Internet Brands ("IB") knew about the pair doing this. We know they knew about this because IB sued (or countersued) the Wait brothers for not giving them notice of what what going on with Flanders and Callum (the rapists) before the purchase.
IB is hurt here by judicial estoppel, as it claims it was harmed by the failure to warn and now it is being sued for failure to warn.
I saw the historical documents about the prisoners of war in Stalag 13 who despite being prisoners, went out and committed acts of sabotage. If prisoners of war can go out and commit sabotage, why can't someone in prison commit crimes?
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?