Re: Poetry.com
As a lawyer and a new member here, I find this thread very interesting. There's no shortage of misrepresentation on the internet; regardless of the merits, I think there are enough flags present that anyone considering entering a relationship with Poets.com should do so with caution.
As to these interesting comments:
Judges have guidelines to follow, of course, but when all is said and done, their rulings are made based on their own prejudices about a situation. They are human after all, so no matter how hard they try to leave their biases out of the court room, they see things and rule on things based on their own life experiences and knowledge.
I know a number of judges personally who would be deeply offended by that assertion; in fact, a ruling made in this manner would violate the judicial canons of ethics. While it's true that no person can leave his preconceptions and life experience in chambers, judges for the most part do follow the law to the best of their ability. Sometimes you hear about surreal rulings that appear biased, but those are exceptions, not the rule. Especially in motions practice, I've found it's often straightforward to sense the likely outcome of the hearing--obviously, the clearer and more settled the law, the easier that is (and of course vice-versa).
You can spend a semester struggling with the issue in a law school jurisprudence class (and I have), but when you get out into the real world, it turns out most judges are trying to make the best ruling they can under the law. Not an easy job.
Cases like these make me wonder if the people who want to sue these companies aren't more angry with themselves for being taken than they are angry with the actual company for what they are doing. It is so much easier to place the blame on someone else than it is to point the finger at your image in the mirror.
I must respectfully disagree. The defense of "the rube should've known it was too good to be true and therefore deserved what he got" is a classic defense in the common law of fraud, and its wholesale rejection is equally classic. A person's gullibility does not excuse the deceit. Deceit is immoral, and deceit for financial gain--that is, fraud--is both immoral and illegal.
It is the very essence of fraud to prey upon the vulnerable. Whether it be a little old lady buying into a pyramid scheme with her retirement savings, or a hopeful writer banking on a publishing gimmick, people with high hopes and naivete are targets for con artists precisely because they're likely to fall for it.
To suggest otherwise implies that fraud should only be illegal when it cleverly hoodwinks the savvy--and that just doesn't make very much sense.
A.