Gyroscopic Investing

http://www.virginiadefamationlawyer.com ... gement.pdf

Just read over at the Bogleheads site that the person (Mike) that ran the Long-Term Returns website / blog has a pending lawsuit.

I enjoyed the back testing tool and his blog. I hope everything works out in his favor.

What a bunch of nonsense! The supposedly defamatory statements just look like one man's opinion to me. A classic case of using the legal system to bully the weak.

I don't want to get sued, but whoever wrote that complaint doesn't know how to use principle/principal correctly.

MediumTex wrote: I don't want to get sued, but whoever wrote that complaint doesn't know how to use principle/principal correctly.

I'm no lawyer but this looks really like a harassment vehicle to get him to spend legal fees. They didn't even claim tortuous interference (MT opinion pls?)

Mdraf wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I don't want to get sued, but whoever wrote that complaint doesn't know how to use principle/principal correctly.

I'm no lawyer but this looks really like a harassment vehicle to get him to spend legal fees. They didn't even claim tortuous interference (MT opinion pls?)

This happens thousands of times each day in the US.  There is a significant need for tort reform, IMO.  Businesses are constantly being threatened with law suits, 95% of which are fairly frivolous and would result in a favorable defense verdict.

Unfortunately, my business is often threatened with such nonsense.  ALL lawyers say the same thing...... "You will probably win, because they don't have a case, but you'll spend a lot more to win a suit (if they push it), than you would by just offering a settlement". 

So every year, we have to write a check or two to some jerk who has a baseless claim.  And in between, we spend a lot of money and huge amounts of time on claims that never come to fruition. 

Not to mention all of the time, money and effort spend on litigation avoidance practices.

It's not just my business.  When I was in the medical field, as you might expect that was very pervasive.

Mdraf wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I don't want to get sued, but whoever wrote that complaint doesn't know how to use principle/principal correctly.

I'm no lawyer but this looks really like a harassment vehicle to get him to spend legal fees. They didn't even claim tortuous interference (MT opinion pls?)

Under the logic of the complaint, anyone who expressed a negative opinion about the complaint could be construed as posting on the internet an endorsement of the views expressed by the person who is being sued in the first place, basically putting anyone who expressed such an opinion in a position to be sued for exactly the same thing.

If a company claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine and I make a post on the internet saying that although I am not familiar with that company, I believe that their claims are false, misleading and probably based upon some kind of misrepresentation based upon my understanding of physics, does anyone really think that these statements would be defamatory? 

In a world where t-bills are paying 0% and CDs are paying 2.5%, if someone advertises a "guaranteed 7% return", I think that expressing the opinion that this seems to be, by definition, a bit misleading couldn't be defamatory, or, if it IS defamatory, I want to know why the heck the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't just start rolling over all maturing Treasury debt into the "guaranteed 7% return" instrument.  Wouldn't he be a fool not to?  If the instrument is only available to private individuals, why wouldn't Bill Gates or Warren Buffett just put all of their money into the "guaranteed 7% return" instrument?

As far as the damages to the firm's reputation that the complaint claims the defendant has caused, in my opinion the filing of the complaint itself may do more damage to the reputation of the firm as people read it and draw their own conclusions about why it was filed and whether a "guaranteed 7% return" instrument is actually available through that firm.

Ironically, if the lawsuit is dismissed, the firm might be able to go back and sue the attorney who drafted the complaint for defamation because the content of the complaint itself contained false statements that damaged the firm's reputation and exposed it to ridicule.

It's complaints all the way down!

Xan wrote: It's complaints all the way down!

Nice!

I just hope it doesn't open up a black hole that sucks in the entire universe.