Why I will never eat fondue again:

[rhubroma]

Well this isn't my terrain, but it seems to me there haven't been enough people put to death in the US, nor killed by guns, for most people to question the ethical foundation of the Constitution. Even if the tolls are quite barbarously high.

As far as Floyd is concerned, if this thing has no juridical merit then who cares?

 

[rickshaw]

Hold on a sec....

I thought this was thread about fondu?

You can still eat it, just don't use Swiss cheese! Use American processed cheese food, ya know Velveeta. Cube it up, put ina bowl with a heat lamp over it, in a few minutes, WaLa! big ooee gooee cheesee stuff. Splash of beer in there, loaf of Wonder Bread, maybe a tumbler of Mogan David. See you don't have to deprive yourself of anything.

As for the Swiss "Justice System", aren't they still holding on to the loot stolen from Nazi concentration camp victims? Even the Higgs Bozon doesn't compensate for that. IMHO

 

[Velodude]

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

Andrew Jennings co-authored a book in 1992 titled "The Lords of the Rings , Power, Money & Drugs in the Modern Olympics" exposing corruption and cronyism in the IOC.

IOC and Samaranch took defamation proceedings in the Swiss Courts. I recall the case was not defended and the IOC won on criminal defamation. If Jennings turned up in Switzerland he would be arrested. Jennings avoided Switzerland.

However, Jennings was vindicated when IOC corrupt conduct was exposed during the investigation into the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics bid win.

10 IOC members were dismissed an a further 10 sanctioned.

I have a deja vu feeling that history will repeat itself with Floyd and the UCI.

 

[ToreBear]

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...

As I understand it. This is exactly what the UCI asked for. I seem to remember articles talking about money and an apology printed in different publications.

As for what the court can and can't do, I don't think you can use your knowledge of the US system and expect things to work the same in Switzerland.

What I find interesting is that the judgement is available in English. I find it strange that a swiss court would give a verdict in a foreign language. English is not an official language in Switzerland.

So did the court translate, or did someone at the UCI do it? Is everything from the court included, or only parts? There are many things we don't know.

Anyway I don't see any problems for Floyd. He should be able to ignore this case if he wants to. Should Hein or Pat want to pursue Floyd they would have to sue in a court where he lives, and I don't see them doing that.

Ps. Please try to calm down. If not for your bloodpressure, then for your fellow posters. I found it really hard to understand what I quoted from you.

 

[Sarcastic Wet Trout]

Well this isn't my terrain, but ... .

I stop reading posts at this point.

 

[veganrob]

Fondue is Swiss. I didn't know that but it would certainly explain a lot. Kinda gross

 

[serottasyclist]

Alright, so the actual difference between U.S. and Swiss law is essentially one of burden shifting. Essentially, under Swiss law malicious intent is presumed for a false statement, but defendant can defend against the claim by showing "he had reasonable cause to 'hold them in good faith as being truthful.'" So there's a difference, but...not much.

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/switzerland-defamation-laws/

Regarding sanctions, I did a quick google search for "switzerland frivolous lawsuit sanctions" and got a bunch of crap. But seriously -- do we think there are no reprucussions for filing a frivolous lawsuit in Switzerland?!?

Regarding sanctions in the U.S. -- a complaint has to be really, really out of line b/f sanctions are applied. A fact for which you'll likely be grateful in a few years. Pat and Hein could file the suit, allege Floyd had malicious intent, and as evidence of that intent say he has a qui tam case pending where he stands to profit substantially if a jury believed Armtrong paid off UCI to cover up a test. Will they win? Probably not . . . but certainly no sanctions would result.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Alright, so the actual difference between U.S. and Swiss law is essentially one of burden shifting. Essentially, under Swiss law malicious intent is presumed for a false statement, but defendant can defend against the claim by showing "he had reasonable cause to 'hold them in good faith as being truthful.'" So there's a difference, but...not much.

There is a HUGE difference. The standard in the US regarding PUBLIC FIGURES is whether the person making the statement had a SUBJECTIVE belief the statement they made was true, and it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove otherwise. This has been observed to be about as close to impossible a standard to accomplish for a plaintiff as any in our judicial system.

Regarding sanctions, I did a quick google search for "switzerland frivolous lawsuit sanctions" and got a bunch of crap. But seriously -- do we think there are no reprucussions for filing a frivolous lawsuit in Switzerland?!?

The problem is that it isn't a frivolous lawsuit in Switzerland.

Regarding sanctions in the U.S. -- a complaint has to be really, really out of line b/f sanctions are applied. A fact for which you'll likely be grateful in a few years. Pat and Hein could file the suit, allege Floyd had malicious intent, and as evidence of that intent say he has a qui tam case pending where he stands to profit substantially if a jury believed Armtrong paid off UCI to cover up a test. Will they win? Probably not . . . but certainly no sanctions would result.

I said I would ask for them (with the knowledge they are rarely given for something like that), which is why I was clear NOT to suggest they would surely receive them. It's a symbolic move for sure, but one that in that instance is well deserved.

As to whether or not I will benefit from that leeway, I know the numbers suggest that is true; but if your suggestion was made to characterize me personally, I would suggest that an attorney who came on here to berate a law student, who was also not correct as often as you have been in that pursuit is not the person I will give much credence to in relation to their opinion of me or my future legal career. Sorry.

You wanna play nice now, and drop the attitude you presented in your first post to me, I'm cool with that. You want this to remain adversarial, I think you can see that I am capable of going toe to toe also. Your call counselor.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

As I understand it. This is exactly what the UCI asked for. I seem to remember articles talking about money and an apology printed in different publications.

As for what the court can and can't do, I don't think you can use your knowledge of the US system and expect things to work the same in Switzerland.

What I find interesting is that the judgement is available in English. I find it strange that a swiss court would give a verdict in a foreign language. English is not an official language in Switzerland.

So did the court translate, or did someone at the UCI do it? Is everything from the court included, or only parts? There are many things we don't know.

Anyway I don't see any problems for Floyd. He should be able to ignore this case if he wants to. Should Hein or Pat want to pursue Floyd they would have to sue in a court where he lives, and I don't see them doing that.

Ps. Please try to calm down. If not for your bloodpressure, then for your fellow posters. I found it really hard to understand what I quoted from you.

Okay, calmly: "Landis has been ordered to take out advertisements at his own expense publishing the verdict in the Wall Street Journal, L’Équipe, Le Temps, NYVelocity, Cyclingnews, Velonation, Velonews and De Volksrant."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-court-finds-in-ucis-favour-in-landis-defamation-case

It says nothing about buying an ad to apologize. Again, I want to see the UCI's initial filing where they ask for relief, and see what EXACT relief for which they asked. Nothing personal.

 

[Jeremiah]

Swiss Banks Settlement

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.

http://www.swissbankclaims.com/Overview.aspx

Where in the hell do the Swiss derive moral authority to suppress free speech much less anything else?

Bag men and money launderers for genocidal freaks and other criminals. They then laid claim to the spoils of mass murder and sought to cover it up!

If you believe in the adage that money is the root of all evil, the Swiss are doing a great job ensuring their own corruption with their effed up "banking" practices....

In my estimation the Swiss have produced legions of people who are the moral equivalents of GWB and worse...

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.

uh, yeah!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

http://www.swissbankclaims.com/Overview.aspx

Where in the hell do the Swiss derive moral authority to suppress free speech much less anything else?

Bag men and money launderers for genocidal freaks and other criminals. They then laid claim to the spoils of mass murder and sought to cover it up!

If you believe in the adage that money is the root of all evil, the Swiss are doing a great job ensuring their own corruption with their effed up "banking" practices....

In my estimation the Swiss have produced legions of people who are the moral equivalents of GWB and worse...



uh, yeah!

Yes, you have perfectly illustrated the hazards of the "your country is the worst" game that gets played many times with the US as the whipping boy. Sure, we have our dirty underwear, but we also have our shining examples. Free speech is one of those things.

I want to make sure I do point out to everyone here that free speech is not just a sideshow for me. I am passionate about many things, but have to say that this subject is one of the things I am most passionate about. I believe that protection of free speech is the most essential element in ensuring true liberty. Landis being sued was horrible, but the fact that the Pat and Hein have filed against Kimmage, and that suit has ANY chance of success is unconscionable to me. Look at the definition of "unconscionable" and understand that I use that word to the boundaries of its definition.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

http://www.swissbankclaims.com/Overview.aspx

Where in the hell do the Swiss derive moral authority to suppress free speech much less anything else?

Bag men and money launderers for genocidal freaks and other criminals. They then laid claim to the spoils of mass murder and sought to cover it up!

If you believe in the adage that money is the root of all evil, the Swiss are doing a great job ensuring their own corruption with their effed up "banking" practices....

In my estimation the Swiss have produced legions of people who are the moral equivalents of GWB and worse...



uh, yeah!

Yes, you have perfectly illustrated the hazards of the "your country is the worst" game that gets played many times with the US as the whipping boy. Sure, we have our dirty underwear, but we also have our shining examples. Free speech is one of those things.

I want to make sure I do point out to everyone here that free speech is not just a sideshow for me. I am passionate about many things, but have to say that this subject is one of the things I am most passionate about. I believe that protection of free speech is the most essential element in ensuring true liberty. Landis being sued was horrible, but the fact that the Pat and Hein have filed against Kimmage, and that suit has ANY chance of success is unconscionable to me. Look at the definition of "unconscionable" and understand that I use that word to the boundaries of its definition.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, you have perfectly illustrated the hazards of the "your country is the worst" game that gets played many times with the US as the whipping boy. Sure, we have our dirty underwear, but we also have our shining examples. Free speech is one of those things.

I want to make sure I do point out to everyone here that free speech is not just a sideshow for me. I am passionate about many things, but have to say that this subject is one of the things I am most passionate about. I believe that protection of free speech is the most essential element in ensuring true liberty. Landis being sued was horrible, but the fact that the Pat and Hein have filed against Kimmage, and that suit has ANY chance of success is unconscionable to me. Look at the definition of "unconscionable" and understand that I use that word to the boundaries of its definition.

Ok - while I agree with everything you write - but that is more of an American issue. In Europe in different states there are severe laws against libel, particularly in Britain.

However - this also means that in Europe acts like the one done on Landis are looked at as suppression - so the UCI have actually brought notice that they are indeed FOS.

Landis could have avoided this and probably won his case (as I hope Kimmage will) by showing that he believed his statements to be true - so it is a very hollow 'victory' for the UCI and one I think they will regret doing soon

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Ok - while I agree with everything you write - but that is more of an American issue. In Europe in different states there are severe laws against libel, particularly in Britain.

However - this also means that in Europe acts like the one done on Landis are looked at as suppression - so the UCI have actually brought notice that they are indeed FOS.

Landis could have avoided this and probably won his case (as I hope Kimmage will) by showing that he believed his statements to be true - so it is a very hollow 'victory' for the UCI and one I think they will regret doing soon

That isn't the standard. He has to show he has a reasonable belief. That standard may not sound like much more, but I assure you that it is.

In the US, Pat and Hein would have had to prove Landis did not subjectively believe the statement he made. That asks them to crawl into his head, and is an almost impossible thing to do in ANY case, and particularly in this one. That is not even close to the Swiss standard, and Landis' burden there would have been hard to overcome, not to mention extremely expensive. So I don't agree with your characterization. In a friendly way.

 

[thehog]

That isn't the standard. He has to show he has a reasonable belief. That standard may not sound like much more, but I assure you that it is.

In the US, Pat and Hein would have had to prove Landis did not subjectively believe the statement he made. That asks them to crawl into his head, and is an almost impossible thing to do in ANY case, and particularly in this one. That is not even close to the Swiss standard, and Landis' burden there would have been hard to overcome, not to mention extremely expensive. So I don't agree with your characterization. In a friendly way.

The timing was important. Knowing Landis couldn't defend himself prior to the USADA dossier being released to the public the UCI struck.

They knew Floyd couldn't use what he already knows to be true until its formally tabled.

Shrewd and very corrupt.

Time.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That isn't the standard. He has to show he has a reasonable belief. That standard may not sound like much more, but I assure you that it is.

In the US, Pat and Hein would have had to prove Landis did not subjectively believe the statement he made. That asks them to crawl into his head, and is an almost impossible thing to do in ANY case, and particularly in this one. That is not even close to the Swiss standard, and Landis' burden there would have been hard to overcome, not to mention extremely expensive. So I don't agree with your characterization. In a friendly way.

Fair enough - I wasn't flaming.
Not being a legal mind I wrote the "true" thing (in error)- but I am not sure what the distinction is in "reasonable belief", I assume it is essentially that he is not just making wild baseless allegations? Is that the Swiss burden?

Again - my point really is - in the US you are allowed say basically whatever you like, which means that often when people say something it is dismissed.
In Europe (in certain countries) it is almost the opposite - which means if someone is actually brought to court, it is either a) because they did defame someone or more usually b) viewed as a bullying tactic.
Landis will certainly be viewed in the latter category - and it essentially confirms his comments.

 

[MarkvW]

That isn't the standard. He has to show he has a reasonable belief. That standard may not sound like much more, but I assure you that it is.

