A settlement agreement is a settlement agreement. Unless, there is fraud in the inducement of the agreement, then it is over.
Typically in a settlement agreement, there are recitations that both side believe they are correct, but they are settling to avoid additional costs, AND that they waive all claims, known and unknown against each other.
Contact Hooters, Playboy, Penthouse, Playgirl for the applications of men/women who did not quite make it. Give them the same training that the TSA agents currently have (an hour?). Let them do the pat downs.
Never mind, the complaints might increase because the pad downs where not thorough enough.
If you are not doing something illegal, then you should have nothing to hide from the police! Why not allow the recording without a warrant? What are you trying to hide from the police you criminal?
Oh, it was the police making arrest because of the recording. Ah, you must be a terrorist because you are taking pictures or making recordings without permission from the government. He should have been arrested, yeah.
I listened to the oral arguments in e360insight v. Spamhaus and his questions/comments did comport with the ruling. I had one friend who practices in the 1st circuit and does quite a bit of appeal work find that sometimes the winning party gets the harder questioning. So, you can't tell.
In reading the comments about Posner, I was thinking that Posner might have been a bit of tongue in cheek about the argument of if they are allowed to do it, then they might do it.
For e360 to sue is attorney, they would have to show that but for their attorney's action, that they would have won more money, and two given the circumstances, that their attorneys breached the duty of care owed.
If e360 sued, how many milliseconds would it take for Synergy to blame e360 for the bad responses?
There is no "negligence standard." Negligence is, 1. there is a duty, 2. there is a breach of that duty, 3. there is harm that resulted in the breach of that duty. This reaches the employee or contractor when acting within scope of the employment. Telling the employee, don't break traffic laws or don't get into an accident does not insulate from that liability.
CAN-SPAM liability, for an ISP, is either knew or consciously avoided knowing which is a very difficult standard. Defendants in my case claim to enforce their program. However, when asked to produce documents of such Emmanuel Gurtler and David Szpak said, "We don't keep such records." Not only that, they had programmed their web sites to rewrite the URL so that their spam victims cannot identify the affiliate who sent the spam (unless they watch http headers.)
There are two rules when dealing with spammers and their attorneys: 1. Spammers lie, 2. when a spammer says something see rule one. Or in other words, when do you believe a liar?
The TCPA in regards to junk faxes is also a strict liability statute. See Park Univ. Enters., Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, PA, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 1103 (D. Kan. 2004) (“The TCPA is essentially a strict liability statute” where liability can be found for erroneous unsolicited faxes).
The law is well known and has been around since the 90s that if you hire someone who sends junk faxes, you are liable. I can also spoof faxes, but I have not heard much of that.
First of all, this is on DECEPTIVE headers and subject lines, so there is already a wrong and a violation of the I-CAN-SPAM Act.
Second, under 17529.5, there is a provision for reduction of damages, if there are preventative measures in place.
Third, the reality is that most companies that hire spammers will have a policy prohibiting it, but do nothing to enforce that policy. In a case that I am litigating, the Defendants David Szpak and Emmanuel Gurtler decided not to check any of their affiliates, accept defaults judgments on prior lawsuits (totaling over $300k USD). Even after the judgments were satisfied by seizing monies from accounts, they never bothered sending an e-mail or making a phone call to the plaintiffs in those cases to ask which affiliate.
Fourth, in my current litigation, one of the identified affiliates is Yambo Financials (listed on ROSKO since 2004 and associated with Child porn and fake canadian drugs), which turned out to have 17 different affiliate IDs that shared banking/epassport accounts. In fact, Gurtler claimed that once they learned of this, they terminated this "affiliate" but that was a lie, and they didn't terminate all 17 different aliases for this "affiliate."
We should ban passengers in cars because passengers can distract drivers. We should ban putting items on the car seat because if you stop sharply, the items can move and that would distract the driver. We should ban car horns because someone blowing a horn can distract other drivers. We should ban sirens on emergency vehicles because the sirens would distract drivers from the road in front of them. We should ban dihydrogenmonoxide because it can distract drivers when it spills inside the car, when it gets splashed on cars, etc. (I'm ignoring that it is a major component of acid raid and that it is found in a high percentage of cancer cells.)