Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Media Music News Your Rights Online

Andersen Vs. RIAA Counterclaims Challenged 149

Posted by kdawson
from the schmisabled dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is now challenging the counterclaims (PDF) in Atlantic v. Andersen, for Electronic Trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Invasion of Privacy, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, the tort of Outrage, Deceptive Business Practices under Oregon Trade Practices Act, and Oregon RICO, first discussed here in October 2005. The RIAA has moved to dismiss the counterclaims (PDF) brought by a disabled single mother in Oregon who lives on Social Security Disability and has never engaged in file sharing, this after unsuccessfully trying to force the face-to-face deposition of Ms. Andersen's 10-year-old daughter. Ms. Andersen's lawyer has filed opposition papers (PDF)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Andersen Vs. RIAA Counterclaims Challenged

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 26, 2007 @01:07PM (#18887135)
    If she doesn't allow her daughter to give a deposition, she'll face another charge but if she exposes her daughter to lawyers, she'll definitely face negligence charges!
  • It will be interesting to see how much of its leg must be knawed off.
  • by asphaltjesus (978804) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @01:12PM (#18887211)
    The summary is exactly what the media conglomerates want burned into every American consumers brain.

    Fear anything that is not authorized or offered to you by the media conglomerates.
  • by Rob the Bold (788862) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @01:12PM (#18887217)
    The "Tort of Outrage" would be a great name for a band.
  • by mfh (56) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @01:15PM (#18887251) Homepage Journal
    If you don't have more indy bands, go get their stuff!! Pay artists directly!
    Why support RIAA by buying their music, when they are using YOUR MONEY in a way that is morally wrong?
    • by TheMeuge (645043)
      Well that's the point, isn't it. How much of a failure do you call it, when in a commodity market you create a movement of customers who specifically try to avoid your brand of goods?

      • I think that should read:

        "....customers AND producers who specifically try to avoid your brand of goods....."
    • Because I'm Evil (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wiredog (43288) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @01:32PM (#18887537) Journal
      And lazy.
    • by DogDude (805747)
      I agree 100%. I've been doing this for years. Most people are just too lazy. I'd like to propose that if you buy your music over iTunes, or from BestBuy, or any of those nasty places, that you can't bitch about the RIAA on Slashdot.
      • The iTunes store has plenty of indy music. It's just not advertised on the front page, so you have to know what you're looking for.
    • by spacefrog (313816)
      It's not YOUR MONEY. It ceased to be YOUR MONEY when you traded it for a shiny trinket (aka a CD). If you want it to be YOUR MONEY, you shouldn't give YOUR MONEY to RIAA. Your employer may not like the house or car you bought with YOUR MONEY, by your logic it is THEIR MONEY.
    • A link to help people know if music they have or music they're considering buying was released by a member of the RIAA:
      The RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com].

    • I recently got into indy music a little bit - mostly jazz. I was never a fan of the genre before, but I found some real jems in there (Thursday Group, Drop Trio, Jacob Fred Jazz Odyssey). I'd highly recommend that every self-respecting geek at least consider browsing through the catalogs of services like http://www.magnatune.com/ [magnatune.com] before buying their next RIAA-produced album.
  • This should be filed under the DUH tag.

    If someone accuses you in civil court and you stand to lose more from the judgment than you would from the defense, you defend yourself.

    I dont know anyone who would do any different.

    what is important is what is yet to come, the result of the counterclaim case. That will be newsworthy either way.
  • criminal charges? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by belmolis (702863) <billposer@nOSpam.alum.mit.edu> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @01:28PM (#18887477) Homepage

    As I understand it, the RIAA ADMITS to having entered Ms.Andersen's computer without her consent. Is this not a criminal offense? Has a criminal complaint been brought?

    • by Jaywalk (94910) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @03:42PM (#18889811) Homepage

      As I understand it, the RIAA ADMITS to having entered Ms.Andersen's computer without her consent.
      That's what Andersen's lawyer alleges, but I can't find anywhere that the RIAA says so. My understanding is that the RIAA simply tracks IP addresses and then sues whoever was using the address at that time. It was the Settlement Support Center that made it look like they had more than that. Their arm twisting tactics certainly made it sound like the RIAA had broken into Ms. Andersen's computer. But, if they had done that, they would have known she wasn't downloading any files.

      What seems to be going on here is that the lawyer is taking the RIAA at their word and leveling the charge based on what the RIAA -- or rather, the Settlement Support Center acting as their agent -- actually said. They claimed to have "seen" her downloading and "knew" the files were on her computer. Really? Well, how did they know that? MediaSentry has never disclosed their methods of information gathering, so there's no information coming from that quarter. They must have broken into her home computer to obtain those sorts of files, right?

      This puts the RIAA between a rock and a hard place. Either they can admit that they broke into her home computer, or they can admit that they were lying about that bit. Of course, if they admit they never really had any evidence in the first place, that strengthens the other claims against them.

      No wonder they want the counterclaim dismissed.
      • "My understanding is that the RIAA simply tracks IP addresses and then sues whoever was using the address at that time"

        And of course there is no way to mimic/spoof an IP address? My problem is the RIAA does not appear to always perform what is called "due diligence" in the legal world before suing. I may be wrong, I have been before and will be again...but, it seems to me that there are way too many cases where they have made huge assumptions and sued people based on those assumptions. They may also be v
        • by mpe (36238)
          My problem is the RIAA does not appear to always perform what is called "due diligence" in the legal world before suing. I may be wrong, I have been before and will be again...but, it seems to me that there are way too many cases where they have made huge assumptions and sued people based on those assumptions.

          Effectivly what they are doing is using litigation or more likely the threat of litigation in order to extort money from people.

          They may also be violating the law in pursuing their agenda, in some
      • by mpe (36238)
        This puts the RIAA between a rock and a hard place. Either they can admit that they broke into her home computer, or they can admit that they were lying about that bit. Of course, if they admit they never really had any evidence in the first place, that strengthens the other claims against them.

        Also known as "giving the RIAA enough rope to hang themselves".

        No wonder they want the counterclaim dismissed.

        It appears to be the case that the RIAA dosn't want cases to actually go to court even when they are
  • Spelling mistakes are mine:

    As part of this campaign, these record companies (...) retained MediaSentry to illegally investigate and purportedly invade private home computers and collect personal information. Based on private information allegedly extracted from these personal home computers, the record companies have reportedly filed lawsuits against perhaps 30,000 citizens.
    ...
    Since February 2005, Tanya Andersen has been trying to get the record companies to do one thing: look at her home computer so that t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak (669689)
      Oh, it gets explained further on.
      Here's a pic of the explanation:
      http://i17.tinypic.com/352g7jp.jpg [tinypic.com]

      Claiming that sniffing around the P2P network by a non-legit peer is somehow an action that requires consent... I'm not buying it. Especially not the concept that it's illegal pretexting.

      Further, if Ms. Andersen never had Kazaa installed,
      how could MediaSentry have trespassed upon her computer
      ?

      Or is there some fine legal point which allows one to sue for something that (according to Ms Andersen) could never hav
    • actually, they have a great point. Essentially, the RIAA pulled an HP. They are doing EXACTLY the same things Dunn did only they're hiding behind layer of court to keep the actual evidence out. These guys are trying to "pierce the veil" and get behind the RIAA's tactics. The goal is to force them to actually put an executive from MediaSentry or the Settlement Support Center on the stand and start grilling them over procedure. They DESPERATELY don't want that on the record because then nearly every lett
  • thinkofthechildren (Score:4, Interesting)

    by iamacat (583406) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @01:32PM (#18887551)
    Really. I can accept making a 10 year old testify as a witness in a murder case, to prevent the killer from striking again. But in a civil copyright case, in which she, as a minor, is not even accountable? Give me a break! The lawyers and executives involved should be charged with attempted harm to a minor.
    • by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @01:40PM (#18887683) Homepage
      There's nothing special about children that prevents people from having them testify in legal proceedings. So long as they, like anyone else, are able to understand that they need to tell the truth, they can testify. Also, minors can be found liable for copyright infringement. There's nothing special about them in that regard either.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Rob the Bold (788862)

        Also, minors can be found liable for copyright infringement. There's nothing special about them in that regard either.

        How about having no money? "Blood from a stone (or turnip)" and all that?

        But kidding aside, I can't see why a child could be liable for laws they have no say in. I'm sure there's a legally great reason, but not a morally good one.

        The luckiest of all is the child who was never born.

        • by dabraun (626287)

          But kidding aside, I can't see why a child could be liable for laws they have no say in. I'm sure there's a legally great reason, but not a morally good one.

          Are you suggesting that children can kill people at will because they don't get to vote? How about convicted felons who can't vote either, do they get a free pass? Legal and illegal aliens?

          As to the monetary issue, parents are responsible for the financial debts of their minor children with few exceptions.

          • As to the monetary issue, parents are responsible for the financial debts of their minor children with few exceptions.
            Actually one very big one. Copyright, where in the parents have no legal requirement to pay. All that has to be done is the copies destroyed and thats it. The RIAA redefined that one due to "digital rights" though.
            • No, there are several kinds of remedies available for copyright infringement. Destroying unlawfully made copies is one, but money damages are another. Always have been, in fact. You should take a look at 17 USC 502-505.
          • by Rob the Bold (788862) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @02:28PM (#18888487)

            Are you suggesting that children can kill people at will because they don't get to vote?

            Totally, man. Then I'll send my army of immune child assassins to clean up Slashdot. Then the world! I'm king of the world, and there's nothing you can do to stop me with my tiny army!!!! Mwuhahahhahahahaha!!!

          • As to the monetary issue, parents are responsible for the financial debts of their minor children with few exceptions.

            Actually, that's the other way around. There's a decent memo on this subject (with regard to copyright infringement) on the EFF site, IIRC. The main issue, of course, is a combination of preemption and that merely being a parent of a minor child doesn't rise to the level of secondary infringement. If you're a plaintiff going up against a minor in such a suit, your best hope, if the parents w
          • Are you suggesting that children can kill people at will because they don't get to vote? How about convicted felons who can't vote either, do they get a free pass? Legal and illegal aliens?

            According to the rules of ethics, a person is only responsible for actions when they have a right corresponding to that action. For example, a person who has no right to decide if they possess a gun has no ethical responsibility for accidentally shooting someone with one. With children most of their basic human rights are held in abeyance until they reach their majority. Their parents and the state claim ownership of their rights and as such are ethically responsible for the consequences of actions that c

      • by geekoid (135745)
        "So long as they, like anyone else, are able to understand that they need to tell the truth, they can testify. "

        yeah.. sadly minors often consider telling someone what they think they want to hear is the same as truth.

        Putting a minor on a stand has to be looked at very carefully because of many issues such as reliability, the idea of consequences can be foriegn, and many other issues.

        Finally, a minor should not be tried for copyright infringement, except under certian exception, determined on a case by case
        • Finally, a minor should not be tried for copyright infringement, except under certian exception, determined on a case by case basis.

          Why? Remember, copyright suits are almost always civil. The copyright owner is suing for money damages and equitable remedies such as injunctions; it is not a state prosecution and imprisonment is not on the table. If the copyright holder couldn't sue, then they'd suffer the injuries without any kind of redress. That's not a fair solution.

          There parents are responsible, not the
          • by AndersOSU (873247)
            I think I'm with geekoid on this one. A minor under a certain age (I like 13) should not prosecuted on any for any civil or criminal charges.

            At some point children don't have the capacity to make rational decisions. In cases like copyright infringement and shoplifting the child should get a warning and a pass the first time. If there is a second or third time the parents could be held liable. If the parents can't or won't prevent their kid from continuing to do something illegal there should be some int
            • How are you going to determine when to give them a warning (and what constitutes their first "official" warning) without going through the justice system to determine what they were guilty of in the first place?

              I'm fully prepared to accept the punishments should be less harsh and that a child should not be exposed to a court system aimed at adults, but not prosecuted at all? That just doesn't make any sense. That's like some over-the-top law and order enthusiast arguing that "Criminals don't deserve just

              • by AndersOSU (873247)
                I'll freely admit that I haven't thought this threw entirely, and there are certainly some, uh, issues. I guess what I'd like to see is that the first time the kid gets caught doing whatever they're doing they receive a warning. The warning is more to let the parents know than anything.

                I think my feeling is that a child cannot be a criminal, because they cannot adequately differentiate right from wrong. If they cannot be a criminal than they should not be persecuted.

                Not that their aren't problems with t
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            I'm not sure the GP poster was arguing about the legal status, but rather the ethical one.

            On the one hand, someone too young to understand that something is wrong and the negative consequences of doing it clearly should not be punished for their actions. On the other hand, the older person responsible for them who does understand should not be giving them the freedom to do damaging things. If, as a result of the responsible adult's negligence, a child causes harm to someone else, then while the responsibl

        • by tompaulco (629533)
          CLearly, someone who turns 18 the day after they stol a car shhould be tried as an 18 year old, OTOH a 10 year old that takes a car to drive around should not. There parents are responsible, not the child.
          As a parent, I wouldn't want to be held responsible if my 10 year old stole a car. I raised my children not to do that, but that doesn't mean they won't. If they caused any damage, I guess it would go against my insurance, but believe me, that kid would be paying me back, and if it raised my insurance ra
      • I seem to remember there being some rules that basically prohibited spouses from being required to testify against one another (although they could so voluntarily). That might be a local one (Canadian) though, but I though the US had something similar.

        If such rules exist, then I would imagine that a similar protection might exist for young children in that the should not be compelled to bear witness against their parents/guardians. This would be especially important and it would be rather emotionally trauma
        • Yes, you're thinking of spousal privilege. My understanding is that some jurisdictions have been adopting or at least looking into parent/child privilege, but most, if not all don't have it. As for manipulating witnesses, I think you watch too much tv.
          • by phorm (591458)
            Actually, I hardly watch TV at all. I haven't subscribed to any programming for about the last five years, and just recently bought some rabbit-ears :-)

            But it is the RIAA we're talking about, and I wouldn't put it past them to use verbal trickery in order to confuse a witness into incriminating himself/herself or somebody else.
      • by iamacat (583406)
        So long as they, like anyone else, are able to understand that they need to tell the truth, they can testify

        They can say anything they feel like though, since children can not take a legally binding oath to tell truth, all truth and nothing but the truth.

        Also, minors can be found liable for copyright infringement

        Music and software companies keep telling us that they don't sell songs and programs - they just sell us a contractual license to use them under restricted conditions. A minor is allowed to void any
        • They can say anything they feel like though, since children can not take a legally binding oath to tell truth, all truth and nothing but the truth.

          Of course they can, and when they testify, they do. The issue is whether the witness is able to understand their responsibilities on the stand. You seem to be thinking of the ability to children to be bound to a contract, which is not the same thing as this. Besides, you misunderstand that. Contracts with minors are voidable, rather than void, there are generally
          • by iamacat (583406)
            Woah, you are lawyer so you must know this stuff. But you do realize that a small child can be manipulated to say whatever a lawyer, parent, prosecutor etc says, right? Tell her enough times that her mom was using a computer with a program that "looked like this" and she will even believe it herself. So in that aspect, current system sucks and I hope you can use your capacity to change it :-) On the bright side, I don't think music qualifies as food and shelter. So she should be able to get clear by returni
      • by phooka.de (302970)
        This is so wrong on so many levels.

        Minors or in fact direct relatives and spouses should never, ever be forced to testify in any case, civil or criminal, that involves their family.

        It forces parents to lie to their children or to hide what they're doing. It puts minors in a situation, where they have to harm their parents in order to comply with the law.

        I live in germany and protecting families from situations like these was elevated to a constitution-level right after WW2. Guess why.
  • Legal or Illegal? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CannonballHead (842625) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @01:33PM (#18887569)

    So, was the seven year old girl (at the time) doing legal activities... or rather, are illegal activities made legal when you are young?

    It's interesting to think about. I don't necessarily like the RIAA :P But let's say she got drunk and drove around in a car. That's illegal, too. Should she not be prosecuted at all because, after all, she's only 7?

