Our Further Response To Australian Lawyer Stuart Gibson, Who Continues To Threaten Us
from the please-read-it dept
This past Friday, we published our response to an Australian lawyer, Stuart Gibson, who apparently works for a real law firm called Mills Oakley. I know that Gibson is a real lawyer, because he's represented big famous clients in the press before, including this impressive TV appearance in which he is left "categorically denying" statements that his client appears to have made directly and then having to defend himself when the news anchor points out what his client has actually said. Anyway, Mr. Gibson did not appear to appreciate my blog post on Friday, and sent a series of short emails over the weekend, with increasing fervor, in which he insisted that I "get proper legal advice instead of publishing your utter dribble," that my "legal theories" were "nonsensical" and finally demanded to know if I had "the guts" to face him in court.I, as you know, am not a lawyer -- either in the US or Australia -- and honestly had no idea that one was supposed to make legal decisions based on whether or not one had "the guts." I had always assumed that this was the kind of thing that you need for bar brawls, rather than legal fights. But perhaps things are different down under. Either way, I did get "proper legal advice" (as I had before publishing my original post, but we'll leave that aside), and given Gibson's increasing email threats, our lawyer, the wonderful and well-regarded Paul Alan Levy from Public Citizen Litigation Group, has now responded to Gibson on our behalf. You can read it by following the link or embedded below.
In the meantime, others in the legal blogging world have begun to weigh in on Gibson's threat, including lawyer Scott Greenfield, who dubbed it Stuart Gibson's Really Bad Idea, and lawyer Ken White who noted that Milorad Trkulja is "not a gangster" but "Stuart Gibson Is, I Suppose, A Lawyer." I would recommend reading both posts, for further legal analysis of Mr. Gibson's threats (and make sure you stick around for his email exchange with Ken White). One wonders if this is the kind of publicity that Mills Oakley likes its lawyers to get.
Update: Stuart Gibson has replied to Paul's letter simply stating: "I wouldn't even be bothered to open this Spam." Apparently, Gibson thinks that detailed responses that actually include citations (unlike his own threat letters) from some of the most respected litigators around are "Spam." And the reputation of Mills Oakley continues to spiral down the drain...
Update, the second: Levy responded to Gibson by inserting the full text of the letter in the body of an email so that Gibson would not have to "open" the PDF he originally sent, and Gibson responded "Don't bother pal." Less than a minute later, he sent another email to Levy, saying just "Dribble." At this point I'm confused about Gibson and Mills Oakley and how they operate. Gibson himself had specifically requested that I seek out legal advice in responding to his letter. I have done so. And now he refuses to even read it? This is the professionalism that Mills Oakley and its lawyers demonstrate?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-slapp, australia, defamation, free speech, milorad trkulja, paul levy, slapp, speech act, stuart gibson
Companies: mills oakley
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And to our left you can see a lawyer that is adding to the pile of contempt people feel for the law. Censorious douches who pray that you, not understanding the actual law, will just capitulate to their demands.
On our right you can see a lawyer who is fed up with these idiots bringing the profession into disrepute. He cites the actual law, clearly supports his position, and corrects the word choices of someone who has devolved into a blathering ball of self-indulgent indignation.
My great concern now is that the alleged 'not a gangster' will cast a spell on all of us reading this causing us great harm unless we forward his email threats to 35 people in the next 10 minutes. I might be a "bad guy" but I never faced excommunication from a church (or sued my current barrister trying to get money back).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone else read this and immediately think of those silly "how to speak Australian" beer commercials from a few years back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stuart Gibson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are You Sure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are You Sure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are You Sure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are You Sure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are You Sure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are You Sure?
In the absence of other information that would tend to controvert that belief, it does seem reasonable to presume that Mr Stuart Gibson, of Melbourne, a partner at Mills Oakley Lawyers, is in control of the sgibson@millsoakley.com.au account that appeared on the head of the document we saw in the previous Techdirt story.
Why wouldn't I believe that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Single Publication Rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Single Publication Rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Single Publication Rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Single Publication Rule
If you publish a book, and I find it in a public library or a bookstore fifty years later, does that now mean it was published again?
If you publish something on the intarweb tubes, and someone reads if fifty days later, does that now mean it was published again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stay or Go?
This is not a case you should would want to highlight when selling your services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stay or Go?
On Obama's 2012 re-election Donald Trump declared "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty." People joked that Trump thought he was Napoleon. And of course a person thinking that they're Napoleon is a old cliché for mental illness.
Judging by Gibson, Trump really is the new Napoleon. Who knew?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stay or Go?
Where's your sense of adventure? I'd book a holiday for the whole family and write it off as a business expense. Think of the circus this Gibson's offering TD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stay or Go?
Now, if he were traveling with a false passport wearing Groucho Marx glasses, things might be different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stay or Go?
I know very little about Australian law but is alleged defamation really an extraditable offense?
Please explain the exact circumstances in which said defamation perpetrator would be required to travel to a foreign country to face trial on charges which are perfectly legal in their own country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stay or Go?
My comment was responding to Gibson’s challenge to Mike to have the 'guts' to meet him in court. Gibson meant in Australia, where an uneven playing field exists. If Mike were to travel to Australia for any reason, and Gibson still had the desire, he could probably force Mike into a courtroom. I am guessing that if Australia was ever on Mikes dream vacation list, it is probably many notches lower now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stay or Go?
That said:
But Mike loves this !@#$! :-) It'd be fun. I am now foreseeing the TD Australian Nutbar Lawyer Junket that Mike's about to announce is selling to TD Insiders. Side trips to the Great Barrier Reef and a couple of NASA funded observatories in the outback are scheduled too. It'll be beamed straight to YouTube and TPB data storage CC-Y... licencing, James Comey's agreed to be MC at the closing night dance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stay or Go?
defamation perpetrator would be required to travel to a
foreign country to face trial on charges which are
perfectly legal in their own country."
"There is no extradition that I am aware of in this
case, and no way Gibson could win a judgment in
California, which is in the US."
Y'all are confusing criminal and civil law. Extradition only occurs for criminal cases. In civil cases, if the defendant is a foreign person or corporation, then then only money damages are at issue (not prison time), so there is no need for the court to extradite the defendant's physical body from one country to another.
If the foreign defendant loses the case, the plaintiff can seize any assets the foreign defendant has in the country to satisfy the judgment. If the foreign defendant has no assets in the country, the plaintiff has to take his judgment to the courts in the foreign defendant's country and ask them to enforce it.
In the present case, if Trkulja/Gibson do that, the US court will look at the judgment, see that it doesn't comply with US principles of free speech and due process, and reject enforcement of it under the SPEECH Act.
At no point will Masnick ever be in danger of extradition to Australia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stay or Go?
This is why anyone who insists that Dotcom should just give up and go to the US is missing the point.
They went after him after bulldozing a bunch of laws. On what planet do you believe that such an adversarial group would actually accord you the appropriate rights offered by the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stay or Go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stay or Go?
Pretty much any time the subject comes up in fact you'll have someone chiming in and claiming that if Dotcom was really innocent he'd never have fought extradition at all and would have immediately headed to the US for his pre-determined sentencing, and that by fighting extradition he's only demonstrating his guilt, because clearly the US courts are just completely unbiased and would absolutely offer him a fair trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stay or Go?
I think it's fair to say that if you think people should leave the country they are in, to go to some other country which they supposedly violated the laws of from their home in the country they are in to face trial for laws they are not subject to, you are a nutjob, and can be safely ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aussie
"Take concrete pill and harden the fuck up mate"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About his response to Levy's letter
Gibson thus puts convincing and final proof on the table that he does not know what spam is.
First, it not a proper noun nor an acronym, thus is never spelled "Spam" unless it begins a sentence, and certainly not "SPAM" in any case.
Second, the canonical definition of spam is "unsolicited bulk email". While Levy's communication is of course email, it is neither unsolicited (having been sent in response to Gibson's threats) nor bulk (since it is a single message).
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised at this development, given what else has transpired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: About his response to Levy's letter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: About his response to Levy's letter
Would you be willing to bank on that? Or would you need some additional searching to verify that yourself—given today's 'net environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
et tu Stuart Gibson?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: et tu Stuart Gibson?
