Big Mike

[bone]

so what, he won

Low rent white trash move, that's why.

If you have thousands of members paying a subscription fee for "elite" status , plus sponsors and vendors and "partners" that are paying you every month for the privilege of kissing your ass and avoiding your wrath and hustling your members - IMHO you should be paying your own bills. Especially if you are actively promoting yourself as a well-heeled beach bum from Belize.

 

[Pekelo]

And he's still begging for legal fees from site members.

Because he is still down by 7.5K.... A couple of more victories like this and Mike has to move to an even cheaper country.

Funny to read the reopened thread, because most people there couldn't even explain the cause of the lawsuit. The only guy who expressed doubt was promptly talked down.

Just for the record, Mike let a disgruntled contractor to talk bad about AMP, but when they tried to defend themselves, they were banned. The problem was that the nature of the complaint was very personal and no 3rd party knew who was right or wrong (typical he said/she said case) and it had nothing to do with trading. In short, there was no reason for Mike to provide a sounding board against a company, thus the lawsuit had merit.

He should have either shut down the thread or let AMP defend themselves. In all fairness, but as we know fairness isn't his style.

So he deserved the aggrevation and money loss what came with the lawsuit, even if he eventually won. After all, OJ also walked from the first trial.... And had AMP futures been a sponsor on the site, of course it would have never happened...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

 

[txpoker]

Because he is still down by 7.5K.... A couple of more victories like this and Mike has to move to an even cheaper country.

Funny to read the reopened thread, because most people there couldn't even explain the cause of the lawsuit. The only guy who expressed doubt was promptly talked down.

Just for the record, Mike let a disgruntled contractor to talk bad about AMP, but when they tried to defend themselves, they were banned. The problem was that the nature of the complaint was very personal and no 3rd party knew who was right or wrong (typical he said/she said case) and it had nothing to do with trading. In short, there was no reason for Mike to provide a sounding board against a company, thus the lawsuit had merit.

He should have either shut down the thread or let AMP defend themselves. In all fairness, but as we know fairness isn't his style.

So he deserved the aggrevation and money loss what came with the lawsuit, even if he eventually won. After all, OJ also walked from the first trial.... And had AMP futures been a sponsor on the site, of course it would have never happened...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

I feel your sour, so what, Big Mike won, and yes, he won, AMP lost

 

[bone]

He should have either shut down the thread or let AMP defend themselves. In all fairness, but as we know fairness isn't his style.

And that is the most relevant point. IMHO BM brought this upon himself because of his personal style and biases. "Moderating" an online forum, especially one that is a commercial enterprise that takes fees from both members and vendors, is a delicate matter that requires a great deal of neutrality and an even, unbiased temperament.

If you Goggle " online defamation" you'll see that these types of cases have been growing quite a bit in recent years. The internet has matured quite a bit, and long standing commercial defamation or trade libel law (which case law has established is not negated because of the internet) is starting to establish itself amongst judges and juries. The fact that the BMT lawsuit was not dismissed and found to have standing to proceed tells you that. Your Google search will find that Companies and professionals and entrepreneurs are filing suit with increasing frequency against individuals posting damaging materials that cannot be verified with fact by the individual poster.

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

 

[txpoker]

And that is the most relevant point. IMHO BM brought this upon himself because of his personal style and biases. "Moderating" an online forum, especially one that is a commercial enterprise that takes fees from both members and vendors, is a delicate matter that requires a great deal of neutrality and an even, unbiased temperament.

If you Goggle " online defamation" you'll see that these types of cases have been growing quite a bit in recent years. The internet has matured quite a bit, and long standing commercial defamation or trade libel law (which case law has established is not negated because of the internet) is starting to establish itself amongst judges and juries. The fact that the BMT lawsuit was not dismissed and found to have standing to proceed tells you that. Your Google search will find that Companies and professionals and entrepreneurs are filing suit with increasing frequency against individuals posting damaging materials that cannot be verified with fact by the individual poster.

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

won is won, lost is lost, you can file again

 

[bone]

won is won, lost is lost, you can file again

AMP could only file again if the allegations were materially different than the original tort ( that's what the legal term " prejudice" means in the Judge's ruling ). Likewise, AMP could appeal the existing ruling.

But it's still low rent white trash to beg your clients to pay your legal fees when they had no personal responsibility in the matter. Again, IMHO the uneven and dictatorial way the BMT forums are moderated invited this legal action and chances are unless things change in terms of commercial libel fair play it will happen again.

If AMP appeals, would it break BMT ?

Lots of deep pockets sue all the time knowing they will ultimately lose the battle but win the war. That's how JP Morgan gained control of Westinghouse's A/C generating technology and started the company General Electric. It is widely reported that's how Donald Sterling built his fortune - suing people who couldn't keep writing checks to lawyers over a protracted period of time (years).

 

[nkhoi]

... well-heeled beach bum from Belize.

that was KingFish guy.

 

[txpoker]

AMP could only file again if the allegations were materially different than the original tort ( that's what the legal term " prejudice" means in the Judge's ruling ). Likewise, AMP could appeal the existing ruling.

But it's still low rent white trash to beg your clients to pay your legal fees when they had no personal responsibility in the matter. Again, IMHO the uneven and dictatorial way the BMT forums are moderated invited this legal action and chances are unless things change in terms of commercial libel fair play it will happen again.

If AMP appeals, would it break BMT ?

Lots of deep pockets sue all the time knowing they will ultimately lose the battle but win the war. That's how JP Morgan gained control of Westinghouse's A/C generating technology and started the company General Electric. It is widely reported that's how Donald Sterling built his fortune - suing people who couldn't keep writing checks to lawyers over a protracted period of time (years).

I want to listen more loser's muttering to himself, haha, loser. bone, go on please...

 

[RifffRafff]

But it's still low rent white trash to beg your clients to pay your legal fees when they had no personal responsibility in the matter. Again, IMHO the uneven and dictatorial way the BMT forums are moderated invited this legal action and chances are unless things change in terms of commercial libel fair play it will happen again.

I just kicked him a few $ after he won and I read the judgment. To me, it is a matter of free speech on the web. I also gave to the EFF when PIPA and SOPA were around.

AMP should have gone after the contractor and not a website. It reminds me of when companies sue people for posting bad reviews on Yelp.

Companies with money can effectively gag any comment they do not like because they have deeper pockets and that bothers me.

As for dictatorial, BMT is his sand box, just as ET is Baron's sandbox. I don't begrudge either for the way they run their sites.

 

[bone]

=RifffRafff;4002665]

AMP should have gone after the contractor and not a website. It reminds me of when companies sue people for posting bad reviews on Yelp.

I think that is a really valid and fair point. AMP could have pursued a judgement against the contractor, and then asked BMT for a retraction or edit or whatever.

In terms of Free Speech, say anything about anyone you want. But if you're crossing a line into the realm of specific and damaging allegations about another private citizen or Company then be prepared to suffer the consequences if you can't substantiate your words with facts.

Bad reviews are fine, but anyone posting anything on the internet needs to take care that they are not crossing a line and making damaging material statements unsupported by facts - even if in making those material statements they are claiming it's an opinion. In the words of Justice Louis Brandeis, " sunshine is the best disinfectant". If you are going to say that you ate at a particular restaurant and the food made you sick, or if you say that private citizen Jane Doe gave you Herpes - and then publish that information on the internet under an anonymous pseudonym for the world to see, then at least be prepared to produce a credit card bill or a medical bill because that restaurant owner or Jane Doe has the legal right to subpoena the website, get your IP address, track you down, and pursue the matter further if you can't produce credible evidence.