[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scientific Censo rship Case
At 10:21 AM 2/8/2002 +0000, Steve Hosgood wrote:
>Meanwhile, back on the plot....
>
>
> > No, your first instinct is correct. Manufacturing a case where none
> exists
> > definitely is not kosher. Though you might enjoy one of my alternate sig
> > quotes.
> > [snip]
> > Lodi v. Lodi, 173 Cal.App.3d 628 (1985)
> >
>
>Hmm. That sounds like a rather more extreme case of what I proposed. In
>"Tyre vs. Seltzer" (or whatever), there are two genuine parties. The only
>odd bit is that the EFF would be backing both of them, but the source of
>their finances is unlikely to be of interest to a court surely?
The Lodi case is extreme - your hypothetical just inspired me to use the
sig quote, since I had it lying around - but the broader point is the
same. Even with two different parties, courts will be on the lookout for
manufactured suits where the interests of the litigants are not truly
adverse, and will come down hard on them if the case is a "setup", for lack
of a better term. In the particular instance of the hypothetical Tyre v.
Seltzer, the litigants not only would face sanctions as litigants, but
possible disbarment as well, since the litigants are officers of the
court. (Not that lawyers have any real power as officers of the court, but
we are.)
On the other hand, at least until the statute of limitations runs, I remain
fearful of a not so hypothetical Seltzer v. Tyre, going back to when I
accosted her in broad daylight a little less than a year ago, and foolishly
allowed the act to be caught on a digital (non-watermarked) image.
http://www.mccullagh.org/image/10/wendy-seltzer-jim-tyre.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net