If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun Sentinel)   "Free speech is not hassle-free"   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 93
    More: Florida, free speeches, Dixie Highway, public engagement, PDAs, city commission, sunshine law, yard sign  
•       •       •

7546 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Mar 2014 at 11:17 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-23 12:53:24 PM

dr428: As much as I hate lawyers, I totally despise @sshole residents that rally around NIMBYism and all it stands for.  NIMBY's have ruined many a good project under their heart-tugging BS claims that the world would stop if that particular project was allowed to proceed.  Screw ALL NIMBY's!!!


On the flip side:

I've seen a good number of idiot things cities do to placate groups and companies. Currently, our local city is putting in painted bike lanes, which 40 years of research in Europe have shown to actually make things worse. The proper way to put in bike lanes, according to the best bike cities, is to 'uncouple' them from normal traffic. This necessitates rebuilding the road, as you are adding an extra curb, or even redoing the sidewalks so a bike path can be added. Places from Finland to Germany to Netherlands to the UK have found that painted bike lanes actually increase the risk of cyclist injury. They've even found that it is better to not paint lines at all!

The difference is the infrastructure cost. Paint is cheap and results in bikers feeling safer. Putting in an actual safe infrastructure is expensive, and more expensive to maintain.

NIMBY isn't always the cause.
 
2014-03-23 12:56:40 PM

DubyaHater: Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.

Yes, yes he does. Let's say that, at the meeting, the speaker said "I have reservations about patient treatment at this particular facility. I would like to see the track record of this company". However, on Facebook, the speaker actually said "I concerned with the possibility of black people in this facility bringing down my property values". I would like to know there is continuity in the speaker's logic and he isn't just talking out of his ass.

If that speaker is a private citizen then Mr. Green does not have the right to explore what is said outside of the meeting unless it is publicly available.  If that speaker's Facebook account is open for everyone to see then he can go log on to Facebook and find it.  If the speaker has YouTube video ranting about how evil black people are then Mr. Green can go to YouTube and find the video himself.  But, it is up to Mr. Green to find that on his own.  If the speaker's words on their own do not give any indication that he might be a racist then Mr. Green has no cause to go searching through that person's private emails, computer files, and images looking for anything that might indicate duplicity.

When you put yourself on a public forum, I have every right to scrutinize what you say. I'm not saying any laws should be broken, and neither is that lawyer. I do have every right though to investigate (within the limits of the law) and make you eat your words.


Exactly which law is it that gives you every right to scrutinize what I say outside of that public forum?  Which law is it that lets you send a letter to people saying that the documents stored on their personal computers are subject to search and seizure?
 
2014-03-23 12:58:08 PM
I would respond with a letter that states that I intend to win a multi-million dollar lottery and spend the rest of my life farking supermodels on the beach of my private island.  And that the odds of that happening are better than you getting access to my personal records.  Maybe add something about hiring the lawyer's mom to clean up the used condoms on your beach for a personal touch.
 
2014-03-23 01:13:20 PM

Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.

Yes, yes he does. Let's say that, at the meeting, the speaker said "I have reservations about patient treatment at this particular facility. I would like to see the track record of this company". However, on Facebook, the speaker actually said "I concerned with the possibility of black people in this facility bringing down my property values". I would like to know there is continuity in the speaker's logic and he isn't just talking out of his ass.

If that speaker is a private citizen then Mr. Green does not have the right to explore what is said outside of the meeting unless it is publicly available.  If that speaker's Facebook account is open for everyone to see then he can go log on to Facebook and find it.  If the speaker has YouTube video ranting about how evil black people are then Mr. Green can go to YouTube and find the video himself.  But, it is up to Mr. Green to find that on his own.  If the speaker's words on their own do not give any indication that he might be a racist then Mr. Green has no cause to go searching through that person's private emails, computer files, and images looking for anything that might indicate duplicity.

When you put yourself on a public forum, I have every right to scrutinize what you say. I'm not saying any laws should be broken, and neither is that lawyer. I do have every right though to investigate (within the limits of the law) and make you eat your words.

