2012-06-14ml-implode.com

Dear Karl,

We hate to fan the flames, and know we have had our differences, but when you say in your post at http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=207297 (essentially jeering at us for Wells Fargo's account seizure action) that we have no liability shield as a "common carrier", you are effectively admitting it is OK for you to be subject to similar retaliation, or worse, for something your users post on your site.

For example, if you are raided and arrested because a post by a user draws the ire of the FBI, with your equipment seized and never returned, you saying that you have no liability shield per USC 47 S. 230 -- that it doesn't apply because "the FBI isn't suing" you.

If you're right, cookies to you, but the situation is even worse than we thought, and you've missed the point by an even wider berth.

As most aren't aware of the background, Denninger has been no friend of ML-Implode, blaming us (the victims) of recurrent frivolous "SLAPP" libel suits levied by predatory mortgage outfits. His reasoning? "Disclaimers are all you need to prevent such suits".

That boneheaded argument ignores the fact that we've had extensive and clear disclaimers right from the start. The sheer fact of the matter is that in a SLAPP suit, the purpose is specifically to steamroll over the target publisher's rights, and clobber them with the legal costs of defending themselves. The absolute LAST impediment to such a suit by a well-funded aggressor is "disclaimers".

Don't you know, Karl, that only big banks and corporations get to actually benefit from disclaimers? For the little guy, it's a veritable squirt gun against their heavy legal artillery.

I hope one day this at least makes you feel as vulnerable as you actually are from your self-righteous perch.

As for the fact that we still HAD an account with Wells Fargo, I suppose it would be too much for you to stop and consider that (1) we effectively did not have any money in the account for the "moving", and (2) that we might have been in the process of making other arrangements (which we were), or even consider that (3) we never opened an account with Wells in the first place, but were "absorbed" against our will in the takeover (not that we wouldn't have left Wachovia).

Or perhaps you might be a little concerned that it is de facto tortious interference to freeze an account with no advance warning, regardless of the bank's right to do business with whom it wants. Or you might be concerned that ML-Implode was targeted for the writings of a third party. Nah? Ok then.

So don't let any of that bother you... keep on rolling self-righteous, brother!

(Jerk).


Lijit Search

Comments: Be the first to add a comment

add a comment | go to forum thread