Dealerships suing thier customers.....

DiscoWeb Message Board: General - Non Tech: Dealerships suing thier customers.....
  Subtopic Posts   Updated


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By George Collins (Zinhead) on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 12:10 am: Edit

I picked up the following thread on the VWVortex website.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=52126

An unsatisfied VW owner complained on the website about the poor quality of service at Jim Ellis VW-Porsche-Audi-Saab in Atlanta. The dealership decided to sue his customer and the VWVortex for defamation. The lawsuit is described in the following article.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/epaper/editions/saturday/metro_b36fb002844b70b60008.html

People sometimes negatively describe dealership service experiences here in Discoweb.org. I seem to recall a certain LR dealership in San Antonio recieving numerous complaints last year. It would be terrible if free speech and consumer rights were restricted by frivolous and punitive lawsuits.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By PerroneFord on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 12:35 am: Edit

Yes,

But LR dealerships really ARE bad as a rule. A simple production of reciepts from these places would be enough to file for dismissal or summary judgement.

-P

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Axel Haakonsen (Axel) on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 02:55 am: Edit

It would probably be hard for a dealership to actually win a case like that. But that's not the point. If you get sued, even if you are right, you still need to spend time and money on defending yourself. That can be costly and time consuming. The dealership in this specific case is waging a war of attrition, in my opinion.
This situation is one of the main reasons why DiscoWeb is a LLC instead of just beeing a website run by 3 individuals.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Glenn Guinto (Glenn) on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 10:52 am: Edit

George,

That's pretty interesting... Hey I frequent that website as well as I'm also a VW nut! It's very good website.

Glenn

Hey Ax - talking about this case, the person that gets sued, if you win, you can file a counter suit right? I hope that person does win and file a counter suit. Those kinds of people do not deserve to run a dealership with that kind of service! (providing this guy's story is true)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Axel Haakonsen (Axel) on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 01:35 pm: Edit

I guess you could countersue, but it still comes down to who has the most resources, i suppose.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Redsrover (Redsrover) on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Next time just file a report with the Better Business Bureau and cc: the dealership. Then, never go back to that dealer even if it means driving 30 miles to the dealer the car is bought from.

Tough situation but a good lesson for all of us.

Red

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By PerroneFord on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Axel,

Bringing harassing suits is against the law, and there is protection against it. You need not hire an expensive attorney to do it, any paralegal could file these motions, and if you can read, you can do it yourself. It's not that difficult.

If the dealership really presses the issue, give a call to your local TV station. They EAT UP stories like this. Local consumer gets SCREWED by business. Small seeks his day in court. After 2 or 3 of these remote interviews from in front of the dealer being broadcast on the 6 o' clock news, they may well change their minds.

(Can you tell I spent too much time in the legal system!)

-P

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By John Lee on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Perrone,

"But LR dealerships really ARE bad as a rule. A simple production of reciepts from these places would be enough to file for dismissal or summary judgement."

Dismissal? Summary judgment? Geez, are you an expert on the law as well?

On what grounds are you going to dismiss a defamation lawsuit? Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted? If a dealership claims that someone defamed the dealership, that's certainly a claim upon which relief can be granted. Whether the defamation occurred or not is an issue for trial, not for the pleading stage.

When was the last time you wrote a motion for summary judgment? Do you even know when summary judgment is appropriate?

"Bringing harassing suits is against the law, and there is protection against it. You need not hire an expensive attorney to do it, any paralegal could file these motions, and if you can read, you can do it yourself. It's not that difficult."

No, a paralegal cannot file motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. That's called practicing law without a license and it's prohibited in every state court and in every federal court as well.

Get real. Ax is right. Getting sued sucks. Even if you win, it'll cost you in time, money, and heartache.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Bluegill (Bluegill) on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 04:58 pm: Edit

Like Axel said, "waging a war of attrition". If you've ever been there, you know how painfully true this is...:(

Bad PR is indeed a good point, but that falls into the "wing & a prayer" category whereas the legal arena has no such category.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By PerroneFord on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Alright...

So no, I'm not an expert at law. I only took a few courses, worked at the law library, and work for the courts here in FL.

So you are saying that I can not attempt to have a case dismissed before trial if there is no evidence to support the claim of the plantiff?

And you are right again that a paralegal cannot actually FILE the motion, but they can deliver it and can certainly assist a defendant in drafting one.

Yes, getting sued sucks, but not as bad as suing without grounds and getting countersued. You pay EVERYONE's fees, and likely get slapped with damages as well.

-P

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By John Lee on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 05:33 pm: Edit

Perrone,

"So no, I'm not an expert at law. I only took a few courses, worked at the law library, and work for the courts here in FL."

That may be so, but it doesn't make you an attorney and it doesn't permit you to give legal advice. Simply giving legal advice to someone constitutes the practice of law, and only attorneys can practice law.

Since we're talking about the law, let's do some cross-examination here. What kind of "courses" did you take? Were these during junior college, undergrad at some university, or from an ABA-accredited law school? What courts in FL do you work for? In what capacity are you employed by the FL court system? As a judge? As a law clerk for the judge? These can't be because you have to be a member of the bar to be either. Are you a computer guy there? Or a file clerk? Or do you date stamp the pleadings at the filing window? Or do you mop the floors?

"So you are saying that I can not attempt to have a case dismissed before trial if there is no evidence to support the claim of the plantiff?"

You can attempt anything you want. Whether you will succeed is another question.

And where do you get this "no evidence to support the claim of the plaintiff?" That just tells me you never went to law school and don't understand legal procedure. A case can be dismissed for various reasons but a plaintiff doesn't have to prove his case until trial. That's why they call it "trial". That's a hell of a long way and a lot of dollars from filing a complaint. There are exceptions to this, but that's not what you're talking about here.

"And you are right again that a paralegal cannot actually FILE the motion, but they can deliver it and can certainly assist a defendant in drafting one."

Wrong again. A paralegal can fill out forms and type out a pleading that an attorney drafted. If a defendant in a defamation suit is looking for a paralegal to draft a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, that's the practice of law. There's no way around it.