Exactly which law is it that gives you every right to scrutinize what I say outside of that public forum?  Which law is it that lets you send a letter to people saying that the documents stored on their personal computers are subject to search and seizure?


Show me the law that stops me. Lawyers are paid to call your bluff. As long as I'm not breaking any laws, I can say what I want.
Happens all the time in politics. "Candidate X says this to your face, but behind closed doors he really says this". It happened to Romney in the last election. A waiter with a smart phone caught Romney saying terrible things to his rich buddies about people who will never vote republican. He had his ass handed to him for it.
 
2014-03-23 01:13:52 PM
My reply to that letter would be, "thank you for validating my position that you would be a lousy neighbor."
 
2014-03-23 01:15:05 PM

jso2897: This - these letters carry absolutely no legal weight whatsoever.


Seem sort of threatening to me. It would be interesting to see how that plays against intimidation statutes.
 
2014-03-23 01:19:32 PM

vpb: It's surprising that they don't think of the PR effect of this sort of thing.  I would oppose the facility just because they are assholes.


Seconded.  And I have a kid that could probably be a client there.  You get more flies with honey than vinegar, so don't be a butthead to future possible neighbors or clients.
 
2014-03-23 01:28:11 PM

Hobodeluxe: MNguy: If you want to ignore attorney requests for information, that's fine.  Probably not going to cost you too much when all is said and done.  But, in the end, you do have to provide it.  Not a first amendment issue at all.

wouldn't it have to be approved by a judge? and wouldn't they have to show some reason that they would need such information? I mean what does he think he will find? some collusion between those people and their representatives? that they are paying them to vote a certain way?  seems there should be some determination made to justify this. and what about his client? couldn't you request their info too? all their contributions to elected officials,lobbying,communications etc?  how do we know they aren't trying to sway the vote through collusion?


Winner!  First there would have to be actual litigation, as in a complaint filed.  Next, Mr. Green would have to file a request for 3rd party production of discovery, which can be opposed.  Followed by a hearing, where it would be unlikely that Mr. Green would prevail since it is his burden to show that the production would lead to meaningful discovery.

But my solution would be to widely publish both Mr. Green's home address and the address of the office he reports to each day.  Then, after he spends some time looking over his shoulder every time he goes to his car, we'd see how serious he is about this.  But then again, I have anger issues.
 
2014-03-23 01:35:29 PM
Looks like Palm Partners llc's tactics don't work with the common man the way they work with the various Florida state licensing boards.

Detox/rehab my ass. I worked for a place that did Florida paperwork for hospitals and we almost never had to go nuclear and Fark-worthy.

They should learn from the Landslide Romney Olympic Committee how to shut down local Greek restaurants, dry cleaners and anything else that bore the name Olympic for the last 100 years. The skills will transfer There's a subtlety of paranoia and bullying that is totally lacking in these guys.
 
2014-03-23 01:41:04 PM

MNguy: ITT, people who have never heard of 'discovery'


"The scope of information obtainable through discovery is quite broad and not limited to what can be used in a trial. Federal courts and most state courts allow a party to discover any information 'reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Because of this broad standard, parties often disagree about what information must be exchanged and what may be kept confidential. These disputes are resolved through court rulings on discovery motions."

In other words, yes, the info he is requesting can be "discovered", but only if a judge decides it is discoverable; the opposing lawyer cannot simply demand whatever he wants and expect you to hand it over without question. Well, he could, but he can also expect Justin Bieber to turn into a dragon and shoot rainbows out of his arse.
 
2014-03-23 01:44:01 PM

dr428: As much as I hate lawyers, I totally despise @sshole residents that rally around NIMBYism and all it stands for.  NIMBY's have ruined many a good project under their heart-tugging BS claims that the world would stop if that particular project was allowed to proceed.  Screw ALL NIMBY's!!!


My wife and I have worked extremely hard for many years to be able to afford to live in a safe neighborhood with our young children. Unless it was a closed secure campus you're damned straight I would oppose a drug treatment center near our house. Unapologetically.
 
2014-03-23 02:08:23 PM

GentlemanJ: doglover: Well, duh.

