- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,467
- Reaction score
- 313
I really appreciate lawyers who write like this. It makes it easier for laypeople to follow court cases and I think that's important for our society.
-
Guest please check The Index before starting a thread.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 9,251
- Reaction score
- 7,297
I also think the authors, editors, etc. who've contributed evidence deserve thanks. Awesome.
That was the best legal document I think I've ever read. Lovely, clear language, plenty of citations and some comic moments. I'd give a good deal to be in court next week.
That was the best legal document I think I've ever read. Lovely, clear language, plenty of citations and some comic moments. I'd give a good deal to be in court next week.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 55,681
- Reaction score
- 25,859
My only complaint with it was that I've never heard of anybody putting peas in goulash.
But yes, fully readable to the layperson.
Maryn, snickering like a 7th grader at lay-person
But yes, fully readable to the layperson.
Maryn, snickering like a 7th grader at lay-person
Adding my thanks to the people who stepped forward to provide evidence. And to Mr Randazza for a filing that was lucid, informative, and thoroughly entertaining. Apart from anything else, it was an excellent short course for the layperson in US libel law.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2005
- Messages
- 2,916
- Reaction score
- 403
Courtney Milan has another fantastic blog post, ths time about the TRO. She also provides links to the exhibits and highlights the significance of several statements in DA's declaration.
http://www.courtneymilan.com/ramblings/2014/10/22/the-exciting-world-of-the-tro-notchilled/
http://www.courtneymilan.com/ramblings/2014/10/22/the-exciting-world-of-the-tro-notchilled/
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 17,875
- Reaction score
- 4,668
- Location
- dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
I just completely flipped out because I use UTTERLY different noodles from goulash to beef stew. And the consistency is vastly changed.
Please carry on, I'll go have a little lie-down and we'll be fine.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 2,548
- Reaction score
- 228
I'm a fan of Samuel B. Kent's rulings, particularly Bradshw v. Unity Marine. It invokes crayons and the odor of wet dog.
I have a PACER account. I wasn't planning on hosting the documents, but I will be retrieving and commenting on them. Not a lawyer, though.
I've considered writing a blog post about my one time appearing in federal court, though. I was terrified I'd collapse in a pile of goo.
Thanks, Deirdre. I'm interested in your take on them.
For everyone else, Courtney Milan posted them as pdfs on the article Bubastes linked to above.
They're all great reading.
I had the honor of a teleconference with Mr. Randazza a couple of years ago. Incredibly sharp and driven man, a legal powerhouse. I ended up going with a very capable pro-bono lawyer referred by Popehat, but the Randazza Group gave me valuable pointers first.
I'm looking forward to seeing this case play out.
I had the honor of a teleconference with Mr. Randazza a couple of years ago. Incredibly sharp and driven man, a legal powerhouse. I ended up going with a very capable pro-bono lawyer referred by Popehat, but the Randazza Group gave me valuable pointers first.
I'm looking forward to seeing this case play out.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,595
- Reaction score
- 127
- Location
- Southern US
- Website
- www.voireylinger.com
I especially enjoy these points from the counterclaim:
<a. Compensatory damages in excess of $75,000;
b. Punitive damages in excess of $225,000, or three times the amount of compensatory damages;
c. Actual damages to fully reimburse Dear Author for the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in litigation against the causes of action in the State Court
Action;
d. Any and all attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the litigation of this countersuit; and
e. Any other relief that this Honorable Court deems necessary, just, and proper.>
That would be the sound of a torpedo making a ranging shot really close to EC's already foundering barge.
EC can still save itself. It can recover, with hard work, and return to its status as a leading publisher of romantic fiction. But not if this suit drags out to what I suspect will be its inevitable defeat, bankruptcy, and obscurity. I'm hoping the TRO hearing proves this to the judge, and the whole thing gets dismissed as a silly waste of resources.
<a. Compensatory damages in excess of $75,000;
b. Punitive damages in excess of $225,000, or three times the amount of compensatory damages;
c. Actual damages to fully reimburse Dear Author for the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in litigation against the causes of action in the State Court
Action;
d. Any and all attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the litigation of this countersuit; and
e. Any other relief that this Honorable Court deems necessary, just, and proper.>
That would be the sound of a torpedo making a ranging shot really close to EC's already foundering barge.
EC can still save itself. It can recover, with hard work, and return to its status as a leading publisher of romantic fiction. But not if this suit drags out to what I suspect will be its inevitable defeat, bankruptcy, and obscurity. I'm hoping the TRO hearing proves this to the judge, and the whole thing gets dismissed as a silly waste of resources.
Yeah, if that doesn't give EC some cold sweats, I don't know what will.
I don't think it can be dismissed at the TRO hearing, from what I understand. The judge can deny the TRO but can only warn them that the case is likely to fail if they pursue it (which DA's TRO motion asks for).
I wasn't sure how it plays out in Federal court. My experience was in civil court on the county level.
I have no idea how accurate that is--it's just my understanding based on other people's analysis.
The case as a whole can't be dismissed, I don't think. There appear to be triable matters of fact.
What I'm waiting to see is if the case will be dismissed against DA (but not Jane) at the TRO hearing. It could be.
As I say in my post....
"The exciting invocation of the Communications Decency Act in a lawsuit about an erotica/erotic romance publisher—but not in the way you’d expect."
http://deirdre.net/elloras-cave-dear-authors-answer-and-counterclaim/
The bill was originally about Internet decency, but one of its other things is exempting internet computer services from liability for defamatory content.
And, if DA's no longer a plaintiff, is the TRO moot?
They've done a few nonfiction books, but they were the real-life accounts from the male cover model/strippers, things like that. This new book seems like a strange fit for the company.
And the description lists it as nonfiction, but the "book length" lists it as "short novel." weiiiiiiiiiird.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,595
- Reaction score
- 127
- Location
- Southern US
- Website
- www.voireylinger.com
That's a just default in their system. Instead of making sure they have their systems structured to fit products, they're shoehorning products that don't fit their brand into the existing structure. Sign of lazy/poor business practice, IMO.
JB mentioned on her FB page that she organized over 3000 pieces of evidence for her lawyer. Huh.
Last edited: