|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah it had an invisible $45 prior balance and a visible $45 extra, second fee, so every time he paid the full $121 he was apparently not also paying the invisible fee that he owed but wasn't being shown. Hence another late fee on the next bill, etc. A floating phantom unshown fee. Sorry, the OPs story is so full of inconsistencies and holes I can’t possibly take it at face value.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
I have a question about a defamation ruling. rear end in a top hat sex pest sues their accuser about multiple statements being defamation. The court rules most of the statements did not meet the requirements for defamation. If someone repeats one of the statements that the court ruled isn't defamation, and ASP sues, what happens? Does the previous ruling make this a settled thing, or does someone else saying it introduce new variables?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
Depends what it is, usually someone speaking it separately makes it a new thing. It’ll also depend why it wasn’t defamation. If it’s because it’s true, probably ASP’s new suit will lose either procedurally (google defensive non-mutual issue preclusion) or on the merits. It it’s because of the men’s rea requirement for the speech then it’s open game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Depends what it is, usually someone speaking it separately makes it a new thing. It’ll also depend why it wasn’t defamation. If it’s because it’s true, probably ASP’s new suit will lose either procedurally (google defensive non-mutual issue preclusion) or on the merits. It it’s because of the men’s rea requirement for the speech then it’s open game. That makes sense, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
Since I'm a goon and can't let poo poo go, here is a more detailed breakdown of things: Statement on 11/1 includes service dates of 9/15 through 10/18. - NOT PAID until next billing cycle. Statement on 12/1 includes service dates of 10/19 through 11/16 - Prior balance but no fees as they had not been assessed for this statement period. STATEMENT PAID IN FULL on 12/3. Fees applied to account on 11/20 and 12/1. They were *NOT* on the 12/1 statement. They can't be on that statement since they are not applied in the service dates on that statement. Statement on 1/11 includes service dates of 11/17 through 12/15. THIS IS WHERE THE FEES SHOULD BE AS CURRENT CHARGES. However, the fees show as a "prior balance" instead of current charges. In essence they are taking fees that posted after the service dates and applying them TO the previous service dates. Fees applied to the account on 12/20 and 1/1 on what should be a zero balance. Statement balance PAID IN FULL. Statement on 2/1 includes service dates of 12/15 through 1/17. There should be no prior balance on this bill as all statements were PAID IN FULL. This statement was PAID IN FULL on 2/7 well before statement deadlines. However, I am still accruing "late fees" even though I am paying for services and fees during a statement period ON TIME. Carry on the next month, I just didn't get around to paying the bill until I was suddenly made aware that the water was cut off. I was disconnected from service for a fee that was applied to the account 14 days prior to the cut off. I am sorry you guys can't take an example at value, but here you go with dates and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
Post the bills, throatwarbler
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
Yeah it's hard I believe what you're saying but when you try to explain the bills it's not really as clear as if you just posted a picture of one. If paranoid: Black out identifying info paint and then take a screenshot and then paste the screenshot into a new image
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
lol at getting snippy about people trying to parse your chain of events when you yourself were unable to parse the information presented to you in bill form. It's a fractal of misunderstanding!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 22:58
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:To be fair these (public defender lawyer goons saying LOL you didnt pay your bill) are the people who know best that there's no recourse because the systems are designed to f*** you not help you I had no idea there were so many PDs here. BAAAAD PDs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 23:11
|
|
|
The real solution is to keep calling the billing department rather than wasting your effort posting here - eventually those people will break down and waive the fees. Just keep at em like a dog with a bone
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
if i was a PD, i'd recommend you firebomb the offices you know, job security
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 23:24
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:I have a question about a defamation ruling. rear end in a top hat sex pest sues their accuser about multiple statements being defamation. The court rules most of the statements did not meet the requirements for defamation. If someone repeats one of the statements that the court ruled isn't defamation, and ASP sues, what happens? Does the previous ruling make this a settled thing, or does someone else saying it introduce new variables? This is about Zak S, isn’t it. If you repeat any of the statements, I’d make sure to repeat them as exactly as possible, because Zak seems like the exact kind of rear end in a top hat to try to find the tiniest divergence and turn it into a lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 00:08