In the US, Pat and Hein would have had to prove Landis did not subjectively believe the statement he made. That asks them to crawl into his head, and is an almost impossible thing to do in ANY case, and particularly in this one. That is not even close to the Swiss standard, and Landis' burden there would have been hard to overcome, not to mention extremely expensive. So I don't agree with your characterization. In a friendly way.

In my part of the USA, McBruggen would have had to prove (a) falsity; (b) an unprivileged communication; (c) fault; and (d) damages. On top of that, because McBruggen is a public figure (and the US Constitution requires), McBruggen would have had to prove Floyd knew that the statement was false or that Floyd made the statement with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.

McBruggen could never come anywhere close to proving defamation in the USA.

I suspect McBruggen may even have a hard time in Switzerland with Mr. Kimmage. Support Kimmage! Give him the resources needed to fight those evil monsters.

http://www.cyclismas.com

 

[ChewbaccaD]

In my part of the USA, McBruggen would have had to prove (a) falsity; (b) an unprivileged communication; (c) fault; and (d) damages. On top of that, because McBruggen is a public figure (and the US Constitution requires), McBruggen would have had to prove Floyd knew that the statement was false or that Floyd made the statement with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.

McBruggen could never come anywhere close to proving defamation in the USA.

I suspect McBruggen may even have a hard time in Switzerland with Mr. Kimmage. Support Kimmage! Give him the resources needed to fight those evil monsters.

http://www.cyclismas.com

That was what I was referring to. I was trying not to get to legalese which is why I said they would have to prove he didn't subjectively believe his statement. And the standard from NY Times v. Sullivan is that they have to prove "actual malice." I just didn't want to have to get into explaining terms of art.

 

[rhubroma]

I stop reading posts at this point.

Why are you another one of those pettifogging lawyers?

Or just another type of elitist snob who thinks the obvious is too trite to be said? I could quote Manzoni right now about the convolutions of the whole legal aparatus, but I won’t just to not be thought of in the same light.

 

[TexPat]

http://www.swissbankclaims.com/Overview.aspx

Where in the hell do the Swiss derive moral authority to suppress free speech much less anything else?

Bag men and money launderers for genocidal freaks and other criminals. They then laid claim to the spoils of mass murder and sought to cover it up!

If you believe in the adage that money is the root of all evil, the Swiss are doing a great job ensuring their own corruption with their effed up "banking" practices....

In my estimation the Swiss have produced legions of people who are the moral equivalents of GWB and worse...







uh, yeah!

Yep. Don't want to fall prey to gross generalization about a country, but have to agree. Their liberal (and practical!) drug laws lean on the side of libertarianism, but ironically the approach to libel seems free-wheeling and loose to the point of being asinine.
Just got a Ritchey Swiss Cross today. Made in Taiwan. Designed by Tom. Has nothing to do with the Swiss, except for good old Frischknecht, of course.

 

[Cloxxki]

Yes, you have perfectly illustrated the hazards of the "your country is the worst" game that gets played many times with the US as the whipping boy. Sure, we have our dirty underwear, but we also have our shining examples. Free speech is one of those things.

Except for in public, and with regards to the government
But yeah, you're allowed to talk crap about corperations and persons.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I stop reading posts at this point.

You should have read it, because as usual it was a cheap shot crap-tastic post.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Except for in public, and with regards to the government
But yeah, you're allowed to talk crap about corperations and persons.

Well, in the "free speech zones" you are allowed to say anything you want without arrest or under threat of being sued...so we still got that...

Yea, I saw lots of protests during the DNC, and they were allowed to say anything they wanted, but protesters were strictly controlled as to where they could protest...didn't feel much like a protest when there is a rolling box of police officers on bikes surrounding you.

 

[Cloxxki]

Well, in the "free speech zones" you are allowed to say anything you want without arrest or under threat of being sued...so we still got that...

Yea, I saw lots of protests during the DNC, and they were allowed to say anything they wanted, but protesters were strictly controlled as to where they could protest...didn't feel much like a protest when there is a rolling box of police officers on bikes surrounding you.

The land of the free!

Of course, Switzerland is worse. They don't want anyone inside their borders anyway. They use jail sentences like the US use rejected visa applications.

 

[Al Lesklar]

Switzerland, like the US, is a federation of states (known as cantons/kantonen/cantoni). The decision was rendered by the court of the East-Vaud, a cantonal court roughly equivalent to the 4th district court of Colorado.
You can still eat fondu, because the classic cheeses used to make it (gruyere, vacherin mont d'or) come from the canton of Fribourg. You might want to boycott Nestle, though, since its corporate headquarters are located within that same judicial district of the Est-vaudois.