| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2004 3:21 pm Post subject: Who is Mario Cisneros and will he take out the Internet? |
 |
|
(See also Casino City's First Amendment Challenge at this forum).
Mario Cisneros v. Yahoo, Inc., Google, Inc., et al
(A private attorney general class action brought by Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight on behalf of theCalifornia general public against major Internet websites which promote and advertise illegal Internet gambling in California. Complaint for violations of California Unfair Business Practices statute ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.)
Click on the full document ("the Complaint") filed Aug. 3/04 at California Superior Court in San Francisco County (view here).
See also Lawrence G. Walters' Breakdown of CA Gambling Advertising Suit at Gambling Law Update, which was very kindly sent to us. It remains the first and only effort at disseminating the Complaint we've found so far.
The rule of lawyers in favor of the constitutional rule of law
We begin this investigation with a quote from Walter K. Olson of Overlawyered.com from his excellent and extensively annotated new book, The Rule of Lawyers, How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America's Rule of Law, published in New York by St. Martin's Press in 2003, 2004, which uncovers what he describes as a conspiracy by wealthy law firms working with state attorneys general, whose election campaigns receive significant donations from the firms, to effectively usurp legislative powers constitutionally ascribed to Congress. Here's a sample from the back cover:
| Quote: | Big-ticket litigation is becoming a way of life in this country. But something new is afoot -- something typified by the $246 billion tobacco settlement, and by other courtroom assaults against companies producing guns, cars, breast implants, asbestos, lead paint, and more. Each massive class-action suit seeks to invent a new law to ban, tax, or regulate something that elected lawmakers had chosen to leave alone. And each time the new attack process works as intended, the new litigation elite reaps billions in fees - which they invest in fresh rounds of suits, as well as political contributions.
The Rule of Lawyers asks: Who picks these lawyers, and who can fire them? What protects the public's interest when settlements are negotiated behind closed doors? Where are our elected lawmakers in all this? The answers may determine whether we slip from the rule of law to the rule of lawyers. |
Let's leave that for a moment and return instead to the Complaint to examine the players in the suit and the claim.
Who are Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight?
They are the representative plaintiffs, both Califorinia residents, bringing the action on their own behalf, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated and on behalf of the general public. Scroll to p. 4: Mario Cisneros has not engaged in the Internet gambling activities described in the compliant, though Michael Voight did and lost more than $100,000 doing so. The latter seeks to represent those referred to at p. 48 as the "Gambler Class," defined as:
All California residents who gambled on an illegal Internet gambling website and incurred losses therein. Each found these websites as a result of advertisements contained on defendants' and their affiliates' web pages or search results...The Classes are composed of tens of thousands of persons, the joinder of which would be impracticable. The identities of the individual members are ascertainable through defendants' records or by public notice.
Whew! That's a lot of people purported to have suffered harm, though strangely enough, one of the plaintiffs hasn't. How does that work?
What you're asking is whether complainants must have suffered actual provable harm as a condition to bringing suit. In the U.S., especially in Callifornia, the answer appears to be no. Again, we refer to Walter Olson at p. 90, describing a $2.1 billion Toshiba settlement over a computer flaw that might have caused users to lose data under certain, quite obscure circumstances:
| Quote: | | Many actual owners of Toshiba laptop machines, including many with much technical sophistication, reacted to the announcement of the settlement with gape-mouthed astonishment. Most had never noticed any such glitch, heard about it, or realized that they were being represented in a lawsuit over it. "We never had problems with the disk drives when we were using Toshiba laptops, and our experience with them goes back pretty far," said Jennifer Winch, an information technology (IT) manager at Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). But the lawyers said they had engaged experts who, they said, could demonstrate the data loss happening if you let them set up one of the machines just so. Toshiba, for its part, said it had managed to re-create the flaw only under rather unusual conditions, as when trying to save files to the floppy drive "while simultaneously doing one or two other intensive tasks, such as playing a game or watching a video." This was an unusual combination of demands to place on the laptops in real life... (emphasis ours). |
Here's what attorney Aaron P. Morris of the Morris Law Firm had to say about California's Unfair Competition Law in How to Defeat a Section 17200 Suit Before It Cripples Your Company:
| Quote: | Section 17200 sounded good on paper. If a business was engaging in unfair business practices, it could be sued by Joe Citizen to force the business to get back in line. Under the "Private Attorney General" approach, the plaintiff does not even need to be an injured party (emphasis ours). In theory, instead of relying on the limited resources of the government to root out illicit business practices, this statute would make every citizen a watchdog.
