Why I will never eat fondue again:

[MarkvW]

I don't think there is a clear case of personal jurisdiction (even if he did make the statements in Germany), so I don't think the judgment being enforced is at all likely. California will not enforce if there was no PJ, and I don't think there was. That was a Swiss court. They are going to have a hard time at getting to any of Floyd's assets. He can find a law school in California with a civil rights clinic to fight that case.

Enforcing a default Swiss judgment against an American who probably doesn't have too much money (from their POV) is not something that McBruggen is likely to do anyway.

It is different with Kimmage. Those scumsucking degenerate pustules are coming after him where he lives. Anybody who hasn't yet contributed: Please do!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The Union Cycliste Internationale, Patrick (Pat) McQuaid and/or Henricus (Hein) Verbruggen have concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of ****, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, and are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

The "have no regard for the rules" part really get's me.

"Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a **** about the rules? Mark it zero!"

 

[Benotti69]

Seriously, the majority of reports seem to be repeating the Reuters headline, which runs basically along the lines of 'disgraced cyclist found guilty of defamation'. UCI coming out smelling of roses, to everyone who doesn't read the judgement for themselves.

If you read my post i was referring to Kimmages case.

But UCI will look twice as stupid if they drop the Kimmage case.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Enforcing a default Swiss judgment against an American who probably doesn't have too much money (from their POV) is not something that McBruggen is likely to do anyway.

It is different with Kimmage. Those scumsucking degenerate pustules are coming after him where he lives. Anybody who hasn't yet contributed: Please do!

True about Pat and Henricus. They got their headline.

As for Kimmage, obviously, I couldn't agree more. I donated and I will donate again.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

As to your suggestion that you trust the European system more, here is my counter: That case would have never been allowed to proceed past a motion to dismiss here. It fails immediately. So you either don't know, or don't understand the protections we as US citizens have in regards to our right to free speech. That a case like that can proceed to verdict shows your system is weaker, and much less supportive of free speech rights. Period. End of story.

Different countries have different standards. My simplistic understanding is that in the UK, it is not necessary to prove intent to defame to win a case you bring for libel. You just have to prove that defamation has taken place. In the US, it is necessary to prove intent as well. Ergo, it's easier to win a libel case in the UK than the US.

However, you can't judge a country's legal system simply by means of its free speech/libel laws. There are plenty of folk in the UK who have grave misgivings about the death penalty in the US (particularly how it is disproportionately applied to ethnic minorities) and also that it appears to be perfectly legal to own enough firearms to start a revolution in South America.

Whatever else you say about the UK and Switzerland, neither of these countries have produced George Bush (senior or junior) which is a cause for national rejoicing, notwithstanding Tony Blair.

 

[AcademyCC]

http://www.cyclismas.com/

Just in case people need the link again. Another few dollars is the best way to voice your opinion.

 

[ToreBear]

Yes, I am a law student, but I do not have access, nor the language skills to discern the standard used in that case. However, from the verdict, the standard appears pretty clear. The verdict imposes sanctions that are unconscionable.

As to your suggestion that you trust the European system more, here is my counter: That case would have never been allowed to proceed past a motion to dismiss here. It fails immediately. So you either don't know, or don't understand the protections we as US citizens have in regards to our right to free speech. That a case like that can proceed to verdict shows your system is weaker, and much less supportive of free speech rights. Period. End of story.

As far as I understand the sanctions are not so clear cut. It mentions something about criminal code. As I understand it if Floyd does not do something or does something he can be subject to criminal prosecution(a fine). So that means the case would move from a civil case to a criminal case which perhaps works differently? If they have that division that is?

As for motion to dismiss, someone would have to put that motion forward. There was no one. Hence default judgement.

Now as for systems, I'm Norwegian. My country is also subject to the ECHR. But I have no idea how the Swiss system works, only that our "supreme court" is the same if the case goes that far.

As far as I know we have a criminal and a civil system. In criminal court the government pays your legal bills. In civil court, I have no idea. Probably I would get representation from someone supported by the government since I'm broke.

The point is that in the US you are at the mercy of your legal bills. You need good Lawyers to defent you and that costs money. In many European countries there are systems that are meant to prevent lawfare of this kind.

But, this is probably different in several countries, since they are not up to date to the standards set by the ECHR.

I think the UK is very backward in regards to freedom of speech and it's protections. Illustraded by the mclibel case and the superinjunction in the Trafigura case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura

Now, as for my free speech I say that:

the Union Cycliste Internationale, Patrick (Pat)
McQuaid and/or Henricus (Hein) Verbruggen have concealed cases of doping, received
money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping
case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in
manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the
results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are
terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine
desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of ****, are clowns, their words are
worthless, are liars,..........

Now I removed one part because I don't want to lie. This was that they are no different than Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Also the terrorist part is dubious, but I think enough people might have felt a certain amount of angsiety in the way they have behaved that I can think they are terrorizing people.


Now if pat and Hein want to sue me, go ahead. I will if aproached give my adress for further correspondence.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Different countries have different standards. My simplistic understanding is that in the UK, it is not necessary to prove intent to defame to win a case you bring for libel. You just have to prove that defamation has taken place. In the US, it is necessary to prove intent as well. Ergo, it's easier to win a libel case in the UK than the US.

However, you can't judge a country's legal system simply by means of its free speech/libel laws. There are plenty of folk in the UK who have grave misgivings about the death penalty in the US (particularly how it is disproportionately applied to ethnic minorities) and also that it appears to be perfectly legal to own enough firearms to start a revolution in South America.

Whatever else you say about the UK and Switzerland, neither of these countries have produced George Bush (senior or junior) which is a cause for national rejoicing, notwithstanding Tony Blair.

Yes, I can.

And in the US, with a public figure (and the UCI, McQuaid, and Henricus all qualify), all you have to do is prove you subjectively believed the statements you made. In fact, the standard is so hard for the person bringing the case to prove, that if I were the opposing attorney, I would ask for sanctions against the attorney for the UCI if they even tried to file here. That is the difference, and it is a big difference.

You can disagree about the death penalty. I passionately detest the death penalty. But that is a straw man. Criminal penalties are not the same thing as our constitutionally derived right to free speech. Free speech is foundational to our existence as a nation.

Ad if you want to do down the "you have produced some really bad politicians" road, I think you might want to take the blinders off and look at your and the other histories of European countries first. Bush is a moron, but he is far from being the most egregious example of politics gone bad.

I am sorry your country provides an example of how NOT to ensure free speech, but the facts and laws are what they are, and ours are far superior to yours in relation to this topic. If you want to drag out every single issue and have a debate on that, start your own thread.

 

[Nick C.]

Does anyone know whether the this decision is just a rubber stamp of the plaintiff's (UCI) complaint based on defendant's (Landis) failure to appear, answer or respond (put up a defense)? anyone?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

As far as I understand the sanctions are not so clear cut. It mentions something about criminal code. As I understand it if Floyd does not do something or does something he can be subject to criminal prosecution(a fine). So that means the case would move from a civil case to a criminal case which perhaps works differently? If they have that division that is?

As for motion to dismiss, someone would have to put that motion forward. There was no one. Hence default judgement.

Now as for systems, I'm Norwegian. My country is also subject to the ECHR. But I have no idea how the Swiss system works, only that our "supreme court" is the same if the case goes that far.

As far as I know we have a criminal and a civil system. In criminal court the government pays your legal bills. In civil court, I have no idea. Probably I would get representation from someone supported by the government since I'm broke.

The point is that in the US you are at the mercy of your legal bills. You need good Lawyers to defent you and that costs money. In many European countries there are systems that are meant to prevent lawfare of this kind.

But, this is probably different in several countries, since they are not up to date to the standards set by the ECHR.

I think the UK is very backward in regards to freedom of speech and it's protections. Illustraded by the mclibel case and the superinjunction in the Trafigura case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura

Now, as for my free speech I say that:

the Union Cycliste Internationale, Patrick (Pat)
McQuaid and/or Henricus (Hein) Verbruggen have concealed cases of doping, received
money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping
case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in
manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the
results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are
terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine
desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of ****, are clowns, their words are
worthless, are liars,..........

Now I removed one part because I don't want to lie. This was that they are no different than Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Also the terrorist part is dubious, but I think enough people might have felt a certain amount of angsiety in the way they have behaved that I can think they are terrorizing people.


Now if pat and Hein want to sue me, go ahead. I will if aproached give my adress for further correspondence.

Not in this case. You can easily find a pro bono attorney willing to file for dismissal, and it wouldn't cost you a thing. Easy case for the attorney. No time at all for him to draft the motion.

As for the verdict, as I read it, Floyd is required by the verdict to pay a penalty, legal fees, and take out an ad in several publications (at his expense) detailing the verdict.

Thank you for the last bit though. I too would gladly provide my contact information to the UCI so that I could be sued for having posted about them. Gladly.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Does anyone know whether the this decision is just a rubber stamp of the plaintiff's (UCI) complaint based on defendant's (Landis) failure to appear, answer or respond (put up a defense)? anyone?

It isn't just a rubber stamp because the court was VERY detailed in it's verdict. They imposed specific sanctions that were at their discretion to make, thus the verdict is in effect is much more than a default, though in character, that is what it is.

 

[ToreBear]

Not in this case. You can easily find a pro bono attorney willing to file for dismissal, and it wouldn't cost you a thing. Easy case for the attorney. No time at all for him to draft the motion.

As for the verdict, as I read it, Floyd is required by the verdict to pay a penalty, legal fees, and take out an ad in several publications (at his expense) detailing the verdict.

Thank you for the last bit though. I too would gladly provide my contact information to the UCI so that I could be sued for having posted about them. Gladly.

It would suprise me if Landis could'nt find similar help in Switzerland. But he did'nt try.

As for the verdict:

notes
that the prohibition under II above and the order under III above shall be subject
to a fine in accordance with article 292 of the Swiss Criminal Code in the event of failure
to comply with a decision by the competent authority; under the provision, anyone who
fails to comply with a decision of which he/she has been notified, under threat of the
penalty provided by the present article, by a competent authority or official, shall be
punishable by a fine;

Since it brings up the criminal code I'm a bit puzzled.


Anyway, on the legal side. What puzzles me is that the court can do anything without all parties having been informed. If pat and Hein wanted to enforce anything on me, that would I imagine be the easiest way for the court to dismiss them, and make them pay expenses.

 

[serottasyclist]

It isn't just a rubber stamp because the court was VERY detailed in it's verdict. They imposed specific sanctions that were at their discretion to make, thus the verdict is in effect is much more than a default, though in character, that is what it is.

The details are there because it is exactly what plaintiff requested. And given the posture of the case b/f the court, the request wasn't unreasonable. Plaintiff said Landis defamed them. Landis didn't defend, therefore, default judgment is that Landis is guilty of defamation. The punishment requested/awarded is not unreasonable for someone found guilty of defamation.

I don't see how this outcome, given that nobody filed a motion to dismiss, can stand as a symbol of the wretchedness of a country and their legal system.

Also, since when is the death penalty not an issue of constitutionally protected rights?!?!?!?!?!? Isn't the right to life, like, the most fundamental of fundamental rights?

 

[Nick C.]

The court actually came up with all the permutations of names Landis can no longer call the UCI? I can't tell but it would be surprising. Despite the way blurbs present it I also don't think there was actually evidence presented and a hearing where the court debated whether there was actual libel. It is unfortunate it will get spun and presented as if the court heard hours of testimony did independent research blah blah blah and came to the conclusion that they were libeled.

 

[ToreBear]

Does anyone know whether the this decision is just a rubber stamp of the plaintiff's (UCI) complaint based on defendant's (Landis) failure to appear, answer or respond (put up a defense)? anyone?

I don't know, but I think so. Had he had anyone representing him, I would imagine we would have heard something earlier. And the information the court released would have been much longer.

It seems the UCI choose to release this information 2 days before the timelimit for something passes.

Perhaps they are hoping Floyd wont take this further.

 

[ToreBear]

Different countries have different standards. My simplistic understanding is that in the UK, it is not necessary to prove intent to defame to win a case you bring for libel. You just have to prove that defamation has taken place. In the US, it is necessary to prove intent as well. Ergo, it's easier to win a libel case in the UK than the US.

However, you can't judge a country's legal system simply by means of its free speech/libel laws. There are plenty of folk in the UK who have grave misgivings about the death penalty in the US (particularly how it is disproportionately applied to ethnic minorities) and also that it appears to be perfectly legal to own enough firearms to start a revolution in South America.

Whatever else you say about the UK and Switzerland, neither of these countries have produced George Bush (senior or junior) which is a cause for national rejoicing, notwithstanding Tony Blair.

I think the UK defarmation/libel system is not up to ECHR standards. That means not enough people have appealed all the way, and hence the UK politicians/supreme court have not been forced to bring their laws into line with European Convention on Human Rights.

 

[Rockets160]

So how will this apply to LA and crew if the precedent has been set as UCI did not cover up any doping results? I'm not a lawyer but I can hear the aurguement now-"Swiss courts have already ruled UCI is not corrupt, etc, the evidence USADA has is inadmissable and does not apply as the courts have already ruled on this."

Seriously, will this have any impact on USADA information regarding LA, doping conspiracy, blah, blah, blah?

 

[Jeremiah]

Well, I hope that's the last of the Floyd Landis Train Wreck.

Huh? I hope that Floyd goes all in on this. Opportunities like this come along very rarely if at all.

I don't. That any jurisdiction in the world allows a defamation case based on the statements they have forbidden Floyd from making simply shows that the idea of free speech needs to be extended in those countries. Not only that, but it will be interesting to see if California enforces this judgment. I don't think they will, but it will be interesting to see how that plays out. Will the UCI try to have that judgment enforced here? I certainly hope so.

Oh yeah! That the Swiss have fallen in with these UCI clowns just exemplifies how psychotic they are.

If Floyd's shown us anything it's that he doesn't back down.

Floyd has nothing to lose and a whole heck of a lot to gain. If I read this right I see him milking this thing for all it's worth.

Right now I'll bet he's begging these P'sOS to try to enforce this... As RR says, this is comedy gold.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The details are there because it is exactly what plaintiff requested. And given the posture of the case b/f the court, the request wasn't unreasonable. Plaintiff said Landis defamed them. Landis didn't defend, therefore, default judgment is that Landis is guilty of defamation. The punishment requested/awarded is not unreasonable for someone found guilty of defamation.

I don't have a link to the filing by Pat and Hein, if you do, I would like to see the specific relief they asked for. If you are just guessing, don't bull****.

I don't see how this outcome, given that nobody filed a motion to dismiss, can stand as a symbol of the wretchedness of a country and their legal system.

The wretchedness of the system is that a case like that can even be filed without threat of sanctions against the attorney doing so. To suggest that all Floyd had to do was to file a motion to dismiss is disingenuous. The laws of Switzerland obviously offer the fertile ground for such a case to be filed. That being the case, I can make a brief summation of my opinion of that all I want. That opinion is that the defamation laws are ****ing ridiculous (using the proper legal term for such things).

Also, since when is the death penalty not an issue of constitutionally protected rights?!?!?!?!?!? Isn't the right to life, like, the most fundamental of fundamental rights?

Um, since SCOTUS has upheld the death penalty??? It is not the right to life, it is the punishment of a criminal. If the criminal held a right to life (according to SCOTUS) unabridged by any law and upheld by the Constitution, the death penalty would not be allowed. The death penalty does not violate the rights protected by the Constitution, ergo, the criminal does not hold that constitutional right. So no, the criminal who is found guilty of a CRIMINAL law that has death as a punishment is not entitled to their life. The criminal forfeited his or her right, the government didn't take it away. I don't agree with that position, but that's how it plays out.

Not to mention the fact that it is a bull**** strawman in relation to this conversation. Congratulations for furthering it...

 

[MarkvW]

If Floyd's lawyer is correct, it appears that the Swiss Court issued this default judgment against Floyd without McBruggen ever accomplishing any kind of service of process.

That makes enforceability a lot more problematical.

Looks like VerQuaid just wanted to end the thing before the real PR nightmare begins. Fortunately, Kimmage has spit in that soup!

 

[ultimobici]

Since this case is essentially the same claim as the Kimmage case, if Kimmage prevails can Floyd appeal his verdict?

 

[serottasyclist]

I don't have a link to the filing by Pat and Hein, if you do, I would like to see the specific relief they asked for. If you are just guessing, don't bull****.



The wretchedness of the system is that a case like that can even be filed without threat of sanctions against the attorney doing so. To suggest that all Floyd had to do was to file a motion to dismiss is disingenuous. The laws of Switzerland obviously offer the fertile ground for such a case to be filed. That being the case, I can make a brief summation of my opinion of that all I want. That opinion is that the defamation laws are ****ing ridiculous (using the proper legal term for such things).



Um, since SCOTUS has upheld the death penalty??? It is not the right to life, it is the punishment of a criminal. If the criminal held a right to life (according to SCOTUS) unabridged by any law and upheld by the Constitution, the death penalty would not be allowed. The death penalty does not violate the rights protected by the Constitution, ergo, the criminal does not hold that constitutional right. So no, the criminal who is found guilty of a CRIMINAL law that has death as a punishment is not entitled to their life. The criminal forfeited his or her right, the government didn't take it away. I don't agree with that position, but that's how it plays out.

