[Found] Crossing the Rubicon

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Status
Not open for further replies.
@Null whoever you get needs to not just be familiar with California law, you need a Federal Court litigator because this is a slam dunk diversity jurisdiction issue. Fong lives in California, you are a US Citizens living abroad and your LLC is a West Virginia corporation.

You may be limiting yourself to relying just on a California Lawyer. Since your LLC is a West Virginia corporation you may be able to instead bring this case in the 4th circuit instead of the 9th. I'd ask around Charleston WV, to see if there is some high speed mountain lawyer with a permit to practice in the Southern District of West Virginia. Its alot harder to force a defendant to be hailed into a non native federal district, but it can be done.

Specifically, the case is Calder V. Jones, 465 U.S.C. 783 (1984) where despite most of the parties in a diversity jurisdiction case have insufficient minimal contacts to justify the venue, the EFFECTS of the torts were felt in that Jurisdiction. More importantly, the defendant had to know that the actions they were doing would cause effects in the targeted venue. Its no secret Lolcow LLC has been in West Virginia for some time now, and Fong Jones' tortious acts have continued.

This may meet the standard set in the case, which is especially relevant for internet disputes that this one is. It IS a harder path to tread and will be more expensive because it will require overcoming an immediate jurisdiction challenge. But you may have more luck obtaining a lawyer in West Virginia then in California. After that its just a matter of formality to get that lawyer moved Pro Hac Vice to the 9th circuit if Fong prevails and forces you to sue him in California instead.

The question is a trade off of wants and needs. If you want this case to be cheap. Don't do it. If you want a better lawyer do it. Because I guarantee you will have better odds of getting an attorney that can actually go to the mat in West Virginia then in California. But that will mean paying for a bunch of pre-trial bullshit, and then paying him to fly out to California if Fong overcomes your choice of venue.

On the other hand, if Fong loses the jurisdiction venue challenge, well, then HE has to pay for a West Virginia lawyer, or his lawyer to fly to Charleston. As ya boy BossManJack says, you gotta risk the juice for the rewards.

As an aside though, you WANT this case in the 4th circuit. The 9th Circuit does not give a shit what some random lawyers slap fighting in Wise County over a drug addled welfare queen larping as a JEW is. But all those cases you won against Melinda are admissible in the Southern District of West Virginia because they occurred in the same circuit, with the same court of appeal presiding.

Make your aggravation work for you.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Romeo, brapbruddah, NewHousewife and 106 others
Just to provide some legitimate sourcing for any farmers interested in the niceties of tortious interference, here's some selections from the Restatement (2d) of Torts, § 766, entitled "Intentional Interference with Performance of Contract by Third Person":
One who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract (except a contract to marry) between another and a third person by inducing or otherwise causing the third person not to perform the contract, is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the failure of the third person to perform the contract.
Click to expand...
Comment b: One may not, however, intentionally and improperly frustrate dealings that have been reduced to the form of a contract. There is no general duty to do business with all who offer their services, wares or patronage; but there is a general duty not to interfere intentionally with another's reasonable business expectancies of trade with third persons, whether or not they are secured by contract, unless the interference is not improper under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Here are the factors going to improper interference (from section 767):
In determining whether an actor's conduct in intentionally interfering with a contract or a prospective contractual relation of another is improper or not, consideration is given to the following factors:
(a) the nature of the actor's conduct,
(b) the actor's motive,
(c) the interests of the other with which the actor's conduct interferes,
(d) the interests sought to be advanced by the actor,
(e) the social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the actor and the contractual interests of the other,
(f) the proximity or remoteness of the actor's conduct to the interference and
(g) the relations between the parties.
Click to expand...