And you have it backwards. A paralegal can do the actual filing of the motion. Anyone can. Law firms routinely hire attorney services to pick up pleadings from the firm and hike downtown to file pleadings.

"Yes, getting sued sucks, but not as bad as suing without grounds and getting countersued. You pay EVERYONE's fees, and likely get slapped with damages as well."

If you're talking about an action for malicious prosecution, that's extremely hard to win. The standard in most jurisdictions is that the plaintiff must have brought the action without reasonable cause and with the intent to injure. That is a very high standard. Just because a defendant wins at trial does not per se mean that the plaintiff sued without resaonable cause and that he intended to injure. The plaintiff can lose for all kinds of reasons. Perhaps he couldn't meet his burden of proof. Perhaps his attorney committed malpractice. There are an endless number of possible reasons.

Also, a plaintiff can countersue for a frivolous malicious prosecution action. This is easier to win than the original defamation action becaue the burden for a malicious prosecution action is so difficult to meet. This is why defendants don't countclaim for malicious prosecution as a matter of course in most lawsuits. Malicious proseuction actions are actually quite rare.

Stop giving legal advice to people. Stop and think before you write. As hard as it is for me to believe, some people actually believe what you write on and rely on it. Your psuedo-legal BS is going to get someone in trouble.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Perrone the Turkey on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 06:10 pm: Edit

John 'the knife' Lee wrote:

"Stop giving legal advice to people. Stop and think before you write. As hard as it
is for me to believe, some people actually believe what you write on and rely on it.
Your psuedo-legal BS is going to get someone in trouble. "

Hmmm,,,I've heard this one before. Maybe Pepperoni just won't ever learn? LOL

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By PerroneFord on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 06:21 pm: Edit

Thanks for the legal lesson. And I hope no one misconstrued that stream of consciousness as legal advice. I had my information wrong (not the first time) and you corrected me. Thanks, its been over 10 years since I sat in a law school clss (yes at an accredited university) so what I may have thought I remembered may not be accurate. You seem to have an accurate understanding of the procedures involved (and I don't happen to have a copy handy of Fed or State, R.Civ.Pro. so you are probably right.

It was my understanding that a paralegal could do more than they can. I've had limited contact with them but watched some of their actions as my GF went through a divorce from her ex. I have easy access to attorneys so I admit I don't pay a lot of attention in these kinds of things.

Sorry for any confusion, irritation, or anything else that anyone wants to call it.

-P

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Rob Davison (Pokerob) on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 07:31 pm: Edit


Quote:

Perrone,

"So no, I'm not an expert at law. I only took a few courses, worked at the law library, and work for the courts here in FL."

That may be so, but it doesn't make you an attorney and it doesn't permit you to give legal advice. Simply giving legal advice to someone constitutes the practice of law, and only attorneys can practice law.




i don't mean to be a prick but anyone can practice law, maybe not legally, but they can do it.

there are lots of things we can do but we aren't supposed to.

i like to compare it to a situation i got into just after i got out of prison back in 1997, i was taking a leak at a mccdonalds and got bored and decided to try and write my name in cursive on the wall (with my piss)

they yell: "hey you with the afro,, you can't piss on the wall you stupid asshole"

and i say: "afro? man these are corn rows... learn your hip-hop hair styles and BTW i can and just have pissed on your wall"


;)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Redsrover (Redsrover) on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 08:05 pm: Edit

lol - damn funny Rob!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Mush Mouth on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 09:48 pm: Edit

I thought I recognized your style you sexy # 62487L cell block D little thang. I bet you miss those daily 3 hots and a cock, err cot ?? Your name, Pokerob, makes more sense now ... heh heh heh

Maybe Perrone slept in a best western last night and woke up as a lawyer, but more likely he woke up as the same old dipshit he was when he went to bed.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Mike Cox on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 - 09:49 pm: Edit

John Lee --- CHILL OUT!

You seem to speak as if you have legal knowledge, if this is true then you are aware of the term "Pro Se". Contrary to popular belief, Attorneys do not hold the right of having the only access to the law, they have basic training and have passed a test that allows them to represent other people before the courts, but they do NOT own the law.

The laws of this country are based upon the concepts of English Common law and the precepts of the Tort, or the "right" or "wrong" of the given situation. (Unless your in La. which is still under the influence of the Napoleanic Code) A basic premise of the law is that every person has the right to represent themselves and to have a jury of their peers. Your insistance that every person has to have an attorney is BS put out by the Bar Association to scare people away from the legal system.

Go to any book store and look in the legal section and you will find rows of books advising people how to proceed through the legal system, and with blank forms for them to fill out and file their own motions. A para-legal can help because they are familiar with the forms and the time-line in filing those forms. I know para-legals that know the Rules of Court Procedures better than most attorneys.

With a little knowledge and a computer, you can tie a $300 an hour attorney up for days! If you file the right forms, you have "Motions for Discovery", "Subpoena duces Tecum", "Depositions", "Motions for Continuance", Challenges of Venue, and if you don't think that's going to appear in a case involving Internet "Slander", think again!

If your an attorney, shame on you for thinking that the law is yours to sell, or that free members of a society cannot exercise their right to free speech and the exchange of ideas in a public forum, or is this a concept that you don't tolerate.. maybe there's a book or video you can go burn somewhere!

If you don't agree with things fine, but don't excessively berate someone for talking!

Mike Cox

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By John Lee on Thursday, November 22, 2001 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Mike Cox --- LEARN HOW TO READ!

"You seem to speak as if you have legal knowledge, if this is true then you are aware of the term "Pro Se". Contrary to popular belief, Attorneys do not hold the right of having the only access to the law, they have basic training and have passed a test that allows them to represent other people before the courts, but they do NOT own the law."

I never claimed that attorneys own the law. That's absurd. I said that attorneys are the only ones who can practice law. Appearing in propria persona or pro se, i.e., representing oneself in court, is not the practice of law. If you were as knowledgeable as you profess to be, you would know that. But of course you don't know what you're talking about, as your long tirade demonstrates. You're long on legal buzz words, but short on knowledge.

