In our conversation, I explained to the lawyer that I was confused about the lawsuit because it was based on comments I had nothing to do with. He suggested that I should speak with Michele Liberis and urge her to remove the comments about Cash4Gold from the internet. I insisted that I was confused by the lawsuit because it had nothing to do with me. He said the best thing for me to do would be to convince Michele Liberis to remove the comments she had posted. He stated his client was willing to seek jail time for me and Michele Liberis if the internet comments were not taken down.
Likely what Cash4Gold's lawyer referred to was the potential for a contempt of court order for not complying with the directives of the injunction. While possible, it's unlikely the court would have gone along with it, but how would Nephew, who was not represented by counsel at the time, know that? Another classy move for Cash4Gold.
Read the whole motion here. (PDF) Cash4Gold will have to file their opposition to the motion shortly.
PREVIOUSLY: Cash4Gold Defendant Liberis Files To Vacate Default
The Article Cash4Gold Doesn't Want You To Read
10 Confessions Of A Cash4Gold Employee
If someone will verify what Cash4Gold is paying for an oz. of pure gold-that should go a long way toward telling us and potential customers what kind of a company it is !!!!
]]>Is there anything more obvious for mail thieves to pilfer than Cash$Gold envelopes in mailboxes? Granted, I've never sent anything in, but the TV commercials show someone placing the CASH4GOLD emblazoned mailer in a curbside mailbox.
]]>I'll bet a week's wages his books are cooked so badly, that Madoff himself would be impressed.
]]>I'm still wondering what Nephew allegedly did, because the complaint doesn't say. Based on her response, Nephew doesn't know what she allegedly did either.
]]>Can't be much of a code, then, if it's so easy to rationalize oneself out from under it for almost any reason. Not only that, I can think of lots of professions that require sound ethics from their members. Doctors, pharmacists, accountants, and more. And ethics codes even go beyond professions. As an elected official in my own town, for example, I also must obey a code of ethics (which is mostly dictated by the state). Let's not be putting lawyers, or any other professions, up on a pinnacle they don't deserve to be on.
Re: "That includes doing anything and everything allowed to win for your client."
Again, I get that it's easy to rationalize almost anything a lawyer does. Honest, I do.
Re: "So, you are confusing some general, moral sense of ethics with the ethics of advocacy."
Are you suggesting that something can be "ethical" in one way, yet be "unethical" in another? If this is the case, then what good are the vaunted "ethics" that you said lawyers are supposed to adhere to?
Re: "Would you want an advocate to do anything less?"
So now you're saying lawyers are just doing what they're hired to do. This is known as "the mercenary defense." I'm not sure you're painting a good picture of lawyers by saying "they're just mercenaries."
I'm still left wondering as I did before ... if lawyers can rationalize any action they take as acceptable and ethical, then does the ethical code they're supposed to obey, have any meaning? A loose ethics code that ultimately permits any action, is inseparable from having no ethics code whatever.
]]>"He stated his client was willing to seek jail time for me and Michele Liberis if the internet comments were not taken down"
]]>And, no, I don't know what was said either...
]]>You have no idea in what context the lawyer made that threat. Or what the words were. However, in the context of this lawyer's conduct in the case so far, your arguments are rather odd.
Why you feel compelled to keep making the same argument is beyond me.
]]>CforG is obviously a scam.....anyone who puts gold into an envelope and sends it off deserves what they get........scammed!!
I give those guys credit. They use peoples stupidity and the legal system to make a fast buck. They must laugh all the way to the bank.
Mac
]]>@nstonep: beer at 7:58am? i usually wait until at least 9am.
]]>In my opinion, you and your lawyer are two of the biggest pieces of crap I have ever seen! The mere mention of your name, or that of your company, makes me want to puke. I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for both of you, and I hope you both get to see it very soon! Of course, that's just my opinion.
If you want me to issue an apology see below...
I'm sorry Jeff...That is I'm sorry that you've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a fuck about you!
]]>@MikeVx:
Hmmm...maybe we should shoot for GoldAppleMonsterBose and see if we can clean out the closet in one go.
]]>Natural human curiosity drives people to find the comments, and there are always multiple copies on the internet that can be found, even after the original post is taken down due to the legal action. From there, the information spreads exponentially until anyone with even a remote interest in the subject has read it.
It's called the Streisand effect, after a woman's demands to have aerial photos of her house removed from the internet resulted in the very same images becoming widely known and viewed.
]]>not trying to sound mean, but it has nothing to do with the issue before the court in connection with this motion... IE it's tangential and superfluous.
]]>As I stated, the judge would not be swayed by your argument.
]]>It seems that there IS an injunction against Nephew at the moment.
]]>While they are beating on each other, the rest of the world can get on with living.
]]>Our court system is adversarial, and the professional code of conduct for lawyers requires "zealous representation" of a client. That includes doing anything and everything allowed to win for your client. Anything less would be a failure of your duties to your client, or otherwise stated, anything less would in fact be unethical.
So, you are confusing some general, moral sense of ethics with the ethics of advocacy. And, that is exactly what a lawyer does in representing someone. If you pay someone to represent you, are they not duty-bound to perform to the fullest of their capacity on your behalf? Would you want an advocate to do anything less?
]]>But does even a judge get to say "This order I issued against person X ... person Y should have understood it was their obligation, too ... so put person Y in the slammer"? I think not if there was no lawful order against person Y.
It's already clear that C4G's lawyers are playing fast and loose with proper service ... a tactic more typically seen in the collection business (especially in states like New York and Minnesota which have laws that allow improper or defective service, though that doesn't stop them from doing it in the other 48).
Anyway, unless Nephew WAS given an injunctive order to begin with, then I most certainly will call C4G's threat (not the asking for an order of content, which is merely a defective motion) to be extortion.
]]>Both of you need to check into your law school's refund policy. Hell yes ,threatening criminal punishment for a civil tort IS extortion. I hope to God that I never sit in the dock with either of you as counsel.
]]>Know your rights, people. Use them.
]]>As there is no injunction against Nephew, the lawyer's comments would be hard to misinterpret as alluding to the extant possibility that judges sometimes find people in contempt for all sorts of stuff.
As I wrote above, I don't think the judge would be impressed by your argument.
There's a long road between advising someone that the judge may find you in contempt and coercing someone outside of the courtroom with the threat of criminal punishment in a civil case.
Besides the fact the amount of times that people are sent to jail for contempt is basically never. Only in the movies and only in unbelievably rare circumstances.
]]>There is no injunction against Nephew. As an officer of the court, the lawyer is forbidden to threaten criminal punishment for a civil complaint. Only the judge can threaten jail time for contempt, as you correctly point out.
Not the lawyer. Your sophistry would not impress the judge, believe me. You cannot coerce someone in a civil complaint with the threat of jail time.
]]>QED.
]]>Based on one civil procedure lecture on the topic: "Injunctive" is the adjective form of "injunction", used to describe the form of relief sought by the plaintiff.
I'm sure you're familiar with an injunction, where the court orders someone to stop doing something. If the court grants injunctive relief, they are ordering an injunction of some sort.
In this case, the plaintiff filed for a preliminary injunction, where they ask the court to force some party to stop doing something before court proceedings through a special hearing because some "irreparable harm" could otherwise occur, in this case, some sort of damage to their business or reputation from this information. They also have to show that they would likely "succeed on the merits", that is, demonstrate to the judge that whatever the dispute is, they would likely win it.
On the complaint, they generally need to be specific enough that you have establishes a cause of action by which the court can award some sort of remedy, and contain enough detail that the defense can prepare a response. In this case, I don't see how it matters who the 3rd party is, as long as they weren't privileged to receive the information. Other than that, complaints are supposed to be (according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) "short and plain". Of course, other jurisdictions use other standards for pleadings. That claim contains a cause of action, and some conduct that led to that cause, but I have no idea if that is 'too short' or not. There are probably some other paragraphs related to the alleged conduct that flesh it out a bit.
If the complaint was indeed too short, and did not specify a cause of action, then the defense could file a "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim", which is basically saying, "hey, they didn't actually say anything... can we all go home now?"
But to find out how any of this would really shake out, well, that's what you need lawyers for.
]]>As for the lawyers threatening things that they know aren't going to come to pass ... isn't that unethical?
... wait, strike that, I forgot, "ethical" and "lawyer" have nothing to do with each other, so never mind ...
]]>Didn't your lawyer warned you about the, er, Court of Internet Internment? Surely the Cash4Gold lawyers must have mentioned this to you...
]]>I agree that Nephew is not responsible for the statements made by Liberis, but they are joint cases and its up to a judge to sever them and/or declare deny a motion by C4G to find contempt against Nephew. Not extortion.
]]>In this case, I think they're referring to their legal stuff employees have to sign.
]]>@Michael Belisle:
I've heard of the phrase "injunctive relief" before, so I'm guessing even if it isn't a word, it's meaning of having to do with an injunction is clear from the context.
Yes, thank you for pointing that out.
For finding out the laws in your state, see this handy guide:
]]>All the more reason to press "record" on your MP3 player when you have these types of conversations.
]]>25. In or about 2009, Defendant NEPHEW breached the Agreement and the Separation Agreement by disclosing CASH4GOLD's confident and proprietary information to a third party.
Doesn't a complaint need more details than that? What third party? What was the nature or circumstances of the disclosure?
And is "Injuntive" even a word? I see that CASH4GOLD's lawyers have copy and paste, but do they have a spelling or grammar checker?
]]>And can they really spend time in litigation with each & every person who does such a thing?
]]>