View Single Post
Old 04-14-2013, 09:47 PM   #59
taustin
Wizard
taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
Sil_liS:

Let me see if I undestand your position correctly:

You are concerned that the jury did not rule in favor of the plaintiff based on information that wasn't (and couldn't be, since she had not standing) part of the case, and that this will somehow create a precedent, even though legal precedent cannot be established at the trial court level?

Your complain isn't with IMDB, it's with their merchant service (assuming they violated the merchant agreement, which no one has alleged), and with the private eye whatever web site, which they don't seem to care about.

You should write them each a letter, and encourage them to pursuse civil action for the illegal acts you believe were committed against them. The actress in this case can't do so, because she has no standing to do so.

No precedent can be set here, since the issue you're worried about wasn't actually part of this case.
taustin is offline   Reply With Quote