"The laws of this country are based upon the concepts of English Common law and the precepts of the Tort, or the "right" or "wrong" of the given situation. (Unless your in La. which is still under the influence of the Napoleanic Code) A basic premise of the law is that every person has the right to represent themselves and to have a jury of their peers. Your insistance that every person has to have an attorney is BS put out by the Bar Association to scare people away from the legal system."

Yes, every person has a right to represent himself in court. So what? What does this have to do with Perrone giving legal advice (and erroneous and imprudent legal advice at that) to people that they are basically immune from a defamation suit by dealers or whatever? The answer is simple. You seem to like to toss around legal buzz words to give the impression you know what you're talking about, so here's another legal term for you: IRRELEVANT. The two matters are not connected at all. The right of a person to represent himself in court is irrelevant to Perrone giving legal advice on this forum. My admonishing Perrone for giving (bad) legal advice has nothing to do with someone having the right to himself (not "themselves") in court.

"Go to any book store and look in the legal section and you will find rows of books advising people how to proceed through the legal system, and with blank forms for them to fill out and file their own motions."

Apparently, you have done just that already. You toss around these buzz words like "pro se", "process", "English Common Law (not Common law), "tort", "Napoleonic (not "Napoleanic") Code", "jury of their peers". All of this is just bullshit. Besides misspelling half of these words and phrases, it's patently obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

"A para-legal can help because they are familiar with the forms and the time-line in filing those forms. I know para-legals that know the Rules of Court Procedures better than most attorneys."

Get real. Either you're lying or the attorneys you know are as morons.

"With a little knowledge and a computer, you can tie a $300 an hour attorney up for days! If you file the right forms, you have "Motions for Discovery", "Subpoena duces Tecum", "Depositions", "Motions for Continuance", Challenges of Venue, and if you don't think that's going to appear in a case involving Internet "Slander", think again!"

Well, next time you get sued, I suggest you follow your own advice and file dozens of motions. Just be aware of the consequences. And when did I ever say depositions or continuances or venue would not appear on a defamation (not "slander", there is a difference, as you obviously don't know) case?

Just like Perrone, you're basically telling people that getting sued is not a serious matter and that they can handle their litigation problems on their own. If this is the course you want to follow for youself, go ahead. Just don't advise others that this is a prudent course of action.

"If your an attorney, shame on you for thinking that the law is yours to sell, or that free members of a society cannot exercise their right to free speech and the exchange of ideas in a public forum, or is this a concept that you don't tolerate.. maybe there's a book or video you can go burn somewhere!"

You're (not "your") an idiot. Yes, I am an attorney. No, don't think the law is mine to sell. No, I'm not against free speech or the exchange of ideas. No, I'm not into burning books. I never wrote any of this. That you put these words in my mouth shows that you are either dishonest or an idiot, or both.

And what does all of this have to do with Perrone's, and now your, giving of legal advice on this forum?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Mike Cox on Thursday, November 22, 2001 - 10:40 pm: Edit

John Lee,

You're correct, my spelling is terrible, this was about the limit of your attributes. Your ability to reason is limited!

As a person, you're a moron! (Did I spell that correctly!) I'll leave your legal abilities for your colleagues to laugh about.

The only truth you hold to be self-evident is the truth according to John Lee

You have disagreed with someone and take offense when someone else disagrees with you. You profess to be a man of letters, well I have three letters to describe you... A-S-S!

Perrone told someone that they could represent themselves in matters before the court, This must be the "Practice of Law" you revile him for. No wonder, when people find out that they don't need a "Schiester" to represent them in court, it puts a damper on your ambulance chasing.

"Well, next time you get sued, I suggest you follow your own advice and file dozens of motions. Just be aware of the consequences."

I love this! WHAT do you think an attorney is going to do? Right after they accept your retainer, they file motions! Yet if I do it, its not "prudent"!

With your low appreciation of the Para-legals, it's obvious that you don't employ one. Therefore I can assume that you are a one-man, "hole in the wall" attorney who subsist on convincing widows that you're the man to handle their late husbands' estate. A will and a probate here and there and you make that months rent and maybe even an alimony payment!

My comment about you burning books and videos was to highlight your efforts to censor Perrone. I see that this analogy was "above your head". If you were to review my comments, you will note that I did not say that you said those words, perhaps it is a Fruedian Slip on your part to claim the statements? The fact that you claim that I attributed these statments to you is both misleading and false, Now who's being dishonest?

Why is it that everyone who speaks in a trial has to be sworn in, except for the attorney? I assume that your response will be that attorneys don't present any facts in court?

The seriousness of being sued in court is incumbent to the situation. If someone has filed a small claims action against you, is it your advice that they be represented by an attorney? I don't know how it is where you are, but the judges in this circuit frown upon attorneys being involved in minor small claims actions. They consider it a waste of their time to have an attorney making motions in their courts, all the while hoping that they can have just one more continuance in the hope that a witness forgets about the correct court time. Justice may be blind, but its' not as stupid as you may think.

You have stated that I don't know what I'm talking about, throwing about meaningless buzz words, Please enlighten me. What part of these things were meaningless, or do most people just say "Gosh! If John Lee says it.. It must be true!" Did you learn that in Law School? You obviously think the law is yours to sell and dispense, because you take great offence whenever anybody tries to discuss it without including you. This is an indication of jealousy and jealousy indicates that you belive that you have ownership and for anybody else to discuss it is a violation of your property rights.

If I tell my sixteen your old son not to speed in his car, did I just give him legal advice? Are you going to file a complaint against me with the Florida Bar? Maybe the States' Attorney office needs to be notified? I can see the headlines now "Father gives legal advice to son, Bar rallies to file Writ of Injuction, and seek punative damages"!

Don't try to impress me with your view of your self-importance. I will discuss things with anybody, anywhere. What I detest are people who attempt to bolster their own sense of self-worth by attempting to chastise someone they don't agree with.

It is obvious that intellectual pursuits evade you. In my original comments, I witheld from attacking you personally, but in your rebuttal you have attacked me personally. Referring to me as "dishonest" and an "idiot". What's next, are you going to hold your breath till you turn blue, or perhaps I should get prepared for the "older brother" threat?

Either way, intimidate someone else, I'm not going to blink!