|
|
|
Kalman posted:This is about Zak S, isn’t it. I was wondering the same thing. I saw a bunch of reddit posts go up about him apparently 'winning" his case but I noticed there weren't any links to the actual opinions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 00:25
|
|
|
Sefer posted:Full decision here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/927gje2mqxoi7hu/1936638092%281-43%29.pdf?dl=0 If you'd rather not rely on this dropbox of the PDF, I'm sure you lawyers can use this to look up the case etc.:  To elaborate on the above summary: Zac Smith sued Gray for accusing him of a bunch of gross poo poo including basically rape. Gray countersued. Gray lost her countersuit on all identifiable claims. Smith lost his suit on every claim bar one: Gray's first claim was that Zac "forced" her to move in with him, and the judge ruled that this was libelous. However, Smith also failed to prove that he suffered any damages specifically due to Grey's libel (on any of the points he claimed), in part undermining his accounting during deposition by describing all the other legions of bad online meanies ("harassers") who were previously, simultaneously, and subsequently defaming him and in part by being repeatedly vague and incoherent when enumerating his claimed damages. So the court awarded him $1 in damages for Gray claiming he forced her to move in with him, and in the opinion the judge made it 100% clear that the reason many of the other statements were not libelous was because the witness credibly testified as to their truth. In other words, the Judge said that the claims that he sexually assaulted and abused Gray were credible. Unfortunately Gray has to pay Smith's court fees, amounting to about $15k, and also she has spent a half a million dollars on her defense and countersuit, so Smith succeeded in financially ruining her regardless. He and his "sister" and a handful of other defenders are aggressively claiming online that he won the suit, on the basis of the single claim where he won $1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Unfortunately Gray has to pay Smith's court fees, amounting to about $15k, and also she has spent a half a million dollars on her defense and countersuit, so Smith succeeded in financially ruining her regardless. He and his "sister" and a handful of other defenders are aggressively claiming online that he won the suit, on the basis of the single claim where he won $1. She spent half a million dollars on one suit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 01:30
|
|
|
Muir posted:She spent half a million dollars on one suit? And her countersuit, in LA. I find that a staggering high number too, yeah. Slimnoid posted:https://twitter.com/VividVivka/status/1631824758097739778 Yeah, those photos that are part of her gofundme banner clash a lot with the message, but I guess that's part of her personal brand & source of income so 
Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Mar 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 01:39
|
|
|
So much for quibbling over whether he won or not...
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 02:15
|
|
|
Given that he has a long long list of enemies he'd love to destroy, I think it is still relevant to ask whether other targets of this suithappy rapist can point to this case and say "the judge ruled that he is a rapist" or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 02:44
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Given that he has a long long list of enemies he'd love to destroy, I think it is still relevant to ask whether other targets of this suithappy rapist can point to this case and say "the judge ruled that he is a rapist" or not. That's a different question. If the court ruled that the statements were true, they can be carefully repeated. Dude can still sue the repeaters anyway, and grind them down on attorney and litigation fees. Collateral estoppel / issue preclusion is the legal concept that should keep the repeaters safe (though potentially still sued) joat mon fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Mar 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 03:10
|
|
|
Sounds like you'd get better justice by just shooting him when he's not expecting it, with a roughly equal blowback re: total destruction of your own life
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 07:33
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:Sounds like you'd get better justice by just shooting him when he's not expecting it, with a roughly equal blowback re: total destruction of your own life You joke, but that's exactly what increasingly happens in countries with systems who aren't able to produce just outcomes in tune with people's general sense of justice. This is actually a huge thing in legal philosophy, and to a degree in actual jurisprudence (ordre public is one such example. In actual history, blood feuds were the main driver of the need for a functioning justice system in old norse cultures, and even today Norway has in its books old viking law (modernized in the 1500s of course) cause many of the general principles still apply. However, in almost no country is the legal system a deliverer of perfect justice. For one, it can't be because what the perfect outcome is depends on subjective opinion and you really cannot please everybody. Best you can really do is a good outcome most people like. Another point is that the system isn't meant to produce a perfect outcome (if that even exists). Certainly, the system of today is a very specific system of specific remedies for specific complaints. Courts are not omnipotent, omniscient powers but a organ of compromise, either between individuals or individuals and the state. They will only produce what the system allows, and most of the time not even that much, so like in a true compromise on average everyone goes home dissatisfied. Of course I do wish that rapist fuckstick loses everything in the courts though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 10:17
