Looks like Bragg got his stuff back

But Adz, your correction only works if LL had gone to his RL home and kicked him out. What they did was tell him his presence was no longer desired in the store. Too bad he had rented kiosk space, but if you play dirty you are gonna have to expect some punishment.

You don't know diddley squat about the settlement and you won't, yet still feel qualified to say he ought lose his livelihood? On what basis, that he made a claim for consequential and incidental damages? Quel horreur! Ever see a software license that disclaimed liability for consequental damages? They wouldn't need that if there wasn't some finite probability that someone might reasonably claim such.

Do you think you know that he wasn't effectively permabanned? Do you have the slightest sliver of evidence that that is false? A settlement can contain just about whatever terms the parties want to put in in. Hmm, maybe he felt Linden tainted his public reputation and therefore LL thought it expedient to smile to the world while privately settling that he wasn't actually welcome.

I know absolutely nothing more than you on this matter. I used to think you were above metaphorical lynching, though. Who was it that said something like, let he who is without sin... eh, I forget. Never mind.

It said so on the blog, Malachi:

" . . .and are pleased to report that Mr. Bragg’s 'Marc Woebegone' account, privileges and responsibilities to the Second Life community have been restored."

coco

Finding him actually in game might refute my above conjecture. The blog isn't the settlement agreement, it is just PR.

Well, his name is found in search.

coco

i hope he's shopping louis vuitton

yea he wont kinda like when a murder gets released cause a cop didn't do the paperwork right or something didn't give him his phonecall or something.

I am hoping LL works on its TOS a bit and fixes is arbitration process so next time it wont be able to hit a courtroom.

One more criminal hits the grid for now I suppose. Although I hope they are tracking his new account...

yeah, that will ensure fair play and due process i am sure

Linden Lab made Bragg out to be a bad person when all along he was doing what was allowed to do and when Linden Lab figured they were going to have to pay out a large sum to bragg then they did something.

You never know anyone that has a business here might be in the same boat that bragg was in; in the mere future.

Linden Lab, however, now, has the right not to pay anyone of us out.
According to the TOS, everyones account is in Jeopardy.

I live in the West Chester area and this case was followed by the media (Philadelphia region). My suggestion is keep your payouts open periodically, and never use your own money here.
It all belongs to Linden Lab as soon as you use your Credit Card and Paypal account on this site.

Actually, courts have classically been clear about this: you _can't stop them_. Whole countries are organised on the basis that people can be held responsibile for their activities at court. You can't simply bypass that with a TOS - or even a contract.

I am confused about the "US$100000 fee", though - isn't Bragg a lawyer, and wasn't he representing himself? This would mean that he didn't spend that money at all, he's just come up with it as a figure representing his time spent. Of course, he could argue that as a lawyer he could otherwise have earned that much in the time he spent, but that hardly seems reasonable given that no-one else would have had that capacity..

You will rarely find a lawyer who represents themselves. In the courtroom, though some can and do, it's generally looked down upon, because you are unable to defend yourself without a very real connection to the situation and therefore could prolong the case by using fanaticism, emotions, etc.

Additionally, most lawyers see it as unethical. Almost every single lawyer has a specialization. If Bragg's was not... I'd guess corporate lawsuits or contractual law, and was say a family lawyer his expertise would hinder representing himself.

Most judges, though maybe not fair, prejudge a defendant who is a lawyer representing themselves anyways. They look at it as being pompus and not taking the situation seriously.

Hey, I could be wrong and people should form their own opinions, but I found the chat transcripts to be damning enough to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly engaged in fraud, then had to balls to cry foul when he got caught, as if he was "entitled" to commit fraud and LL was unfairly infringing on his "right" to profit from that fraud. From the moment he put out his first press release it seemed pretty clear to me that his suit, like the exploit that got him banned, was motivated by naked opportunism. I think LL set a lousy precedent by letting him back on the grid. We have plenty of greedy opportunists around here as it is.

No its way simpler than all this.

Bragg's a Lawyer. Hes going to sue someone. So he calls a friend to be his Representation in the case.

They nudge nudge wink wink about the fees, charging the same rate they would a corporate client. Bragg knows if he loses he doesn't really have to pay that fee. And his buddy knows he wouldn't charge a corporate rate to a private individual like that.

Think about it. Why is it punishable by 10-15 years if the situation were not a known problem?

It's punishable because it is criminal. It's hardly indicative that it was a known problem. It certainly has not been a known problem of the last decade or so and the low incidence of prosecution let alone conviction under these kind of statutes is proof of that fact.

It seems like every time someone counters your unsupported speculations with facts you can only answer with more unsupported speculations.

Here are some more facts for you. Bragg was represented by an entire firm not just one person. White and Williams is a highly reputed national law firm. Jason Archinaco, the attorney that represented him in court on behalf of White and Williams is a partner in the firm with over 10 years on the bar and specialties in commercial litigation and technology law. An attorney at a firm like White and Williams with those kind of credentials is conservatively going to be charged out to the client at $500 per hour. Discounting the fact that a case of this nature and duration is also going to incur fees outside of lawyer time in the amount of thousands of dollars, that would mean that Archinaco spent around 200 hours on a case that went on for well over a year in an industry where people put in over 50 hours a week as a standard. That hardly strains credibility.

What does strain credibility is your little nudge nudge wink wink billing scenario. Even if one were to assume that Bragg and Archinaco were buddies (which is an unsupported speculation) there is no way the firm would approve of anything outside of a formal billing arrangement for this kind of case. It is not going to tolerate Archincao using firm resources including his own legal time which is considered a firm asset without a formal billing arrangement and in all likelihood an arrangement where it is going to see a return on its time and resources spent on the case. That arrangement is set forth in a retainer letter between the firm and Bragg (it is required by Pennsylvania law). Further, Bragg's account receivable to the firm would be recorded on its balance sheets (this is not some mom and pop shop firm where they keep their finances inventoried on pieces of bubble gum paper). White and Williams would be compelled to produce those documents if LL were to contest legal fees. Your claim that a multi-million dollar law firm would risk its name and reputation to commit an act of fraud upon the courts on behalf of one client to add a hundred thousand dollar increase to his claim is simply laughable.

And the reason its criminal is because ..

Sorry, its an old expression. If you lose at cards when you are the one keeping score, its your own fault.

Whether or not this particular law firm on this particular case committed any fraud is a seperate issue from whether legal firms always charge legitimate fees.

There has been a considerable interest in Tort reform for years... Including reform of legal fee structures.

--------------

It sounds like you are right on this case that the legal fees are legitimate (insomuch that any are.)

I do wonder why Bragg would contract a lawyer knowing full well the legal fees would add up to over 100,000$ if he lost, over the loss of a few thousand in virtual property and account balance.

I agree the guy was slimy before and he committed an act of fraud among other things. He like any true criminal found a way to justify his illegal actions using a loophole as an argument even though what he did by anyones (undemented) measuring stick was wrong and theft he managed to find a way to use that to his advantage and get off scott free. Doesn't mean he was right means he took advantage of a situation being the type of person he is and won on a technicality.

Doesn't makehim right
doesn't make him honest
doesn't make him clean

The case was horrible the guy did a wrong doings and should be punished but we dont live in a society which is particularly good at punishing immoral or illegal acts any longer due to bits of paper and over time its getting worse. Most people won't ever be like him or think like him but the rules that are there to deal with people like him are broken and so they take advantage.


In any case I dont like the idea that we have what I consider a known fellon running aruond on the server

You better watch out, people. He's already threatening to sue Prok for calling him a "thief." I pointed out that he would have an awful lot of people to sue. But certainly I worry about it. I can't afford the time or money involved in my being sued for giving my opinion on his actions.

coco

wow ..

How could someone who evidently has all this leftover money for lawsuits for something so small have needed a few thousand dollars that badly?

In my opinion, Bragg is a thief. In my opinion, he is scum. In my opinion, he deserved to loose all of his holdings in SL.

The above statements are my opinion, I am not representing them as facts nor do I represent them as the opinions of anyone else

In my opinion anyone who runs around SL threatening to sue other Avatars over being called a name is a griefer.

Dagmar hit the details smack dab on the head.

It's criminal because it's entered in as a formal document. It's also listed in court documents as the fees, if that part of the case is being negotiated. It's also listed in the itemized case by case deductions and returns for the firm.

10-15 is for the equivalent to perjury. In two ways. One to the courts, because the bill is almost always a point of contention in civil court (in this case, it was). Legal fees were asked of and therefore as part of final judgement, (even if they settle OUT of court) since the original process was filed in court, all records must be kept on file.

Second would be lying on the tax returns for not collecting payment for which they claimed. This is a form of perjury, since it entered as a court case, but also falls under fraud. Don't believe me? Ask Enron.

And actually if found on both counts of tax fraud (based on the amount) and for entering a false document into court, the person handling the financial details could be held responsible for full reimbursement to the courts, and up to 30 years in prison. (Which would probably only end up serving around 7 years, if good behavior and parole with terms of probation were taken into account.)

And as for why he would do this? He's a lawyer and you are right, he probably has lawyer buddies. They probably told him how winnable this case was (and in the end, it truly was from the legal side of things, not saying it's necessarily fair, but it was winnable based on the confiscation of legal items along with illegal and blocking access to information on LL's behalf). Secondly, he's a lawyer. He makes plenty of money to be able to take this case as far as he was determined. He probably pulls in around 300-400k a year. A simple 100k to set a legal precedent and get paid for the side stuff of the media is nothing. He was probably paid in some interviews, and so in the grand scheme of things, by the time all is said and done - he loses minimal money while bringing in much more, and he gets free publicity for his own practice, bringing in more money.

Ill explain a little bit more clearly.

Why was it made criminal. For what reason?

Because at some point people did it.

Its entirely possible the fees in this case - are on the up and up as legal fees go (which I already said it looks that way from what Dagmar last said.)

But even if 100% of every single legal fee is 100% legitimate to the last cent -

That does not some how make all legal fees everywhere on the up and up.

Neither does the fact that it would be lying on Income tax forms

Nor that it would technically be fraud.

Driving 60 in a 55 is illegal too, but it is done.

In my opinion there is considerable reason to be dubious about legal fees. That there exists a considerable Overcharging and a milking of the system. I'm entitled to that opinion. I'm not the only one who has it. People far more knowledgeable in this area than I am have shared that opinion.

The fact that LAWYERS are able to submit LEGAL documents that somehow follow the letter of the law, but do not represent actual reasonable work performed, and not get caught - shouldnt be some impossible stretch of the imagination.

That would be part of reforms called for.

Obviously it was a big enough problem at one time that they enacted stiff penalties to counter it. I'm simply saying I find it hard to believe they passed a couple of laws and all of a sudden it all magically went away.


The whole Nature of the system carries an built in temptation to fudge the legal bills. Basically - If I can prove the other person is wrong, I can make him pay my fees.

At that point there is no reason to be frugal when charging time to a certain case. Especially if you think you can win.

From a settled, civil action of no great import to comparisons with Enron, perjury, theft, professional ethics abrogation, and tax evasion? For people who don't seem to like lawyers you sure are throwing a lot of legalities around.

p.s. I don't generally like lawyers much myself, but I've never seen one eat a baby either.

I doubt that, the case was not worth that much. Despite drama to the contrary this was not a big deal case.

Hey, I just cant believe the assertion that of ALL professions -- Lawyers are somehow the only ones who don't lie on their time cards.