This is a value for value post: see the explanation in the footer.
I wrote up a big post about @apshamilton's appearance in court in Australia and Andrew wrote up his own account. But I need to give some more flavour.
The Rhetorical Flourish
Andrew mentioned in his post how he began the case with an "oratory introduction". This really isn't done in Australia to the degree you might expect if you were brought up on US TV legal dramas. Andrew has done this before in our first substantive hearing with this Judge when explaining the broad background of how he came to see the actions of Facebook and Google in the light of what he had learened as a telecoms lawyer 20 years ago.
Andrew included in his post the following four overarching points about what the Respondents (Meta and Google) are trying to do with the interlocutary motions and how they're trying to stop the case.
Only viable means of securing damages for the harms done to them
When Andrew got half way through the first point about "only viable means" the Judge actually stopped him.
Up until this point we'd already had hours of Meta and Google's barristers trying to make a case that the way in which we are bringing this case, is so hopelessly bad for our "group members", that we should be stopped and the group memebers should all go and find "proper" lawyers and either mount their own legal challenges to Meta and Google individually or form a "proper" class action case with $10,000,000 or more in funding and a respectable Australian Law firm to watch out for their interests.
Our group members (remember they're talking about you people on Hive and anyone else damaged in 2018 and onwards by their clients) should prefer to fight your own cases or manage to find someone else to fund a regular class action brought in the "normal" way. Not one man and his friend in court with a few thousand dollars we've raised with the help of our crypto friends and no large investors.
So when the Judge stopped Andrew because of his statement "only viable means" she pointed out that the other side had told us what other viable means we had to bring the case!
Saying the unsaid things
In this phase of the battle, we were defending against their attacks. That somewhat constrains what we can bring up and so it hadn't really been appropriate to talk about the efforts we made to bring this case in a "normal" way all through 2018 and up to 2020 when we filed the case. The Judge's statement gave Andrew a reason to explain how we tried to bring the case.
Normal Venture Capital
Normal in this case means building a "book", i.e. a long list of class members with significant financial claims (we actually did manage this quite well) but then taking that book to the Legal equivalent of Venture Capital firms. They look at the case, the size of the potential payout and the legal costs to get there. They consider the liklihood of settlement along the way and if they see good prospects, they invest money in return for a share of the winnings.
It's very similar in structure to early stage investing in start ups. But this whole industry is not without controversy and it hasn't been accepted as the way to do these things for very long, especially in the legal systems of Australia, UK and Canada. But it is done.
And that was how we tried to fund the case for nearly two years. The reason you need mega-bucks up front is because you need a "security for costs" deposit. If the other side wins, we would have to pay their legal costs so straight out of the gate we'd need a bank guarantee for somewhere up to $10,000,000!
Whlist we did get some interest in the case, everybody we spoke to was nervous about suing two of the richest companies in the world who would clearly outspend anyone.
The No Costs Order
It was only after a change in the Australian law which gave us the option to ask for a "no costs order": an order where we wouldn't have to pay the other side's legal costs if we lost and they would not pay OUR legal costs if we won, that changed the situation completely!
This was the change which gave Andrew the shot at bringing the case all by himself without the need for expensive lawyers or a huge bank balance. The relatively small amount we had raised already, combined with Andrew and my labour has been enough so far.
The costs of court
The reality is that if you are your own lawyer and you know what you're doing, going to court is astonishingly cheap! The actual direct costs of bringing this case are a filling fee and that wasn't all that significant.
If you're not paying fancy law firms and barristers by the hour, this doesn't cost so much. We have (before the change in approach to our current way of running the case) paid for significant legal advice once: that cost us as much as our trip this to Australia!
The heart of THEIR case
At the heart of Meta and Google's attempts to stop us, is the claim that Andrew will not fulfil a "fiduciary duty" toward the "unfunded class members".
Suddenly Meta and Google are so concerned that our class members need the very best representation possible, and Andrew won't be able to do that because "reasons".
There's quite a bit to unpack here. First up Andrew is acting in a few different roles all combined. Andrew is first and foremost the "lead plaintiff" for the case. It is HIS claim that these companies broke Australian law and caused him harm upon which this all hangs.
Lead Plaintiff
His claim is the representative claim for all the others we want to represent. The way the law works is that Andrew pursues his claim and if he succeedes in establishing they did break Australian law (a finding of "liability") then we start the discussion about how that affects other people with varrying and similar claims. Basically that starts the process of arguing about how much damage they did.
Self representing
But that's not his only rôle. In additon, Andrew is acting as a self representing plaintiff. In other words he hasn't hired a big law firm and the big law firm hasn't hired a barrister and as a result, Andrew and I sat at the bar in the court without a league of lawyers behind us!
There is a nuance here: Andrew is not representing me or any other class members. I and the other class memebers can't consider Andrew to be OUR lawyer, he's just pursuing his claim and I certainly feel that this is the correct way to give ME and all the other class members, the best chance we have of getting justice.
Fund raising
Andrew is also the owner of the funding company which is paying for the case to be brought. In this case that is @jpbliberty and that entity paid for our flights and expenses for going to court. But JPB Liberty did NOT pay Andrew for being a lawyer.
Conflicts of interest
Somehow, the lawyers for the other side managed to take all of that, throw it in a mixer and come out with a claim that Andrew might make decisions in the future that our class members would have taken differently.
Let's ask the audience!
For some reason known only to themselves, the other side's lawyers decided to stick a whole load of historical posts from Hive made by Andrew into evidence. They didn't really refer to them much but we did. You see they also included screenshots of all the comments under the posts.
They were making the case that some of our class members might not like what Andrew does in the future: so Andrew decided to show that in the past he's had a lot of support. They were also trying to make a case that unfunded class members think they have some kind of lawyer client relationship with Andrew.
You'll notice that these statements are accompaniged by CB and a page number. CB is the "court book", a 1,300 page monster with all the evidence and pleadings in it. And you can also see that while we have had majority support, we didn't want to mislead the court: of course there have been some negative comments though we had to hunt a bit for one from this particular commenter which didn't drop F bombs!
And yes, Andrew read that out in court: it was the closest we got to any kind of chuckle from the crowd.
They don't want this fight
Because at the end of the day, nobody but Andrew saw a way to bring this case.
Nobody else is going to point out what a pair of monopolists these two companies are and how they ride roughshode over national laws.
There is an undercurrent that Andrew is only doing this for the money and he's looking to rip off people who've only given him a signature. What a load of nonsense.
For both him and me, no matter how much we might gain at some unspecified point in the distant future, this is about curtailing the power of these monsters. It's about taking the Internet back from Web 2.0 and returning we the people to a position of power over ourselves and delivering us out of bondage and servitude to big tech.
They'll do anything to stop our case proceeding because they know it is a strong case. Let's hope the Judge sees this the way we do.
- Unfunded class members are people who we represent but haven't paid anything up front, but agreeded that a portion of damages if these ever
Value for Value
For the last few months while building @v4vapp I was generously supported by the DHF. Going forward I have a much more modest support which covers direct server costs and a little of my time.
If you appreciate the work I do on and around Hive, you can express this directly: upvoting posts on Hive is great. Also consider a direct donation (there's a Tip button on Hive or a Lightning Address) on all my posts.
Support Proposal 244 on PeakD
Support Proposal 244 with Hivesigner
Support Proposal 244 on Ecency
Vote for Brianoflondon's Witness KeyChain or HiveSigner
Up to date...
We're waiting for their responding documents now? About appearing in AU for trial?
:D
To be clarified as doesn't read well, please.
I'd add: you'll always have some people accusing you of the worst intentions. It doesn't matter what you do or how. Their dream. Usually of themselves:)
Blow it off would be my suggestion. And keep on keeping on 🔥👣
Nicely done. You guys sure do have some cahonas. Can't help but admire your courage. What a story! 🤓😆
Current stage is waiting for the Court's judgement following the hearing in February. Four months and countingQ
Thanks.
You mentioned June, I think?
Let's see what happens next then. It's a big decision for her
But not! :D
I read the initial motion and he's good, huh? 👀
Step by step. Solidly laid out.
Not much one can argue but let's see what the "big guns" have to say in return.
That's one hella big cartel they got going! Oops 😆
Then listened to your video because my head is pounding and can't read on the smart device right now.
Great stuff. Thanks for keeping us informed. Very interesting case. And very interesting info shared.
You lot gave a jaded soul some actual faith in humanity again today. I applaud you. ALL of you.
*salutes
Thank you ... if you made it through the full Originating Application you're doing well.
This is what makes our case so interesting. We don't rely on having to do discovery or look in their internal documents. They put the cartel conditions in their public terms and conditions and FORCED billions (not an exaggeration) of people to sign them! It is safe to say that if we prove our case, it will be the largest example of a "cartel contract" in history.
We believe they're going to fight tooth and nail over EVERYTHING before we get to the actual underlying case because they've already realised how bad a wicket they're on.
Very cool, what you guys are doing. Kudos and applause again.
Rare individuals who compromise their own comfort for the greater good. Full support for your endeavours and hope you kick some corporate ass.
Small suggestion if I may... I lost my own battle largely because I was too emotionally invested in it. The court doesn't appreciate humanity. Especially from a woman but that's another conversation entirely.
I'd removed all the expressive words on court documents and keep things very factual. Even mentioning "Orwellian" or using the word "millions" instead of just saying "Australians" reduces your argument in a court of law. It makes it personal and that can seem flaky when you're dealing with business and stupidity. And ulterior motives - money and control aren't about the people, justice or equality. See?
You gotta play their game their way or they will use it against you. And since they have little emotion when it comes to winning this fight that means cold and clinical. Or they won't be able to even "hear" you through the mire of their own entitlement, bias, prejudice and judgement.
I hope this makes some sense?
Following with interest and admiration.
The reason I shared photographs of that text was because whilst Andrew did say that in court, it wasn't in any of our submitted papers. Obviously it will appear in the transcript.
I know what you mean about emotive language and you are probably correct. Certainly the Australian court was far dryer and more technical than I would have imagined (I've sat through earlier hearings with just Andrew and the Judge but this was considerably different). However, in the context here the other side had directly attacked Andrew's competence in their written submissions. As soon as Andrew fired back in his reply submission he destroyed them on this point and they completely dropped it. That was partly why Andrew started by pointing out that they had got his name wrong! They first claimed Andrew isn't able to handle a case like this and then get his name wrong on their main affidavit! It's worth scoring a point over that.
Their whole thrust was to make out that this was a cynical money grab: one of the ways to counter that was to bring a little emotion to it because Andrew (and I) really are emotional about it.
But yes, this has to be managed carefully.
Shoooo... I can feel my rage rising just hearing about it!
Funny... one of the top lawyers in CT got the docket number wrong on a case and I was naive enough to play fair and let them know. Boy did I learn too late. 🙄
Australia probably similar to ZA. Regarding prejudice and bias then. I'd watch for that as well.
I wish you had a good lawyer. It's mostly a money game sadly. Who knows who in the upper echelons. It's a club and all the good lawyers know the judges personally. So. Not much actual law or justice there really. Honestly. It is what it is.
If you guys ran a fund to raise money for this for a good lawyer?
I've had magistrates ignore legal protocol completely and rule in favour of someone who had a good lawyer when I couldn't afford one and did my own case in Regional court. And it was illegal. What she did.
And if your judge is dodgy the system will protect them. To protect itself. Of course.
Full support here. I know what you're up against.
"Justice". Ugh :(
Just listening to the article, it looks like at first that this is a fight that will only succeed if one has a huge bank account and a host of lawyers.
I am also impressed with the role of comments on Hive as part of the evidence shown by the other party.
All in all, though this case is somewhat above my head, this is my key takeaway:
!PIZZA
!CTP
In The Morning 🙌
Pretty interesting update. I’ve heard u mention this case for a while now but didn’t know all the details above. Andrew and you are doing God’s work my brother!
👍
Makes me wonder who I'm working for...
Someone should go tell John Grisham to write a novel about this 🤪
The big question is who will play me?
@brianoflondon Ohhh boiis...why life is like that...way too complicated and all those strangest intricacies involved...being grilled over the minutest and weirdest of the debates and arguments...with a billion complexities involved and this continues..till eternity ! I mean..in the end...no one gains...even if the either side wins...there is lot of pain and agony involved over these !!!
Sometimes you have to assert your rights and point out when another side broke the law.
Life is fractal in quality... maybe?
¯\__(ツ)__/¯
https://leofinance.io/threads/@brianoflondon/re-leothreads-29fkuc2w5
https://leofinance.io/threads/@garorant/re-leothreads-2cud94
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the people ( @brianoflondon, @garorant ) sharing the post on LeoThreads,LikeTu,dBuzz.
I gifted $PIZZA slices here:
@rzc24-nftbbg(4/5) tipped @brianoflondon (x1)
Join us in Discord!
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the people( @v4vapp ) sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at https://hiveposh.com.
Congratulations @brianoflondon! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 75000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
I would like to read more about this case. Where did it started? If someone could share me some links over here I'll thank them. Very interesting.
If you like video this is good...
https://peakd.com/threespeak/@brianoflondon/ewdqessq
Otherwise I'd suggest you look at this:
https://peakd.com/cryptoclassaction/@jpbliberty/press-release-the-cryptoclassaction-has-been-filed-in-nsw-federal-court
And then look through the @jpbliberty account up to today.