Another formal debate coming up.

2003-10-24 02:49

Well, I’m a total sucker, so I’m arguing Problem of Evil. I’m arguing that it ends up not disproving anyone particularly interesting. My opponent is arguing that it does. Here’s the debate thread. As of this writing, no posts yet. My opponent should have something up in the next couple of days, I’d guess, and I’ll get back to him on it eventually.

In other news, I’m almost packed (after this post, I’ll be putting my big shiny Kinesis keyboard back in the luggage for the trip home), and will be heading home tomorrow evening.

Rumor has it I will be seeing my cell phone junk faxers (the ones with whom my settlement fell through) in court on Monday. Whee.

Peter Seebach

---

Comments

  1. We are still on for Monday against Mobile Cellular Unlimited. We still have no written response from the other side to our motion; nor do we have discovery responses.

    For those needing a play-by-play on the fax case:

    MCU hired Sunbelt Communications to send junk faxes advertising their cell phones and satellite television. Seebs got _at least_ 13 of their junk faxes. The Telephone Communications Protections Act, 47 U.S.C. sec. 227 makes MCU liable for at least $500.00 per fax.

    We sued earlier this year in District Court.

    We moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability only (not damages). Summary judgment is essentially telling the court "We all agree about what happened. Is what happened illegal?" We all agreed MCU sent junk faxes; but there is some _potential_ disagreement about whether MCU acted "willfully or knowingly," which would expose them to up to $1,500.00 per junk fax.

    MCU responded to the written motion arguing the TCPA is unconstitutional (relying on a case from Missouri that was overturned by the Court of Appeals), that seebs had no standing to bring the case because Minnesota had not "opted in" to the federal law and some other junk. Purely legal arguments.

    At the hearing, Judge Leung opened by asking "Can someone tell me what the disputed facts are?" This is a great sign when you are moving for summary judgment. It shows the judge is leaning toward finding there is no dispute about the facts so we can move to the legal question.

    There was some brief argument, then the judge proposed a settlement. As described by seebs earlier, both sides accepted it. Unfortunately, while we were preparing the paperwork for the settlement, MCU decided to make some last minute changes to the deal. No deal, said we.

    We had a brief phone conference with the judge to try to resolve the problem, but it was unresolvable. The case was un-settled. However, the judge never did make a ruling on our summary judgment motion.

    So . . .

    We amended the complaint to list six additional faxes from MCU we had discovered. MCU did not respond. We served written interrogatories (questions to the other side that have to be answered under oath) that were ignored.

    We have brought a new motion for summary judgment, to be heard on Monday. Still have had no response from the other side. Our motion is just about the same, except it has a decision from a judge in Ramsey County (Saint Paul, MN - seebs v. MCU is in Hennepin County [Minneapolis, MN]) granting summary judgment against MCU for sending junk faxes to someone else.


    — seebs_lawyer · 2003-10-24 09:30 · #

 
---