Mike Cox

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Joe American on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 09:13 am: Edit

actually, what consitute giving legal advice and why do the call it "practicing"?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By DougC on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 09:28 am: Edit

As a new attorney in Texas, I am getting a huge kick out of this argument. And, yes I am in the office the day after Thanksgiving.

DougC...Sitting on the sidelines.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Redsrover (Redsrover) on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 09:33 am: Edit

Me too!

Red

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By DougC on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 09:53 am: Edit

Red--are you a new attorney sitting in your office the day after Thanksgiving? In the alternative, are you sitting on the sidelines getting a kick out of this arguement? Finally, are you in Texas?

Hope you have a great day...DougC

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Mike Cox on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 10:56 am: Edit

Hey Doug,


Should I Voir dire you and Red? Oh no I said a legal term!!! Another nail in my practice of law Damnation! :)

Mike Cox

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Redsrover (Redsrover) on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 11:19 am: Edit

Doug,

No not new, yes in office (until 2pm... effectively avoiding overstimulation by the extended family loafing in my home until tomorrow), and no not Texas. :->

But I am enjoying the discussion. John has dealt some good blows, and Mike Hunt, or whatever, has reacted like a schoolboy. I love it when folks get so irritated that they ruin whatever chance they had of making a solid argument. Who's next?

Red

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Ron on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 11:30 am: Edit

Hehehe

I view lawyers like I view mechanics, to wit:

"The only difference between me and a trained monkey is the training"

Same applies to lawyers. I have found all that I met incompetitient, and I can perform the same task as they can with an equal level of incompetitence.

Anyone can practice law legally. It just has to be your own case. No law says you have to have a lawyer.

Ron

PS too bad you can't test out of law school based on your LSAT hehehehe, or even sit for the bar without going to law school for 3 years.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Kyle on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 11:42 am: Edit

Now see Ron , why do ya gotta bring the mechanics into it ? Completely different deal. Maybe you mean "Most mechanics" if that were the statement I would buy it...


Kyle

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By John Lee on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 11:46 am: Edit

Mike Cox,

"As a person, you're a moron! (Did I spell that correctly!) I'll leave your legal abilities for your colleagues to laugh about. The only truth you hold to be self-evident is the truth according to John Lee. You have disagreed with someone and take offense when someone else disagrees with you. You profess to be a man of letters, well I have three letters to describe you... A-S-S! "

Is that the best you can do? Call me a moron and an ass and then throw in more legalese with the "self-evident" bit? You're free to call me whatever you like. But name-calling is the true mark of a moron and ass. It's the only tool you know, since you obviously know nothing about the law.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant of the law. Most of the population is ignorant about the law. But what separates you and Perrone from most of the population is that you two profess to be knowledgeable about the law. Even worse, both of you give people bad advice that may get them in trouble. Perrone claims that saving receipts will basically immunize someone from a defamation lawsuit. You claim that there are books at Barnes & Noble that will show one how to keep lawyers busy and then prevail in court. Both of these items of advice are bad to say the least. They are no more absurd than advising someone that if he wears a talisman he will be immune to physical attack, or advising someone who has suffered physical attack that he can go to Borders Books and buy a book that will show him how to operate on himself to repair his injuries. This is not advice. If you give advice like this, don't go psycho when someone points out that it is bad advice.

"Perrone told someone that they could represent themselves in matters before the court, This must be the "Practice of Law" you revile him for. No wonder, when people find out that they don't need a "Schiester" to represent them in court, it puts a damper on your ambulance chasing."

No, you're trying to reframe what transpired in the thread above. This is silly because the entire thread is written down and people can easily see what transpired. Perrone did not advise people that they could represent themselves in court. He told people that if they kept a box of receipts (presumably from the dealership), they could defend themselves in a lawsuit by a dealership by having the suit dismissed or on summary judgment. Here are Perrone's exact words: "A simple production of reciepts from these places would be enough to file for dismissal or summary judgement." I have no idea what kind of magic powers a box of receipts is going to have in a defamation action, so I must be missing something.

You seem to be stuck on this business about representing oneself in court. If that is your prerogative, then go ahead. That's your legal right. But to try to claim that this thread was about representing oneself in court, or that I was saying everyone must be represented by an attorney is absurd. You're not that clever.

"I love this! WHAT do you think an attorney is going to do? Right after they accept your retainer, they file motions! Yet if I do it, its not "prudent"!"

Again, you're taking things out of context, on purpose because you have nothing else to go on. The difference between an attorney filing motions on a client's behalf and a pro se filing motions is that the attorney knows which motions to file. Motions are like tools and must be used when only appropriate. You sound like some guy who just bought a surgery kit and thinks he's ready to perform surgery.

"With your low appreciation of the Para-legals, it's obvious that you don't employ one. Therefore I can assume that you are a one-man, "hole in the wall" attorney who subsist on convincing widows that you're the man to handle their late husbands' estate. A will and a probate here and there and you make that months rent and maybe even an alimony payment!"

Your arguments go lower and lower as you run out of material. Yes, there were paralegals at both of the firms I used to work at. We used them a lot. Some were smart and some were stupid. Even the smart ones did not have the legal knowledge and experience to run a case. I'm fairly sure that such paralegals exist somewhere, but if they do, they are extremely rare. I have met lots of paralegals but I have not met one that I would trust to run a case for me. I have not metal a single paralegal that I would trust to research a complex issue of law.

"My comment about you burning books and videos was to highlight your efforts to censor Perrone. I see that this analogy was "above your head". If you were to review my comments, you will note that I did not say that you said those words, perhaps it is a Fruedian Slip on your part to claim the statements? The fact that you claim that I attributed these statments to you is both misleading and false, Now who's being dishonest?"

You're still the one being dishonest. You're the one who has tried to reframe this thread into one of free speech and censorship. Get real. It's not about free speech and censorship. It's about Perrone, and now you, giving (bad) legal advice to people. This has nothing to do with free speech. There is no governmental entity trying to censor you or throwing you in jail for what you wrote. I'm not trying to censor you. You're still free to write anything you want on this board. Go ahead and keep writing. Just don't go crazy when someone points out that you don't know what you're talking about or that your advice is bad.

