HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

Wild Fan Possible Lawsuit? How would you react?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-22-2010, 11:06 AM
  #101
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
So a player should be able to go after a fan, anytime a professional athlete hears anything remotely close to a negative reaction?

I do agree with you that this incident shouldn't result in a huge payday for the fan. But like it or not, it is the professional athlete's responsibility to control himself and understand that heckling is part of the fan experience, and that it doesn't mean a damn thing off the ice.
No, but if the kid knows he is eye to eye and says something and expects that there is no possible reaction then I do not feel for the kid, he got what he asked for, to be part of the action. Now be held accountable and suck it up. This is the world of kids these days, make some snide remark and think that no one is going to call you out on it because mommy and daddy have always protected you and you get a gold star fro everything.

Well guess what, in the real world things are different and this kid if he is going to participate in behavior that could cause a reaction needs to suck it up and move on. Save a lawsuit for something real that occurs, like drunk driver who kills a loved one, or some form of negligence. This is BS and anyone who would want a dime for nothing is looking for the easy way out.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 11:09 AM
  #102
MrHockey1982
Registered User
 
MrHockey1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I doubt it. The NHL couldn't force Rypien to settle for sure, and likely wouldn't force Minnesota to settle because like I said, I don't think whoever is sued would be liable for a large sum of money, and I doubt that Sportcenter would really care. The kid wasn't injured or anything, so if anything, this is only going to make the kid look bad (or Rypien, but if he has to pay $200, no one will care), not the NHL.

It's already been on Sportscenter and this absolutely makes the NHL looks bad.

MrHockey1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 11:10 AM
  #103
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I doubt it. The NHL couldn't force Rypien to settle for sure, and likely wouldn't force Minnesota to settle because like I said, I don't think whoever is sued would be liable for a large sum of money, and I doubt that Sportcenter would really care. The kid wasn't injured or anything, so if anything, this is only going to make the kid look bad (or Rypien, but if he has to pay $200, no one will care), not the NHL.
I doubt the suit would be filed directly at Rypien's bank account... he would be named, sure, but you're really looking at the NHL here.

And who is saying anything about a large sum of money... if the kid asks for something ridiculous, then it goes to court. If he asks for something reasonable (as stated above) they'll settle it and sweep it under the rug.

And, yes, SC would absolutely love the story of the NHL going to court fighting against a fan that one of their players shoved for no reason other than the dude was an opposing team's fan being an opposing team's fan near his bench. And, yes, a player (in any sport) going after a fan makes the league and its players look bad... the NHL wants this story to go away as quickly as possible.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 11:12 AM
  #104
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,701
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHockey1982 View Post
It's already been on Sportscenter and this absolutely makes the NHL looks bad.
Well yeah the incident was on SC, but I'm saying a small civil trial in Minnesota against an unpopular player on a team that outside of MN no one cares about, will not be headline news. If it was Ovechkin or the Rangers or Canadiens or Pens or even the Flyers, or if the kid was hurt. You bet it would be all over the place. But it is a no namer from Vancouver and it occurred in Minnesota and the kid didn't get hurt. It may get mentioned when it starts and ends, but I think I can say with confidence that it would not be on the TV every day. Probably not even in Vancouver or Minnesota.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 11:15 AM
  #105
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Well yeah the incident was on SC, but I'm saying a small civil trial in Minnesota against an unpopular player on a team that outside of MN no one cares about, will not be headline news. If it was Ovechkin or the Rangers or Canadiens or Pens or even the Flyers, or if the kid was hurt. You bet it would be all over the place. But it is a no namer from Vancouver and it occurred in Minnesota and the kid didn't get hurt. It may get mentioned when it starts and ends, but I think I can say with confidence that it would not be on the TV every day. Probably not even in Vancouver or Minnesota.
Are you kidding? It makes for great TV (the replay) and the story itself is farcical. It's exactly the type of stuff ESPN eats up.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 11:17 AM
  #106
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHockey1982 View Post
I am really starting to question your judgement. Could you imagine if every single time a fan said something to a professional athelete that there was retaliation??? Come on man. Think about it.
A little story.....a number of years back I went to a Bruins-Blackhawks game in which Bob Probert had just been sent to the box. The stands were empty but we were about 6 or 7 rows directly behind the box. I made some comment about "how about you and me go out, pick up some blow, grab some hookers, and have a good time?".........he turned and looked at me, gave me the finger, and slammed his stick on the glass. If that barrier was not there I would not have made that judgement move to say something. People heckle all the time, but if the judgement to sue a player is because he got his shirt grabbed....come on, what is next slip and fall in aisle 2 at the supermarket?

