Preliminary Injunction

[Anonymous]

Anybody know what that was (or is) all about?

[Anonymous]

Anybody got a smoking gun icon?  That's what this post appears to be about.  

 :grin:

[Antigen]

::smokingun::

Ok. Now, please explain why this is a smokin' gun issue? As I understand it (which may be way, way off), courts can issue a preliminary injunction based on the plaintiffs mere claim w/ no evidence whatever.

Writing about music is like dancing about architecture.
--

[Anonymous]

Hmm, this question about the details of the preliminary injunction (WWASPS v. PURE) has been asked before, with no answer.

 :tup:

[Anonymous]

Is there a lawyer in the house?  Anyone who has read the court document and can explain the specifics in layman's terms?  PURE? ISAC?

 :idea:

[Anonymous]

On 2003-12-18 15:00:00, Antigen wrote:

" ::smokingun::



Ok. Now, please explain why this is a smokin' gun issue? As I understand it (which may be way, way off), courts can issue a preliminary injunction based on the plaintiffs mere claim w/ no evidence whatever.

No response from PURE or ISAC in spite of repeated requests?  There's your answer, Ginger.

 :eek:

[Anonymous]

preliminary injunction
: an interlocutory injunction issued before a trial for purposes of preventing the defendant from acting in a way that will irreparably harm the plaintiff's ability to enforce his or her rights at the trial
(called also temporary injunction)
(compare temporary restraining order at order)

Note: Before a preliminary injunction can be issued, there must be a hearing with prior notice to the defendant. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the hearing and the trial may be consolidated. (Source: findlaw.com)

=============================================

injunction  
[in-'je[ng]k-shen]

Middle French injonction, from Late Latin injunction- injunctio, from Latin injungere to enjoin, from in- in + jungere to join

: an equitable remedy in the form of a court order compelling a party to do or refrain from doing a specified act
(compare cease-and-desist order at order § 3b damage declaratory judgment at judgment § 1a mandamus specific performance at performance stay)

Note: An injunction is available as a remedy for harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Thus it is used to prevent a future harmful action rather than to compensate for an injury that has already occurred, or to provide relief from harm for which an award of money damages is not a satisfactory solution or for which a monetary value is impossible to calculate. A defendant who violates an injunction is subject to penalty for contempt.  

================================================

FYI:

The specifics of the afore-mentioned preliminary injunction are public record.  

 :wave:

[Anonymous]

KEY PHRASE

... "an equitable remedy in the form of a court order compelling a party to *do or refrain* from doing a specified act".

[Anonymous]

Excerpted from the WWASPS v. PURE lawsuit thread:

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3486&forum=9

7/30/03 Docket Entry #90 Minute entry: Court rules GRANTING/DENYING in part World Wide Assn's motion for preliminary injunction against Ms. Scheff and Pure [58-1],Judge: Paul Cassell Court Reporter: Pam Smith Court Deputy: Trisha Little (tl) [Entry date 07/31/03]

[Anonymous]

Here are some of the filings associated with the WWASP vs PURE lawsuit. All of these, except for the docket, are Portable Data Format (PDF) files, so you'll need Adobe's proprietary Acrobat software to read them. Seems apropos for the legal profession, eh?

Docket as of November 5, 2003 10:09 pm Web PACER (v2.4)

Dec 2nd, 2002 - PURE answer and counterclaim
Dec 19, 2002 - First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
April 3rd, 2002 - I'm not Donna's lawyer!
May 2nd, 2003 - Deny, deny, grant WWASP motions to dismiss counterclaims
June 3rd, `03 - PURE objects to subpoenas
June 27, `03 - More of the same
Oct 23, `03 - The court would like a peek at those infamous emails, too
April 22, 2002 - WWASP motion for preliminary injunction

http://fornits.com/anonanon/docs/wwasp/WvPure/

Ginger, apparently you are missing the court document that outlines the specifics of the preliminary injuntion.  

 :smile:

[Anonymous]

Whoops, the correct link to the PDF files is:

http://fornits.com/anonanon/docs/wwasp/WvPURE/

 :silly:

[Antigen]

On 2003-12-19 21:07:00, Anonymous wrote:

Ginger, apparently you are missing the court document that outlines the specifics of the preliminary injuntion.

Indeed I am. In fact, I'm missing all but those few docs you see there.

See, awhile back, Rich Titsch got real ambitious about spreading the word on Tranquility Bay. He has access to the PACER system and so he very generously provided me copies of some of the documents listed in that docket. Then there was an ugly row and he took his ball and went home.

If anyone else would like to provide documents, just send them along and I'll stick them on the server.

But I still don't understand how a preliminary injunction can be all that important. Aren't they usually just gag orders intended to keep someone quiet?

Here's freedom to him who would read;
 
Here's freedom to him who would write;

None ever feared that the truth should be heard,

But them that the truth would indict.


--author unknown (circa 1914)

[Anonymous]

As in the case of Sun v. Microsoft, Preliminary Injunctions are not just about shutting people up.

http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/111798ruling.html

[Antigen]

Ok, so can anyone get a copy of the WvP preliminary injunction?

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/188301123X/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'>George Washington

[Anonymous]

The silence is deafening.  

 :roll: