Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

$1,000,000 Million Judgement against Jim/FR LLC - What does it mean?
12-02-01 | Bob J

Posted on 12/02/2001 10:09:56 PM PST by Bob J

Nothing...thats what it means.

The afholes have been trying to scare FReepers with this little bit information. Here is my opinion on the subject.

As you all know, the Washington Post and LA Times sued FR LLC and Jim to stop it from posting full text articles. The basis of FR's attorneys defense rested on the fair use clause. Unfortunately, Jim drew probably the worst judge he could...Margaret Morrow, a Clinton nominee, whose appointment was held up for a long time by Republicans due to here obvious left wing opinions.

The plaintiffs attorneys filed a pre trial motion to squelch the fair use defense and Judge Morrow ruled affirmatively. That basically took all the guts out of the Jim's defense. At that point, Jim's most prudent course of action was to stipulate to a decision against him. That way the case could get into the appeal with the least cost. This may have actually worked for the best since if Jim won, the WP was certainly going to appeal. It would also follow that whoever lost the appeal would then appeal to the SC. It has been estimated going directly to appeal may have saved Jim and FR 200-300k. Now, it may only cost 20-30k to get all the way to the Supremes.

Once Jim stipulated, they were allowed to ask for a dollar judgement. When Jim found out it was 1 million, he said "Why not make it 500 million. Hell, make it a billion!" The fact is Jim nor FR LLC have any money. What is raised during the quarterly FReepathons is used during the next 3 months for expenses. The LAT and WP know this. I doubt if they expect to ever see a dime of it. The judgement allows them to put a nice round number on their balance sheet to offset the obvious huge expenses this case is chewing up on their P&L's. Can you imagine the public relations nightmare for a multi billion dollar corporation to going after a disabled vet for a million bucks he doesn't have? How about a billion...heheh.

Obviously, some donations go to legal expenses, as in any business, but Jim is trying to minimize the cost. So, when an afhole throws that million dollar judgement in your face, as if you are or they expect you to pay for it, say what Jim said, "Thank you sir, make it a billion, please!"

Ha! What loosers...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements
KEYWORDS: faq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-338 next last
To: francisandbeans
bump
61 posted on 12/03/2001 10:09:10 AM PST by francisandbeans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ContemptofCourt
Ummm, maybe because that is called fraud?

Why?

62 posted on 12/03/2001 10:19:01 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Bob J; Jim Robinson
The weakness in WP/LAT's case, in my humble and legally-uninformed opinion, is that every else in the whole wide world lets us -- and everyone else, it seems -- post entire articles. It seems to be the industry standard.
63 posted on 12/03/2001 10:23:49 AM PST by Silly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou; Jim Robinson
PBWY's post 54 is another great reason why I think Jim will prevail, and that all the dithering and nail-biting on the part of the AFers is for naught.
64 posted on 12/03/2001 10:25:58 AM PST by Silly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Silly; Bob J; Bryan
The weakness in WP/LAT's case, in my humble and legally-uninformed opinion, is that every else in the whole wide world lets us -- and everyone else, it seems -- post entire articles.
It seems to be the industry standard.
Even MORE damaging, the folks at the Washington Post and the L.A. Times do NOT prevent many OTHER news websites from posting the FULL TEXT of their articles. Their "concern" about protecting the value of their copyrighted work seems to be only with US, which CONSIDERABLY weakens their case, IMHO.

Check out, fer instance, THIS STORY about CNN's "balance" originally published in the Washington Post on 10/31/01, reposted in all of its glory in:

www.CommonDreams.org

www.IndyMedia.org

www.CCMEP.org

www.theHOOT.org

www.NewHumanist.com

www.my-homeschooling-place.com

www.InfoShop.org

GlobalResearch.CA

There are MANY other examples, which can be found through a determined Google search.

Bottom line: If the OTHER NEWS WEBSITES can post full text without challenge from these bozos, why cannot WE?

65 posted on 12/03/2001 12:42:45 PM PST by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
Bottom line: If the OTHER NEWS WEBSITES can post full text without challenge from these bozos, why cannot WE?

Perhaps they will answer, "Because we haven't given you permission," but you make a good point -- they are being arbitrary.