The second amendment is not different from the any of the first 10. Basically all of those enumerated rights and restrictions on the Federal gov't were split numerically for the sake of convenience of learning. But they're a unified whole. And the reason they're a unified whole is because they all mesh. You can't have free speech without risking attacks upon your person, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

The nail that speaks up gets hammered down, pulled up, and melted by the blacksmith of oppression. That's why have the right to share this info and get all the other nails around and pin that farking blacksmith to the wall by his scrote with political movements.

The "second amendment"?


SSsssh. He's on a roll
 
2014-03-23 02:12:07 PM

The Flexecutioner: whatta buncha NIMBY/PIMBYs

/p is for Place
//or whatever


Not In My Butt Y'all / Please In My Butt Y'all?

Jeez, you people, make up your minds. Do you want the pickle or not.
 
2014-03-23 02:24:27 PM

Mister Peejay: The Flexecutioner: whatta buncha NIMBY/PIMBYs

/p is for Place
//or whatever

Not In My Butt Y'all / Please In My Butt Y'all?

Jeez, you people, make up your minds. Do you want the pickle or not.


Reminded me of this for some reason: Link (NSFW video at Explosm).
 
2014-03-23 02:25:45 PM
"I'm not threatening to sue these people," Green told me. "I'm just telling them to preserve evidence. ... Citizens have an absolute first amendment right to speak at public hearings. But with rights come responsibilities."

Did he send letters to those who spoke in favor of the detox center too?
 
2014-03-23 02:26:05 PM
I'm thinking I would send a letter back pointing out that they have admitted they plan on engaging in criminal activity.  After all, how else would they be able to obtain personal documents of the nature they list.  Sure, they could try using a subpena, but no judge would grant it.
 
2014-03-23 02:27:41 PM
What does a car wreck have to do with free speech ? Did I miss something there ?
 
2014-03-23 02:50:31 PM

MNguy: Lawyers can and will explore all of your records in the course of discovery.  Why would you think that anything you have ever done is privileged?



Sure, if they're a named party to the suit or in accordance with third party discovery rules.  There is no indication any of that has happened here.

A "request to preserve evidence" to a non-litigant / non-governmental agency not subject to data retention requirements carries exactly zero weight.
 
2014-03-23 02:56:59 PM

Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.


...unless it's in the context of an actual lawsuit and this is a formal request for discovery. Are you bringing a discrimination suit, counselor? Otherwise, a complaint to the state bar might be in order.
 
2014-03-23 03:01:48 PM

notatrollorami: dr428: As much as I hate lawyers, I totally despise @sshole residents that rally around NIMBYism and all it stands for.  NIMBY's have ruined many a good project under their heart-tugging BS claims that the world would stop if that particular project was allowed to proceed.  Screw ALL NIMBY's!!!

My wife and I have worked extremely hard for many years to be able to afford to live in a safe neighborhood with our young children. Unless it was a closed secure campus you're damned straight I would oppose a drug treatment center near our house. Unapologetically.


I.....I like you
 
2014-03-23 03:18:03 PM
Green likened some of the opposition to the treatment center to "a lynch mob," and said people can "speak lies and spew venomous discrimination and hate."

When you start doing the kind of crap you are doing while screaming about lynch mobs, I find myself hoping that someone takes that "lynch mob" label to heart and strings your neck up from a tall tree.

Chances are, nobody is going to do that, because this asshole isn't worth the jail time.

But I suspect you *could* hire a lawyer and sue him for defamation, since he's claiming you are part a a lynch mob.

Green's client, Palm Partners LLC

While you are filing the defamation suit, look into suing them along with Green.  He's working for them when he's attacking these citizens.  Most of the time, when an employee screws up, the company is liable.  Even if the part about them gets dropped, it'll piss them off, and worry them, and maybe they'll drop the asshole lawyer and go hire someone else.
 
2014-03-23 03:45:10 PM

MNguy: If you want to ignore attorney requests for information, that's fine.  Probably not going to cost you too much when all is said and done.  But, in the end, you do have to provide it.  Not a first amendment issue at all.


You internet lawyers always bring the laughs.
 
2014-03-23 03:50:21 PM

RY28: What does a car wreck have to do with free speech ? Did I miss something there ?


Nevermind , link fixed.
 
2014-03-23 05:03:38 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: MNguy: If you want to ignore attorney requests for information, that's fine.  Probably not going to cost you too much when all is said and done.  But, in the end, you do have to provide it.  Not a first amendment issue at all.

You internet lawyers always bring the laughs.


I'm not a lawyer, though I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but even I know that was bull. Discovery applies to the parties in a trial, not to random members of the public who have objected to a new development in their neighbourhood.
To get information from them would need a subpoena, and only the court can issue that, not a lawyer for one side. And I very much doubt any judge would do that in a case like this. Fact is you have the right to object to a new development in your neighbourhood. Your personal reasons are nobodies business but your own. You could object because you are a shareholder in a competitor or because you are a Capricorn and Mars is rising. Makes no difference.
Now if they claimed that the hospital owner had broken the law or some other defamatory statement...
 
2014-03-23 05:09:02 PM
You know what you do with a letter like that? You wipe your ass with it and mail it back as a reply. If you're not party to a lawsuit, that idiot can't make you turn over anything, and if he TRIES to make you a party because you participated in a public meeting, you can get his ass sanctioned through a counter-SLAPP suit, and probably get the ACLU to pay for it.

/SLAPP is selective litigation against public participation, and it's becoming less popular as a corporate strategy because the case law is piling up against them.
 
2014-03-23 05:13:38 PM
I don't know what everybody is making a big deal about? It has an iron fence that rings the property, it is in what looks like a warehouse/business area. I googled the address and zoomed around the area, I don't get the NIMBYISM?

But I do get why everyone is up in arms about the a**hole lawyer though.


http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/16929307/5757-North-Dixie-Highway-Oak la nd-Park-FL/
 
2014-03-23 06:15:00 PM

inglixthemad: dr428: As much as I hate lawyers, I totally despise @sshole residents that rally around NIMBYism and all it stands for.  NIMBY's have ruined many a good project under their heart-tugging BS claims that the world would stop if that particular project was allowed to proceed.  Screw ALL NIMBY's!!!

On the flip side:

I've seen a good number of idiot things cities do to placate groups and companies. Currently, our local city is putting in painted bike lanes, which 40 years of research in Europe have shown to actually make things worse. The proper way to put in bike lanes, according to the best bike cities, is to 'uncouple' them from normal traffic. This necessitates rebuilding the road, as you are adding an extra curb, or even redoing the sidewalks so a bike path can be added. Places from Finland to Germany to Netherlands to the UK have found that painted bike lanes actually increase the risk of cyclist injury. They've even found that it is better to not paint lines at all!

The difference is the infrastructure cost. Paint is cheap and results in bikers feeling safer. Putting in an actual safe infrastructure is expensive, and more expensive to maintain.

NIMBY isn't always the cause.


I've got a project in a NC city that wants the exact same thing. On a multilane highway with 20,000+ vehicles using it, more intersections and driveways then I can count along the route, the city insisted on separate bike lanes even though the state's own bike design official said just putting the cyclists in the outside lane was safer for everyone. Nope, not according to the city; they brought out statistics for a totally different road they put painted bike lanes on (residential, few driveways or intersections, lower traffic) that they claimed "proved" that bike lanes were safe for my project. They also said that since their city wide policy was for exclusive bike lanes, they weren't going to backtrack and allow wider outside lanes on my project. The state eventually caved in when the city began threatening to actively oppose the project, and compromised to reduce the # of lanes to one each direction with the outside lane now devoted to on-street parking and bike lanes "until the traffic volumes require two lanes in each direction".
 
2014-03-23 07:19:19 PM

Flint Ironstag: BraveNewCheneyWorld: MNguy: If you want to ignore attorney requests for information, that's fine.  Probably not going to cost you too much when all is said and done.  But, in the end, you do have to provide it.  Not a first amendment issue at all.

You internet lawyers always bring the laughs.

I'm not a lawyer, though I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but even I know that was bull. Discovery applies to the parties in a trial, not to random members of the public who have objected to a new development in their neighbourhood.
To get information from them would need a subpoena, and only the court can issue that, not a lawyer for one side. And I very much doubt any judge would do that in a case like this. Fact is you have the right to object to a new development in your neighbourhood. Your personal reasons are nobodies business but your own. You could object because you are a shareholder in a competitor or because you are a Capricorn and Mars is rising. Makes no difference.
Now if they claimed that the hospital owner had broken the law or some other defamatory statement...


Actually, the lawyers for each side are the ones who do issue the subpoenas. The judge in the case has nothing to do with it. (at least in a civil suit) I just filed a couple subpoenas for my attorney this week. All a subpoena is, is a request for someone to appear for something, and provide information about a case that is being tried, pursuant to a court order or request for discovery. It's the court order that a judge has to approve, that the case actually has merit and can proceed. Once that's been done, then the attorneys issue their subpoenas to witnesses and each other.

Now, if a party chooses to ignore a subpoena, then the lawyer goes back to the court and files a motion to compel, which only the judge can grant; and THAT is what forces the noncompliant party to answer; like the deposition we've got this week, if the witness were to choose not to show up, we'd have to file a motion to compel answer (although probably wouldn't in this case).

In THIS case, what this lawyer thinks he's trying to do (besides intimidate people) is that, once a case is actually pending or in pretrial, the opposing side will sometimes send such a letter to companies telling them that they plan to file for discovery, and not to go destroying documents that might be requested in discovery. This puts the company on notice that certain documents are going to be looked for and expected in discovery and that their absence will also be noted in the case. But that kind of maneuver only applies when a case has actually been filed and discovery is imminent. You can't go around saying "Someday if a case might be filed I might want to see your records so don't go destroying anything just in case I eventually get around to looking at them."

Has anyone filed a grievance with this guy's state bar yet? It would be a good idea.
 
2014-03-23 08:35:54 PM

Gyrfalcon: Actually, the lawyers for each side are the ones who do issue the subpoenas.


Man, if I had a subpenis, I'd go to the hospital.
 
2014-03-23 09:09:28 PM
inglixthemad:

I've seen a good number of idiot things cities do to placate groups and companies. Currently, our local city is putting in painted bike lanes, which 40 years of research in Europe have shown to actually make things worse. The proper way to put in bike lanes, according to the best bike cities, is to 'uncouple' them from normal traffic. This necessitates rebuilding the road, as you are adding an extra curb, or even redoing the sidewalks so a bike path can be added. Places from Finland to Germany to Netherlands to the UK have found that painted bike lanes actually increase the risk of cyclist injury. They've even found that it is better to not paint lines at all!

dpgitr7uxxopj.cloudfront.net

This is a bike lane in the Netherlands. I can see why they find them dangerous.
 
2014-03-23 10:13:59 PM

doglover: Gyrfalcon: Actually, the lawyers for each side are the ones who do issue the subpoenas.

Man, if I had a subpenis, I'd go to the hospital.


Why? You'd have an awesome career in niche porn.
 
2014-03-23 10:46:56 PM

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.

Yes but the intent is to create a mindset of fear and intimidation. Speak up and you could be hit with fines, jail time and all kinds of police and corporate harassment. So basically, you are free to speak up but oh dear gods will you pay out the nose for doing do.


FTFY. Because of the First Amendment, no, you cannot be hit with fines or jail time (unless your speech is classified as "hate speech," and even then, if it does not incite criminal activity, you should appeal that shiat all the way to SCOTUS if they'll take the case). It protects from retaliation from the government. What it does not do is protect you from responsibility for your speech: private citizens, and yes, companies, can hold you responsible for your words ("fighting words doctrine"), even if the courts and police are legally obligated to leave you to your stupidity (which is not necessarily the case in this instance, but it certainly does apply in others--such as Westboro and the KKK).

The people who received this letter should send it to their state Bar Association... and ignore any demands made in it because the demands are illegal under the US Constitution and the Constitutions of every state I know of within the Republic.

/IANAL
//I have read the US Constitution several times
///as well as the Constitutions of every state I have ever lived in
 
2014-03-23 11:04:13 PM
Did the government do anything to stop you from saying what you wanted to say? No? Your First Amendment rights were not violated. Now f*ck off. Being harassed by someone other than the government is NOT a violation of your First Amendment rights.

I swear the last few years have seen hundreds of threads on various sites where people show a painful ignorance of what the First Amendment actually says.
 
2014-03-24 01:21:56 AM

Son of Thunder: MNguy: But hey.  Basically the framers wanted to create a society where your rights extended to the point where you can't trample on others' rights.  We've been parsing this for 200 years.

What the framers wanted? We've been told not to care about original intent anymore. The hip new attitude is that the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean.


That attitude isn't new.
 
2014-03-24 01:25:30 AM

Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.

Yes, yes he does. Let's say that, at the meeting, the speaker said "I have reservations about patient treatment at this particular facility. I would like to see the track record of this company". However, on Facebook, the speaker actually said "I concerned with the possibility of black people in this facility bringing down my property values". I would like to know there is continuity in the speaker's logic and he isn't just talking out of his ass.

If that speaker is a private citizen then Mr. Green does not have the right to explore what is said outside of the meeting unless it is publicly available.  If that speaker's Facebook account is open for everyone to see then he can go log on to Facebook and find it.  If the speaker has YouTube video ranting about how evil black people are then Mr. Green can go to YouTube and find the video himself.  But, it is up to Mr. Green to find that on his own.  If the speaker's words on their own do not give any indication that he might be a racist then Mr. Green has no cause to go searching through that person's private emails, computer files, and images looking for anything that might indicate duplicity.

When you put yourself on a public forum, I have every right to scrutinize what you say. I'm not saying any laws should be broken, and neither is that lawyer. I do have every right though to investigate (within the limits of the law) and make you eat your words.

Exactly which law is it that gives you every right to scrutinize what I say outside of that public forum?  Which law is it that lets you send a letter to people saying that the documents stored on their personal computers are subject to search and seizure?


Everything is legal till a law is made. Which laws says you can't wrote letters to people informing them off what happens if a law suit is filed?
 
2014-03-24 01:28:31 AM

shtychkn: Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.

Yes, yes he does. Let's say that, at the meeting, the speaker said "I have reservations about patient treatment at this particular facility. I would like to see the track record of this company". However, on Facebook, the speaker actually said "I concerned with the possibility of black people in this facility bringing down my property values". I would like to know there is continuity in the speaker's logic and he isn't just talking out of his ass.

If that speaker is a private citizen then Mr. Green does not have the right to explore what is said outside of the meeting unless it is publicly available.  If that speaker's Facebook account is open for everyone to see then he can go log on to Facebook and find it.  If the speaker has YouTube video ranting about how evil black people are then Mr. Green can go to YouTube and find the video himself.  But, it is up to Mr. Green to find that on his own.  If the speaker's words on their own do not give any indication that he might be a racist then Mr. Green has no cause to go searching through that person's private emails, computer files, and images looking for anything that might indicate duplicity.

When you put yourself on a public forum, I have every right to scrutinize what you say. I'm not saying any laws should be broken, and neither is that lawyer. I do have every right though to investigate (within the limits of the law) and make you eat your words.

Exactly which law is it that gives you every right to scrutinize what I say outside of that public forum?  Which law is it that lets you send a letter to people saying that the documents stored on their personal computers are subject to search and seizure?

Everything is legal till a law is made. Which laws says you can't wrote letters to people informing them off what happens if a law suit is filed?


Ever hear of the term harassment?  There are laws against that.
 
2014-03-24 01:33:13 AM

Aigoo: Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.

Yes but the intent is to create a mindset of fear and intimidation. Speak up and you could be hit with fines, jail time and all kinds of police and corporate harassment. So basically, you are free to speak up but oh dear gods will you pay out the nose for doing do.

FTFY. Because of the First Amendment, no, you cannot be hit with fines or jail time (unless your speech is classified as "hate speech," and even then, if it does not incite criminal activity, you should appeal that shiat all the way to SCOTUS if they'll take the case). It protects from retaliation from the government. What it does not do is protect you from responsibility for your speech: private citizens, and yes, companies, can hold you responsible for your words ("fighting words doctrine"), even if the courts and police are legally obligated to leave you to your stupidity (which is not necessarily the case in this instance, but it certainly does apply in others--such as Westboro and the KKK).