This kid did something to antagonize the player, the player acted is a stupid fashion which will obviously fall under the scrutiny of the NHL discipline committee, but is still does not give the kid the right to sue for damages when none occurred. Suck it up, be a man and move on. This is where I say if he has a case for anything it would be against the arena for not preotecting the fans and allowing them to be protected from any such occurrences of behavior which would be retaliated upon.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 11:22 AM
  #107
Flyskippy
Registered User
 
Flyskippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Audubon, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
A little story.....a number of years back I went to a Bruins-Blackhawks game in which Bob Probert had just been sent to the box. The stands were empty but we were about 6 or 7 rows directly behind the box. I made some comment about "how about you and me go out, pick up some blow, grab some hookers, and have a good time?".........he turned and looked at me, gave me the finger, and slammed his stick on the glass. If that barrier was not there I would not have made that judgement move to say something. People heckle all the time, but if the judgement to sue a player is because he got his shirt grabbed....come on, what is next slip and fall in aisle 2 at the supermarket?

This kid did something to antagonize the player, the player acted is a stupid fashion which will obviously fall under the scrutiny of the NHL discipline committee, but is still does not give the kid the right to sue for damages when none occurred. Suck it up, be a man and move on. This is where I say if he has a case for anything it would be against the arena for not preotecting the fans and allowing them to be protected from any such occurrences of behavior which would be retaliated upon.
When you were little, I bet you were the kid that clanged a stick along the bars of the ape's cage - and got poo flung at you.

Flyskippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 11:35 AM
  #108
CharlieGirl
Registered User
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,710
vCash: 500
Rypien gets 6 games.

Pretty mild, but I'm sure the fact that the fan wasn't injured had something to do with that.

CharlieGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 11:46 AM
  #109
Flyskippy
Registered User
 
Flyskippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Audubon, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
Rypien gets 6 games.

Pretty mild, but I'm sure the fact that the fan wasn't injured had something to do with that.
Time for DownGoesBrown to update his super-secret suspension chart with a "Was it a fan?" entry.

Flyskippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 11:59 AM
  #110
MrHockey1982
Registered User
 
MrHockey1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,179
vCash: 500
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=338262

MrHockey1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 12:02 PM
  #111
MrHockey1982
Registered User
 
MrHockey1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
A little story.....a number of years back I went to a Bruins-Blackhawks game in which Bob Probert had just been sent to the box. The stands were empty but we were about 6 or 7 rows directly behind the box. I made some comment about "how about you and me go out, pick up some blow, grab some hookers, and have a good time?".........he turned and looked at me, gave me the finger, and slammed his stick on the glass. If that barrier was not there I would not have made that judgement move to say something. People heckle all the time, but if the judgement to sue a player is because he got his shirt grabbed....come on, what is next slip and fall in aisle 2 at the supermarket?

This kid did something to antagonize the player, the player acted is a stupid fashion which will obviously fall under the scrutiny of the NHL discipline committee, but is still does not give the kid the right to sue for damages when none occurred. Suck it up, be a man and move on. This is where I say if he has a case for anything it would be against the arena for not preotecting the fans and allowing them to be protected from any such occurrences of behavior which would be retaliated upon.

Maybe in your eyes this is true. But in the eyes of a lawyer and the judicial system the kid has every right to sue. The NHL is a business that is kept alive by the fans so essentially the fans are writing his paycheck. What if it was a girl or a child that Rypien grabbed? Would that be ok with you?

MrHockey1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 12:04 PM
  #112
BernieParent
HFB Partner
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,432
vCash: 500
Wow, only 6 games! I was expecting 15-20. And for a marginal player, too. The NHL is consistent in its inconsistency.

Maybe there are contingencies, like season tickets, signed gear, etc. But Bettman et al, IMHO, come off as soft towards an employee who attacked a customer.

Incidentally, the whole McDonalds coffee lawsuit was mentioned in the novel on the main board about this incident, and the links show it's not as cut-and-dried as a clumsy moron cashing in on a corporation (which I always dismissed it as). Here's just one, which is a pretty good read.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 12:26 PM
  #113
Flyskippy
Registered User
 
Flyskippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Audubon, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
Wow, only 6 games! I was expecting 15-20. And for a marginal player, too. The NHL is consistent in its inconsistency.

