7 ms·

This guy tried to resolve a legal dispute without a lawyer. Any competent business lawyer should have been able to straighten this out within days. He even trie

by Animats 5mo ago

This guy tried to resolve a legal dispute without a lawyer. Any competent business lawyer should have been able to straighten this out within days. He even tried to do process service himself, which nobody does. You pay a process server $100 or so for that.

thevinter 5mo ago
No, the guy tried to resolve the legal dispute with lawyers and has been quoted multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees.
- wombat-man 5mo ago
  I haven't dealt with anything like this, so maybe this is naive, but wouldn't you also sue for legal fees as apart of the damages?
  - terabytest 5mo ago
    Where do you get the money from while the lawsuit is ongoing?
    - wombat-man 5mo ago
      yeah, I guess you would need a lawyer willing to work on spec. This just seems like a winnable case but IANAL.
Aurornis 5mo ago
[flagged]
- jasonlotito 5mo ago
  The company should have done the right thing, but instead, they are evil, criminals, and crooks who should be treated as such. > he should have paid a process server He was quoted a LOT more money to try. > He also didn't leave after the police were called, He was legally allowed to be there trying to serve the individual. Why are you defending a clearly evil criminal company?
  - Aurornis 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - usehand 5mo ago
      > I'm not defending the company at all. My comment was about the YouTuber who got involved as a 3rd party for content production. You have claimed the story is "just needless YouTube drama" and that you "wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story". Unless you are completely incapable of understanding basic human communication, this obviously amounts to defending the company.
      - Aurornis 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        usehand 5mo ago
        > False. I said that a 3rd party traveling across the country to serve papers himself and then sitting in front of the house while police are called 4 times is needless YouTube drama. Notice how you ignore the second quote? Anyone can literally search these comments see what you said. I guess there's not much you can do to try to argue that you're not defending the company, when you're claiming the people exposing them are just creating "drama" and are not trustworthy, so you default to just pretending you didn't say it. This is not pancakes and waffles. This is someone putting out a video saying a corporation is poisoning pancakes, and you at the same time say "the video is not trustworthy" while trying to claim you are not defending the corporation. > You are awfully obsessed with stalking my comment history and then misquoting what I said. I'm not stalking your "comment history", I'm just replying to comments in this post. Again, are you incapable of factual accuracy?
        wredcoll 5mo ago
        > False. I said that a 3rd party traveling across the country to serve papers himself and then sitting in front of the house while police are called 4 times is needless YouTube drama. Genuine question, how do you think serving papers works?
- usehand 5mo ago
  In this thread you have admitted to not knowing basic facts about this case. Yet here you are pontificating on the merits. Are you affiliated with B&M? Maybe an employee or franchisee? Why do you feel so strongly you need to defend them?
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Aurornis 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - usehand 5mo ago
      Sure, it's possible the serving was not done correctly. Even in that case, this does not imply, as you have claimed, that this is "just needless YouTube drama" (emphasis mine). There is clearly a lot going on beyond the obvious flashy setting which is chosen for the presentation. Arguably, no attention would have come to this matter if not for such presentation, and the perpetrators would have just gotten away with it easily, so it is in fact understandable that things were done in such a way. Yet you choose to ignore the way more significant issues from B&M's side and focus only on the choices of dramatization of the events, which, if a problem at all, are only marginal in comparison. While further trying to use that a way to try to in fact discredit the more relevant issue.
      - wredcoll 5mo ago
        I feel like I once heard a great word/phrase for this thing where people attack the "civility" of the messenger instead of the actual injustice being reported on, but I can't remember what it was now. It came up a lot during black lives matter protests.
        Aurornis 5mo ago
        [flagged]
- Animats 5mo ago
  Oh. YouTube drama. Legally, it's one of those Uniform Commercial Code things that was worked out many decades ago - the rights of a consignor in a business transfer.[1] This is a routine problem with standard answers. [1] https://uslawexplained.com/consignor https://uslawexplained.com/consignor
- wredcoll 5mo ago
  > He also didn't leave after the police were called, which is not all that unusual for someone who looks out their window and sees someone they're in conflict with has traveled across the country to stand in front of their door. > This is just needless YouTube drama generation. I agree, he should have paid a process server to do the job correctly, but that wouldn't be good business for his YouTube channel. Your ability to create a fantasy to defend the CEOs in this example is, well, frankly depressing. Like, none of what you said is true, but you just confidently made it up and then put it in a comment, why? If you don't know what's going on, why comment? Why go beyond that and just make stuff up? I just don't get people today.
  - cindyllm 5mo ago
    [dead]
  - Aurornis 5mo ago
    [flagged]
shadefinale 5mo ago
The video has Ed Mansell stating that all the lawyers he spoke to informed him that it would not be financially viable for him to pursue a suit. Additionally, there is audio of one of the would-be defendants saying that they intend to drag things out as long as possible, basically taunting both Ed and Ben to sue him as they all understand that it is not a viable solution to the problem for Ed. Part 2 starts with 10 separate $10,000 default judgements won against the store, but they are unable to recover any of the funds. Ben brings a process server with him to serve new lawsuits against the owners as individuals, and 4 separate times on the same day in the same spot, cops are sent to him. The cops even take the papers from the process server, try to serve the defendant, and then give it back to the process server saying it was refused . After that they don't allow the process server to serve the papers, and then the cops show up the 4th time and Ben is eventually arrested.

by Animats 5mo ago

thevinter 5mo ago

No, the guy tried to resolve the legal dispute with lawyers and has been quoted multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees.

wombat-man 5mo ago
I haven't dealt with anything like this, so maybe this is naive, but wouldn't you also sue for legal fees as apart of the damages?
- terabytest 5mo ago
  Where do you get the money from while the lawsuit is ongoing?
  - wombat-man 5mo ago
    yeah, I guess you would need a lawyer willing to work on spec. This just seems like a winnable case but IANAL.

Aurornis 5mo ago

[flagged]

jasonlotito 5mo ago
The company should have done the right thing, but instead, they are evil, criminals, and crooks who should be treated as such. > he should have paid a process server He was quoted a LOT more money to try. > He also didn't leave after the police were called, He was legally allowed to be there trying to serve the individual. Why are you defending a clearly evil criminal company?
- Aurornis 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - usehand 5mo ago
    > I'm not defending the company at all. My comment was about the YouTuber who got involved as a 3rd party for content production. You have claimed the story is "just needless YouTube drama" and that you "wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story". Unless you are completely incapable of understanding basic human communication, this obviously amounts to defending the company.
    - Aurornis 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - usehand 5mo ago
        > False. I said that a 3rd party traveling across the country to serve papers himself and then sitting in front of the house while police are called 4 times is needless YouTube drama. Notice how you ignore the second quote? Anyone can literally search these comments see what you said. I guess there's not much you can do to try to argue that you're not defending the company, when you're claiming the people exposing them are just creating "drama" and are not trustworthy, so you default to just pretending you didn't say it. This is not pancakes and waffles. This is someone putting out a video saying a corporation is poisoning pancakes, and you at the same time say "the video is not trustworthy" while trying to claim you are not defending the corporation. > You are awfully obsessed with stalking my comment history and then misquoting what I said. I'm not stalking your "comment history", I'm just replying to comments in this post. Again, are you incapable of factual accuracy?
      - wredcoll 5mo ago
        > False. I said that a 3rd party traveling across the country to serve papers himself and then sitting in front of the house while police are called 4 times is needless YouTube drama. Genuine question, how do you think serving papers works?
usehand 5mo ago
In this thread you have admitted to not knowing basic facts about this case. Yet here you are pontificating on the merits. Are you affiliated with B&M? Maybe an employee or franchisee? Why do you feel so strongly you need to defend them?
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- Aurornis 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - usehand 5mo ago
    Sure, it's possible the serving was not done correctly. Even in that case, this does not imply, as you have claimed, that this is "just needless YouTube drama" (emphasis mine). There is clearly a lot going on beyond the obvious flashy setting which is chosen for the presentation. Arguably, no attention would have come to this matter if not for such presentation, and the perpetrators would have just gotten away with it easily, so it is in fact understandable that things were done in such a way. Yet you choose to ignore the way more significant issues from B&M's side and focus only on the choices of dramatization of the events, which, if a problem at all, are only marginal in comparison. While further trying to use that a way to try to in fact discredit the more relevant issue.
    - wredcoll 5mo ago
      I feel like I once heard a great word/phrase for this thing where people attack the "civility" of the messenger instead of the actual injustice being reported on, but I can't remember what it was now. It came up a lot during black lives matter protests.
      - Aurornis 5mo ago
        [flagged]
Animats 5mo ago
Oh. YouTube drama. Legally, it's one of those Uniform Commercial Code things that was worked out many decades ago - the rights of a consignor in a business transfer.[1] This is a routine problem with standard answers. [1] https://uslawexplained.com/consignor https://uslawexplained.com/consignor
wredcoll 5mo ago
> He also didn't leave after the police were called, which is not all that unusual for someone who looks out their window and sees someone they're in conflict with has traveled across the country to stand in front of their door. > This is just needless YouTube drama generation. I agree, he should have paid a process server to do the job correctly, but that wouldn't be good business for his YouTube channel. Your ability to create a fantasy to defend the CEOs in this example is, well, frankly depressing. Like, none of what you said is true, but you just confidently made it up and then put it in a comment, why? If you don't know what's going on, why comment? Why go beyond that and just make stuff up? I just don't get people today.
- cindyllm 5mo ago
  [dead]
- Aurornis 5mo ago
  [flagged]

shadefinale 5mo ago

The video has Ed Mansell stating that all the lawyers he spoke to informed him that it would not be financially viable for him to pursue a suit. Additionally, there is audio of one of the would-be defendants saying that they intend to drag things out as long as possible, basically taunting both Ed and Ben to sue him as they all understand that it is not a viable solution to the problem for Ed. Part 2 starts with 10 separate $10,000 default judgements won against the store, but they are unable to recover any of the funds. Ben brings a process server with him to serve new lawsuits against the owners as individuals, and 4 separate times on the same day in the same spot, cops are sent to him. The cops even take the papers from the process server, try to serve the defendant, and then give it back to the process server saying it was refused . After that they don't allow the process server to serve the papers, and then the cops show up the 4th time and Ben is eventually arrested.