|
|
|
joat mon posted:That's a different question. If the court ruled that the statements were true, they can be carefully repeated. Dude can still sue the repeaters anyway, and grind them down on attorney and litigation fees. How does that work? I know in the US it's "pay your own way" for a variety of reasons. But surely someone who has repeatedly sued various people for the exact same thing, and lost countless times, could expose themselves to some liability for legal fees, no? I know "vexatious litigant" is a thing, but is there any recourse for the people who have been sued, or are they SOL? I mean I hear countless stories of individuals and small companies being bullied by someone with money just because they can. Monster and their aggressive trademark litigation seems relevant here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 13:22
|
|
|
Usually abuse of process or vexatious litigant status are difficult to establish. Courts don’t like cutting off people’s access to the legal system unless it’s really egregious, and partially losing a bunch of “he said she said” cases probably isn’t enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 13:25
|
|
|
I'm sorry, as an AI language model, my purpose is not to confuse or anger anyone, including lawyers. My purpose is to provide helpful and informative responses to your questions to the best of my knowledge and abilities. Is there anything else I can assist you with?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Like anti SLAPP statutes, we could make anti strategic lawsuit against talkin poo poo about yo ex (Not trying to characterize this situation- laughing at the legal system, not the people)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 17:28
|
|
Arcturas posted:Depends what it is, usually someone speaking it separately makes it a new thing. It’ll also depend why it wasn’t defamation. If it’s because it’s true, probably ASP’s new suit will lose either procedurally (google defensive non-mutual issue preclusion) or on the merits. It it’s because of the men’s rea requirement for the speech then it’s open game. Legal Questions: everything hinges on men’s rea
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
A basic and so far mostly unspoken problem in the zac smith saga that is so well recognized that we mostly don't even need to point it out, is that Smith's victims didn't feel they had any ability to report his sexual assault an abuse to police and have that result in criminal prosecution. And they were probably right, what with being "porn stars" and in a poly relationship and having tattoos and you know. Not the kind of people cops take seriously or try to help when they report being sexually abused by their boyfriends. So we're left with civil suits over defamation for, basically, calling him out for poo poo he should have gone to jail for, in a "just society." And civil courts are not cut out for delivering justice for this kind of thing. People are resorting to civil suits for "wrongful death" and, on the opposite side, "wrongful imprisonment," because the criminal justice system failed them. Grey posted what should have been testimony at his criminal trial, but she doesnt get to have that trial and she knew it, so she posted it publicly and gave Smith ammunition to destroy her financially. The lesson for victims is that there is no recourse, not from cops, not from courts, and not even from naming and shaming to society at large. I'm not blaming lawyers itt for this mind you. Just, god, it's so depressing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 18:21
|
|
|
oh so now you don't blame the lawyers, but when homie can't read his water bill we're the heartless monsters
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:oh so now you don't blame the lawyers, but when homie can't read his water bill we're the heartless monsters I don't blame the lawyers for cops not taking women seriously when they report sexual assaults especially when it's their boyfriends/husbands, but I do blame them for repeatedly calling someone a liar when he says he's paying the full amount shown on his bill and still getting charged over and over, entirely on the basis that I guess we must live in a just society where no utility company would ever do such a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:A. The lesson for victims is that there is no recourse, not from cops, not from courts, and not even from naming and shaming to society at large. This is a real problem. It's getting better post metoo and many police departments have policies now requiring mandatory arrest when there's an allegation of domestic violence and any substantiation at all, etc. This also sometimes results in over-arrest ("ok you're all going to jail" type situations) but generally people do get charged much more frequently today than they did even just five years ago. Most of those cases do not result in convictions though. I don't know what to tell someone who wants "justice" in this world and this life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