Maybe there are contingencies, like season tickets, signed gear, etc. But Bettman et al, IMHO, come off as soft towards an employee who attacked a customer.

Incidentally, the whole McDonalds coffee lawsuit was mentioned in the novel on the main board about this incident, and the links show it's not as cut-and-dried as a clumsy moron cashing in on a corporation (which I always dismissed it as). Here's just one, which is a pretty good read.
Rick Rypien got a lesser sentence due to being related to his more-famous cousin, Mark.

Flyskippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 12:55 PM
  #114
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,701
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I doubt the suit would be filed directly at Rypien's bank account... he would be named, sure, but you're really looking at the NHL here.

And who is saying anything about a large sum of money... if the kid asks for something ridiculous, then it goes to court. If he asks for something reasonable (as stated above) they'll settle it and sweep it under the rug.

And, yes, SC would absolutely love the story of the NHL going to court fighting against a fan that one of their players shoved for no reason other than the dude was an opposing team's fan being an opposing team's fan near his bench. And, yes, a player (in any sport) going after a fan makes the league and its players look bad... the NHL wants this story to go away as quickly as possible.
That isn't how the legal system works though. You don't call up the NHL, Wild, or whomever and say ok give me season tickets or I'm filing a lawsuit or something like that. That is called blackmail. You file the lawsuit, the opposing party decides if it is worth it to fight and if it isn't they'll offer a settlement, but it won't be anything substantial, because if they lose it likely wouldn't be a large verdict. Hence, it is unlikely that that will happen because they will fight it to avoid admitting fault, and even if they lose, they won't be out any substantial money.

The TV thing is not an issue. I will wager any amount of money that if there is a trial or lawsuit in this matter it will get mentioned on SC that there is a trial, and then when it ends they will say what happened. There will be no coverage. They won't talk about it in the interim. The trial is on a Monday, on Tuesday no one will talk about it again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Are you kidding? It makes for great TV (the replay) and the story itself is farcical. It's exactly the type of stuff ESPN eats up.
Yeah they eat it up when it first happens. But a weak ensuing lawsuit against an NHL player, the NHL, or Minnesota Wild, would not be all over the news. The NHL has been sued a multitude of times over the years and so have individual teams. If the kid was injured, I would be right on board with you. But nothing happened. The only time this incident will come up in the future is in the following situations:

1) This week's "Not Top Ten" on SC

2) If a lawsuit is filed it will be casually mentioned, same for if and when that lawsuit ends

3) Another incident of this type occurs

4) When Rypien plays after his suspension

Outside of that, it won't be mentioned again and no one will remember or care once this week is over.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 01:04 PM
  #115
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
That isn't how the legal system works though. You don't call up the NHL, Wild, or whomever and say ok give me season tickets or I'm filing a lawsuit or something like that. That is called blackmail. You file the lawsuit, the opposing party decides if it is worth it to fight and if it isn't they'll offer a settlement, but it won't be anything substantial, because if they lose it likely wouldn't be a large verdict. Hence, it is unlikely that that will happen because they will fight it to avoid admitting fault, and even if they lose, they won't be out any substantial money.

The TV thing is not an issue. I will wager any amount of money that if there is a trial or lawsuit in this matter it will get mentioned on SC that there is a trial, and then when it ends they will say what happened. There will be no coverage. They won't talk about it in the interim. The trial is on a Monday, on Tuesday no one will talk about it again.
Threatening a lawsuit is not blackmail. Blackmail is threatening to reveal information that is not in the public sphere, and asking for compensation to not do so. Everyone and there mother is aware of what happened here... Maybe you could term it extortion, but even that doesn't work because threatening a lawsuit isn't illegal.

Fault... the NHL doesn't have a leg to stand on as far as fault here. One of their employees made physical contact with a fan who was not being aggressive or threatening. The NHL is at fault here...

Quote:
Yeah they eat it up when it first happens. But a weak ensuing lawsuit against an NHL player, the NHL, or Minnesota Wild, would not be all over the news. The NHL has been sued a multitude of times over the years and so have individual teams. If the kid was injured, I would be right on board with you. But nothing happened. The only time this incident will come up in the future is in the following situations:

1) This week's "Not Top Ten" on SC

2) If a lawsuit is filed it will be casually mentioned, same for if and when that lawsuit ends

3) Another incident of this type occurs

4) When Rypien plays after his suspension

Outside of that, it won't be mentioned again and no one will remember or care once this week is over.
Well, that explains why I've seen every videotaped incident of hockey players going into the stands at one point or another. Because people forget. This will be yet another clip that they show when something happens between fans and players.

