|
Solkanar512 posted:I currently work in a QC/QA capacity at a food safety laboratory (ISO 17025/cGMP certifications, all that jazz). We are the folks that deal with outbreaks, routine testing - generally poo poo that is mundane as all gently caress until something bad is found. This means I sign metric tons of paperwork from data collection to calibration records to in some cases final client reports. I find this post puzzling. It is rare to hear from an employee who is afraid that s/he may be personally liable for doing their job... unless something is going on that they think isn't right. I think you should just do your job to the best of your ability, and make sure that you have any and all relevant certifications, licenses, or other required training. Don't do anything intentionally fraudulent. If you make a mistake in your job, that leads to a citation by the FDA, I would be surprised if that exposes you to personal liability, but admittedly I'm not familiar with the regulations for this industry. You probably should not waste money on having an attorney on retainer, unless you have reason to believe that something fishy is going down.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
entris posted:I find this post puzzling. It's a combination of being in a private lab that "works as efficiently as possible" with "lots of pressure to perform" and the fact that I'm not sure what I should expect if I have to deal with federal officials. I understand if I'm overreacting here, but I would prefer not to gently caress around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
Hey all- A couple years back, I posted about a situation where I had a judgment filed against me. My "good friend" begged me to co-sign on a lease for his apartment (shut up) and I did. Lo and behold, about 16 months later I get a letter trying to collect back rent. He hadn't paid in four months, and I was now on the hook for about $3000, since I was the ultimate guarantor. I talked to a lawyer friend of mine, and she said I could politely hold the lawyer off while I tried to scrape some money together, as long as I did not, and would not, under any circumstances, give him my checking account information, social, and car title information. I ask the parents of the piece-of-poo poo friend to give me money to bail me out. They agreed, and paid $1000. I gave that to the lawyer as a compromise. He said he would clear my name of it but that he was still going after my friend for the rest. Be my guest on that. Anyway, I'm curious, now that I'm renting again. Is there some sort of a "rental credit report" type thing that landlords can look through? Would the apartment complex association likely have messed me up, even though I wasn't the resident? Is there any way for me to easily investigate this? Just curious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 04:35
|
|
|
Ok legal goons heres my problem(reposted from another thread) Ok so I just checked the mail and found this little gem    We use a wireless router that is password protected and the internet is solely in my name. So any ideas on what's happening here? Is this just a scare tactic or do I need to lawyer up? Hungry Joe fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Nov 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
http://www.steele-law.com/ These guys look legit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 05:00
|
|
|
I've been doing some reading and I now know they're legit but do they actually have a case against me? I'm not responsible and my computer is clean. Am I hosed just because the bill is in my name?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 05:10
|
|
|
Hungry Joe posted:I've been doing some reading and I now know they're legit but do they actually have a case against me? I'm not responsible and my computer is clean. Am I hosed just because the bill is in my name? They're a bankruptcy and family law firm, not an IP firm. (My "they look legit" is sarcastic.) It would be worth speaking with a lawyer, but it sounds like BS to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
In some jurisdictions, demand letters of that kind have been found to be ethics violations. There was a major deal with Codemasters outside IP counsel facing disbarment proceedings for sending out massive amounts of these without adequate grounds. I highly highly advise you seek a lawyer. He could advise you as to what action to take; especially since in some cases, losing the lawsuit is still cheaper than the settlement amount they demand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 05:53
|
|
|
[quote="Hungry Joe"] Ok legal goons heres my problem(reposted from another thread) [quote] I AM NOT A LAWYER This is interesting to me because it is very similar to the ACS Law scandal that happened in the UK last month, I know that the UK probably has very different laws about this kind of thing but here is a link to an information site set up to help people being targetted in the UK - there might be something that can help. http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/ Sorry if it is completely useless and misleading for your situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 12:34
|
|
|
Hungry Joe posted:Ok legal goons heres my problem(reposted from another thread) Lawyer up. This sounds like scammy bullshit to me, but you need to get a lawyer to stand up to these guys. Edit: AND ONE MORE THING. Since they could conceivably have someone look through your computer, assume they will find this thread, so DO NOT POST ANYTHING ELSE ANYWHERE about this issue. Do not do not do not. For example, you just admitted to using BitTorrent four years ago, that's not something you want them to know. Imagine how a jury would look at that. Edit: Who's to say that your IP wasn't spoofed, anyway? Or that your computer wasn't infected with a virus that performed the file sharing? Or that someone hacked onto your wireless network and downloaded the file? These cases hinge on the technology, and a competent defense attorney could probably muddy the waters enough to protect you. entris fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Nov 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 15:28
|
|
|
One thing I find a bit confusing is there isn't a MAC Address listed. In the mean time you could request discovery, which requires them to give all the evidence against you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 16:11
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:One thing I find a bit confusing is there isn't a MAC Address listed. In the mean time you could request discovery, which requires them to give all the evidence against you. I don't think he should communicate with them, at all, except through an attorney.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 16:26
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:One thing I find a bit confusing is there isn't a MAC Address listed. In the mean time you could request discovery, which requires them to give all the evidence against you. No, no, no. If you want to protect your interests and obtain competent legal advice for your jurisdiction, you need to consult with an attorney. Read between the lines and notice the pattern here from the lawgoons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 16:31
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:It's a combination of being in a private lab that "works as efficiently as possible" with "lots of pressure to perform" and the fact that I'm not sure what I should expect if I have to deal with federal officials. I understand if I'm overreacting here, but I would prefer not to gently caress around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 16:33
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Read between the lines and notice the pattern here from the lawgoons. This is a real lawsuit in a real court for real money. Get a lawyer today. content: This is a different iteration of this type of lawsuit. Here are some links to resources and attorneys who are helping with the non-porn version of this lawsuit type from this spring. There are a couple of Illinois attorneys listed there. LAWYER. NOW.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 17:27
|
|
|
I'd bet $1,000,000 that his case will *never* go to litigation. IMO it's just a scare tactic designed to get people to settle. Those people wouldn't see a dime from me until a court ordered me to pay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
What's wrong with requesting discovery?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
For one thing, a case hasn't commenced yet. For another, you don't want to have any contact with opposing counsel unless it is through your own counsel. This is for a number of reasons, not the least of which is accidentally giving away helpful information, as already mentioned. As well, you want the benefit of having your communications privileged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
joat mon posted:This is a real lawsuit in a real court for real money. Get a lawyer today. Davenport Lyons was the counsel for Codemasters I was referencing earlier. They outsource to some Swiss counsel that was under the investigation I mentioned. http://p2pnet.net/story/15501 quote:Anti-P2P lawyer barred Yes, it's euro-law. But it should help reassure you that this is an issue that advocacy bodies are actively fighting on. Leif. fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Nov 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
... How would he be giving away any information at all? All you're doing is requesting the evidence against him, which they are legally required to give.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 17:45
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:... Are you a litigator? Or do you only do transactional work?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:... The plaintiff hasn't even served a complaint yet and probably doesn't have to disclose much of anything until discovery. And it is easy to accidentally disclose things that you shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 17:52
|
|
|
Hungry Joe posted:Ok legal goons heres my problem(reposted from another thread) Assuming the escalating settlement offer isn't an ethical violation, I would very likely pay the 2400 to settle regardless. There is little chance that, even if you are innocent, you could get yourself dismissed paying less than 2400 in attorney fees.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
eviljelly posted:Are you a litigator? Or do you only do transactional work? I'm asking why it's a bad idea in the first place, and a response of "Well, he could accidentally give them information" is such blah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 17:56
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:... What part of "a lawsuit has not yet been filed" are you not getting? He is not yet a party to a lawsuit. Here's a hint: 4 attorneys in this thread have said that contacting opposing counsel without going through your own attorney a bad idea. Maybe that means it's a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I'm asking why it's a bad idea in the first place, and a response of "Well, he could accidentally give them information" is such blah. To quibble, a lawsuit has been filed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 18:04
|
|
|
Ah, I misread it. I thought they were threatening to file unless he paid. But still the point stands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 18:07
|
|
|
I defended a few of these piracy cases in the days of Napster, and that is very much what a demand letter looks like, and the copyright code citations are accurate. You are being sued. It is serious business. It sounds like you have defenses, but competently exploring the availability of those defenses with lawyers and experts is going to cost money. You can pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to develop those defenses, or you can pay the plaintiff's lawyer and buy off the claim. If you can afford neither, then you are likely F'd in the A. The fact that a lawyer in Europe was disciplined for sending out demand letters means essentially nothing in your case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 18:33
|
|
|
This brings up something that I've always been curious about in law. Let's say that Hungry Joe is telling the truth, lawyers up, and wins. Does the losing side have to pay for his attorney costs or is he just totally out that money?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 18:40
|
|
|
bergeoisie posted:This brings up something that I've always been curious about in law. Let's say that Hungry Joe is telling the truth, lawyers up, and wins. Does the losing side have to pay for his attorney costs or is he just totally out that money? Depends entirely where you are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 18:43
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Depends entirely where you are. And on the discretion of the judge...
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 18:54
|
|
|
bergeoisie posted:This brings up something that I've always been curious about in law. Let's say that Hungry Joe is telling the truth, lawyers up, and wins. Does the losing side have to pay for his attorney costs or is he just totally out that money? The Copyright Act actually has such a statute, but I'm not sure when it is applied.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
gvibes posted:In the US, absent a statute or agreement to the contrary, the victorious defendant is out that money. Wow, that seems crazy to me. What is the rationale for this? Awarding of costs, at the discretion of the judge, seems pretty logical, especially in terms of dissuading frivolous suits and compensating the innocent party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:I defended a few of these piracy cases in the days of Napster, and that is very much what a demand letter looks like, and the copyright code citations are accurate. This is exactly what they want everyone to think. There are companies out there who do nothing but send demand letters like this and hope everyone has the same thought process as you. I still think it's bs and I'd wait for them to serve me. I've sent out and received many demand letters in my day, and the actual chance of litigation is pretty drat low. If I received a demand letter from a divorce lawyer working in his own practice, I'd tell him to go gently caress himself. You really think this divorce lawyer is going to take anyone to trial over a copyright dispute? Think about the client he represents. The client couldn't even afford to hire a real IP attorney or a real litigator. You think this same client is going to pay for this trial? Unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 19:11
|
|
|
Well, I was able to get the court to give me a court date to discuss my situation with a judge. I got the impression that the clerks at the court did what they could to discourage me from bothering to appeal the ticket, saying that these tickets rarely get reduced, and offering me court dates that were way too far in the future for me despite my repeatedly telling them I need it this month  But I stuck to my guns and repeatedly explained (politely) that I don't have the money for the ticket so I don't have much of a choice about appealing or requesting a reduction, and I need the court date to be in November because I'll be homeless by the end of the week and need to leave California by the end of the month (both true, although I've found a guest room to stay in until this ticket process is over). So after much convincing I managed to get them to give me a court date on the 19th, which is only slightly further in the future than I'd like but I'm going to set things up so that I go to the court date on the 19th and then basically get in my car and drive home to Massachusetts as soon as I'm out of the court. So between now and then, does anyone have any pointers on my situation, with regard to delivery, court etiquette, etc? As a refresher, here's a summary of what I'm going to say when I go in and speak to the judge: Situation: I got a $466 ticket for a rolling right-on-red turn at a video camera traffic light in Culver City CA. While I remember stopping, the video evidence clearly shows me not doing so, so I'm going to plead guilty as I can't really contest it. Points I'll make to the judge: * I have been unemployed since moving to California in January, and have spent all my money since on rent * I've just had to leave my apartment because I no longer have money to pay rent (and am thus homeless) * I have no money left beyond the bare minimum I need to get back to my home state of Massachusetts * While the evidence shows that I did commit the violation, I feel that the fine amount is unjustly high for the crime, though I'm obviously willing to pay a more manageable fine or do whatever necessary to atone for my actions. * If I'm forced to pay this fine in it's full amount, I will not be able to do so: I barely have half of the money I need to pay it, and I have no one left to borrow money from. I'm not expecting much to come of this, but with any luck the judge will at least take sympathy on my situation and offer me some alternative to paying the full fine. I expect to go in and represent myself honestly, humbly, and confidently, but I'm going to do my best not to freak out or get upset since I've got so much riding on this. Of course, if they decide to throw the fullest weight of the book at me, I'll really, really want to tell them to their face that I think these tickets are tantamount to extortion. But I'm sure that'll cause a lot more harm than my personal self satisfaction is worth, even if I wait til after they've already decided to fine me the full amount. I assume that even if I said it in the most polite, friendly way possible they'd find me in contempt of court.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
commish posted:I've sent out and received many demand letters in my day, and the actual chance of litigation is pretty drat low... You really think this divorce lawyer is going to take anyone to trial over a copyright dispute?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
i saw dasein posted:Wow, that seems crazy to me. What is the rationale for this? Awarding of costs, at the discretion of the judge, seems pretty logical, especially in terms of dissuading frivolous suits and compensating the innocent party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:The fact that a lawyer in Europe was disciplined for sending out demand letters means essentially nothing in your case. Legally? No. Unofficially? It could matter quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 19:32
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I *think* the rationale is to allow the little guy to sue big corporations without the little guy being bankrupted if he happens to lose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
gvibes posted:Did you see that they already filed suit? Yeah, but he wasn't served yet. That's the threat. "Pay or I'll serve you and then you'll REALLY be in trouble!" I don't buy it. Note that this, or anything I've said, is not legal advice, and everyone would be wise to consult his or her own attorney for better advice. I'm just saying what I'd personally do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 19:34
|
|