    I fully realize that's an outrageous comparison. But a few things strike me as seeming to go unnoticed in most of the "RIAA is the devil incarnate!" discussions.

    • Parents don't seem to care what their kids do, unless they are caught. Of course, since there's a huge push for kids being allowed to do whatever they want and that parents shouldn't force any sort of morals on their kids and stuff like that, it just makes sense. But seriously, parents should know what their kids are doing.
    • Whether or not you like the RIAA, pirated music IS illegal, is it not? Whether or not this is a good way to go about catching illegally pirated music, that does not get rid of the fact that pirating music is illegal. Whether or not you're seven years old. Drunk driving is illegal at age seven, pirating music is illegal at age seven. Typical laws don't change based on your age. Punishment might, and culpability might to some degree, but it's not like you have to be 21 or older to illegal pirate music. Copyrights apply to minors.
    • While the RIAA is consistently criticized (and perhaps rightly so), very few suggestions are made for protecting copyrighted music. I happen to be a musician (well, composer) and copyrights can be a rather helpful thing, because there are people that will steal and even promote it as their own, taking royalties or sales or whatever you like. Enforcing copyrights is something we have to do, we can't rely on "good human nature" because that fails quite a bit, regardless of your particular anthropological views.
    • The thing is she was 7 at the time of the alleged infringement. Even here in the "evil" United States we look out for kids. They can depose the poor kid but no jury will take it seriously. At the age of 7 the voracity of a kid's statements is EASILY brought into question. They are a minor (to the extreme!). Even at 10, 3 years after the fact, what she says will be highly suspicious. 3 years for a 10 year old is vastly different then for a 25 or even a 14 year old. Her testimony just isn't reliable. The wom
    • The difference between the two cases is the difference between criminal and civil law. The RIAA lawsuits are a matter of civil law. Civil law treats minors very differently than criminal law. For one, minors can't be held to a contract, because it is illegal to make a contract with a child (but, interestingly, the child can hold you up to your end of the contact, but not the other way around). Similarly, you can't sue a minor, only the minor's parents. You can't typically subpoena a minor in a civil ca
      • Re:Legal or Illegal? (Score:4, Informative)

        by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @01:57PM (#18887975) Homepage Journal

        The difference between the two cases is the difference between criminal and civil law

        I haven't honestly been paying much attention, but are they alleging criminal copyright violation as well?

        506. Criminal offenses

        (a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -

        (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

        (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

        Although this must be a civil case, I just want to raise the point that a minor could indeed be guilty of criminal copyright infringement. Illegally selling a copy of one song is a criminal act. Or distributing more than $1,000 worth of copyrighted materials in a 180 day period, of which there are only two and a bit in a whole year. That wouldn't be particularly hard.

        I do have to wonder how the calculation of value works on a bittorrent network. If I distribute 5% of a copyrighted work, do they count that as a full distribution? Or am I only liable for 5% of its value? I can only imagine what the RIAA would ask for, but what has actually happened in court?


    • although i agree in principle, there are a few things you must consider. first, parents are busy enough providing for their children, and keeping them from HARM's way, they probably don't have time to make sure they're out of the RIAA's way.

      your child driving analogy isn't as bad as you think (let's leave the drunk out of it since that wouldn't be necessary for it to be a dangerous act). first, most 7 yr olds simply do not have the same wherewith all that an adults do. second, and most importantly, does
    • by geekoid (135745)
      "It's interesting to think about. I don't necessarily like the RIAA :P But let's say she got drunk and drove around in a car. That's illegal, too. Should she not be prosecuted at all because, after all, she's only 7?

      No, she should not be prosecuted specifically because she was 7.
      It is not reasonable to think she is able to make that distinction.

      In your example there are many people who should be prosecuted, she is not one of them.
    • by badfrogw00tz (1090573) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @02:13PM (#18888237)
      Copyright infringement is *not* a criminal offense. Your analogy is flawed.
    • It's interesting to think about. I don't necessarily like the RIAA :P But let's say she got drunk and drove around in a car. That's illegal, too. Should she not be prosecuted at all because, after all, she's only 7?

      (I know you're being rhetorical.)

      I can't see how it would serve to benefit society at large to prosecute a 7 year old for drunk driving, or even for driving, since I doubt that drunkenness would make a 7 year old's driving any worse. At some point, a prosecutor and judge would have to say tha

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      ...are illegal activities made legal when you are young?

      No, but for the most part you cannot be held responsible for doing them. There is a relationship between responsibility and rights that seems sadly overlooked by our educational system. If you do not have legal protection for freedom of speech, then it is unethical to hold someone legally responsible for whatever speech they make. If you don't have the legal right to go where you want and buy a car if you want and apply for a driver's license and legally purchase and consume alcohol, then legally you can

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by UnknowingFool (672806)

      So, was the seven year old girl (at the time) doing legal activities... or rather, are illegal activities made legal when you are young?

      The problem with your whole argument is that you accept the RIAA's statements as fact when they are in dispute. No one would disagree with you that pirating music is illegal and the fact the girl was seven years old when the pirating allegedly took place. The issue in this case as in many others is whether the RIAA has engaged in illegal behaviors to pursue those who pir

    • by guruevi (827432)
      Okay, even IF the little one installed Kazaa on her computer (which I highly doubt) consider the following:

      Parents (especially those on welfare) don't ever use a computer, let alone have a great knowledge of all what is happening on the computer, so they can't possibly guide their children, how much intent they might have to do so.

      This is the USA, not Korea (although...) so you'll first have to prove that it was either the mom or the little one that installed Kazaa (consider that the computer could come fro
    • by jp10558 (748604)
      I think the undercurrent here is many people are starting to reconsider whether copyright laws currently fit what they agree with. That is, like with prohibition, there is some apparently large group of people who for whatever reasons don't agree with the current laws.

      We can certainly argue that there might be better methods to affect change, but mass breaking of laws has happened in the past with some effect. Of course, we mostly are hearing about the people who didn't commit the tort being sued. One thing
  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @01:56PM (#18887961) Homepage

    Barratry [ceb.com] is a criminal offense in California.

    From the California Penal Code: [ca.gov]
    158. Common barratry is the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings, and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months and by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000).

    159. No person can be convicted of common barratry except upon proof that he has excited suits or proceedings at law in at least three instances, and with a corrupt or malicious intent to vex and annoy.

    Barratry prosecutions are almost unheard of, but there was one in 1988 in California and it was affirmed by an appeals court. The RIAA's activities seem to qualify. "Exciting groundless judicial proceedings" - check. "At least three instances" - check. "Corrupt or malicious intent to vex and annoy" - requires proving intent, and in this last case, that can probably be shown.

    • Excellent idea! Throw the entire Association in the county jail!

      Astounding!

    • The chance of the RIAA being tried for anything (let alone in barratry) in California is about zero.

      They own (through their membership) most of LA and a good chunk of southern California.
      • They own (through their membership) most of LA and a good chunk of southern California.

        The movie industry is big, but the music industry isn't. Total US music industry sales are around $10 billion a year, and dropping, or so says the RIAA. Google, Microsoft, Apple, HP, and IBM each generate more revenue, and far more profits, than the entire music industry. The music industry doesn't employ many people, unlike the movie industry, so the employee votes aren't there.


        • I was lumping the RIAA together with the entertainment industry. They would stand up for one another in any court case.

          My point is the very small likelihood of prosecuting a portion of the entertainment industry in a Californian court.
  • Seriously. It's already been brought up many times that finally, here's someone who's taking a stand and counter-suing the RIAA.

    What did you expect the RIAA to do? Roll up in court and say to the judge "Actually, your honour, they're quite right, we're a bunch of misguided nutcases"?

    Of course they're going to challenge the counterclaim - and they'll challenge it with everything they can think of because if they lose, suddenly there will be substantially more lawyers prepared to take on defense cases at a
  • MatRIxAA (Score:2, Funny)

    by guardian-ct (105061)
    "We have been watching you for some time, Ms. Anderson"

You are in a maze of UUCP connections, all alike.

Working...