And, you're right, no one really cares about the NHL... but to suggest that the NHL isn't interested in just making the story go away (so that there isn't coverage of a trial) is silly. Now, the dude may very well talk to a lawyer and have that lawyer tell him he doesn't really have a case... but that's another matter.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 01:28 PM
  #116
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,701
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Threatening a lawsuit is not blackmail. Blackmail is threatening to reveal information that is not in the public sphere, and asking for compensation to not do so. Everyone and there mother is aware of what happened here... Maybe you could term it extortion, but even that doesn't work because threatening a lawsuit isn't illegal.

Fault... the NHL doesn't have a leg to stand on as far as fault here. One of their employees made physical contact with a fan who was not being aggressive or threatening. The NHL is at fault here...



Well, that explains why I've seen every videotaped incident of hockey players going into the stands at one point or another. Because people forget. This will be yet another clip that they show when something happens between fans and players.

And, you're right, no one really cares about the NHL... but to suggest that the NHL isn't interested in just making the story go away (so that there isn't coverage of a trial) is silly. Now, the dude may very well talk to a lawyer and have that lawyer tell him he doesn't really have a case... but that's another matter.
You are wrong about the blackmail deal. You can't go up to someone and say if you don't pay me off I'm filing a lawsuit. That is the definition of blackmail or extortion. "Although the statutes take many forms, the use of (1) a threat (2) to obtain money, property, or anything of value constitutes the crime of extortion or blackmail by a private person. Intent is also an element of the crime." You can threaten a lawsuit to stop someone from doing something, like if they stole your car you can say give me my car back or I will call the police, etc. But you can't say, "Hey you hit me, pay me $1000 or I will sue you." That is blackmail, extortion, etc.

As far as seeing the hockey players and fans, that is because this incident just happened. Like I said, one of the reasons this will come up again is if it happens again. When I say "No one will remember it" I obviously don't mean that next week if someone says to you, "Has anyone ever grabbed at a fan?" Iw ouldn't expect you to say, nope can't remember. I just mean that it will not be in the forefront of everyone's minds.

The thing is that the kid DOES have a case, he just won't get a lot of money out of it. He could sue a number of different people and could win, but he's not getting millions or even thousands so it just wouldn't be worth it for him to sue and certainly wouldn't be worth it for the NHL etc to pay him off because they likely wouldn't lose that much.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 01:35 PM
  #117
MrHockey1982
Registered User
 
MrHockey1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,179
vCash: 500
The NHL wants this to go away because according to those who are against fighing in the NHL, this is further evidence that fighting should not be allowed because it will encourage aggressive behavior towards the fans.

Even though I absolutely 100% never want to see fighting go away, what happened on the ice influenced his decision subconsciously on attacking the fan.

MrHockey1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 01:36 PM
  #118
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
You are wrong about the blackmail deal. You can't go up to someone and say if you don't pay me off I'm filing a lawsuit. That is the definition of blackmail or extortion. "Although the statutes take many forms, the use of (1) a threat (2) to obtain money, property, or anything of value constitutes the crime of extortion or blackmail by a private person. Intent is also an element of the crime." You can threaten a lawsuit to stop someone from doing something, like if they stole your car you can say give me my car back or I will call the police, etc. But you can't say, "Hey you hit me, pay me $1000 or I will sue you." That is blackmail, extortion, etc.
Having your lawyer call up and say that you will file a lawsuit unless they want to talk about a settlement is neither... as there is nothing wrong with filing a lawsuit.

Quote:
As far as seeing the hockey players and fans, that is because this incident just happened. Like I said, one of the reasons this will come up again is if it happens again. When I say "No one will remember it" I obviously don't mean that next week if someone says to you, "Has anyone ever grabbed at a fan?" Iw ouldn't expect you to say, nope can't remember. I just mean that it will not be in the forefront of everyone's minds.

The thing is that the kid DOES have a case, he just won't get a lot of money out of it. He could sue a number of different people and could win, but he's not getting millions or even thousands so it just wouldn't be worth it for him to sue and certainly wouldn't be worth it for the NHL etc to pay him off because they likely wouldn't lose that much.
So, why have I seen video of stuff from the 70s?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 02:09 PM
  #119
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,701
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Having your lawyer call up and say that you will file a lawsuit unless they want to talk about a settlement is neither... as there is nothing wrong with filing a lawsuit.
Discussing a settlement is different than calling up and threatening legal action unless they are going to pay you off. You can threaten lawsuits all day long against whomever you want, but once you start asking for money not to do it, it becomes blackmail, extortion, etc. Generally, in a settlement, the opposite side would call and say hey let's take care of this because blah blah blah. A complainant doesn't call the defendant to settle, that would be a great sign of weakness.

Quote:
So, why have I seen video of stuff from the 70s?
First of all, those are WAY WAY WAY different from what happened in this situation. Fans climbing into the stands and beating someone with their own shoe is different than a split second shirt grab. Moreover, not that you don't remember it per se, but it just isn't there. I remember watching the Pacers-Pistons brawl a few years ago, but it isn't something that I think of every day. I remember being at the game when the Flyers broke the penalty minutes record against the Senators, but it isn't the only thing I think about when I think about hockey. These things go away until something in the same vain resurfaces. If there was a big basketball fight, you bet SC will talk about the Pacers-Pistons brawl. But I haven't heard about that for years. Just like if there was another huge number of penalty minutes in a game involving fights, they'd talk about the Flyers-Sens game. But I haven't heard about that since about the day after it happened.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 02:21 PM
  #120
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Discussing a settlement is different than calling up and threatening legal action unless they are going to pay you off. You can threaten lawsuits all day long against whomever you want, but once you start asking for money not to do it, it becomes blackmail, extortion, etc. Generally, in a settlement, the opposite side would call and say hey let's take care of this because blah blah blah. A complainant doesn't call the defendant to settle, that would be a great sign of weakness.
Oh really?

http://www.dailytech.com/Legal+Firm+...ticle18709.htm

Quote:
Now the legal brains behind the epic lawsuit, the U.S. Copyright Group (USCG), have revealed plans to send tens of thousands of more "pay up or else" threat letters to those who downloaded other films.
...

Quote:
According to the USCG's claims, the organization is currently tracking 300 films each with 500 tracked file-sharers, making for a total of around 150,000 potential targets at risk of receiving a settlement letter. USCG suggests that it can send a "speculative invoice" to these individuals demanding between a $1,500 to $2,500 USD settlement. That means that taking the middle of the settlement figures ($2,000), the USCG could try to pull in as much as $300M USD in revenue from the scheme, and pocket $210M USD of that sum.
Now the ACLU has a problem with this:

Quote:
Last week, we filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Time Warner Cable's motion to quash or modify the subpoenas it received for information about thousands of users who allegedly downloaded certain movies from the Internet using the BitTorrent file sharing application. We argue that the subpoenas, which lump thousands of otherwise-unrelated individuals into a few cases filed in a court far from where any of them live, violate the individual users' rights to due process and anonymity and don't give them an adequate chance to defend themselves.
But the problem ain't that it's blackmail/extortion.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 02:35 PM
  #121
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,701
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Oh really?

http://www.dailytech.com/Legal+Firm+...ticle18709.htm



...



Now the ACLU has a problem with this:



But the problem ain't that it's blackmail/extortion.
Several things here. A "friend-of-court brief" is when you are not a party to a lawsuit and you write about a topic you are considered to be an expert in. It is unlikely that the ALCU even mentioned extortion or blackmail because their brief was likely strictly about the one topic they were asked to write about, that being due process rights of the users. I haven't read the brief, so I don't know if they talked about it. Moreover, this is a newspaper article seemingly about the due process rights of the people, which has nothing to do with blackmail or extortion.

Second, just because a friend of the court brief doesn't mention it, and even just because they aren't charged with it or sued civilly for it, doesn't mean that it isn't happening. If the kid in the lawsuit we are talking about does threaten lawsuits, doesn't mean he will be sued for blackmail or anything, but a lawyer probably wouldn't risk his career for it.

Finally, this article you are referencing is not binding law on anyone and it is an open case. It has no bearing on anything anywhere. Something like this would be a better example:

“[I]n many blackmail cases the threat is to do something in itself perfectly legal, but that threat nevertheless becomes illegal when coupled with a demand for money.” Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299, 326 (2006). This case wouldn't be binding either, but at least it is actual legal precedent. This case is a guy threatening to file criminal charges against another guy. Not the same situation and not the same jurisdiction, so like I said not binding, but I did not do an exhaustive search on it and I'm not going to waste my time doing it.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 03:14 PM
  #122
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyskippy View Post
When you were little, I bet you were the kid that clanged a stick along the bars of the ape's cage - and got poo flung at you.
Nah, I was a midl-mannered kid. I did not become an a-hole until later in life.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 03:16 PM
  #123
Flyskippy
Registered User
 
Flyskippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Audubon, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
Nah, I was a midl-mannered kid. I did not become an a-hole until later in life.
Well played.

Flyskippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 09:36 PM
  #124
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Several things here. A "friend-of-court brief" is when you are not a party to a lawsuit and you write about a topic you are considered to be an expert in. It is unlikely that the ALCU even mentioned extortion or blackmail because their brief was likely strictly about the one topic they were asked to write about, that being due process rights of the users. I haven't read the brief, so I don't know if they talked about it. Moreover, this is a newspaper article seemingly about the due process rights of the people, which has nothing to do with blackmail or extortion.

Second, just because a friend of the court brief doesn't mention it, and even just because they aren't charged with it or sued civilly for it, doesn't mean that it isn't happening. If the kid in the lawsuit we are talking about does threaten lawsuits, doesn't mean he will be sued for blackmail or anything, but a lawyer probably wouldn't risk his career for it.

Finally, this article you are referencing is not binding law on anyone and it is an open case. It has no bearing on anything anywhere. Something like this would be a better example:

[I]n many blackmail cases the threat is to do something in itself perfectly legal, but that threat nevertheless becomes illegal when coupled with a demand for money. Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299, 326 (2006). This case wouldn't be binding either, but at least it is actual legal precedent. This case is a guy threatening to file criminal charges against another guy. Not the same situation and not the same jurisdiction, so like I said not binding, but I did not do an exhaustive search on it and I'm not going to waste my time doing it.
Yeah, you missed the real point there.

1) They'd already done it concerning the Hurt Locker, and following a threat filed suit against 5,000 people.

2) They are then tracking 300 films and going to systematically threaten to sue people if they do not pay a settlement.

And of course the threat is to do something perfectly legal. Traditional blackmail is revealing something that the other party doesn't want revealed to the public sphere, and asking for compensation in return. There's no law against revealing truthful information (ya know, that whole freedom of speech thing).

There's nothing wrong with stating to someone that you are going to file suit and giving them the opportunity (if they want) to settle it in advance... in fact, it would be bizarre if that doesn't happen on a regular basis.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 10:18 PM
  #125
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,701
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Yeah, you missed the real point there.

1) They'd already done it concerning the Hurt Locker, and following a threat filed suit against 5,000 people.

2) They are then tracking 300 films and going to systematically threaten to sue people if they do not pay a settlement.

And of course the threat is to do something perfectly legal. Traditional blackmail is revealing something that the other party doesn't want revealed to the public sphere, and asking for compensation in return. There's no law against revealing truthful information (ya know, that whole freedom of speech thing).

There's nothing wrong with stating to someone that you are going to file suit and giving them the opportunity (if they want) to settle it in advance... in fact, it would be bizarre if that doesn't happen on a regular basis.
You are missing the point of what I said.

1) You don't know that they are not being sued or charged with blackmail, extortion or anything of that nature. That is a news article talking about a brief that the ACLU wrote.

2) They may not be getting sued or charged with anything, but that does not mean what they are doing is not illegal. Illegal/actionable things happen all the time and people aren't sued or charged, even when it is right in front of everyone's faces.

3) People may sue people with the intent of settling, but you can't threaten to sue unless you get paid off. Think about this for a minute. You are an attorney and you get a call from the PLAINTIFF saying they want to settle. This is not a position of power for the plaintiff. If the PLAINTIFF in a suit wants to settle before the trial even starts, it is very unlikely that they have a case and that the defendant would not want to settle, seeing the weak position that the plaintiff is in. The defendant would be the one who would say, ok crap we can't win this thing, lets settle and get it over with. But as a Plaintiff you wouldn't, shouldn't and couldn't call someone up and say pay me $XXX or I'm suing you. "A demand for a settlement in a civil action. . . .if made with the intent to extort constitutes the crime alleged in the indictment." 31A Am.Jur. Extortion 26. So that settles that whole thing.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:09 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.