But as is often the case, a good idea can be misused. Some unscrupulous attorneys began using Business and Professions Code Section 17200 as a source of revenue. They would file dozens of suits against businesses based on some questionable claim of unfair business practices, then suggest to the businesses that it would be cheaper to settle the case for a few thousand dollars than to try to mount a defense. As leverage, the attorneys would point out that if the case moved forward, the business would likely be required to participate in extensive and revealing discovery about its business practices...
A private attorney general may be any person, even one who has not experienced the alleged wrongful business practice (emphasis ours). A private attorney general may even be a for-profit corporation formed by a plaintiffs' firm for the express purpose of bringing suits under the state's unfair-competition law. The private attorney general has the ability to represent the "general public": potentially thousands, even millions, of people. |
See also the materials listed under, So how might the search engines fight this claim?
If the claim succeeds, can each member of the Gambler Class expect to enjoy the spoils? (See restitution and disgorgement set out under PRAYER FOR RELIEF at p. 58 of the Complaint).
Good question. The answer may lie, again, in The Rule of Lawyers at p. 84-85 in its description of litigation involving Milli Vanilli. Remember them?
| Quote: | | ...A typical example was the early-1990s flap over the briefly popular singing duo Milli Vanilli who, after fading in popularity with their teenage fans, were revealed not actually to have been singing at all; they had been lip-synching to tracks prerecorded by others. Most young fans appeared willing to shrug off the affair, but not so many of the nation's most prominent class-action firms. They rushed to file more than two dozen suits against Arista Records charging fraud, deception, and all manner of other illegalities, demanding disgorgement by the company of every penny taken in from the sale of the group's albums, et cetera. The lawsuits invariably sought class-action status. When the cases eventually settled, the record company offered a $3 rebate to any customer who could offer proof of having bought one of the band's albums, while the lawyers requested court-ordered fees approaching $2 million (emphasis ours)....The subsequent settlements often involve whopping fee bills for lawyers, even as consumers themselves get the equivalent of the coins found under the sofa cushions. Thus credit card giant MBNA, charged with misleading ad claims, agreed to refund customers $3.57 each, while lawyers requested $1.3 million in court-approved fees; and magazine promoter Publishers Clearing House, charged with overagressive promotion of its sweepstakes, set aside $5.5 million to be divided up as refunds among an estimated 48 million households, an average of twelves cents per household if all were to file claims, while lawyers were set to bag $3 million in fees. The list could be extended indefinitely with similar cases. |
Even more disturbing, here's what the law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan had to say about settlements in An Overview of California's Unfair Competition Law dated February, 2003 at p. 55:
| Quote: | | A defendant in a Section 17200 representative action can settle individually with the named representative plaintiff. Although this practice of "picking off" the named plaintiff without court approval generally is prohibited in true class actions, there is no authority addressing this situation with respect to Section 17200 representative actions. It is also unclear whether a settlement of a non-class, purely representative action will have res judicata effect, although it is highly likely that such settlements will not be enforceable against non-parties. Indeed, a recent California Court of Appeal decision, Payne v. National Collection System, Inc. held that prior settlement of a Section 17200 claim brought by the Attorney General and a district attorney did not provide res judicata protection against a subsequent Section 17200 class action. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Rule of Lawyers
Paperback
By Walter K. Olson
We can't say enough good things about this clear, revealing look at the explosion of mass tort litigation, which seems rarely to benefit true victims despite staggering legal fees. Here's an instructive sample from the Introduction at p. 5., which may explain in a large part why this is so:
| Quote: | | The United States has long had a higher rate of litigation than other advanced democracies, and many of the reasons are not particularly mysterious. Unlike nearly all other countries' legal systems, ours does not observe the sort of "loser pays" or "costs follow the event" principle that, in other countries, gives litigants an incentive to fold their hands on weak positions and consider taking a reasonable settlement. Our system, unlike most others, permits lawyers who file suits to accept a proportionate share of their clients's damages as a contingency fee. Other countries think that tying lawyers' own fortunes so closely to their courtroom success gives them too tempting an incentive to overplay their clients' hands...Punitive damages are handed down in the absence of a range of due-process protections enjoyed by defendants in criminal cases and can be levied repeatedly by juries around the country against the same defendant for the same product. |
In addition to whistle-blowing at Overlawyered.com, one of the best U.S. legal sites in our view, the author, Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is also a nice guy who answers e-mail even when the subject matter may be abhorrent. We know this because before we began deep-sea fishing at his site or reading this book, we tested one of our own legal theories for a mass tort we called faddling intended to benefit people with disabilities beyond the paltry recovery they usually receive based on medieval-style legislation. See our e-mail and Mr. Olson's response by scrolling way-y-y down under Workplace accommodation at disabilities. Maybe we should contact instead Bill Lerach and the state attorneys general? (See below).
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=8#8
Last edited by legal on Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:02 pm; edited 11 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
What can you tell me about the attorneys involved in this suit?
The Complaint lists on the opening page William Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins and Ira Rothken of The Rothken Law Firm as attorneys for the plaintiffs.
Here is the Rothken homepage, highlighting an impressive roster of its recent decisions and here is the Rothken Law Firm Internet Gambling News Page here.
Here are the Lerach firm's victories listed under Prominent Cases here. Note at about mid-page a case that formed part of the big tobacco litigation, which comes under heavy fire in The Rule of Lawyers (see above). Here's what the author had to say about Mr. Lerach at p. 84:
...When a likely occasion for a lawsuit came along, such as a business scandal or sudden stock price drop, class-action lawyers rushed to sue, identifying and installing as complainants token clients who exercised very little control over the suits that went on in their names. ("I have the greatest practice of law in the world," said one of the most famous of their number, Milberg Weiss's Bill Lerach. "I have no clients.") (This is attributed in the book as follows: "I Have No Clients," Forbes (October 11, 1993), quoting William Lerach).
Last edited by legal on Thu Oct 07, 2004 5:04 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
What is the substance of the Complaint?
The Complaint sets this out briefly on its opening page as California Unfair Business Practices statute ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq., a series of provisions that meant nothing to us when we first read the document. They'll never succeed, we also thought. Too many hurdles. Ha. Our tune changed very quickly when we searched the the terms, 'sections 17200,' at defendant Google. Here is the best of what we found:
The law, or rather, the campaign to reform it:
The UCL may best be understood by looking at the California Chamber of Commerce initiative, Californians to Stop Shakedown Lawsuits, a coalition of businesses calling for its reform. The campaign, called Proposition 64, is slated for the November, 2004 ballot. Click here and scroll down to the underlining to see the proposed changes. See also Citizens for a Sound Economy and ReclaimDemocracy.org, Michael Hilzik's Apr. 12/04 article, Lawsuit Reform Initiative By California Corporations Overreaches,which presents a decidedly different view. Here's a troubling example:
...Among those donating $100,000 or more, the bulk of the war chest, one finds Microsoft, BofA, Intel Corp., Blue Cross of California and Southern California Edison. These are outfits that would have no trouble swatting Trevor-like flies who tried to sue them over trivialities; the legal fees involved wouldn't even register on their books as rounding errors. But keeping environmental groups, consumer product organizations and utility watchdogs out of court? Priceless.
Follow the Yes on 64 campaign through to its fall conclusion here or at SoCalLawBlog post, whose bloggers had been trawling - that's right! - Overlawyered.com.
Legislative history:
See Raymond Legislative Research here.
What the experts have said about UCL:
See highlights of the statute and its very broad application in this 2002 article by Christina J. Imre of Sedgwick, Detert here, which calls it "a powerful weapon for plaintiffs and, by many accounts, a plague to businesses." Here is one of the most revealing excerpts:
Perhaps in response to these comments, the legislature made several attempts to refine or cut back on UCL actions, including efforts to provide res judicata effect to judgments or settlements, to bar UCL actions unless plaintiff was a "bona fide" injured client, to require plaintiffs to prove actual or threatened harm, to require compliance with class certification requirements, to ban subsequent actions against the same defendant, and to require plaintiffs to adequately protect the public and be free of conflicts of interest. See SB 109 (2001); AB 2186 (2000); SB 1309 and AB 1295 (1997); SB 143 (1997). All failed.
See also Call it Gonzo law by John H. Sullivan, president of the Civil Justice Association of California, at www.cjac.org (See our recent e-mail to CJAC below); California's Highly Contagious Statute by Nina Schuyler of Burns Doane at www.chieflegalexecutive.com; an excellent overview by Roger Beers law office; The Law that Roared from Media Esq.com ; a very brief overview and interesting links from an extremely cheerful Reed Smith; Beware of your advertising practices by Brent Smith of Manning Leaver and this April 7/04 article, Lawsuit abuse choking California economy by Lance Izumi for the Pacific Research Institute at http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/cap/2004/cap_04-04-07.html. There are loads of others, too, but our clicking thumb grows flaccid. If we've missed yours and you'd like to share it, please send us the URL. We'll happily add it.
Textbooks devoted to UCL:
See Mealey's California Section 17200 Report for $775 at bookstore.lexis.com Here's an excerpt. There's also Severson & Werson's Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 Practice here. Here, too, are materials for a course given by the Rutter Group Continuing Legal Education for lawyers on creative uses of the statute: view here.
Last edited by legal on Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:00 am; edited 12 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Reasonably-priced legal texts on Internet gambling relevant to the case
Look out Lexis-Nexis, a big name in legal publishing. River City Group has your book prices beat by a mile. Check out River City's books. We've only just ordered a selection so we can't vouch for content yet, though we were very impressed with the speed at which they answered our tactful (we hope) inquiries as to the materials' authoritative value.
Here's the e-mail we sent after clicking on one publication's table of contents:
From: legal@pokerpulse.com [mailto:legal@pokerpulse.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 4:30 PM
To: Katie
Cc: legal@pokerpulse.com; Dennis Boyko
Subject: Gambling Law Update Announcement
Hello Katie,
Yes, thank you very much. I have had a look a the clickable table of contents from Advertising and the Law and it looks excellent. Is the format journalistic, primarily, or is it truly aurhoritative in the manner of most legal texts with great whacks of citations and lengthy legal analysis? I'm familiar with Mr. Walters' material online, which blew a rather freshening breeze, we thought, into the dry and complex desert of U.S. Internet gaming law and the length of its reach. Does the electronic version of your text (oh happy day! say yes!) have clickable citations of full judgments with clickable footnotes?
Legal@pokerpulse.com
...and the same-day, assuring response:
From: Lawrence G. Walters
To: legal@pokerpulse.com
Cc: 'Katie'
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 4:22 PM
Subject: Gambling Law Update Announcement
The report is quite comprehensive and supported by legal citations of authority. It is written in my usual style. I hope you enjoy it. If you decide to purchase, I would be interested in your feedback.
Larry Walters, Esq.
www.GameAttorneys.com
407.389.4529
Nice. We'll have a look and review it here. Check back soon.
Note: We ordered the big blue one hoping for a leg up on Internet gaming rules worldwide and that's exactly what we we got about two days after ordering -- a very good, readable, authoritative text, which incidentally includes an A-list of legal experts throughout the world. We have only one question: How soon will the worldwide property law text be ready? We'll take two.
