3 ms·

I don't believe they have any serious belief that they'll win. Their cases are just too factually deficient. Rather, I believe their hope is to ruin the defen

by nullc 4y ago

I don't believe they have any serious belief that they'll win. Their cases are just too factually deficient. Rather, I believe their hope is to ruin the defendants financially and force them into default. And, even failing that-- create a chilling effect to silence anyone who might otherwise be critical of their crooked schemes. That said, other countries will frequently enforce foreign judgements. In this case, the specific performance they're asking for would likely be unenforceable in the US (and useless regardless) -- but damages might well be enforceable.

eikenberry 4y ago
Might be enforceable? I'm guessing there are some nuances here and I'm curious about them as my fast take on the situation would be to ignore it as unenforceable (if not living in the UK).
- nullc 4y ago
  The problem with ignoring it is that if you later learn you were wrong about the degree of enforcability you can't go back and challenge the decision. Obviously the US defendants would challenge any enforcability and expect to win, ... that said we also expected to be able to get it summarily dismissed.
ywei3410 4y ago
(IANAL) The most horrible part is that _they are allowed to drop their case anytime_ in the UK civil court. In previous cases when the accused has run out of money, the defendants have to pay their costs [1] to keep the trial running - with zero chance of being able to recoup costs because the accused will be bankrupt anyway. The UK state should not make private individuals fund the creation of novel case law; it's absolutely stupid. [1] https://www.dpsa.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Malkiewicz-v-UK-Application-final.pdf https://www.dpsa.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Malkiewicz-v-...
- nullc 4y ago
  > The UK state should not make private individuals fund the creation of novel case law; If you read the appeals decision (and the decision that granted the permission to appeal)-- that seems to very much be the motivation here too: Case law on this subject would be intellectually interesting and potentially important in the future, so lets leave these foreign defendants on the hook to help establish it. Beyond the ethical problems with that position to begin with, this is a terrible case to try to establish anything because it's so factually conflated that all the resources are going to go to sorting through the plaintiffs lies. The defendants don't have any particular interest in the UK establishing good law except to the extent that bad law in the UK may have international ramifications. (and even there not much-- defendants aren't businesses, they're volunteer developers many (most?) of whom have already quit participating)

by nullc 4y ago

eikenberry 4y ago

Might be enforceable? I'm guessing there are some nuances here and I'm curious about them as my fast take on the situation would be to ignore it as unenforceable (if not living in the UK).

nullc 4y ago
The problem with ignoring it is that if you later learn you were wrong about the degree of enforcability you can't go back and challenge the decision. Obviously the US defendants would challenge any enforcability and expect to win, ... that said we also expected to be able to get it summarily dismissed.

ywei3410 4y ago

(IANAL) The most horrible part is that _they are allowed to drop their case anytime_ in the UK civil court. In previous cases when the accused has run out of money, the defendants have to pay their costs [1] to keep the trial running - with zero chance of being able to recoup costs because the accused will be bankrupt anyway. The UK state should not make private individuals fund the creation of novel case law; it's absolutely stupid. [1] https://www.dpsa.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Malkiewicz-v-UK-Application-final.pdf https://www.dpsa.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Malkiewicz-v-...

nullc 4y ago
> The UK state should not make private individuals fund the creation of novel case law; If you read the appeals decision (and the decision that granted the permission to appeal)-- that seems to very much be the motivation here too: Case law on this subject would be intellectually interesting and potentially important in the future, so lets leave these foreign defendants on the hook to help establish it. Beyond the ethical problems with that position to begin with, this is a terrible case to try to establish anything because it's so factually conflated that all the resources are going to go to sorting through the plaintiffs lies. The defendants don't have any particular interest in the UK establishing good law except to the extent that bad law in the UK may have international ramifications. (and even there not much-- defendants aren't businesses, they're volunteer developers many (most?) of whom have already quit participating)