" which would be the most logical place for the person to have posted a rant. it also warns: "This is an uncensored, unmoderated forum where all viewpoints are both welcome and fair game for debate. It's a snap-shot of the Teen Help industry. Some days it's inspiring and heart-warming. Other day's it's pretty damned ugly. Enter at your own risk."

the defendant called the suer a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud" on this forum.

the suer (is that even a word?) is from: http://www.helpyourteens.com/ Parents Universal Resource Experts (PURE)

they are consultants. in their faq they state that an average contract with a boarding school costs boarding school $20,000.00 annually.

now, one thing of notice is that the commented on a situation where PURE was advising the defendant when she wanted her sons removed from a boarding school that was abroad. this is not PURE core business.

a few posts about a subject that isnt really related with core business equals 11.3 mil dollars in damages? that's the equal of 565 contracts for boarding schools. boarding schools that have nothing to do whatsoever with the scenario that the defendant had painted. do you actually mean to say that PURE missed out on 565 annual contracts due to one person flaming on an unmoderated, open and public forum about a subject that isnt directly related to PURE's business?

yeah, sure sander, how about you wake up and smell the bullshit?
Click to expand...
Oh, for fuck's sake, SuAside. That's not the bloody point! Once she's been found guilty it is *completely irrelevant* what was actually said. She has been found guilty of slander and libel. Hence the judge decides on a punishment *in line with the claims the plaintiff made*. Any point about whether or not this is ridiculous should have been made during the trial, however, because the defendant didn't show up, the judge cannot consider these arguments in coming to a fitting punishment. The arguments were not presented, and hence the judge is not allowed to look at these arguments. That's how the law works and this has nothing to do with whether or not either side is right or wrong. The judge had no choice but to rule this way. None.

Whether it was a jury or judge who decided on the amount is also irrelevant, because the same would go for a jury.
 
even if found guilty, the judge does not need to agree on the max amount demanded by the suer. at least in Belgium, but i dont see any reason why it would be any different in the USA.

so yes, the judge had a choice, even without counter arguments presented.

just because i sue you for 1 billion dollars for driving over my roses in my yard, and you dont show up in court, doesn't mean i'll get my billion awarded, you know? what kind of moronic statement is that, Sander?
 
It was a JURY decision?

And people wonder why some consider the system flawed.

Anyway. This is US jurisdiction, not international, so FUCK YOU ALL. You smell and your businesses and/or companies including those your friends and relatives work at or own SUCK. You're all a bunch of con-artists and sexually assault defenseless animals in public. Hah! *sticks out tongue*

In case this is actually international jurisdiction, I would like to take back all I said and would like to re-inforce my sincere appreciation of the good job you guys and/or your affiliated companies do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top