See also Blackjack and the Law by attorneys I. Nelson Rose and Robert A. Loeb here for a very modest $24.95 and Gaming Law: Cases and Materials, 2003 by many law professors at $66: right here.
Last edited by legal on Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:06 am; edited 11 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So how might the search engines fight this claim?
Start with the Prop 64 e-mails we received from the Civil Justice Association of California set out below, but look, too, at these four excellent articles we found searching defendant Google Oct. 18/04 using the terms, 'section 17200 defenses:"
An Overview of California's Unfair Competition Law dated February, 2003, by the Los Angeles, CA law firm, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, a much-expanded version at 60 pages of the 11-page review by the same title dated October, 2003, which is listed at the firm's website under Stroock Publications Archives. This overview provides the most complete online checklist we've found so far on the defenses available to this type of claim supported by all the key holdings by California courts to help predict the likelihood of each one's success. Some of the defenses include proof the business practice is expressly authorized by statute, is not unfair, is similarly provided by defendant's competitor(s), requires plaintiff exercise a choice by performing some act, such as entering into an obligation, is not false and deceptive merely because it will be unreasonably misunderstood by an insignificant and unrepresentative segment of the class of persons to whom the representation is made, and that's just the beginning. There is also what known as the "puffing" defense for advertising no reasonable person would rely on (see p. 22)and a special "Anti-SLAPP" motion to strike a free speech-related action which, if successful, stays expensive and wide-ranging pre-trial discovery (see p. forty-eight).
We got quite an education in civil litigation California-style from this piece and highly recommend it to anyone bravely considering a business in the wild, wild west.
For brevity, however, it's hard to beat How to Defeat a Section 17200 Suit Before it Cripples Your Company by Aaron P. Morris of the Morris Law Firm. In just over two pages, Mr. Morris explains, in a nutshell, the biggest risk with a s. 17200 claim:
| Quote: | The business not only must be concerned with state exposure but also must realize that a California court's finding that a business has engaged in "unlawful" "unfair" or "fraudulent" business practice could spawn copycat litigation nationwide.
For these reasons, defense counsel must defeat a private attorney action as near to the beginning of the case as possible. The Rosenbluth, Searle and Gregory decisions provide new tools to do just that. (See artcle for citations). |
Ironically, Consumer Law, Class Actions, and the Common Law by Michael S. Greve, even includes in his analysis a link to this Feb. 26/03 press release regarding the suit filed by Attorney General Bill Lockyer against the Trevor Law Group under - you guessed it - UCL, the same law the firm was accused of abusing. (See Footnote 136 of p. 176 just below Conclusion and also p. 7 of the April, 2004 discipline report of the State Bar of California, which describes its investigation of the Trevor Group as the largest in the state bar's history. The report states further that the firm's three attorney were successfully persuaded to resign).
We also liked James R. Wheaton's Bus. & Prof. Code 17200: The Biggest Hammer in the Tool Box?. Despite its focus on environmental law, we couldn't help admiring this short paragraph for its unique illustration and helpful reference:
| Quote: | | It is tempting to advise a client sued under Section 17200 to heed the advice of the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz: "Surrender Dorothy." While sound, the situation is not quite so bleak. One of the leading practitioners in the field for the defense bar, Gail Lees of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, has prepared an extensive paper on the topic, The Defense of Government and Private Class and 'Quasi-Class' Actions Under the 'Little FTC' Acts. While it covers much more than just Section 17200, it does provide a detailed road map to defense counsel faced with a compliant, and to plaintiffs' counsel in evaluating a case |
.
Unfortunately, we have been unable to obtain a copy of that report online, but please check back soon for updates. Please let us know, too, if you have any questions for the authors, who have managed successfully, in our view, to make this extremely complex material readable and somewhat understandable. We understand now how a first-year associate in California might reasonably earn $125 KU.S., not including bonuses.
The Wizard of Oz
DVD
(This fabulously re-mastered edition is simply vulgar with color. The story's author, Lyman Frank Baum, would likely swing from a chandelier and chew chunks from the ceiling if he could see these ruby slippers).
Last edited by legal on Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:33 pm; edited 12 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Proposition 64 on California's November, 2004 ballot - Update
See http://www.stopshakedownlawsuits.com/.
From: info@stopshakedownlawsuits.com
To: legal@pokerpulse.com
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 11:13 AM
Subject: Prop 64 Update: Protecting CA's Small Business
The fight to protect California's small business from "Shakedown Lawsuits" was in full swing last week. An advertisement in last Monday's and Wednesday's Sacramento Bee exposed the trial lawyers' devious attempts to 'gut and amend' a bill in the legislature and sell it to the media as a potential compromise. On Friday, another ad unveiling the truth about Prop 64 ran in the Sacramento Bee.
The campaign released a report from the legislature's former top attorney and a member of the state bar's environmental law section showing that Proposition 64 would not diminish any of California's tough environment laws.
Finally, dozens of coalition members sent letters to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger urging him to support Proposition 64 and stand up to the powerful trial lawyer lobby.
We continue to need your help. Our coalition is growing faster than ever --every week we are adding new businesses, associations and elected officials. Please encourage your friends to support Proposition 64 by forwarding this link www.stopshakedownlawsuits.com/help_signup.html to business associates, colleagues and family members.
We'll continue to keep you updated.
If this email was forwarded to you, sign up yourself by visiting www.yeson64.org.
If you would like to be removed from the list, please e-mail info@stopshakedownlawsuits.com.
PAID FOR BY YES ON 64 -- CALIFORNIANS TO STOP SHAKEDOWN LAWSUITS, A COALITION OF TAXPAYERS, AUTOMOBILE DEALERS, BUSINESS GROUPS AND CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM SUPPORTERS INCLUDING ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, INC. AND CALIFORNIA MOTOR CAR DEALERS ASSOCIATION FUND TO STOP SHAKEDOWN LAWSUITS COMMITTEE
3001 Douglas Blvd, Suite 225, Roseville, CA 95661
We respect your online privacy. If you would like to be removed from this list, please click here.
Last edited by legal on Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:35 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What effect might a yes vote have on Mario Cisneros?
From: "John Sullivan" <sullivan@CJAC.org>
To: <Legal@pokerpulse.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:19 AM
Subject: Your Question
Proposition 64 will prohibit lawsuits under the state's "Gonzo Law" when they are attempted to be filed by private lawyers with no client or no evidence of damage or other economic loss. It will prevent private lawyer lawsuits on behalf of the general public. It will not affect lawsuits brought by district attorneys or the state attorney general.
John H. Sullivan
President
Civil Justice Association of California
1201 K Street, Suite 1960
Sacramento, CA 95814
phone: 916-443-4900
fax: 916-443-4306
e-mail: sullivan@cjac.org
Last edited by legal on Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From: <legal@pokerpulse.com>
To: "John Sullivan" <sullivan@CJAC.org>
Cc: <legal@pokerpulse.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Your Question
Thanks a ton. We'll post that right away.
Legal@pokerpulse.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More from the non-profit California Civil Justice Association
From: Jeff Sievers
To: 'Legal@pokerpulse.com'
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 1:40 PM
Subject: FW: Mario Cisneros and California's Gonzo law
I have received your e-mail message and would be happy to discuss this issue.
We are aware of the private complaint filed by attorney Bill Lerach against the search engines advertising internet gambling, but not aware of a justice department lawsuit.
Feel free to contact me by voice or email and we can discuss this in greater detail.
Thank you for your inquiry.
Jeff
Jeff Sievers
Vice President - Legislation
Civil Justice Association of California
1201 K Street, Suite 1960
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.443.4900
916.443.4306 fax
jsievers@cjac.org
Last edited by legal on Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More questions from us:
From: legal@pokerpulse.com [mailto:legal@pokerpulse.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 9:30 AM
To: Jeff Sievers
Cc: legal@pokerpulse.com
Subject: Mario Cisneros and California's Gonzo law
Hello Jeff,
You are most kind. Sorry if we are a nuisance. The Complaint states in the opening intro and summary that it is "a private attorney general action brought on behalf of the California general public against the major search engine websites which promote and advertise illegal Internet gambling in California." It states further that the plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement and forfeiture of all revenues and profits from such activity. These are to go to a fund to be used for purposes directed by the court. We're assuming all this means some level of government involvement in the suit, but how does that work, particularly in the context of this strange (to us) business tort/criminal statute? Anything you could tell us would be greatly appreciated.
Are there any spectacular failures involving 17200 you can think of that might indicate possible defences to this claim? We'd love to get our hands on the big $775 Mealey's textbook devoted to 17200 but none of our law libraries carries it. Nor does the local law school devote much (almost none) attention to U.S. law so there's no one here really to talk with. What we need is about four semesters on your Constitution alone and then another year on the tension between Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Thanks again.
Legal@pokerpulse.com
Last edited by legal on Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:47 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And the instantaneous response:
From: Jeff Sievers
To: 'legal@pokerpulse.com'
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 9:37 AM
Subject: RE: Mario Cisneros and California's Gonzo law
What I can tell you is that plaintiffs are being sued by a private firm and there is no governmental entity involved. The law allows a private lawyer to file a lawsuit and allege a defendant has done something unfair, illegal, or fruadulent. They can seek restitution, and attorneys fees. Disgorgement is usually not allowed. This is a great deal for plaintiffs because there is virtually no defense.
Visit our website to read up on 17200 at www.cjac.org.
Our initiative will prevent this lawsuit against these companies in the future, but for now, it appears they are just the latest victims.
Hope this helps.
Jeff
Last edited by legal on Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Disgorgement to whom?
From: legal@pokerpulse.com
To: Jeff Sievers
Cc: legal@pokerpulse.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 2:08 PM
Subject: Mario Cisneros and California's Gonzo law
Thank you again. The materials you suggest are both forceful and instructive. We're still concerned, however, about the claim in the Complaint for disgorgement and forfeiture. If the government is not involved, to whom would the unlucky plaintiffs disgorge if the action succeeds, and which set of rules would apply to the management and distribution of a damage award/settlement? Is there a public watchdog in California overseeing these sums, ensuring, at least, that plaintiffs get their share?
Legal@pokerpulse.com
Note: CJAC runs a first-class legal website generally, in our view, but the material on 17200 is particularly prescient in this case. See especially California's Notorious "17200" - Written by Lewis Carroll, Adapted by Stephen King? by CJAC president John H. Sullivan and California's Unfair Competition Law, Fee-seeking Lawyers' Weapon of Choice by Fred J. Hiestand, CJAC general counsel at http://www.cjac.org/bp17200/index.html, both of which seemed to us uncharacteristically strong for the usually more reserved legal profession. We're reading it as an indicator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The short answer:
From: Jeff Sievers
To: 'legal@pokerpulse.com'
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 2:29 PM
Subject: Mario Cisneros and California's Gonzo law
The short answer is the plaintiffs' get to determine everything and they take a large share in fees. Most of the cases settle because of the huge leverage the plaintiffs have over the defendant. Once again, the initiative will take care of this problem.
I would encourage you or the search engines to contact us regarding funding the initiative to make this problem go away.
Sorry, but my time is limited and focused on passing the intiative.
I hope this helps.
Jeff
Last edited by legal on Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:50 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A note of thanks
From: legal@pokerpulse.com
To: Jeff Sievers
Cc: legal@pokerpulse.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 11:54 AM
Subject: Mario Cisneros and California's Gonzo law
Jeff,
Thank you hugely. We do indeed run the Yes on 64 banner along with links to various articles, texts, cases and so on to explain the coalition's initiative. UCL's passage at all through the legislature greatly puzzles us in view of the vast array of conflicting maxims, but your work here is done. We will continue to plumb your site as well as Overlawyered.com for updates, and we will be watching California very closely in November. You have all worked very hard on this initiative in the noblest legal tradition. Best of luck with it and thanks again for your help.
Legal@pokerpulse.com
Last edited by legal on Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
