Subrogation in California

[Litigation!]

What happened was IAAL went beserk and started posting racial and insulting comments all over the place. He was banned from the forum, then re-appeared a couple of times under different screen names, just to do the same. Last one he did was to start randomly throwing in posts asking for apology from M A R Y. Hope I stated facts correctly, IAAL

My response:

Thanks for the information. I have received that information from others, too. I assure you, I had no knowledge of these things happening, and I came back here to a bunch of slop! Now, I'm left to "clean up the mess."

Look, if you have somehow been "slighted" by my Paralegal, I take full responsibility and I apologize to you. She was my employee, and I gave her my sign-in information to come to this forum to continue while I was away. I had no idea that she would abuse the privilege. Believe me, this has been just as much of a mystery to me as it has been for others.

Sure, I can be "crusty", and I make no apologies for that. I will always base my responses on the law. However, I have come to discover that my Paralegal crossed way, way, way, over the line and left me hanging in the wind.

I don't know what else to say.

IAAL

 

[Veronica1228]

The truth would be a nice change of pace.

 

[Litigation!]

The truth would be a nice change of pace.

My response:

Hi Veronica. Still want to come out to Los Angeles?

The truth? This is the truth. I guess I'm going to have the crap beaten out of me for some time to come. Boy, what a mess!

IAAL

 

[john123456]

What happened was this:

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=1247798&highlight=blog#post1247798

 

[Litigation!]

What happened was this:

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=1247798&highlight=blog#post1247798

My response:

Since everyone's level of sensitivity and tolerance is different, can you please define what "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass" means - - especially since these words, in my knowledge of law, are vague, ambiguous, unintelligible and overbroad?

It's like trying to define when a string becomes a rope, or at what point a boat becomes a ship. Everyone's "levels" are different.

What happens when, as happens quite frequently on these forums, someone becomes annoyed, or feels abused, threatened, or harassed when they don't like the legal view, or for god's sake, the ACTUAL law? Are we, the writers and bearers of that "bad news" held accountable?

The Federal law that you quote appears to be unenforceable because that law depends on "human emotion" which differs in each one of us. Who is to judge the definitions of "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass"? Remember, too, that there is plenty of case law on this subject, defending the First Amendment and finding in favor of the writer.

What is glaringly apparent, however, is that this "law" seems to be a Liberal "Do-Gooders" attempt to "placate" people with "thin skins." The "law" won't work.

IAAL

 

[Goddess Vicky]

My response:

Since everyone's level of sensitivity and tolerance is different, can you please define what "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass" means - - especially since these words, in my knowledge of law, are vague, ambiguous, unintelligible and overbroad?

It's like trying to define when a string becomes a rope, or at what point a boat becomes a ship. Everyone's "levels" are different.

What happens when, as happens quite frequently on these forums, someone becomes annoyed, or feels abused, threatened, or harassed when they don't like the legal view, or for god's sake, the ACTUAL law? Are we, the writers and bearers of that "bad news" held accountable?

The Federal law that you quote appears to be unenforceable because that law depends on "human emotion" which differs in each one of us. Who is to judge the definitions of "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass"? Remember, too, that there is plenty of case law on this subject, defending the First Amendment and finding in favor of the writer.

What is glaringly apparent, however, is that this "law" seems to be a Liberal "Do-Gooders" attempt to "placate" people with "thin skins." The "law" won't work.

IAAL

Oh, call me crazy, but I think something like, oh, say for instance, " Mary, suck my d**k " might be construed as annoying.

 

[Just Blue]

My response:

Since everyone's level of sensitivity and tolerance is different, can you please define what "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass" means - - especially since these words, in my knowledge of law, are vague, ambiguous, unintelligible and overbroad?

It's like trying to define when a string becomes a rope, or at what point a boat becomes a ship. Everyone's "levels" are different.

What happens when, as happens quite frequently on these forums, someone becomes annoyed, or feels abused, threatened, or harassed when they don't like the legal view, or for god's sake, the ACTUAL law? Are we, the writers and bearers of that "bad news" held accountable?

The Federal law that you quote appears to be unenforceable because that law depends on "human emotion" which differs in each one of us. Who is to judge the definitions of "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass"? Remember, too, that there is plenty of case law on this subject, defending the First Amendment and finding in favor of the writer.

What is glaringly apparent, however, is that this "law" seems to be a Liberal "Do-Gooders" attempt to "placate" people with "thin skins." The "law" won't work.

IAAL

AMAN BROTHER!

 

[Just Blue]

Oh, call me crazy, but I think something like, oh, say for instance, " Mary, suck my d**k " might be construed as annoying.

Your little post in Domestic Violence was annoying...