In the past 24 hours, a satirical/educational humor web site called The Oatmeal, run by Matthew Inman, showed the rest of the world a unique, gutsy, and apparently quite successful approach to dealing with predatory litigants, such as the certain guy that threatened to sue RyPN.
[WARNING: The link below contains NSFW language, and at least one disturbing-if-humorous illustration.]

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter

He met his objective in sixty-four minutes. At the moment, it's up to over 6.5 times the original objective:

http://digitallife.today.msnbc.msn.com/ ... fundraiser

Now, he's a little more popular than we are, for good reason--he's funny and educational, whereas we don't tend to be funny (at least not intentionally). But if we try the same approach the next time some sensitive egotist takes offense at this place and threatens to sue, maybe, just maybe, we can fundraise enough to save the East Broad Top.
No? Okay, how about building a replica NYC Hudson?
Okay, I'll settle for fixing the Pennsy K4..........

Preservation???

Actually, I prefer this approach:

http://deadspin.com/5716038/the-greatest-letter-ever-printed-on-nfl-team-letterhead

I used a similar tact after reading this a couple of years ago.

As your moderator, I have an personal umbrella policy... providing me with some level of professional legal protection...

I don't really fear the idiot lawyers who make intimidation their life work...

Randy, your currently friendly moderator...

1) Rail preservationists have encountered predatory litigants, and not just this forum:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12889

2) This is about the "preservation" of this forum/website as an asset to rail preservation, if need be.

3) None of you guys could even dream of raising that much money that fast. Not even if you promised them a live UP Big Boy or a world steam-locomotive speed record. Does there exist any "learning opportunity" here?

ADM4, Thank you for answering my question. I was not sure where you were going with it. After reading some of the recent threads here worrying about true names or not true names etc. I thought here we go again.

As far as attorneys and the frivolousness lawsuits Forest Gump said it said it best, "Stupid is as stupid does." I have never let the fear of a suit stop me from pressing ahead on anything.

I think this is a great sight to get much good information. I have many of the people on this sight for many years. There are many more who I don't know. I do visit the sight and read most all of the post for the professional information that is contained in them, and the humor that pops up also. Thanks again for reminding me that preservation takes on many forms and sometimes we can look at it too seriously.

Mark A. Frazier

NOPE. No success there. Spectacle, but doesn't help deter a lawsuit at all. He may have made things worse. It was certainly provocative: a scream of "LEEROY JENKINS", to invoke an MMO-gaming concept of managing "aggro" which I find highly informative in cases like these.

Personally I support his actions; I say "go get the bad guys". But he has also said he is sick of dealing with business issues and just wants to draw comics. Those are not compatible and I hope he sorts out his feelings and unifies his words and actions. Right now it looks like he's charged in headlong, using his core professional skill: being clever. It's real easy for these "oh, so clever" types to be successful at being clever, while they fail to take care of business in the case proper.... and lose a winnable case.

Of course this case is "not even wrong" and has no hope of standing on its merits. As a search engine anti-abuse guy, I have a "view from 30,000 feet" on each party's business model, and our hero's claims match my experience, and the threat letter does not. But, getting the right answer at verdict is not the purpose of every lawsuit. Often you are dealing with a Xanatos Gambit, where he wins even by losing, because of his intended side effects: such as
* cost the other guy lawyer money and time
* distract him from his core business
* make him choose his cause or his family
* topple his failing health
* cause Board of Directors turnover
* make the guy give up and quit
* get someone unstuck: hey, fix the eyesore or sell it.
* make the whole world afraid of you, or "behave properly".

You have to be on your toes here and work hard to counteract their intended side-effects.

This is not for 12-year-olds. This is also not for lawyers. Even the best lawyers tend to play cases straight, and be fairly unconscious of side-effects. They walk right into these traps: the client's mood is not their problem. It's your job to understand those and educate your lawyer. Judges understand them somewhat, but you have to help them find a just solution, e.g. ask for recourses they wouldn't necessarily give normally. (judges CANNOT give you anything you don't ask for.)



Yes, and notice how they got distracted by actual access issues which were never the point of the lawsuit. The real issue was "ADA lawsuit mills", and the courts nuked those in Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty. They nuked the greater issue (lawsuit mills generally) in Righthaven.

Another example of frivolous lawsuits.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28264&p=131601&hilit=smrs#p131601

(I did not elaborate some subjects, like "Aggro" and "Righthaven" because those terms were specific enough that you can effortlessly google them if you with to dig deeper.)