"Why is it that everyone who speaks in a trial has to be sworn in, except for the attorney? I assume that your response will be that attorneys don't present any facts in court?"

The answer to this one is simple. I know it and I'm sure Doug C knows it. I'm wondering if you know the answer yourself. You say this statement as if it means something, so what do you mean by it? I'm very curious. You must be going on yet another tangent with this. Please do tell.

"The seriousness of being sued in court is incumbent to the situation. If someone has filed a small claims action against you, is it your advice that they be represented by an attorney? I don't know how it is where you are, but the judges in this circuit frown upon attorneys being involved in minor small claims actions. They consider it a waste of their time to have an attorney making motions in their courts, all the while hoping that they can have just one more continuance in the hope that a witness forgets about the correct court time. Justice may be blind, but its' not as stupid as you may think."

LOL. Incumbent on the situation? The small claims judges in your circuit? I'm in the Ninth Circuit. I had no idea federal jurisdiciton dropped down to the small claims level.

No, it's not my advice that people sued in small claims court be represented by an attorney. I don't know what the rule is in your "circuit", but the rule in California and and almost all jurisdictions is that parties are actually prohibited from being represnted by counsel in small claims actions. The only thing is that more blind than justice is you.

And if you think the Volkswagon dealership in this case is suing in small claims court, I highly doubt that. It sounds more to me that this dealership is out for blood, not a few thousand dollars. The dealership is likely going to claim that it was damaged in the tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps more. That is not a small claims action. Once again, you're not only on a tangent but you're also showing that you have no idea what you're talking about.

"You have stated that I don't know what I'm talking about, throwing about meaningless buzz words, Please enlighten me. What part of these things were meaningless, or do most people just say "Gosh!"

Almost everything you have written has been meaningless. Perrone gives some shitty legal advice and you jump in about free speech issues and censorship. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Yes, you do throw around legal buzz words in the vain attempt to give people the impression you know what you're talking about. You don't. Just like your tirade above about how the judges in your small claims circuit don't like it when the parties appearing before them are represented by counsel. This is a joke. Just like your assertion that every person has the right to represent himself in court. You say this as though it were in dispute, which is it not.

"If John Lee says it.. It must be true!" Did you learn that in Law School?"

When did I write this? When did I ever claim to be the last word on the law? This is absurd. What I did do was show that you and Perrone have no idea what you're writing about, and I think that is clear. That doesn't make me the last word on the law.

"You obviously think the law is yours to sell and dispense, because you take great offence whenever anybody tries to discuss it without including you. This is an indication of jealousy and jealousy indicates that you belive that you have ownership and for anybody else to discuss it is a violation of your property rights."

LOL, ownership? Property rights? Are those some other legal buzz words you're throwing out there? Did you read that at Barnes & Noble while downing some Starbuck's coffee?

For the record, I don't think the law is mine to sell. The reason I take offense at what you and Perrone write is because it is so wrong and going to get someone in trouble. Both of you write this stuff in order to give the appearance that you're knowledgeable on the subject and you can boost your own egos.

You're both giving bad advice and if people read it and rely on it, they're going to get into trouble. People will continue to think that they have some kind of "free speech" right to say whatever they want about anybody and they'll continue to slam dealerships on this board and other boards without regard to the possible ramifications. If some dealerships get pissed off, they may sue for defamation (not slander, as you say). When the people who relied on Perrone's advice pull their box of receipts and move the court for dismissal, they'll get a rude awakening. When the people who relied on your advice go to Borders Books and look for some frivoulsous motions to change venue, they'll get a rude awakening there too.

"If I tell my sixteen your old son not to speed in his car, did I just give him legal advice?"

No.

"Are you going to file a complaint against me with the Florida Bar? Maybe the States' Attorney office needs to be notified? I can see the headlines now "Father gives legal advice to son, Bar rallies to file Writ of Injuction, and seek punative damages"!"

Writ of injunction? Punitive damages? LOL. Why not throw in a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of mandamus as well for good measure? Again, you're trying to sound as though you know what you're talking about.

"Don't try to impress me with your view of your self-importance. I will discuss things with anybody, anywhere. What I detest are people who attempt to bolster their own sense of self-worth by attempting to chastise someone they don't agree with."

Ooooh, big man with big words. Unfortunately, samll brain. Yeah, go ahead and discuss whatever you want with anyone. You act as if you I were trying to censor you or something. Get real. Go ahead and post whatever you like. I'm not going to censor anything. I'm not going to report you anywhere. If I disagree with you, I'll point out why I think you're wrong. You'll do the same. What is the big deal here?

"It is obvious that intellectual pursuits evade you. In my original comments, I witheld from attacking you personally, but in your rebuttal you have attacked me personally. Referring to me as "dishonest" and an "idiot". What's next, are you going to hold your breath till you turn blue, or perhaps I should get prepared for the "older brother" threat? Either way, intimidate someone else, I'm not going to blink!"

Oh, I'll go and run into my corner then.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Ron on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 11:53 am: Edit

Kyle I am sure there are a couple of good ones.

but you have to generalize . . .

Most mechanics, most lawyers, ya but in general I find "professionals" to be fairly incompetitent and overpriced no matter what they do.

They prey on fear and ignorance. I suggest people not be afraid and not remain ignorant.

How is that for philosphy on a slow friday?

Ron

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Mike Cox on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 11:57 am: Edit

Gentlemen,

Please allow me to add, I believe that lawyers serve a useful and valuable purpose in our society.

Not every case is suitable for a person to represent themselves. An attorney can provide competent and needed guidance in avoiding pitfalls in a complicated and intimidating legal system.

But not every person has the resources for a protracted fight in the court system.

What I took exception to was John Lees personal attack on Perrone Ford for making a comment in an open forum and then justfying it under the color of protecting him [Perrone Ford] from exposing himself to the practice of law without a license.

Mike Cox

And yes, this is my name, not a Nom de Guerre.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Kyle on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 11:57 am: Edit

Yes I dig that. Most of the "trained" guys are clueless. As far as the lawyers go Ron , you are missing a very very valuable aspect of them. No matter how much you study and how smart you become to defend yourself. You are still not a member of "The club". Not being in "the club" means you have a handicap already...


Now , you guys have to know this whole thread is just begging for a joke. I will put out the first part and see if John Lee can guess the second..

"Whats worse then a thread full of lawyers???""
Kyle

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Ron on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 12:02 pm: Edit

John Lee you mind telling me what the case hinges on? One simple thing and the guy is either screwed or he is in the right.

Because if you can't see that then you fit my statement above.

Now hypothetically, we can discuss what a similar hypothetical case depends on if you want.

Ron

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Mike Cox on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 12:10 pm: Edit

John Lee,

I must have missed something. What legal advice did I give? Or is it you take exception to me using "your" legal terms and phrases?

Tricks and Tactics, I'm familiar with the concepts.

Mike Cox

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By John Lee on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 12:21 pm: Edit

"Whats worse then a thread full of lawyers???"

Hmmm. No idea. Do tell.....

"John Lee you mind telling me what the case hinges on? One simple thing and the guy is either screwed or he is in the right. Because if you can't see that then you fit my statement above."

Geez, are you a lawyer now too? Please share with us what single thing this that poor guy's case hinges on. Incidentally, I think you're oversimplifying what that that's guy's case. Even if he wins at trial, did he really "win"? Is he going to recover his legal fees and expenses? Is he going to be compensated for his headache and heartache he suffered?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By John Lee on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Mike,

"I must have missed something. What legal advice did I give? Or is it you take exception to me using "your" legal terms and phrases? Tricks and Tactics, I'm familiar with the concepts."

You profess to be knowlegeable about the the legal system and the law in general, so you should know the answer. If in doubt, you might want to head over to Borders or Barnes & Noble for the answer.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By 99 percentile LSAT on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Hypothetically, Now if I happened to be sued by land rover wallyworld after I complained about their shoddy service on discoweb here is what I would do:

Document the incident. Take pics of the hand marks, show the horn does not work, and also document the times I visited (reciepts, ez pass time long, service orders, calls to LR customer support line, calls on the cell to LR WW, notes I wrote down etc.)

This is key as it is not defamation if it is true!

You might even get off at summary judgement here (not that Perrone is ever right :)

Now the fun part (note this is only for people with too much time on their hands), the countersuit. Key thing here is to enjoin LR and all the corporations involved up the chain at the dealer. Regional holding company for the group of dealers etc. Contact them immediately and tell them when the news is coming by for the interview and expose (keep in mind LR WW sued to get rid of the bad publicity so they will be none to pleased about this). Well what am I going to countersue for. Might want to try negligent infliction of emotional distress, though that is quite a stretch. Maybe try for a class action. Get a couple other people and file a motion to get all service customers declared a class, then start making up numbers. Say teh overbooking has cost you 4 hours per the event at 2 events in one month for all 1000 of their service customers. Throw out some big number, but not too big and hope they make you an offer. Counter with double what they offered and they will be happy to be done with it and you.

The bottom line here is that the practice of screwing people who don't buy from the dealer you are taking it to for service is widespread. Especially when LR downtown is on $$$$ land and sells for list while LR BFE is on cheap land and sells for 2000 under list but everyone lives near LR Downtown.

How is that for a hypothetical case to discuss in hopes of eliminating some of the ignorance

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Kyle on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 12:32 pm: Edit

A thread full of wanna be lawyers..... :)

Kyle

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Mike Cox on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 12:32 pm: Edit

John Lee,

"You profess to be knowlegeable about the the legal system and the law in general, so you should know the answer. If in doubt, you might want to head over to Borders or Barnes & Noble for the answer."

I'm relying on your answer here, not anthing I can surmise. Or do you not work "Pro Bono".. upps another legal term, Sorry!

Mike Cox

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Ron on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Hypothetically, a case hinges on whether or not the defendant is telling the truth and can prove it. Pretty simple. Its not defamation if it is true.

Ron

No I am not a lawyer

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Ron on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 12:36 pm: Edit

Kyle,

LOL truer words never spoken.

I don't want to be a lawyer, I'd rather be a mechanic

Hehehehe

Ron

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Ron on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Of course it is not defamation if it is a statement of opinion either, hypothetically, which would be the only chance if what he said about was untrue. There were some serious statements of fact there though.

Ron

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Kyle on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Ron , the big thing you arent getting here is "The way things are" . I have been around many lawyers and have forked over god only knows how much cash to them. Its a club , the judge is in the club , and all the lawyers are in the club. If you aint in it you are basically fucked from jump , unless , you are one dazzleing bastard ,which I think at best would only prolong your fucking..
I have seen other decent lawyers get mowed down just because of the respect the judge gave to a certain firm that was oposing them.. Its the way things are......

Kyle

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Dazzeling cheap bastard on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Courts in the rural south are not actual courts

You got to play the game there or play like the people back at school

First thing ANYONE who got busted doing anything did when I was back there was motion for a change of venue. You don't want judge whitey who hate the college kids ruling over your ass when you got a DUI in your daddy's rangie on rural route B. You want judge lolita who spends her time sentencing wife beaters car thiefs.

:)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By John Lee on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Ron,

"Hypothetically, a case hinges on whether or not the defendant is telling the truth and can prove it. Pretty simple. Its not defamation if it is true."

Let's keep it hypothetical because I don't know the facts of this guy's case and don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on that case.

A defamation case does hinge on the truth or untruth of the allegedly defamatory words. No, the defendant does not have to prove his words were true. Rather, the plaintiff has to prove that the Defendant's words were false. Sounds "pretty simple" but there is more to litigation than the recitation of rules.

Proving the truth or untruth of words sounds easy, but it is not. This is a matter for trial and the process leading up to trial is very complicated and expensive. A defendant similarly situated this this VW owner is basically screwed, even if he does prevail at trial. The costs and heartache involved in all litigation are immense and usually each party must bear his own costs.

Another thing to consider is a hypothetical dealership may not be trying to "win" by suing a particular defendant. The dealership could be motivated by all sorts of reasons. Perhaps the dealership wants to chill criticism of that dealership by suing people, even though it knows it is likely it will lose at trial. The dealership might be looking to make an example out of a particular defendant and put him through such hell that others will see the possibilities if they talk and they will shut up. If this is so, then the defendant is in for the time of his life. Even if this defendant prevails at trial, the dealership has really "won" in that its objectives of chilling similar criticism will be chilled. Even if this defendant prevails at trial, he has really "lost" in the sense that he will likely not be able to recoup his legal fees and costs. Also, he will have been put through the wash and he will be drained emotionally as well as financially. There are also litigation tactics a either party can use to make litigation more expensive. If our hypothetical dealership wanted to do this, they could and probably will.

Even if the hypothetical dealership sued to ramrod our hypothetical defendant, that will be extremely difficult for the defendant to prove in any kind of malicious prosecution action. The defendant must basically prove someone's mental intent, and that is always difficult to prove, especially when a defendant is mouthing off on the internet in a obviously emotional state and the plaintiff has an ostensible case for defamation.

It may sound as though I'm trying to overcomplicate things, but I'm not. I'm just trying to show that the law is not a simple thing and that there are many things involved that aren't in a reference book or in the legal section at Barnes & Noble. My jumping into this thread at all started when somebody posted that one is basically immune to a defamation lawsuit if he keeps a box of receipts. Implicit in that advice is the advice to keep on slamming away without regard for the possible consequences. That kind of advice can seriously fuck up somebody's life. It's irresponsible. That's the only reason I commented.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Kyle on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 01:21 pm: Edit

Actually ,you are all wrong. The case doesnt hinge on if he is telling the truth or not.It hinges on the illusion of truth and who can pull that off better. He can be completely in the right and get his ass handed to him by someone that presents himself better...
I hear what you are all saying and you are all right in different ways. In the real world however truth and justice are not the motives. Money is....
As John said , the dealer could be doing this for many reasons , they infact could know that coming out of the gate they are flat wrong. What they know and what they can get the court system to buy though are two very different things...
In the end as John says I feel they win either way. You know they got a maytag repairman tpe lawyer that they are paying anyway. Why not get his ass up and have him do something. Doesnt cost them anymore then they spend already. It will cost you though.... Believe that...


Kyle

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Ron on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 01:24 pm: Edit

John Lee,

We are kinda on the same page on this hypothetical case. I am aware the burden of proof is on the plaintif but what are hypothetical customer needs is to have rock solid proof that what he said is true. Then he is ok. Before you can screw people back you have to have a good solid foundation. Without proof their is question and that could lead to issues.

To your second point. Yes they could probably screw him pretty good. HOWEVER, you are now into another realm which is who scares easier and who has what to lose. At this point the dealership is kicking their lawyers for even bringing it up that they sue because instead of the internet website it is now in the atlanta newspaper. PUBLICITY is what they were trying to quash. Now they are in the atlanta newspaper as sueing a customer. comeon are you going to buy a car from them? If mr hypothetical plaintif plays his cards right all he has to do is take it and run and the poor dealership is WAY more screwed than he is. His best bet would be to trade a gag order for some cash and be done with it.

my 2 cents

Oh course this is why I said it is based on whether it is true and he can prove it.

all and all I think the dealer was just trying to scare them into taking the tread down and it just sort of got carried away.

Ron

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Ron on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 01:29 pm: Edit

Kyle you missed the boat on this one.

They already LOST.

They are screwed. People on the dweb are reading it :) not to mention the entire readership of the atlanta newspaper.

Sure they could screw him but he could nail them WAY more. Call the TV stations. Show it on channel 4 expose. If you need a lawyer someone will probono on it for sure, ACLU loves this crap.

If he is willing to shut up he can get some cash.

Publicity is the enemy of the dealer. If I was truly a lawyer I could nail the bastards even if he was lying.

Ron

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Axel Haakonsen (Axel) on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 01:38 pm: Edit

DISCLAIMER: The following is not to be taken as legal advive, it is my personal opinion only!

"This is key as it is not defamation if it is true!"

That may be so. However, if your are being sued for defamation, you still have to spend money and time on defending yourself, i.e. proving that your statements were true. So, if the party that sues you have more resources than you do, their tactic may be to try and wage a war of attrition. Even if they lose the case in the end, if they managed to make you go bankrupt in the process of defending yourself, they have in a way won. Corpus Christi ed demonstandum. :)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Bluegill (Bluegill) on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 02:15 pm: Edit

So, who gets the bill for all this legal double-talk? :)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By DougC on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Holy crap! I left work, ran some errands, and came home. I sure missed alot in 2 1/2 hours. Is it time for y'all to kiss and make up?

DougC...Member of "The Club" :)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Rob Davison (Pokerob) on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 02:44 pm: Edit

ok here is my take. lets say i am getting sued by this dealer and i can tell i'm loosing.

i am a ruthless bastard... i {personally} dont own much so if they take everything i have and fuck me the rest of my life as far as my credit it concerned. i pretty much would be in a bad mood forever...

so i would , and this is my ILLEGAL advice. i would for the rest of my goddamned life fuck with this dealer in any and every way i could.
false claims, slander, harrasment.. you name it i'm going to be doing it.

this is the way that _I_ can win.. in my frothing mental state i will rock back in forth in corner will i get stoned on my own endorphins, all from the satisfaction of knowing "i got 'em in the end"

see it's not about being right or wrong. it's about being crazy enough not to give fuck

now how wants to go get some ice cream?
:)
rd

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By dazzling bastard on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 02:50 pm: Edit

it's about being crazy enough not to give fuck

Yup.

Now that I am not drinking a fifth of wild turkey every day I no longer qualify. :(

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Mike Cox on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Hi Guy's,

Sorry for being absent, (John Lee, I'm of course sure that you missed me.) What you guys have eluded to is what Perrone was saying, If you have all your documentation, you have a good case for defending your position that the Dealership is wrong.

And just like on this forum, the average person cheers for the underdog, or the person who they see as beign wronged. Bad press, even when your right can kill you.

Mike

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Axel Haakonsen (Axel) on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 05:58 pm: Edit

That is true, but you still have to spend time and resources on defending yourself, and THAT is a pain in the ass, no matter how much the public cheers you on.

If I read John's posts correctly though, I don't think John was saying that you should just throw away your documentation, hire a lawyer and live happily ever after. Correct me if I'm wrong here, John - what he WAS saying was that:

1. Getting sued sucks.
2. You have the right to represent yourself in court.
3. If you choose to represent yourself, you better know what you are doing, because the other side will eat you alive if you make a mistake.
4. Anyone representing you in court must be a member of the bar, i.e. a lawyer.

Does that about cover it, John?


(As a sidenote, does anyone know why they call it a member of the bar?)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Mike Cox on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 06:21 pm: Edit

I will stipulate to that. :)

Mike Cox

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Redsrover (Redsrover) on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Bluegill,

Y'all can send me the bill. Figure up the number of hours (or I can have me paralegal handle it on Monday) and multiply by $235.

That's right, I get $235 an hour, every hour. That means 61 minutes equals 2 hours. My clients are happy, I'm happy, we all go have a drink.

Red

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Eric N (Grnrvr) on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Red, do you give your clients KY on the first visit or the second? :)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By JC on Friday, November 23, 2001 - 10:45 pm: Edit

"Please allow me to add, I believe that lawyers serve a useful and valuable purpose in our society. "

They make great speedbumps..

-JC
The trouble with the legal profession is that 98% of its members give the rest a bad name.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mike w on Saturday, November 24, 2001 - 12:32 am: Edit

very true JC very true!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Kyle on Saturday, November 24, 2001 - 09:18 am: Edit

Oh yes Red , and its all about billable hours. If you are on the phone someone is paying your ass for it. Some severely bogus shit going on there. Client calls you cause you are dragging your feet? You bill the poor bastard for the phone call.. Sending a fax ? You bill the poor bastard 75 bucks or some shit..But , as Ron and I were talking before. You can avoid having to deal with a lawyer if you are carefull. However , you boys will HAVE to come see a mechanic one day... :) Yes , that justice is sweet.... very sweet...

Kyle

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Redsrover (Redsrover) on Saturday, November 24, 2001 - 06:02 pm: Edit

Eric, JC and Kyle,

Had a party over here last night and I see where some asshole decided to play on my computer and sent the above message from me ($235 an hour crap).

I was showing a neighbor the discoweb and our discussion board and how it works (passwords, etc.) and he decided to be a dick.

Anyway, I don't charge anyone $235 an hour and rarely need to break out the KY. Thanks and sorry for adding to the bandwidth usage.

Red

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Eric N (Grnrvr) on Saturday, November 24, 2001 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Glad to see that you saw the humor in that.. :) I don't let anyone use my PC much less any passwords. Good thing that they didn't start calling every one an a$$hole and such. Rarely need to break out the KY????? :):)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Chris Browne on Saturday, November 24, 2001 - 06:17 pm: Edit

If anyoneonthis board is sued for defamation like this, fax the suit to your homeowners insurer asap as you probably have coverage there.
Technically too, use of an employers computer will likely trigger a suit against them too.

Yup I'm a insurance litigation nerd

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By John Lee on Saturday, November 24, 2001 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Ax,

"...does anyone know why they call it a member of the bar?"

I have no idea. A "member of the bar" is probably short for "member of the bar association", but I don't know the exact etymology of the word "bar".

I heard an explanation once that the "bar" refers to the swinging gates one sees in courtrooms. Generally speaking, only attorneys (and parties and witnesses and such) are permitted to pass these gates. For example, a party who is appearing pro se can pass the gates and argue his case, but a non-attorney/witness cannot pass the gates with the party and argue the party's case on behalf of or with the client, as this is considered the practice of law. Thus, these gates are effectively a "bar" to non-parties, non-witnesses, and non-attorneys. Attorneys are thus considered members of the "bar" because they are permitted to pass through the bar. Or so the story goes. The story sounds apocryphal to me.

The authoritative Oxford English Dictionary may give a reliable explanation of the origins of the word "bar" and "bar association", but I haven't had access to an OED since college.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Erik Olson (Jon) on Sunday, November 25, 2001 - 12:24 am: Edit

This thread sucks. It's boring - boring to the point of tears. As a hypothetical (original post indicated a VW dealer) case, the question revolves around burden of proof for defamation - correct? Please let us not forget that there are numerous (class-action) suits against Land Rover North America at this time regarding OEM sunroofs, rust, gaskets etc. LRNA (if they were the actual Plaintiff) may not pursue such a case or allow a sanctioned dealer to do so either. Don't underestimate the power of bad press. LRNA (with its current legal woes) is a newsworthy entity.

Hell, I'm no attorney either - the closest I've been to a court was my three year stint on The Peoples Court with Judge Joseph Wapner (Ret). Anyway, this is a public forum where people dispense opinion, observation and advise regularly - user beware! John "Motion to Bore" Lee needs to take it easy, enough with the 10,000 character essays on his take on the law. Go out and get your truck dirty why don't you?

Erik Olson

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Axel Haakonsen (Axel) on Sunday, November 25, 2001 - 12:56 pm: Edit

If you find the thread boring, by all means skip it. I actually find John's essays to be quite entertaining, where else than on DiscoWeb can you get an attorney to write a legal opinion for free? :)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Mike Cox on Sunday, November 25, 2001 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Hey John Lee,

I've had time to think about it, and I take back calling you a moron.

Drop the attorney stuff, come to Florida and I'll show you some places to get your Defender dirty.

:)

Mike

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Erik Olson (Jon) on Sunday, November 25, 2001 - 11:06 pm: Edit

John,

I too take back everything I said about you and your threads. You were right to lambast Perrone so publicly. I may have eaten too much left-over turkey and stuffing before writing my over-zealous post.

Cheers,

Erik "Always My Real Name" Olson

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By snitch on Monday, November 26, 2001 - 01:58 am: Edit

I was under the impression that not using computers was a provision of your respective paroles, I calling your caseworkers in the AM!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By Discosaurus (Discosaurus) on Monday, November 26, 2001 - 01:35 pm: Edit

...all I know is that lawyers make damn good traction aids.


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" box and leave the "Password" box empty. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail:
Post as "Anonymous"

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation