On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 2:35 PM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
17 is generally the number of people required, in the US, to file a case as a class, which is why I said Markus should find 16 _other_ victims, which shouldn't be terribly hard, if we believe his claim that this scammer has targeted numerous others in this way.
Hi Fillekes, For a class action lawsuit, as a rule, there have to be so many possible plaintiffs that it's not practical for them to file their own suits, they have to be making identical claims based on the exact same evidence and you have to have a practical way to identify who the possible plaintiffs (the members of the class) are so they can claim their portion of the damages. That's why class actions are used for things like product liability where the only material difference between the plaintiffs is when and where they bought the faulty product. Everything else about the cases, including all the evidence that the product is faulty, is exactly identical. Not similar or comparable. It's the exact same evidence. Unless I've gravely misunderstood Markus, at least one and probably all three of those conditions won't be met here.
Furthermore, since the internet is everywhere, I pointed out (or did you stop reading after I mentioned that we don't actually know the gender of the scammer?) Markus has the option of pursuing this in a jurisdiction where the penalties for criminal defamation are the harshest. It would not have to be in the US.
That's really not how jurisdiction works. There has to be a tangible connection to the offense. The perp made the libelous statements from the jurisdiction. The perp's web site where the statements were hosted is located on a computer in the jurisdiction. Markus suffered a tangible and specific harm (such as a lost customer) in the jurisdiction. Something more than the possibility that someone in the jurisdiction might have seen the libelous material. He can pursue the matter outside the U.S., of course, but if he's right about the scammer being located in the U.S. that'd be a futile effort. The U.S. doesn't extradite its citizens for speech-based offenses and even if he won a civil suit, he'd have to bring suit again in the U.S. in order to collect damages against any of the scammer's U.S.-based assets.
Finally, you fail to address the one very simple way I described to determine who this scammer is: follow the money. Make a small partial payment on this supposed "debt" and see who cashes the check. Much easier than trying to follow "him" around on the internet, though that would be made easier in the course of negotiating a partial payment.
I didn't read past the word "check." Given the care Markus described the scammer to have taken, I presume he didn't demand a "check." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004