AT&T drops legal fight over Mass. man's $1M bill

[spdickey]

So you are saving that what you write in support of Mr. Smith is effective but what is written in opposition is without effect. Either none of it is effective or all of it is effective. You give yourself too much importance. The rooster does not cause the sun to rise. You only started writing about it after AT&T decides to stop its suit.

I began writing when this thread started after AT&T dropped the suit. Which was within hours of the law suit becoming public. I do not decide cases, neither does anyone else on this board. That will be decided by the mediator apparently next month.

The only thing I can do is state my opinion that others are wrong, wrong, wrong. And you can do the same thing. Hopefully I am effective in explaining my position so that those who read it will understand what I am writing. And the sun rises and sets no matter what you or I say or do. And the case will be decided without our input. But we're not discussing celestial bodies here, just a case against a small businessman who is trying to fight back against a huge corporation.

[efparri]

Then let the others speak rather than decide it is your personal mission to attack each opposing view. You cannot brook opposition and consider each opposing view as a personal affront.

[spdickey]

Oh there is a trail judge now?

As I stated clearly in post 221, there will be no decision on the responsibility of the calls as that issue is not being brought before the mediator. Your continued insistence that it will be decided on is just plain false.


I can read any agreement that I am signing and know what my responsibilities will be. Thus I always bypass the legal system because I live up to my obligations. It's a terrible world that one lives in if he can't comprehend what one is signing and always requires a court to tell him after the fact. That is the world that you advocate. One of a blissful ignorance that has to have a court or a mediator tell him that he failed to do what he's supposed to do. Completely pathetic.

Sorry, the mediator in this case. Either way you are not the one who can say for sure if the service agreement has any force in law.

You clearly stated your opinion that the there will be no decision on the responsibility for the calls. But the mediator can rule if AT&T was right or wrong in bringing the suit in the first place.

What you think you read may well be wrong. You should get a lawyer to explain things to you if you have difficulty understanding all your rights and obligations under a legal agreement.You bypass lawyers at your own peril. And I would find that risky.

Lawyers draft things all the time that are incomprehensible to the layman and yes the legal world is terrible because of lawyers. That is the world the legal system advocates. The legal system decides, not you, not me. And yes it is completely pathetic. But fully legal.

[efparri]

It is not the duty of a mediator to make decisions. The mediator facilitates the opposing parties reaching an agreement on their own. You might be thinking about an arbitrator.

A neutral party who assists in negotiations and conflict resolution, the process being known as mediation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration

[spdickey]

It is not the duty of a mediator to make decisions. The mediator facilitates the opposing parties reaching an agreement on their own. You might be thinking about an arbitrator.

Then when the agreement is reached, the case will be decided. I'm sure the mediator will guide the parties to an amicable settlement. But the decision will in no way be decided here.

[spdickey]

Then let the others speak rather than decide it is your personal mission to attack each opposing view. You cannot brook opposition and consider each opposing view as a personal affront.

Where have I suggested in anyway that people cannot express their opinion? But when they do that here, they should be ready to accept a challenge to their beliefs. My posts have certainly been challenged. Personal attacks are different, however. And should not be tolerated.

[jet1000]

It is not the duty of a mediator to make decisions. The mediator facilitates the opposing parties reaching an agreement on their own. You might be thinking about an arbitrator.

Of course. In which case, there would be no "ruling" of any kind. Thus there will be no ruling if AT&T was right or wrong in bringing the suit in the first place as spdickey has falsely claimed there would.

In addition, the link you posted stated in regards to mediation: "The process is private and confidential". So spdickey's statements like: "We still have to wait for the decision." are irrelevant as no decision will be made public.

But one and all is welcome to read the service agreement formerly posted and decide for themselves if Mr. Smith failed to live up to his agreed upon obligations. They don't have to wait for some grand decision that will never be forthcoming.

You should get a lawyer to explain things to you if you have difficulty understanding all your rights and obligations under a legal agreement.

I never had that difficulty. Perhaps you can call Mr. Smith and give him that advice and he sees to need it a lot more than I do!

[spdickey]

Of course. In which case, there would be no "ruling" of any kind. Thus there will be no ruling if AT&T was right or wrong in bringing the suit in the first place as spdickey has falsely claimed there would.

In addition, the link you posted stated in regards to mediation: "The process is private and confidential". So spdickey's statements like: "We still have to wait for the decision." are irrelevant as no decision will be made public.

But one and all is welcome to read the service agreement formerly posted and decide for themselves if Mr. Smith failed to live up to his agreed upon obligations. They don't have to wait for some grand decision that will never be forthcoming.

I never had that difficulty. Perhaps you can call Mr. Smith and give him that advice and he sees to need it a lot more than I do!

As you continue to argue things that are de minimis like if its a judge or a mediator, or that is called a ruling or not, we will continue to slog on with another response that will of course not change your mind that AT&T is apparently always right at all times and in all things.

There will be an agreement between Mr. Smith and AT&T with the conclusion of the mediation. I'm no expert at Massachusetts mediation procedures. It will be up to the parties to decide with the assistance of the mediator. If no agreement can be reached, then it will most likely get referred to the trial court. But at this stage it just looks like Mr. Smith wants AT&T to come out in the open about this matter, as shown in the discovery process his lawyer is working on.

One would expect Mr. Smith to make public the results of the mediation since he has stated he wants to get the story out. It would be hard to believe that he would accept a gag order imposed by AT&T in the settlement. You are just making another wild speculation with your absolute statement that "no decision will be made public." Mr. Smith has stated otherwise.

“The main reason we’re pressing on is that I want to really get the word out to other small and medium-sized businesses to understand how really vulnerable they are and how the system is stacked against them.” http://www.boston.com/businessupdate...mLP/story.html

One can decide for himself what this particular service agreement says, but its up to the parties in a mediation to make that conclusion. So we will have to wait to see what happens in Mr. Smith's case. That might be different in what you feel should happen. Contracts are usually clear as mud to the normal person.

Its probably good that you never have to contact a lawyer. I'm not really fond of them either. But if you have a dispute that involves a legal contract, be prepared to have to find one to get yourself out of whatever mess comes your way due to your arrogance that you know it all.

No contract is finally enforceable until adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction. Apparently no one has ever sued you, nor have you sued to enforce a contract. Good for you. But it can happen to the best of people and corporations. Contracts are found invalid and unenforceable by the courts all the time. Or the company just gives up, as AT&T has for whatever reason has stopped continuing its case against Mr. Smith.

Now lets look at AT&T's alleged bad acts here. According to Mr. Smith's complaint, AT&T knew a fraud was going on sometime during the first day it occurred. This was after Verizon turned off their long distance connections when they spotted the fraud. The hackers move on to dial around through AT&T. AT&T, seeing no reason to turn off such a profitable stream of phone calls (remember they are billed at $22 per minute), didn't do anything to protect its system, nor did they do anything to warn the person who wasn't even their customer. So they continued to count the calls that went on for about six days. Later that month they send Mr. Smith a bill for nearly $900,000. First Mr. Smith even knows that it happened. AT&T smells here in my opinion. Hope they lose the counter suit and their misdeeds are brought to light.

The nastiest part? Hard to pick just one, but getting a federal magistrate to move the action from a real courtroom to "mediation" has PR optics to die for. Fortunately, AT&T dropped the case when the press noticed it: a happy, if hilariously unprincipled outcome. (Kudos to Verizon, his actual service provider, for noticing the fraud, shutting it down, and forgiving him its $260,000 portion of the bill.)
http://boingboing.net/2012/07/10/att...ng-victim.html

And because I never hear the term "PR optics" before, its defined in the Urban Dictionary thusly,

optics
What something will look like to the outside world; the perception a public relations person would have on something. First seen (at least by me) in article by Equity Private on finance blog dealbreaker

[jet1000]

As you continue to argue things that are de minimis like if its a judge or a mediator, or that is called a ruling or not

I like how when your blatant inaccuracies are called out you try to say their "de minimus"

There will be an agreement between Mr. Smith and AT&T with the conclusion of the mediation.

You have no clue if that is the case. The parties are under no obligation to reach an agreement.

One would expect Mr. Smith to make public the results of the mediation since he has stated he wants to get the story out. It would be hard to believe that he would accept a gag order imposed by AT&T in the settlement.

Mediation proceedings are private and confidential. That's the nature of proceedings. If Mr. Smith agrees to mediation then he agrees to those terms.

So lets review. There will be no decision as you wrongly claimed. The mediator will not make any ruling as you wrongly claimed. You won't find out what happened during the mediation as you wrongly claimed.

Contracts are usually clear as mud to the normal person.

That's a general statement. Lets talk about the specific Verizon service agreement. Was that not clear to you? It was clear to me. But I was curious as to what part you had trouble understanding and the part that you think the inept Mr. Smith might have had difficulty understanding.

No contract is finally enforceable until adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction.

If people keep their word, there is no court adjudication. If Mr. Smith would have kept his agreement and paid for the calls that were made on his system per his agreement, there would have been no lawsuit and he wouldn't have had to cry about how many hours he spent defending himself from the consequences of his own actions.

[spdickey]

I like how when your blatant inaccuracies are called out you try to say their "de minimus"

You have no clue if that is the case. The parties are under no obligation to reach an agreement.

Mediation proceedings are private and confidential. That's the nature of proceedings. If Mr. Smith agrees to mediation then he agrees to those terms.

So lets review. There will be no decision as you wrongly claimed. The mediator will not make any ruling as you wrongly claimed. You won't find out what happened during the mediation as you wrongly claimed.

That's a general statement. Lets talk about the specific Verizon service agreement. Was that not clear to you? It was clear to me. But I was curious as to what part you had trouble understanding and the part that you think the inept Mr. Smith might have had difficulty understanding.

If people keep their word, there is no court adjudication. If Mr. Smith would have kept his agreement and paid for the calls that were made on his system per his agreement, there would have been no lawsuit and he wouldn't have had to cry about how many hours he spent defending himself from the consequences of his own actions.

What you call "blatant inaccuracies" are about matters that don't matter at all as concerns this discussion. That you continue to complain about whether this matter is heard before a judge or an arbitrator is one such de minimis argument. You have been very clear about your disdain for Mr. Smith's stance. Your opinion, however doesn't matter at all as to the outcome of his case against AT&T. You've been very clear about your position, and have repeated it ad nauseam. I only post in response to your posts since apparently you require further explanation of my position.

If the parties don't reach an agreement in mediation, then a costly court trial will most likely follow. My opinion is that AT&T will settle before that happens. Damages being claimed now are only $36000, not the over $1 million AT&T was claiming.

Yes mediation is private and confidential. If Mr. Smith wants to make the outcome public, that is his right. I don't believe that he'll accept a gag order imposed by AT&T as a condition of a settlement. But you cannot say that Mr. Smith won't be talking about this in the future. He has stated clearly that he wants to. The mediator might not release details, but you can't say Mr. Smith won't be talking, and talking loudly.

If you require further clarification of the rights and obligations under any service agreement, I suggest you consult competent council. That is the course of action Mr. Smith took, and in my opinion, the correct one.

You are correct in that statement about both parties keeping their word. Apparently Mr. Smith disagrees with your interpretation and AT&T's position and thus the matter is being adjudicated in mediation. Lets see where that leads before you further characterize in a demeaning way Mr. Smith's actions again. But to say Mr. Smith has no right to his make his legal case is an affront to the entire judicial system.

[jet1000]

Lets see where that leads before you further characterize in a demeaning way Mr. Smith's actions again.

I will use my first amendment rights to characterize this public figure's incompetent, inept, mismanagement any way that I see fit. If he has a problem with it, he has my contact information and he can file a lawsuit and get crushed in a court of law.

[spdickey]

I will use my first amendment rights to characterize this public figure's incompetent, inept, mismanagement any way that I see fit. If he has a problem with it, he has my contact information and he can file a lawsuit and get crushed in a court of law.

You can use your First Amendment rights to defame anyone you want. But there may be consequences since the First Amendment rights are not absolute. For example a poster here doesn't have those rights, they are held by the "publisher" of the board, not you. The board can shut you down for any reason. And anyone here has those same rights to respond to your defamation in kind.

So don't go hiding behind the First Amendment, you can be banned here for making postings the violate the rules.

And your name calling reflects on your character, its going even more downhill in my book the more you repeat yourself.