Not to mention the fact that it is a bull**** strawman in relation to this conversation. Congratulations for furthering it...

(1) The damages awarded mirror those requested in the Kimmage case. One can deduce that they asked for similar damages in both cases. So no, I don't have a link -- but its far from me bull****ting. But to the broader point -- the court had to find Landis guilty of defamation, and the usual result in a finding of defamation is requiring the defendant to publicly apologize, to refrain from making similar statements and to pay damages -- so what's ridiculous about the order?

(2) How could this case not ahve been filed in the U.S.? Unless the attnys knew that Hein and Pat had in fact covered up tests, how would anyone be running afoul of rule 11 by filing a defamation suit? Also, since when has limiting citizen's access to courts been a sign of a quality legal system?

(3) Its not a strawman. You said (paraphrasing) "swiss legal system sucks because they place too great a limit on the freedom of speech." Someone counters that with "Um, you guys put way to many limitations on the freedom to LIFE in your country, so, uh, don't throw stones"

The lawsuit was stupid. Floyd knew it was stupid so he didn't address it. That does not mean that the entire Swiss legal system is somehow flawed.

 

[superleicht]

Pretty common in a default judgement for the plaintiff(s) to be granted whatever relief was requested in the pleading (damages can be limited by the judge or by statute.)

As for enforcement of the judgment against a person in the US, service would have had to been proper. Who knows?

Superleicht

 

[ChewbaccaD]

(1) The damages awarded mirror those requested in the Kimmage case. One can deduce that they asked for similar damages in both cases. So no, I don't have a link -- but its far from me bull****ting. But to the broader point -- the court had to find Landis guilty of defamation, and the usual result in a finding of defamation is requiring the defendant to publicly apologize, to refrain from making similar statements and to pay damages -- so what's ridiculous about the order?

He has to take out ads, at his expense NOT apologizing, but delineating the verdict. Did you read it, or are you just continuing to make **** up? Noted: you can't provide proof of your statement.

(2) How could this case not ahve been filed in the U.S.? Unless the attnys knew that Hein and Pat had in fact covered up tests, how would anyone be running afoul of rule 11 by filing a defamation suit? Also, since when has limiting citizen's access to courts been a sign of a quality legal system?

Because the precedent regarding public figures is something every 1L knows well, not to mention every judge who might hear such a case. Frivolous lawsuits may carry with them the possibility that a judge may sanction an attorney. You do understand that, right? You did take an ethics class in law school, right? They did go over that, right? You did take the MPRE, right?

The limit on the suit is the precedent for defamation for public figures. If you need a refresher, I suggest contacting your Torts law school professor and asking for his syllabus and his book for the semester. I think you will find the answers there.

(3) Its not a strawman. You said (paraphrasing) "swiss legal system sucks because they place too great a limit on the freedom of speech." Someone counters that with "Um, you guys put way to many limitations on the freedom to LIFE in your country, so, uh, don't throw stones"

The lawsuit was stupid. Floyd knew it was stupid so he didn't address it. That does not mean that the entire Swiss legal system is somehow flawed.

If you cannot see how interjecting a new argument without having ever refuted the actual point of the original argument is a straw man, again, I ask you to do a bit more reading on the subject.

I do notice your ceding of the point that the "freedom to LIFE" is not a "constitutionally guaranteed freedom to LIFE" in this context. If it isn't a constitutional right, it isn't a constitutional question. Again, 1L stuff.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Pretty common in a default judgement for the plaintiff(s) to be granted whatever relief was requested in the pleading (damages can be limited by the judge or by statute.)

As for enforcement of the judgment against a person in the US, service would have had to been proper. Who knows?

Superleicht

I just want to see the filing with proof that they asked that Floyd be required to pay for an ad, at his expense, in specific publications, announcing the verdict. Maybe it's there. I just haven't seen the proof of it yet. Maybe you guys can provide it, and you are right? But just maybe, the court added some twists of its own in sentencing. I am not too familiar with sentencing, but I do know that judges have leeway in them, and that merely granting the requests of a plaintiff in a default situation is not required. But maybe all they did was recite the relief requested? I don't know. Nobody has provided the proof they know either, so...