The people who received this letter should send it to their state Bar Association... and ignore any demands made in it because the demands are illegal under the US Constitution and the Constitutions of every state I know of within the Republic.

/IANAL
//I have read the US Constitution several times
///as well as the Constitutions of every state I have ever lived in


Fyi:

Hate speech is protected in the US. That is why groups like the KKK and Nazis can exist and spread their hate.

What you cannot do is act on that hate speech or use it to intimidate someone.
 
2014-03-24 01:47:48 AM

Mock26: shtychkn: Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.

Yes, yes he does. Let's say that, at the meeting, the speaker said "I have reservations about patient treatment at this particular facility. I would like to see the track record of this company". However, on Facebook, the speaker actually said "I concerned with the possibility of black people in this facility bringing down my property values". I would like to know there is continuity in the speaker's logic and he isn't just talking out of his ass.

If that speaker is a private citizen then Mr. Green does not have the right to explore what is said outside of the meeting unless it is publicly available.  If that speaker's Facebook account is open for everyone to see then he can go log on to Facebook and find it.  If the speaker has YouTube video ranting about how evil black people are then Mr. Green can go to YouTube and find the video himself.  But, it is up to Mr. Green to find that on his own.  If the speaker's words on their own do not give any indication that he might be a racist then Mr. Green has no cause to go searching through that person's private emails, computer files, and images looking for anything that might indicate duplicity.

When you put yourself on a public forum, I have every right to scrutinize what you say. I'm not saying any laws should be broken, and neither is that lawyer. I do have every right though to investigate (within the limits of the law) and make you eat your words.

Exactly which law is it that gives you every right to scrutinize what I say outside of that public forum?  Which law is it that lets you send a letter to people saying that the documents stored on their personal computers are subject to search and seizure?

Everything is legal till a law is made. Which laws says you can't wrote letters to people informing them off what happens if a law suit is filed?

Ever hear of the term harassment?  There are laws against that.


That's for a judge and possibly jury to decide. Though a single letter will probably not qualify as harassment.
 
2014-03-24 02:34:27 PM

ISO15693: inglixthemad:

I've seen a good number of idiot things cities do to placate groups and companies. Currently, our local city is putting in painted bike lanes, which 40 years of research in Europe have shown to actually make things worse. The proper way to put in bike lanes, according to the best bike cities, is to 'uncouple' them from normal traffic. This necessitates rebuilding the road, as you are adding an extra curb, or even redoing the sidewalks so a bike path can be added. Places from Finland to Germany to Netherlands to the UK have found that painted bike lanes actually increase the risk of cyclist injury. They've even found that it is better to not paint lines at all!

[dpgitr7uxxopj.cloudfront.net image 500x774]

This is a bike lane in the Netherlands. I can see why they find them dangerous.


They're phasing out most (if not all) painted bike lanes.

When I was in Middleberg (Netherlands) last year, there weren't any on the roads I traveled. You can ride from Middleberg to Vlissingen on a bike and never see one painted bike lane. Why? They found that painted bike lanes have accident rates 2.5 times higher than not doing anything, for the same roads. To change anything for the better they had to put in an extra curb and create a real 'bike lane' with it's own stoplights. They also figured out that they had to slow down, wait for it, the cyclists. Apparently cyclists overestimate their safe speed and actually cause accidents by being in a hurry, just like people driving cars. Shocking, I know.

People that want us to be a bike friendly country in the US don't realize what it would cost, and the fines that would be in place. Heck, I saw a cop giving some gal €75 ticket for not having a light and another gave a guy a €200+ ticket for not stopping at a stop sign. The cities are responsible for thiose special bike lanes and bridges, and spend a good chunk of money in the winter clearing then. Then again, they also clear all the sidewalks.
 
2014-03-24 07:57:44 PM

shtychkn: Mock26: shtychkn: Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.

Yes, yes he does. Let's say that, at the meeting, the speaker said "I have reservations about patient treatment at this particular facility. I would like to see the track record of this company". However, on Facebook, the speaker actually said "I concerned with the possibility of black people in this facility bringing down my property values". I would like to know there is continuity in the speaker's logic and he isn't just talking out of his ass.

If that speaker is a private citizen then Mr. Green does not have the right to explore what is said outside of the meeting unless it is publicly available.  If that speaker's Facebook account is open for everyone to see then he can go log on to Facebook and find it.  If the speaker has YouTube video ranting about how evil black people are then Mr. Green can go to YouTube and find the video himself.  But, it is up to Mr. Green to find that on his own.  If the speaker's words on their own do not give any indication that he might be a racist then Mr. Green has no cause to go searching through that person's private emails, computer files, and images looking for anything that might indicate duplicity.

When you put yourself on a public forum, I have every right to scrutinize what you say. I'm not saying any laws should be broken, and neither is that lawyer. I do have every right though to investigate (within the limits of the law) and make you eat your words.

Exactly which law is it that gives you every right to scrutinize what I say outside of that public forum?  Which law is it that lets you send a letter to people saying that the documents stored on their personal computers are subject to search and seizure?

Everything is legal till a law is made. Which laws says you can't wrote letters to people informing them off what happens if a law suit is filed?

Ever h ...


But he still does not have the "right" to explore what is said outside a meeting.  Just because someone may legally do something does not automatically mean that they have the right to do so.
 
2014-03-24 08:43:23 PM

Mock26: shtychkn: Mock26: shtychkn: Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.

Yes, yes he does. Let's say that, at the meeting, the speaker said "I have reservations about patient treatment at this particular facility. I would like to see the track record of this company". However, on Facebook, the speaker actually said "I concerned with the possibility of black people in this facility bringing down my property values". I would like to know there is continuity in the speaker's logic and he isn't just talking out of his ass.

If that speaker is a private citizen then Mr. Green does not have the right to explore what is said outside of the meeting unless it is publicly available.  If that speaker's Facebook account is open for everyone to see then he can go log on to Facebook and find it.  If the speaker has YouTube video ranting about how evil black people are then Mr. Green can go to YouTube and find the video himself.  But, it is up to Mr. Green to find that on his own.  If the speaker's words on their own do not give any indication that he might be a racist then Mr. Green has no cause to go searching through that person's private emails, computer files, and images looking for anything that might indicate duplicity.

When you put yourself on a public forum, I have every right to scrutinize what you say. I'm not saying any laws should be broken, and neither is that lawyer. I do have every right though to investigate (within the limits of the law) and make you eat your words.

Exactly which law is it that gives you every right to scrutinize what I say outside of that public forum?  Which law is it that lets you send a letter to people saying that the documents stored on their personal computers are subject to search and seizure?

Everything is legal till a law is made. Which laws says you can't wrote letters to people informing them off what happens if a law suit is filed?

Ever h ...

But he still does not have the "right" to explore what is said outside a meeting.  Just because someone may legally do something does not automatically mean that they have the right to do so.


Everything is legal till it becomes illegal.
 
2014-03-24 09:29:14 PM

Mock26: But he still does not have the "right" to explore what is said outside a meeting. Just because someone may legally do something does not automatically mean that they have the right to do so.


Of course he has the right to explore it.  So long as he doesn't break the law, he can spend his time "thinking about" or "exploring" or "looking into" whatever he wants.

However, nobody else is obligated to help him in any way.

That part where he started calling people a lynch mob crosses a line.  That looks a lot like slander (or libel, depending on when/where/how he said it) to me.
 
2014-03-24 11:41:06 PM

JuggleGeek: Mock26: But he still does not have the "right" to explore what is said outside a meeting. Just because someone may legally do something does not automatically mean that they have the right to do so.

Of course he has the right to explore it.  So long as he doesn't break the law, he can spend his time "thinking about" or "exploring" or "looking into" whatever he wants.

However, nobody else is obligated to help him in any way.

That part where he started calling people a lynch mob crosses a line.  That looks a lot like slander (or libel, depending on when/where/how he said it) to me.


He sounds like a farking asshole, and I could be damned if he gets his farking treatment facility with a shiat attitude like that. It's worse than the people he's complaining about, who have done nothing but voice opposition.
 
Displayed 43 of 93 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report