Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman
I sense a big existential moment coming.
Greg, legal opinions are like...you know. I would not advise a client to do what ML did based on my experience litigating CA's consumer protection laws on both sides (plaintiff and defense) over the last 30+ years, but that's my take. Unless/until someone sues, we won't have a definitive answer. For all we know, ML's counsel may have opined that while there is a substantial risk of liability, there is a negligible risk of significant monetary damages, so the odds of someone suing are low.
John, no government agency has the right to impose a gag order--that can only come from a court with jurisdiction over the speakers. Law enforcement can ask a victim not to make public statements but there is no prior restraint absent a court order.
|
Oh I'm very aware. I'm trying to get the Memory Lane defenders to make an argument on grounds of reason instead of grounds of pretending that lying to tons of people is not deceitful, or being richer, or obviously untrue insurance stories that have never happened before in the entire history of the world. It's a leading point to push to water so I have something better to contend with. It is, obviously, not the ethical high ground position to run a fraudulent auction, so let's try to do it on legal grounds then (or some other reasonable argument(. I want a good argument to debate with.