Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Dancing David]

That doesn't sound plausible. Surely it isn't possible to file a lawsuit with baseless accusations and get away with it? Then the legal system could be abused and cause harm to innocent people by false lawsuits claiming all kinds of things.

Um, no, anyone can make all sorts of crazy claims, prior to a court hearing. The person bringing suit has to furnish proof of the allegations.

 

[Dancing David]

It's a lawsuit filed by an attorney from a law firm, so there should be some substance to the claims I assume. Why else accept the case? If the case is baseless, then accepting it just because of getting a lot money would be a kind of conspiracy in itself.

Um, sure whatever Anders, you know nothing about US suits do you?

Anyone can bring any suit that they want, winning beyond the hearing is the hard part.

 

[Dancing David]

At least the attorney must have taken the lawsuit seriously?

Um, since when, what do you think lawyers are payed for exactly?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Um, since when, what do you think lawyers are payed for exactly?

The must be a limit to what the lawyers would accept as claim without any proof. The Dragon Family lawsuit looks like something an attorney would think twice about before accepting.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That doesn't sound plausible. Surely it isn't possible to file a lawsuit with baseless accusations and get away with it? Then the legal system could be abused and cause harm to innocent people by false lawsuits claiming all kinds of things.

You don't say... RIAA Sues Deceased Grandmother

 

[Anders Lindman]

You don't say... RIAA Sues Deceased Grandmother

That was about a mistaken identity of a person. It's hard to see how the Dragon Family lawsuit can be some similar mistake.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That was about a mistaken identity of a person. It's hard to see how the Dragon Family lawsuit can be some similar mistake.

So what? The lawsuit itself was baseless, which you contend shouldn't be possible. You were wrong.

 

[Anders Lindman]

So what? The lawsuit itself was baseless, which you contend shouldn't be possible. You were wrong.

No, it was not! It was about illegal distribution of copyrighted material, something they could prove for a certain Internet identity. It was just that they made a mistake when connecting that identity to the real person's identity. So it was a perfectly valid lawsuit in essence.

 

[Border Reiver]

The must be a limit to what the lawyers would accept as claim without any proof. The Dragon Family lawsuit looks like something an attorney would think twice about before accepting.

For my day job I work as a paralegal for the government of Canada. Based on my experience I trust the lawyer that filed this got a sizable retainer, probably in cash.

Legally, the case is flawed for a number of reasons:

A. Jurisdiction: the UN and the Republic of Italy are not capable of being sued in most national courts - the doctrine of diplomatic immunity as set out in the Vienna Treaties will stop that;
B. limitation periods: the alleged thefts occurred over 10 years ago. Most jurisdictions give you 6 years on the outside to commence your action for conversion. Discoverability may play a role but probably not;
C. No harm to the plaintiff: KEENAN didn't own the securities and has no right to sue for their return, the Dragon family would, but they aren't properly identified;
D. The doctrine of res Ipsa loquitor ( at least in Canada) is an antiquated doctrine of liability and with out a specific proof that the bonds existed, that the Dragon family owned them, that Keenan is or was their representative, that any of the allegations put forward have any basis in reality then the case will likely be summarily dismissed and the plaintiffs potentially held liable for costs.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So it was a perfectly valid lawsuit in essence.

Nope. Wrong. It was entirely invalid because the real person being served was invalid. Besides, if it was still valid "in essence", why did the RIAA dismiss it?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Nope. Wrong. It was entirely invalid because the real person being served was invalid. Besides, if it was still valid "in essence", why did the RIAA dismiss it?

Of course. What I mean by in essence is that the lawsuit looked perfectly fine for the attorneys. The same excuse cannot be used for the Dragon Family lawsuit. You are mixing apples and oranges here.

 

[Anders Lindman]

For my day job I work as a paralegal for the government of Canada. Based on my experience I trust the lawyer that filed this got a sizable retainer, probably in cash.

Legally, the case is flawed for a number of reasons:

A. Jurisdiction: the UN and the Republic of Italy are not capable of being sued in most national courts - the doctrine of diplomatic immunity as set out in the Vienna Treaties will stop that;
B. limitation periods: the alleged thefts occurred over 10 years ago. Most jurisdictions give you 6 years on the outside to commence your action for conversion. Discoverability may play a role but probably not;
C. No harm to the plaintiff: KEENAN didn't own the securities and has no right to sue for their return, the Dragon family would, but they aren't properly identified;
D. The doctrine of res Ipsa loquitor ( at least in Canada) is an antiquated doctrine of liability and with out a specific proof that the bonds existed, that the Dragon family owned them, that Keenan is or was their representative, that any of the allegations put forward have any basis in reality then the case will likely be summarily dismissed and the plaintiffs potentially held liable for costs.

None of your points are definite. So you need to make stronger points to really prove that the lawsuit is flawed. For example, what if KEENAN is a member of the Dragon Family?

 

[Kid Eager]

None of your points are definite. So you need to make stronger points to really prove that the lawsuit is flawed. For example, what if KEENAN is a member of the Dragon Family?

Indeed - and don't you think that might have been relevant to the suit, hmmm? Of course, you have something, anything, to draw that link?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Indeed - and don't you think that might have been relevant to the suit, hmmm? Of course, you have something, anything, to draw that link?

If any of the points is valid, then the lawsuit may be flawed. So a definitely valid point is needed. Not some maybe, or "in most cases" or any of such uncertainty.

 

[Anders Lindman]

I am listening again to the interview where David Wilcock interviews Benjamin Fulford which is from where I found out about the lawsuit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbeBNe3Oml4

A lot of really outrageous conspiracy theories in that interview yet still Fulford is an expert so who knows... from about 53 minutes into the video Fulford describes the bonds that the Chinese own.

 

[Visual Purple]

This is supposed to be a federal suit? In theory, the court could impose sanctions:

b) Representations to the Court.

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

***

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
***

(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11)

It's often more trouble than its worth for a defendant to pursue such sanctions if it can quickly get the thing dismissed for failure to state a proper claim. Of course, if the plaintiff sues, say, "Satan and his Staff,"* there may not be anyone to seek sanctions.

*United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D.Pa. 1971)

 

[Anders Lindman]

This is supposed to be a federal suit? In theory, the court could impose sanctions:
)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11)

It's often more trouble than its worth for a defendant to pursue such sanctions if it can quickly get the thing dismissed for failure to state a proper claim. Of course, if the plaintiff sues, say, "Satan and his Staff,"* there may not be anyone to seek sanctions.

*United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D.Pa. 1971)

In the PDF it says "United States District Court". Does that mean it's not a Federal lawsuit?

 

[Sledge]

Maybe some of the evidence is pointed out in the PDF file?

Go and read it, then let us know what you find.

 

[Border Reiver]

None of your points are definite. So you need to make stronger points to really prove that the lawsuit is flawed. For example, what if KEENAN is a member of the Dragon Family?

None of my points are definite because without being privy to all the info I would not make such a statement about a court document.

If Keenan was a member of the Dragon family then why didn't he identify himself as such?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Go and read it, then let us know what you find.

It's a long document, over 100 pages. I may take the time to read it depending on if it turns out to be something that could be real. It looked interesting enough to look into a bit more and that's why I started this thread.