Protect our Right to Post: ScubaBoard Legal Defense fund

[InTheDrink]

I don't follow your reasoning.

The statements by Bauer cite the Maldivian investigation in laying the blame for the Russian divemaster's death and the other injuries on whoever was responsible for maintaining the compressor and filling the tanks. *****'s suit, while not explicitly conceding the same, takes pains to divorce her from responsibility with statements such as, and, (Emphasis added.)

These statements are intended to establish *****'s independence from the liveaboard's operation: she's just a travel agent.


In contrast, statements such as, are intended to establish Scubaboard's responsibility for the posts: it's not just hosting, it has the last word on content.

The statements made about *****, the suit implicitly alleges, are libelous because she had nothing to do with delivering the air, quality control of the liveaboards or their crews, maintenance, etc.; not because the air was okay, and not because it didn't kill somebody.

I think you're on the right track here. I'm not sure there's anything at all that can directly link GH herself to the accident in terms of responsibility if she was not owner/chief exec/etc. Ergo claims that she was responsible could be slanderous.

However, given her position then I would have thought it a difficult sell to say that she wasn't the person directly in control of the operation, by several different yardsticks (again, read the threads and you'll understand why I say this). This is just my opinion and perhaps I got it wrong, but it certainly came across to me from what I read and eye witness reports that she was the primary person responsible for this operation.

That said, perhaps she had created (inadvertently?) an appropriately removed construct so that she could not legally be held accountable for the operation, but of course this is speculation.

J

[RoatanMan]

I have no idea whatsoever, I found it on Google Images

[tregrrr]

Absolutely! And it's my personal goal to never need one again.

No more marriages for you huh??

yeah, guys . .. just remember we have a lawyer bunch defending SB.

There really are some good guys out there that don't try to slip you a dirty job all the time.

I hope the Legal Fund raises enough, and is directed to support the hired guns rather that taking a potentially more (short term) cost effective approach of paying out the current claim.

I foresee future similar threat style litigation if this one gets paid or settled out instead of defended and decided definitively. If the Plaintiff manages to negotiate a $XX,000 payday in order to go away, then it's not a matter of IF but rather WHEN will the next opportunistic payday seeker come forward. If we set precedence here and now that the membership will stand up and DEFEND but not SETTLE then future litigants may just choose to go elsewhere for their free money handout.

everyone hates the SOB lawyer............. 'till we need one, then we want the dirtiest meanest SOB there is.

Hey there is nothing wrong with hiring a junkyard dog as a junkyard dog. I just dont like the one where the Junkyard dog tries to pass itself off as a seeing-eye dog so as not to scare off the unaware.

ALL COMMENTS ARE INDICATIVE OF MY PERSONAL BELIEFS AND THOUGHTS AND MUST NOT BE TAKEN OR CONSTRUED AS TRUTH OR FACT.

[RubberDucky]

This email confirms that you have donated ScubaBoardLegalDefenseFund $100.00 USD using PayPal.

Thank you for providing the invaluable resource that is ScubaBoard.

[Wantonmien]

I hope the Legal Fund raises enough, and is directed to support the hired guns rather that taking a potentially more (short term) cost effective approach of paying out the current claim.

I foresee future similar threat style litigation if this one gets paid or settled out instead of defended and decided definitively. If the Plaintiff manages to negotiate a $XX,000 payday in order to go away, then it's not a matter of IF but rather WHEN will the next opportunistic payday seeker come forward. If we set precedence here and now that the membership will stand up and DEFEND but not SETTLE then future litigants may just choose to go elsewhere for their free money handout.

-------------------
tregrrr

Totally agree with you on that one. I've already contributed to the DEFENCE fund, and if need be would do so again - but I'd be totally against a settlement payment being made to the litigant, particulary as although Scubaboard may be moderated, it does not (so far as I can see) try and manipulate and control what individuals want to say.

[D_B]

I think that 23 is going to be a bit hard to prove
... http://gundisuit.scubaboard.com/gundisuit.html

[vladimir]

I think that 23 is going to be a bit hard to prove
... http://gundisuit.scubaboard.com/gundisuit.html

[Sarcasm]


Leslie? Brian? Peter? Dandy? Apollo? Did you guys get your paychecks this month? Good. Sometimes they take a while to get to the snowbound Canadian fortress.


[/sarcasm]

[tregrrr]

I think that 23 is going to be a bit hard to prove

SHHHHHH

don't tell em before SB's lawyers do.... you know how lawyers love to see the other guy squirm

[wrybosome]

No more marriages for you huh??

Yeah - I have to make this one last.

[SoCalSwami]

Donation sent. Good Luck.