66 posted on 12/03/2001 12:50:53 PM PST by Silly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

Comment #67 Removed by Moderator

To: RonDog
Oooo, good argument! BTTT
68 posted on 12/03/2001 1:19:50 PM PST by lonevoice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
Are all 4 of these to be considered or is it you only need to qualify in one, i.e., literally #1 "for non profit educational purposes?

How does #3 fit or pertain?

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

This isn't being asked out of 'sour grapes or whining'....it appears you are a lawyer or have inside info (maybe a paralegal, a judge, or something).I have very little actual knowledge of the legal profession as probably a goodly number of FReepers don't either. Or better yet, maybe you're privy to exactly what Congress meant, or did, or discussed when they passed this legislation and any amendments.

Thanks

69 posted on 12/03/2001 1:24:50 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; Bob J
Thanks for the legal clarifications Bob - all these clintoon judges need to go. And thanks Grampa Dave for the nice fundraising graphics! GO FR!
70 posted on 12/03/2001 1:37:46 PM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
Thanks for the kind words.

Here is the update on the Freepathon with links to the new thread #3 and an update on PayPal:

Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year, Official link: (Thread #3)

For regular snail mail donations:

FREE REPUBLIC, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

(link for monthly credit card donations)

(Reindeer says, "Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com")

71 posted on 12/03/2001 1:44:39 PM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
So,your point is?

Send the bill to Carol Hu-Tex.

72 posted on 12/03/2001 1:55:07 PM PST by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ICU812
Excellent post... so when do we start planning the particulars, for that sad day when the evil ones score a win?
73 posted on 12/03/2001 1:58:15 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #74 Removed by Moderator

To: Silly
There's another issue...even without FR.....the media companies are spending fortunes on their websites...and they are all losing tons of money....they are financial black holes for the companies....no one has figured out how to make any money from them..( except the WSJ and Consumer Reports)..yet they are forced to keep throwing money down the rat hole.....so they're focusing on this issue..but it's a false flag......even if everyone here linked to the articles, they wouldn't go through the rest of the website..they'd just return here after reading it...and no one is paying advertizing rates based upon "hits" anymore....
75 posted on 12/03/2001 2:08:23 PM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
My question is what happened to clarity? If it isnt something to be announced on this thread maybe someone can freepmail the answer.
76 posted on 12/03/2001 2:17:20 PM PST by winodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Thanks for the helpful info.
77 posted on 12/03/2001 2:21:04 PM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
I have said it before, and I will say it again. The lefties on the 9th Circuit are FR's greatest friend with respect to this case. You should get down on your knees and pray every day that you draw an all liberal panel.
78 posted on 12/03/2001 2:27:45 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BRL
You feel that you have a moral right to discount the law as long as a someone you disagree with was the judge that interpreted the law or wrote the law.

What words on God's Green Earth posted on this thread would lead you to conclude that?

It may come to a shock to you, but lots of folks thing some judges get it wrong more often than right, and that judges make mistakes as to what is the law, or how to best fill in the gaps. Sometimes such nevetheless becomes "the law" for the time being, until reversed, if it is reversed. So, to the extent the law is an ass, what is wrong with "discounting" it providing you don't disobey it, or if you do the latter in an act of civil disobedience, to peacefully accept the consequences?

79 posted on 12/03/2001 2:37:07 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
In the manner in which you refer to Clarity ... please either use Jim's words in this matter (with his permission, if needed) or avoid the subject.

You have portrayed him as "the bad guy" after a huge amount of support from him for Jim and FR.

I cannot make the citations of JIM'S explanations ... but I surely do remember the gist of them and still don't feel that Clarity is being treated fairly here at all ... so no matter what your appointed or select position with FR is, my friend (and I do not call you that in any less than honest way) ... the subject of Clarity and FR cannot be reduced to so few words -- "all in favor of Jim and his causes (ours)" without presentation of the whole story as given by Jim, himself.

It is, or should be, wrong to give others any reasons to dislike or distrust or denigrate Clarity ... or to assign such a burden of guilt to be laid upon him, who has always been ... another "friend".
80 posted on 12/03/2001 2:50:34 PM PST by AKA Elena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-338 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson