Judge Dismisses 86 Percent of U.S. Copyright Group Lawsuits

[Optimystic]

As for the fair trial argument, basically, they still have exactly the same chance of a fair trial as they did before. Something to remember, things like your right to a fair trial? Shit like that tends to be to protect you from government action. In spite of its impressive sounding name, the USCG isn't a government agency, which means you basically have fuck all rights to protect yourself from them. If right to a fair trial attached, these people could get public defenders, they can't because it's a civil suit and therefore not protected.

So because it's a civil suit, they have no right to defend themselves adequately? And he has no right to help them do so?

Because if they lose it, they'll be legally obligated to redress the fines, pay court costs etc.

 

[Starke]

As for the fair trial argument, basically, they still have exactly the same chance of a fair trial as they did before. Something to remember, things like your right to a fair trial? Shit like that tends to be to protect you from government action. In spite of its impressive sounding name, the USCG isn't a government agency, which means you basically have fuck all rights to protect yourself from them. If right to a fair trial attached, these people could get public defenders, they can't because it's a civil suit and therefore not protected.

So because it's a civil suit, they have no right to defend themselves adequately? And he has no right to help them do so?

Because if they lose it, they'll be legally obligated to redress the fines, pay court costs etc.

No, no, and probably, well, sort of.

Okay, because it's a civil suit your right to a fair trial basically goes out the window. In theory what you will get will be fair, but remember we're talking about people (in many cases) who can't afford an attorney, otherwise they wouldn't have been using Syfert's services in the first place. But the constitutional right to a fair trial is protection against the government doing this to you, not protection from corporations doing this to you.

He can basically do whatever he wants, so long as it is ethical. Now, I'll be up front with you, but legal ethics is a kind of a self serving concepts. Lawyers have to act ethically, and what ethical behavior is is defined by other lawyers. The USCG asserts that he duped his clients. He claims that they aren't his clients, and that they only paid for prepackaged services from him. This is a kind of lawyering that is completely acceptable in some venues (will packages are an example), but it is a little more dubious here.

If they lose, the judge will decide what they'll be legally obligated to pay. This can, and frequently does include court costs, and damages. But, again, this is not a criminal case, so the only things that could cause fines would be things like contempt of court.

 

[Optimystic]

As for the fair trial argument, basically, they still have exactly the same chance of a fair trial as they did before. Something to remember, things like your right to a fair trial? Shit like that tends to be to protect you from government action. In spite of its impressive sounding name, the USCG isn't a government agency, which means you basically have fuck all rights to protect yourself from them. If right to a fair trial attached, these people could get public defenders, they can't because it's a civil suit and therefore not protected.

So because it's a civil suit, they have no right to defend themselves adequately? And he has no right to help them do so?

Because if they lose it, they'll be legally obligated to redress the fines, pay court costs etc.

No, no, and probably, well, sort of.

Okay, because it's a civil suit your right to a fair trial basically goes out the window. In theory what you will get will be fair, but remember we're talking about people (in many cases) who can't afford an attorney, otherwise they wouldn't have been using Syfert's services in the first place. But the constitutional right to a fair trial is protection against the government doing this to you, not protection from corporations doing this to you.

He can basically do whatever he wants, so long as it is ethical. Now, I'll be up front with you, but legal ethics is a kind of a self serving concepts. Lawyers have to act ethically, and what ethical behavior is is defined by other lawyers. The USCG asserts that he duped his clients. He claims that they aren't his clients, and that they only paid for prepackaged services from him. This is a kind of lawyering that is completely acceptable in some venues (will packages are an example), but it is a little more dubious here.

If they lose, the judge will decide what they'll be legally obligated to pay. This can, and frequently does include court costs, and damages. But, again, this is not a criminal case, so the only things that could cause fines would be things like contempt of court.

Well, I don't consider an attempt by one lawyer to help a group of people unravel the byzantine legal system in this country to be unethical. I DO consider other lawyers attempting to punish him for doing so out of sheer spite to be unethical.

 

[Starke]

Well, I don't consider an attempt by one lawyer to help a group of people unravel the byzantine legal system in this country to be unethical. I DO consider other lawyers attempting to punish him for doing so out of sheer spite to be unethical.

As a general ethical argument, neither do I. As a legal ethics argument, the situation is much muddier. That said, the USCG is on the hook in a separate class action suit, basically alleging that they behaved criminally.

 

[mr_rubino]

Yay, some fewer bullshit lawsuits clogging up our legal system, progress! (not that I'm defending pirates, but come on, those lawsuits ARE bullshit)

There are rules against repeated bad faith litigation.
Just look at Jack Thompson. 435 strikes and you're out.

 

[Starke]

Yay, some fewer bullshit lawsuits clogging up our legal system, progress! (not that I'm defending pirates, but come on, those lawsuits ARE bullshit)

There are rules against repeated bad faith litigation.
Just look at Jack Thompson. 435 strikes and you're out.

It's not the 434 strikes, it's all about the gay porn in a motion.

 

[darkcommanderq]

Pirates will always exist. It would be a much better use of money and time to create methods to compete with it, rather than trying to sue everyone.

This article is one among many that just proves that point. The law suit system was not meant to be used in conjunction with the internet in terms of mass sueing. Thankfully the judges have been pretty solid on this issue in almost every single case that tries to pull this shit.

If you shake your finger at pirates, also shake your finger at this idiotic tactics.