Popcorn, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: et tu Stuart Gibson?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: et tu Stuart Gibson?
What case? This's all just mano a mano threatening. Until something's filed in court, this's just bluster, not anything the authorities need concern themselves with.
The Internet (web) says "Pics, or it didn't happen." Same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: About his response to Levy's letter
IDK, I've always thought of those damn e-mails as "Specially Processed American Meats", maybe WWII Brits were just ahead of their time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: About his response to Levy's letter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: About his response to Levy's letter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: About his response to Levy's letter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got my popcorn. This is gonna be funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clockwise, or counter-clockwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
On their home page they say, "Mills Oakley is a rapidly growing Australian commercial law firm, resourced by over 75 partners and more than 500 staff...", so I think I can conclude that this Stuart Gibson is probably an unpaid intern who is probably working off the books. Oh, no, wait, he's actually one of their 500 staff. Not even high enough up to have the photographer help him look a little better. Blue tie with grey suit? Unfocused look. Not looking at the camera, but off into the distance. Wonder how much he charges per billable hour. Wonder how many billable hours he's generated from this farce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Second update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My favorite part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My favorite part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Crocodile Dundee is anything to be believed, a legal fight is a bar brawl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what's still not in dispute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what's still not in dispute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Memo to Gibson...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now open for prospective students on Techdirt.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Techdirt staff....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
Milorad Trkulja is "not a gangster", he just happens to show up the vicinity of gangsters? Meaning - "during google"?
"Mills Oakley is a rapidly growing Australian commercial law firm, resourced by over 75 partners and more than 500 staff across offices in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra and Perth" and they are known to hire "lawyers" with the name "Stuart Gibson"?
Did you know that Mills Oakley just reported "2014 was a milestone year for Mills Oakley, marking the firms 150th anniversary "?
Did I get everything? Milorad Trkulja, Stuart Gibson, Mills Oakley, google, gangsters? But not a gangster-Milorad Trkulja?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
But Internet Archive has a screenshot from Dec 1, 1998.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
1 result for 'mills oakley' in 'Law Practices'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
But looking at that same page from Sep 1, 2014, we don't see a “Stuart Gibson” listed. Which doesn't mean he wasn't with the firm as early as August of that year, but we don't see that on this archived page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
• 1 result for 'stuart gibson' in 'Local Legal Practitioners'
• No results for 'stuart j gibson' in 'Local Legal Practitioners'
Imo, there's insufficient information here to positively associate the single result found for “stuart gibson” with any particular “stuart gibson”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
• 18 results for 'gibson' in 'Local Legal Practitioners'
• No results for 'gibson' in 'Locally Registered Foreign Lawyers'
But scanning through the 18 results yields only the single potentially pertinent record found with the previous searches. Again, that single record does not seem to list sufficient information for a positive association with a particular individual of interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey Now
It sounded to me like he was denying that Hubbard ever said that. Which is bonkers if so, it's in black and white. It's Trump-level revisionism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike...
Thank You! Thanks for printing the legal escapades of buffoons like Stuart Gibson. It is truly entertaining.
Carreon my friend!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I wanna win the case! I want I want I want!'
When all you have is bluster and empty threats, and neither of them work, then you have two options:
1) Realize that you've got nothing and back down.
2) Double-down and continue to make a fool of yourself.
At this point it would appear he has decided to go with option #2, and is sure to provide hours of entertainment for TD readers everywhere as we get to watch the latest installment of 'When supposedly professional individuals have public meltdowns'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'I wanna win the case! I want I want I want!'
If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doubtful, apparently the lawyers down there are just the same kind of assholes and idiots.
"Don't bother, pal".
Now, who here with me thinks this oh so snide remark is coming back to bite him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers....
1. Can the litigant pay?
2. Fees
3. Fees
But ... in a previous case, Milorad Trkulja was in conflict with his lawyer, Stuart Gibson. If his current lawyer is the same Stuart Gibson, why did he again elect to represent Milorad Trkulja? (See 1, 2 and 3 above.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyers....
I think that the stated main issue is objectively unreasonable. But there are all sorts of weird, strange people on the 'net, and Mr Trkulja might be one of them.
So then, is Mr Trkulja's solicitor, Stuart Gibson, behaving in a reasonable fashion? I don't think so. Wouldn't Mr Gibson have a duty to advise Mr Trkulja that “it's just not worth it”?
So, my read is that something else must be going on.
Unless it's just that weird clients get represention from strange solicitors. —Like attracts Like? —Nutcases attract nutcases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lawyers....
Lawrence Money: (Emphasis added.)
So what might that tend to indicate? Could Mr Gibson's tactics be explained strategically? As operational art?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyers....
Trkulja v Efron & Associates (Victoria Ct.App. 2014) (Emphasis altered; footnote omitted.)
And from the same 2014 case: (Emphasis altered; footnote omitted.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's just weird and roundabout to have Gibson himself imply all these things of himself when he's not the journalist. From the sounds of it, he's a self-abuser, so I feel a bit dirty about the whole thing, just as a casual reader, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response
First, both drivel and dribble can be used interchangeably. While the correct use in the US would have been drivel, dribble is the standard word used in Australia. Same way Americans use "z" where the British use "s," or Americans say "french fries" and British say "chips."
Second, Mr. Levy is a typical American lawyer who thinks American law rules the world. He just doesn't seem to get it. I have no doubt that Mr. Gibson will be able to get a judgment for his Client. Mr. Levy (Tech Dirt's Lawyer) focus on the SPEECH Act is beside the point. We live in a global economy. If Gibson gets a judgment, he can take that judgment and attach any assets Tech Dirt may have any where else in the world. And even if Tech Dirt doesn't have assets any where else in the world, banks are now global. While NY has the bank separate entity rule, some countries don't recognize that rule. An Australian Court can also order Google to remove all of these posts and articles. Perhaps once a judgment is entered and Gibson's client moves for a citation of assets/discovery and Tech Dirt refuses to comply, it can be held in contempt.....
You can't ignore other countries rules and then expect the whole world to just apply American law. The Client is an Australian....Tech Dirt's shots are entirely gratuitous and malicious -- its being done for giggles.
The key difference between Australia and the US is the First Amendment (or freedom of speech) is not used as a sword to assault random people. The right to privacy is considered a fundamental right because unlike freedom of speech it cannot be used to hurt people. Freedom of expression, generally, if you look at its history it is used as a shield. Public corruption, major crimes yea report on it, that's in the public interest. But this type of stuff by TechDirt, which is basically just making fun of a random guy and exposing him to the ridiculous commentators on here.....this is supposed to be freedom of speech? It is akin to cyber bullying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response
What a silly point of view.
respect mah authoritah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response
Mr Gibson is a radio personality who has voluntarily become a public figure.
Further, Mr Gibson appears to have voluntarily injected himself into the current situation. His name appears in the threat sent to Techdirt, under the Mills Oakley Lawyers letterhead. Given the previous litigation between Mr Trkulja and Mr Gibson's former firm of Gibsons Solicitors Pty Ltd, it seems doubtful that Mr Gibson would have any continuing obligation to represent Mr Trkulja in any new matters. In any case, Mr Gibson should have no obligation whatsoever to represent Mr Trkulja in objectively unreasonable matters.
No. Mr Gibson volunteered. He's not “random”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response
Caveat emptor, indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response
When I read his threat and demand for both actions and money, I did not regard it as idle. Nor have I regarded it as a jest or joke of any sort.
Now certainly, it's impossible to look at the core of Mr Trkulja's complaint as anything other than silly. “Ludicrous” was a word I used earlier. No reasonable person bothers to pursue a three-year-old anonymous blog comment, which contains a mere mildly pejorative charactization. That is unreasonable.
So some levity must be expected to lighten the circumstances. And you yourself may make fun of Mr Gibson, if you wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response
But.... then he wouldn't get the billable hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response
Many internet users have grown familiar with email which purports to be from FBI Director Robert Mueller. If an email like that is of the threatening variety, I don't characterize it as an “idle threat”. Similar emails purport to be from the IRS, and again, I don't tend to characterize them as “idle threats”. The threat letters Tech Dirt received on the Mills Oakley Lawyers letterhead is not quite of the variety I just referenced. For one, the threats were much more targeted (cf. “spear-phishing”). Two, they arrived in postal mail, rather than email.
But I seemed to recognize enough commonality in the pattern, that among my initial concerns were whether Mills Oakley Lawyers was a legitimate law firm. I had never heard of them before.
So, again, you and I are probably using the phrase “idle threat” in different fashions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response
: a threat that a person does not really mean to follow through with
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idle%20threat
In this case it does not really mean to follow through with it because he lacks the ability to. He knows (or should know) that he lacks that ability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response
He cannot enforce anything even IF he got a judgement in an Australian court, so his demands are moot. That's the point, the client will have to pay, and will never be reimbursed, unless you think he's working on contingency, in which case he's a worse attorney then I gave him credit for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response
Note that the unrelated legal threat that Ken White at Popehat reported on Wednesday (Feb 17) did not include a demand for payment.
Perhaps in Australia, it's common to use the postal mail, and/or email, to send ridiculous demands for money. Perhaps in Australia, the letter was sent with a proper expectation of payment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response
Pro bono publico representation of private individuals is, of course, in the public interest, although it is not quite the same as representing the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response
If this is a pro bono case, it's a severe miscalculation. The litigant looks like someone who needs to put their big-boy pants on, the lawyer looks like an incompetent boob afraid to even read a letter from the other party's council, and his law firm looks like they shouldn't be called on to do anything IN Australia, let alone anything with an international element to it. All of this is visible on an international stage, and will show up to everyone searching for Mills Oakley for the next half century. If they are being paid for this, it's not enough for the damage it's doing to their name, let alone if they aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response
Yeah, of an Australian court. The worst case scenario is that he wouldn't be able to travel to Australia, because there is no way in hell he would ever be extradited.
You can't ignore other countries rules and then expect the whole world to just apply American law.
Then why should Australian law apply to someone in the US?
this is supposed to be freedom of speech?
Not supposed to be. It is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response
> American law rules the world.
He doesn't think American law rules the world. He thinks American law rules America, which is where Masnick, his website, and the comments at issue, are located.
> An Australian Court can also order Google to remove all
> of these posts and articles.
That would be impossible, since Google doesn't own or have access to the servers on which Masnick's website resides.
> Perhaps once a judgment is entered and Gibson's client
> moves for a citation of assets/discovery and Tech Dirt
> refuses to comply, it can be held in contempt.
Which also wouldn't be enforceable. What does Masnick care what some judge in Australia says about him being in contempt? It's not like the American government is going to allow Australian cops to come to California, put him in handcuffs, and ship him back to Oz to serve time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response
Unlike Australian and New Zealand governments who'll bend over backwards to do anything but protect their own citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drivel vs Dribble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
Neither of the two main senses shown there is synonymous with “drivel”. Moreover, I do not see “dribble” shown as an alternate spelling for “drivel”.
Utilizing the same resource for “drivel”, going past the dictionary definition —where I do not find alternate spellings— and looking at the English Thesaurus, I do find: But I do not find “dribble” as a synonym for “drivel”.
What is the go-to dictionary for Australian English?
And I'll acknowledge, too, right off the bat, that dictionaries, no matter how eagerly they attempt to describe contemporary usage, do tend to fall slightly behind the most radically modern scenes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
Using the Oxford Dictionaries English Thesaurus for “dribble”: So “drivel” is shown as a synomym for “drivel” as a verb, after all.
That's what I get for not looking hard enough, I s'pose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response
I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. Throughout his letter Mr. Levy repeats that he is not versed in Australian law, so cannot comment on the likelihood of Stuart prevailing there. He then goes on to explain what American law is in different jurisdictions. It appears that in order to get a judgement against Masnick he would have to sue in a California court. An Australian court cannot impose a lien on property in California.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't resort to "Bar Fights"
Renzo Gracie lives in New York - USE HIM! LEARN FROM HIM!
Challenge Gibson to the Octagon, or, offer him a free flight to Japan for something in the ring.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]