Going back to section 766, here are some more selections:
Comment g: A similar situation exists with a contract that, by its terms or otherwise, permits the third person to terminate the agreement at will. Until he has so terminated it, the contract is valid and subsisting, and the defendant may not improperly interfere with it. The fact that the contract is terminable at will, however, is to be taken into account in determining the damages that the plaintiff has suffered by reason of its breach.
Click to expand...
Comment h: The rule stated in this Section applies to any intentional causation whether by inducement or otherwise. The essential thing is the intent to cause the result. If the actor does not have this intent, his conduct does not subject him to liability under this rule even if it has the unintended effect of deterring the third person from dealing with the other.
Click to expand...
Comment i: To be subject to liability under the rule stated in this Section, the actor must have knowledge of the contract with which he is interfering and of the fact that he is interfering with the performance of the contract.
Click to expand...
Comment j: The rule stated in this Section is applicable if the actor acts for the primary purpose of interfering with the performance of the contract, and also if he desires to interfere, even though he acts for some other purpose in addition.
Click to expand...
Comment k: The inducement may be any conduct conveying to the third person the actor's desire to influence him not to deal with the other. Thus it may be a simple request or persuasion exerting only moral pressure. Or it may be a statement unaccompanied by any specific request but having the same effect as if the request were specifically made. Or it may be a threat by the actor of physical or economic harm to the third person or to persons in whose welfare he is interested. Or it may be the promise of a benefit to the third person if he will refrain from dealing with the other.
Click to expand...
Comment o: The question whether the actor's conduct caused the third person to break his contract with the other raises an issue of fact. The reasonableness of the claimed reaction of the third person to the actor's conduct is material evidence on this issue, but it is not conclusive. . . . if other evidence establishes that the actor did in fact induce the third person's conduct, the actor is liable even though the third person was cowardly or foolish or otherwise unreasonable in permitting himself to be so influenced and is himself liable for his own misconduct.
Click to expand...
Comment p: To subject the actor to liability under this rule, his conduct must be intended to affect the contract of a specific person. . . . Only when the actor's conduct is intended to affect a specific person is the actor subject to liability under this rule.
Click to expand...
Comment r: Satisfying one's spite or ill will is not an adequate basis to justify an interference and keep it from being improper. The presence or absence of ill will toward the person harmed may clarify the purposes of the actor's conduct and may be, accordingly, an important factor in determining whether the interference was improper.
Click to expand...

I could continue mining the Restatement(s), but the tl;dr is that intention to interfere with a contract is at the center of the tort of tortious interference. As you might imagine, proving such intention is usually the question of fact upon which a tortious interference claim will fail or survive. That's why Elliot has seemingly fucked himself so hard with his most recent posts—he straight out admits, in his own words, on a public platform on which he is verified as making such admission, that he knew of Josh's business relationships with third parties, he intended to interfere with Josh's business relationships with those third parties, and that, as a result of such intentional interference, Josh has had his contracts terminated. The fact that the third parties could terminate the contracts at will generally does not protect Elliot from the tortious interference claim (though it may go to damages). Nor does the fact that there is a moral element to Elliot's conduct mean it is not tortious interference. Nor does the fact that the third parties are cowards or fools mean it is not tortious interference.

Of course, case law and statutes in the relevant jurisdiction may provide gloss on these general descriptions of the common law of tortious interference—which is why you need an attorney who can perform good case law and statutory research. But barring any weird additional glosses, there is likely enough that can be put in a well-drafted complaint to survive a motion to dismiss and hopefully get to discovery. That's where things start getting really expensive and embarrassing.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Super Dilator Duel 3D, lurking for the deets, Gauf and 27 others
I hear lawsuits are pretty stressful, sure hope no one involved has a rare condition that causes you to go permanently blind when exposed to too much stress. That'd be rough. What are the odds of that happening anyway?

In any case I'd throw a couple bucks at you to see this go to court. All I ask is that you don't cry on mainstream media and then spend all the donation money on drugs. Another unlikely scenario but I felt compelled to mention it.

Best of luck!
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Super Dilator Duel 3D, Old man Johnny, Jimmy Dean Bowl and 20 others
I have nothing but pure fucking hate for Dong Gone, Godsneed Jersh

weloveoursneedenforcement.png
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Feels
Reactions: Ozzigy Osbourne, Romeo, code123 and 63 others
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Nekoi.Inukuma.00, Procrastinhater, Richard Cheese and 5 others
Don't use the EFF lawyers, unless they are independently recommended.

The EFF are cucks who abandoned their principles 20+ years ago

The last thing you want is to end up with a bad or untrustworthy lawyer.

You've made it this far on a winning streak.

You know how to pick a good lawyer Josh. Trust your instincts.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Super Dilator Duel 3D, lurking for the deets, Old man Johnny and 15 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back