Legal Questions Thread: The $45 Question
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
Sorry you made the joke late and now it's the $90 question
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is a real problem. It's getting better post metoo and many police departments have policies now requiring mandatory arrest when there's an allegation of domestic violence and any substantiation at all, etc. This also sometimes results in over-arrest ("ok you're all going to jail" type situations) but generally people do get charged much more frequently today than they did even just five years ago. UK specific opinion, and more sincere than my last one - it's irrelevant what cops do because even if a rape case goes before the courts, the standards of evidence are so impossible to meet, the wait is so long and the punishment is so toothless. The investigation of crimes serves no actual purpose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
Like eyewitness testimony isn't reliable, so I can understand in the abstract how hard it is to convict someone of a serious crime if you have no physical evidence and the only witness was the victim. Of course there's a long and sordid history of doing exactly that in America especially when the suspect is black, somehow we're very very concerned about a single witness when it's sexual violence but not so concerned when it's a black person accused of larceny... but I digress: If we could at least recognize that this means lots of victims of sexual violence won't be able to get justice via a criminal court, and therefore they need to be protected when they make public accusations at the very least to the extent that they can't be financially ruined by a defamation lawsuit, that'd be like a start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
I heard about the interesting mechanic the UK has where, if you go to the police for a sexual assault charge, but the prosector doesn't think they can make the case stick, you can still have them note down that your complaints exist. In this case, if Rapey McSexpest catches a few complaints, the prosector can potentially make a case because it's not just one person any more, it's a bunch. This was a reason why Andrew Tate fled to Romania; the crown was finally gearing up to prosecute him with an ample supply of evidence. Seems like it doesn't work out great, but it's better than "lol get out of here" as a response.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah, those photos that are part of her gofundme banner clash a lot with the message, but I guess that's part of her personal brand & source of income so Dude, no. Even if she were a sex worker he'd still be a rapist and abuser. This statement reads perilously close to "she was asking for it, the way she was dressed".
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't blame the lawyers for cops not taking women seriously when they report sexual assaults especially when it's their boyfriends/husbands, but I do blame them for repeatedly calling someone a liar when he says he's paying the full amount shown on his bill and still getting charged over and over, entirely on the basis that I guess we must live in a just society where no utility company would ever do such a thing. Nobody called him a liar
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I heard about the interesting mechanic the UK has where, if you go to the police for a sexual assault charge, but the prosector doesn't think they can make the case stick, you can still have them note down that your complaints exist. In this case, if Rapey McSexpest catches a few complaints, the prosector can potentially make a case because it's not just one person any more, it's a bunch. This was a reason why Andrew Tate fled to Romania; the crown was finally gearing up to prosecute him with an ample supply of evidence. The issue with this mechanic is that it requires the prosecutor to give a poo poo, or for the cops to even contemplate talking to the prosecutor. These are quite unlikely to occur in the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 00:40
|
|
|
Hyperlynx posted:Dude, no. Even if she were a sex worker he'd still be a rapist and abuser. This statement reads perilously close to "she was asking for it, the way she was dressed". Huh? I mean that in the banner for her gofundme she is doing like, cute happy looks in animal makeup, while the gofundme is about having been horrifically victimized. It felt like a tonal clash to me. I don't know what the right look is for a gofundme about being sued by your own rapist. Maybe she didn't either, it's understandable. She is literally a sex worker, and that is why she is at highest risk for victimization and also being ignored by the cops. I am in no way blaming her for being abused. Phil Moscowitz posted:Nobody called him a liar Phil Moscowitz posted:Sorry, the OPs story is so full of inconsistencies and holes I can’t possibly take it at face value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
Homie being unable to read don’t make him a liar You shouldn’t be so hard on the guy
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 01:08
|
|