« Holiday Inn Express | Main | Monday Reader Mail: 22 »
November 28, 2004
What Could This Mean?
By QBlog in
According to court documents Scott Larsen was scheduled to meet with the leaders of Team of Destiny (aka TEAM) on November 22, 2004, as part of a court ordered mediation. The purpose of the mediation was to seek a resolution to the lawsuit filed by Team of Destiny in March.
So what was the result of that November 22 mediation? Well, I don't know and it's quite possible that Larsen is prohibited from discussing the results. However, a little Web sleuthing provides some revealing information... or more accurately a lack of information.
If you do a Google search for Team of Destiny the third result is Larsen's page titled "Team of Destiny Alternative view - Is it a pyramid?" The URL for that page is listed as www.amquix.info/tod.html. But what happens when you click the link? Instead of viewing a page with "Team of Destiny Alternative View" we see this message: "Please wait to be forwarded to the new page." The two-second redirect goes to a page titled "Quixtar - What is it about? Alternative and Opposing views" which is quite different from the original page about Team of Destiny. For now there is a Google Cache of the original Team of Destiny page which you can visit and use to compare to the "new" page. And for further comparisons, check out the archive.org page (from March 12, 2004) which is different from the Google Cache.
So, why did Larsen completely change his TOD pages without any explanation? Did he lose his lawsuit? Is he employing some new strategy? Or maybe it's just some simple housecleaning? I honestly don't know. I'm not a big fan of people removing or significantly altering their Web sites without explanation but dude can do what he wants I suppose. As I said before, I get the feeling that things didn't quite work out in Larsen's favor but again, I'm only speculating. That's about all I can do till Larsen decides to enlighten us.
Comments
I don't think you can lose a lawsuit in mediation. If you were clever you could run the options in your mind to what options were offered in the mediation.
Why don't you stop speculating about the whole issue. When someone finally sues you, you might find out out it is like to possibly spend tens of thousands on legal fees with no end in sight. Don't worry your day will come and you can learn first hand how corrupt and inefficient the US legal system is.
Why don't you ask Larsen if anybody actually gave him money to support the suit? Maybe he decided that he should not stick his neck out if the people he serves can't even pnoy up a few bucks for the cause.
Oh, I'm not clever enough. Thought you figured that out by now. Why don't you run the options for us?
Punk.
And another thing, who the hell cares if people gave him money to support his suit? Who does he "serve?" You have a very perverted view of this or maybe I'm just too stupid to understand.
Well it will be interestig to see if TOD comes after Eric J. now. Maybe they had enough with Larsen but they got Ty Tribble to fold. I bet step by step they will harass their critics until they go away.
Who bets Qblog is next on the TOD list?
TOD is dead.... TEAM is the king. visit the Axis of Evil at TeamTeams.com and the-team.biz.
Course, Orrin and his minions can kiss my hairy white @$$, they probably won't... but they can.
QBlog doesn't focus on Orrin WOodward, he talks about all the groups and the Quixtar/Amway symbiotic relationship.
Orrin will go after those that focus specifically on him.... like me? Could I be next?
Stay tuned ... same scam time... same scam channel!
They are doing what they have been doing since the very first critic site came up.
But I do wonder: How much they suffer? Lawsuit is not a joke. I'm not commenting on this case as I don't know about the outcome yet but lets say a critic faced enough financial drawbacks and says this is too much for me and I rather delete few pages. (an update would be nice, if permitted by law...)
Now, what does plaintiff lost? Reputation? Lost revenue? They don't sue ppl for fun. It's kinda survival for them. Last resort type of thing.
Just sunday thoughts.
I truly hope he was not forced to submit to their demands, though it certainly has to a very exhausting thing - having to fight for his first amendment rights all the time.
Perhaps he had to show "good faith" by disabling the pages temporarily while they go through the mediation process?
Anyway, as you say, Qblog, it's all speculation until we hear something from Scott.
But the sound of silence is ominous...
Dude said:
Why don't you stop speculating about the whole issue.
Why Dude? Is it getting to you? Unless you are one of the ones taught NOT to speculate.
Dude's upline calling:
Dude! Where is my car?
It'll be very difficult to sue a blog or a forum provider for defamation since all the court ruling have been to treat them as personal view.
Scott L is different since he have a website which provide "The Web's largest public collection of Quixtar and Amway information", so he's treated almost like a newspaper. As such, he's more open to defamation suit.
Maybe so Jen but they didn't sue him for defamation, just copyright infringement and wiretapping. They never once, in the entire complaint, said his comments were false.
There's no question that Scott used TEAM/TOD(tm) copyright material (info was taken from TOD special access site). Only question is whether Scott usage fall under the "fair use". Guess that's for the court to decide.
As to the wiretapping, if TOD(tm) follow the same format was WWG, the seminar/rally portion is for registered & affiliated IBO only. From the complaint, Scott went to one of these under an assumed name, Scott Brown. I'm assuming Scott was neither a registered nor affiliated IBO, so he shouldn't have been there. From what info I can glean from the complaint, I believe Scott violated the law.
Lawdawg, in his blog, stated the suit was without merit, so I'll defer what little legal knowledge I have to him. Of course, the final judgement is from the court. I hope Scott can tell us about the outcome of the mediation.
Since the complaint were for copyright infringement & wiretapping, Scott comment wouldn't be material, so I don't see why TOD(tm) would comment on his comment. If they had sue him for libel, then it would be pertinent. Guess that why they didn't sue him for libel.
Just to be clear, in the American judicial system, a lawsuit doesn't have to have any merit to be successful. The goal of the suit against Scott Larsen was to make it expensive for him and spend him in to shutting up.
Absolutely, the claims have no merit. I have little doubt that a court would find Scott's site to be fair use. However, the system is set up to take years to get to that point.
In the meantime, big corporations can misuse the courts to take a dump on your civil rights.
Want to really make a difference? Urge your state's legislators to pass a sweeping anti-SLAPP statute. That's a special law that gives you the right to sue people or companies that misuse the courts to abuse your free speech rights. Michigan doesn't have such a statute.
For more info see www.chillingeffects.com
lawDawg
lawDawg,
I'm curious. How much would Scott need to spend to defend his right if he were to take the judicial system to the end? How long would it take to work its way?
Also, I see in the complaint the plaintiff asked for attorney fee. If Scott win, would he be able to do likewise and ask for attorney fee?
Jen,
Including appeals it could take several YEARS.
It is almost impossible to guess what the legal fees would be, but they could very easily be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars if the litigation went on for more than a year or two. The alternative would be to appear pro se in Michigan (half way around the world from where Scott lives).
As far as attorneys' fees, the federal copyright laws do allow recovery of attorneys' fees in some cases where the plaintiff prevails. Otherwise, U.S. courts follow the "American Rule," which is that each side bears its own fees. So TOD could get its fees from Scott in the highly unlikely instance that they prevailed. But the only way for Scott to get his fees paid is to have the judge declare that the suit was brought by TOD in bad faith and award "sanctions" to Scott. That sort of order is EXTREMELY RARE. Judges do not do a good job (IMO) of policing friviolous lawsuits or sanctioning bad faith conduct in our courts.
lawDawg,
I recalled Scott filed a motion to dismiss. What need to be met for the judge to dismiss the case (I'm presuming this is the fastest/cheapest way out of any lawsuit)? How much would attorney fee be in this case?
How does the anti-SLAPP law (http://www.casp.net/menstate.html) work with the internet in determining which state the lawsuit go? For example, I live in California with anti-SLAPP and TEAM is in Michigan without anti-SLAPP.
Any chance of a federal anti-SLAPP law passing?
For Scott to win a Motion to Dismiss (often called a "12(b)(6) motion" after the procedural rule on which it's based) he would have to prove that there is no way TOD could recover from him even if everything they claimed in their complaint were true. Any doubts or disagreements about the facts would be resolved against dismissal.
The vast majority of these statutes simply add a level of procedure to an ongoing lawsuit - which would make it very difficult to bring an anti-SLAPP counterclaim in a case pending in a non-anti-SLAPP state. California's works this way:
http://www.casp.net/cal425.html
I don't know if there would be a workable way to write a federal anti-SLAPP suit. There was an ill-fated attempt in 1995 to enact just such a statute by a citizens action group called HALT.
http://www.casp.net/halt.html#bill
So if TOD had sued Scott in California, Scott could use the anti-SLAPP. TOD will then have to show that it could win. If not, then TOD will have to pay Scott attorney's fees. So that would make it difficult to file stupid lawsuit in Califonia??
In states without anti-SLAPP, the defendant is SOL then?
Why would state not want to enact anti-SLAPP?
You are pretty much correct.
The reason some states don't have them is that they are a fairly new development and not every state has caught up. That's why I urge citizens to check to see if their state has one and, if not, start a campaign to draft one and start lobbying their state legislators to pass an anti-SLAPP statute.
hey LawDawg,
how are you with Trademark law?
If I say that something is "trademarked" or a "trademark of" my business and I do not have a registered trademark with the USPTO, just an assumed name at the state level, can I forbid use of the so called "trademark" by other people?
Here you go, Roger. From the horse's mouth:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm
LawDawg said:
Here you go, Roger. From the horse's mouth:
I say:
Thanks! I checked out the page, and so I am gonna ask directly aboout the second part... where it asks "When can I use the trademark symbols TM, SM and ®?"
It says you can only use the ® AFTER the the mark has been registered and not before. So does that mean all the uses of it after the word TEAM is fraudulent or improper on Orrin's website etc? Seeing as a search of USPTO records doesn't show TEAM as being registered to Orrin Woodward, in any incarnation or spelling...even as an acronym.
I mean he can say Team TM and not use the ®, but he explicitely states it is a registered trademark when it isn't. at best it has been filed, but is not listed.
Or is it fine as long as his TM use of the word TEAM doesn't apply to the other trademark owners use of TEAM? Like Apple is a Trademark of Apple computers when applied to computers, but not to washing machines?
anyone who doubts the team is saddly mistaken i see talk and hear from the people on the team and i can tell you first hand how helpful these people are. nobody forces anything on me i made the choice to invest in the training system and i use i all the time. it has helped me in almost every aspect of my life and the only reason spouses of so called brain washed team members get so ruffled is because that spouse is starting to grow a spine and stand up for themselves, due to the system.
I must say I am an IBO. My family has extensive business and entrepreneurial background. Growing up and learning that atmosphere and people, I can say I was somewhat equipped with people skills. That being said, being an IBO I was never over-promised on anything. I knew what I was getting myself into. Everything takes work. Fact of life. Yet we are already working so hard as is. I confess I haven't been the best person with the business, because I have'nt done anything. I think the issue comes down to the individual not the organization. All these critics have also been given the same opportunity. Again it comes down to activity. (Oh so you mean it is just like everything else in life?) Duh. Most people look for a handout naturally. We as a part of the team understand that we've already wasted time with some people. Are we wasting their time?, or are we wasting ours?
Business, raising children, jobs, etc. are not scratch lottery tickets. I hit a nerve there! But, these hypocrites that say they want more out of life aren't preparing and then taking action they are still waiting for their lottery ticket. So I suggest if you have read this, then copy it and paste it to somewhere that matters where most people can read it. But, you will not do that if you are secretly bluffing or lying. Although I haven't acheived everything I wanted to yet through the team, these people are changing lives and fulfilling people at the very least with more hope than any other tv program, family member or opportunity could ever offer.
STILL HAVE THE 'BROKE' LOTTERY MENTALITY NOW?
I just read through The Merchants of Deception book. I can't imagine having to face a seemingly endless flow of the bully attorneys of groups like TOD and Quixtar whose sole purpose is to discredit and destroy dissenting opinion.
In the end, it is indeed about money. It's not the money they claim they will help you make. It is the money they will bleed from you through the system as they exploit your dreams and goals for their own profit.
Posted by: Kendall | November 28, 2004 1:46 AM