My Aussie Lawyers

There has been much comment on here about the Evony case.
Now you can hear what the real lawyers acting for me have to say.

This went out on ABC Australia last night (their equivalent of R4). You can listen to it or read the transcript here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2009/2737300.htm

 

That's kind of interesting.

Your lawyers are concentrating on getting your case dismissed from being tried in Oz rather than defending what you've claimed. They even make it clear they've no idea who owns Evony in direct contradiction of your blog.

If your Oz lawyers succeed aren't you still open to be sued for defamation anywhere else in the world, including the UK? Winning in Australia will on create a precedence there.

 

Nice quote. I like.

 

I got so bored. It looks like Bruce's lawyer knows less about the game than Bruce. The blind leading the deaf. Keep up the updates, Bruce! This is gold entertainment.

 

Does it work with DSi?

 

But that was one of the early points made. It's not so much the legitimacy of the case being brought (Evony V Bruce), it's the fact that Evony have chosen somewhere neither party vests, nor has a vested interest in, simply because NSW has very tough, and case backed slander/libel laws in regards to the internet. And it's a pain in the arse to get to for anybody not from Oz.

That is a very very different point to 'The Chinese are falling' as is the defence of Bruce. But it's also a serious point. Where is a justifyable place to sue for libel/slander on the internet when both parties are miles and miles apart in terms of geography, but the inflammatory words can be seen by millions of people in millions of other locations? Can you just chose on a whim because you know the courts there will favour you? Or do you need to have a reason to pick that court other than 'Well, it looks like it'll be an easy win if we pick there'

If this case goes to court, then it will become a standard for anybody playing silly buggers in a lible case who has more money than the person they're taking to court.

Take it to Oz. It's expensive to get there, so they'll struggle to do that AND get a decent lawyer to help them.

And that's a horrible situation for anybody with an opinion they wish to share online.

 

All that is true, Rusty.

It doesn't make the ignorance of Bruce and his lawyer any less entertaining. To hear them trying to explain this game they never played and aren't even familiar with the genre in general, is just priceless.

 

Sorry, since when does someone in the UK have to respond to something being filed in a court in Australia (or any other country anyway)? Its a different country, I couldn't give 2 shits what a country with a backward legal system says if I don't live there, travel there or do business there. Can they really enforce their legal rulings on Bruce anyway? If so, its a disgrace.

 

The thoughts and opinions on Bruce, as well as his case are abound. And we all know whats there. It's kind of 'car crash entertainment' now.

But, his lawyers don't need to know the game or the case for this defense. Just that the lawsuit itself wrong.

They'll drop him like hot poo if they can't prove that and it's actually going to go to trial.

I don't think his lawyer is really that ignorant on the case because of anything stupid on thier part. They don't need to know about Evony or if Bruce is right, because to the part they're interested in, it's irrelevant.

Should this case be heard in Oz? Yes, or No? That's thier case.

And it's a good stance to take. I just think it's a little harsh to make them stupid by association because of Bruce. And it's also wrong of Bruce to assume his case has merits because he thinks his lawyers will win.

They won't win "the case". They'll just stop it going to trial in that country.

And Bruce will need to hope he can find good cheap/free lawyers in the next country Evony move it to.

 

But Bruce's lawyer doesn't say what you say. He actually spends a long time parroting Bruce's allegations against Evony and it's so painfully obvious neither one played the game or understand the genre.

I'm not really bothered by the global ramifications to the blogsphere from this case. They wouldn't have sued Bruce in Australia if he didn't provide them with such a solid case.

 

No thats my point. Why Australia? What possible legal reasons are there for them to pick Oz out of all of the locations available where a plaintiff or defendant is based? (China, US, UK)

(As much as he has helped Evony do so...) It's up to the court to decide if there is a case or not. And if you can't get to the court to defend yourself, then that's a rocky road for anybody with an online opinion. Or any opinion they may wish to share.

For example, you or I could post here anything we wanted about any company, as fact (in our heads) or just opinion. And we could keep coming back saying said company where clowns. Over and Over. We may not even be serious, but all it takes is somebody to decide that they want to sue for whatever reason. And then they get to pick the home ground to make things a little harder to defend ourselves.

For example, bruceongames.com could decide that our opinions or derogatory, or inflamitory and damaging his personal and business life and he want's to sue, for what we've written, in Oz. In the UK you would expect a judge to say 'Stop being a tit, and leave me alone' but internationally, who knows.

Personally, I don't know what effect a ruling in Oz may have against me internationally. If it can bite me on the arse in the UK. Or if I can just ignore the whole thing and say 'lalalalalala' as long as I don't ever plan on going to Oz.

What I don't like is the ability to do that on the part of the plaintif. If I said it in England, I want an english court to decide. Or at least a court in your home town where you felt aggreived. What I don't want is you to be able to pick a country because they have previously decided that internet people are cunts, and will hang them. So you're using that a precident to hang me out to dry...

Like I said, it's a bit of a slippery slope. In an age where you can sue anybody, for anything, also picking a venue internationally to make sure they side with you, or to make it as hard as possible and allegation to defend scares me.

Evony, (IMHO, IANAL) have bruce banged to rights on this where ever they try it, if there is a case to answer. So why did they pick Oz?

 

@Rusty, Bruce has previously said that Australia and the UK have a reciprocal agreement to uphold each other's court judgments.

 

Presumably that's based on the principle that the injured party is either Australian or has some kind of holdings in Australia. There appears to be no evidence that this is actually the case.

 

No idea, and it's quite interesting. I also think it's unfair and unreasonable. But it doesn't cause me any personal concern as I know I'll never write any reckless, baseless accusations like that that might put me in such a spot.

 

You have accused my lawyers of being ignorant. That is a libel. See, you could just as easily be caught out by this as I now am. Except, as they are in Australia, the precedent already exists for them to sue you there.

 

Bruce, you're conflating.

It is not libel as there is no ruling saying that it is. You and/or your lawyers may feel that it is potentially libellous but until you get your day in court it is not libel.

This is perfectly well explained in context. You're conflating to general ignorance rather than this very specific ignorance.

The following is certainly not libellous;

You, Bruce, are ignorant of the workings of the physics system within the Flock! game. Your ignorance could be amusing if you were trying to explain the system in detail to some one who worked on said system.

 

Nope. I haven't made any statement that I can't back up. If I said that your lawyer owns a yacht that he uses as a pirate to raid gay cruises in Alaska because someone e-mailed me that information, then I'd be in trouble.

All I said was that based on the way he speaks about the game, repeating your half-baked understanding of the game, it is obvious that neither one of you have actually played the game.

No lawyer will be silly enough to sue me over that. With you, on the other hand, you made not one, but several baseless accusations that without evidence sound like the rant of a somewhat racist conspiracy theorist.

 

And I haven't made any statements that I can't back up.
So from a libel point of view we are even.

 

Just as a quick point - Generally this is not how the justice system works.

 

Not a dig at people on here but does anyone else find that the legally uneducated debating legal issues is like an infinite loop?

There is a lot to hate about lawyers but in general, their education does actually carry some weight (similar to a Doctor) that you can't pick up from a few google searches and a bit of experience...