T1B

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2013 11:20 pm**

Person A is applying to Organization B for {..........} which requires a criminal background check. Org B contacts Organization C to conduct the background check. Org C responds that Person A has been convicted of numerous crimes including felony assault with 3 year prison sentence. Org B denies application based on this information. The information is categorically false. Person A has no criminal background whatsoever.

Does Person A have an actionable claim v. :

Org B
Org C
Neither

And why (neither org is a government agency).

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2013 11:41 pm**

What, you thought raping the Vogels this whole time wasn't going to come back to bite you?

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2013 11:48 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:What, you thought raping the Vogels this whole time wasn't going to come back to bite you?

What, you thought that performing as the stunt double for Casino's "head in the vise" scene wasn't going to come back to haunt you?

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 12:01 am**

Don't talk to me.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 12:12 am**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Don't talk to me.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 1:37 am**

I suspect that A might have a case against C, particularly if they could show that C got their info in a a shoddy manner. Good luck proving that though.

A doesn't have shit on B as B was never under any obligation to them to begin with.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 1:53 am**

Did you submit fingerprints for the background check?

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 1:54 am**

smackaholic wrote:I suspect that A might have a case against C, particularly if they could show that C got their info in a a shoddy manner. Good luck proving that though.

I believe the simple fact that the information was categorically false would suffice to demonstrate the "shoddy condition" in which that "information" was obtained, no?

Please read for comprehension. This is not an online civics quiz.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 1:57 am**

Mace wrote:Did you submit fingerprints for the background check?

The facts are precisely as stipulated. No personal interview. No telephone interview. No fingerprints. No form of contact whatsoever between A and C.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 2:00 am**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:What, you thought raping the Vogels this whole time wasn't going to come back to bite you?

It wasn't really "rape" rape. It was just...enthusiastic.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 2:05 am**

You'd have a reason to question the results of the check and ask them to submit fingerprints along with the other info to get an accurate criminal history. Even law enforcement criminal background checks qualify the results in the absence of fingerprints.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 2:14 am**

mvscal wrote:
smackaholic wrote:I suspect that A might have a case against C, particularly if they could show that C got their info in a a shoddy manner. Good luck proving that though.
I believe the simple fact that the information was categorically false would suffice to demonstrate the "shoddy condition" in which that "information" was obtained, no?

Please read for comprehension. This is not an online civics quiz.

If you are going to run reading comp smack, get your quotations right. I did not say shoddy condition, I said shoddy manner. Just because an organization collects info that turns out to be incorrect, does not prove that they were "shoddy". It does imply it, but, so what. My point is that proving it requires a little more than blanket assumptions.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 2:21 am**

smackaholic wrote:Just because an organization collects info that turns out to be incorrect, does not prove that they were "shoddy".

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with that premise.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 2:25 am**

A can sue anybody any time for any fucking reason

...unless A is "non-hispanic white" and either B or C is a minority

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 2:49 am**

Maybe they don't hire mvscals.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 3:02 am**

Mvscaak, you know all the answers already as to what you are going to do.

Why don't you just cut to the chase and call out which specific lawyer you want to argue with here? Are you testing the water for TVO? {ambulance chasing scumbag lawyer}

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 8:40 am**

So, let's read the tea leaves..it seems that 1-malt has a record he'd rather hide...a simple tale of drunken egress gone woefully wrong, that said he's wearing an ankle bracelet while watching his medicated nephews make waste of his rolls, he's really sweating amid the acrid fumes and tasting the foul odor of his mind...

(

)

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 1:44 pm**

88 wrote:
mvscal wrote:Person A is applying to Organization B for {..........} which requires a criminal background check. Org B contacts Organization C to conduct the background check. Org C responds that Person A has been convicted of numerous crimes including felony assault with 3 year prison sentence. Org B denies application based on this information. The information is categorically false. Person A has no criminal background whatsoever.

Does Person A have an actionable claim v. :

Org B
Org C
Neither

And why (neither org is a government agency).
More information is needed in order to answer the question.
1. What is the "{..........}"?
2. If the "{..........}" is a job, does Person A have a contractual right to the job offered by Organization B (e.g., through the terms of a collective bargaining agreement)?
3. Did Org C provide false information to Org B specifically identifying Person A as having been convicted of a felony, or did Org C provide truthful information to Org B about someone having been convicted of a felony, which Org B assumed was Person A when it was not (e.g., Person A's name is Mike Smith, and Org C truthfully reports to Org B that someone named Mike Smith has been convicted of a felony, and Org B thinks that the Mike Smith Org C told them about is Person A)?
4. Does the state in which this occurred provide qualified immunity from defamation/slander/libel claims to companies that provide background checks for mistakes in databases and other errors?
5. Can Person A prove that he/she sustained financial losses as a direct result of the false information Org C provided to Org B?
6. Does Person A have any evidence that would suggest that Org C knowingly and intentionally provided the false information to Org B with the intent of causing Person A to suffer a harm?
7. If the "{..........}" is not a job, can Person A obtain whatever the "{..........}" is now that the error in the information reported by Org C to Org B has been corrected?

Have to disagree with you on this, with the exception of #4 and possible exception of #3. A statement that an individual has been convicted of a crime is defamatory per se, and damages are presumed. The subject of such a defamatory statement need not prove damages in this case.

As for #4, I know New York provides qualified immunity only to governmental subdivisions, and mvscal specifically stated that Org C was not a governmental organization. That doesn't mean different states don't have different laws with respect to qualified immunity, though.

As for #3, negligence is the minimum standard needed to prevail on a claim for punitive damages in a defamation action. That, of course, assumes that the person defamed was not a public figure.

But I'm still wondering why mvscal needs a job in the first place. I always thought the RNC pays him to post here. I believe their going rate is $.01 per word of response, so if mvscal can get Dins or Van to respond to one of his posts, he's looking at a four-figure check from that response alone.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 3:23 pm**

Terry, would party A have to prove willing fraud over plane old incompetence on the part of party C? I mean it seems to me that if the "I didn't know" defense is good enough for our current administration, it ought to be good enough for some company.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 7:18 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:So, let's read the tea leaves..it seems that 1-malt has a record he'd rather hide...

I see we can add basic reading comprehension to the list of things you know nothing about.

The information is categorically false. Person A has no criminal background whatsoever.

In any event, this isn't about me. The question revolves around the legal liability of private background check services for the veracity of the information they provide. Such information is routinely used in screening applicants for loans, employment, lease agreements etc.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2013 9:31 pm**

Since this is the ask the lawyer scumbag thread....

What do you fukks think about that former IRS stupid bitch who commented on her innocence, saying she did nothing wrong, then pleaded the 5th. Some of your TV/radio scumbag associates said she is an idiot. She already commented on her innocence in the case and doing so takes the 5th off the table.

Is this so?

I would think that it would only apply to a trial/hearing itself, but. these dudes were pretty adamant about it.

Sitting here I just heard the tape. Yup, during a hearing she said I didn't do anything wrong, then in the same breath plead the fifth.

How did this stupid cunt make it through law school?

Posted: **Fri May 24, 2013 1:54 pm**

smackaholic wrote:Terry, would party A have to prove willing fraud over plane old incompetence on the part of party C? I mean it seems to me that if the "I didn't know" defense is good enough for our current administration, it ought to be good enough for some company.

The short answer is, it depends.

It depends on: (a) who the plaintiff is; and (b) what type of damages is the plaintiff seeking.

If the Plaintiff is a "public figure," then the minimum standard for actual/compensatory damages is negligence. If a public figure plaintiff is also seeking punitive damages, then the public figure must also prove malice as defined under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

If the Plaintiff is not a public figure, then strict liablity is sufficient for acutal/compensatory damages. A non-public figure plaintiff who also wants punitive damages must, at a minimum, plead and prove negligence.

Posted: **Fri May 24, 2013 2:44 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:If the Plaintiff is not a public figure, then strict liablity is sufficient for acutal/compensatory damages. A non-public figure plaintiff who also wants punitive damages must, at a minimum, plead and prove negligence.

Kinda funny how general competence is expected from people in the private sector, the public sector, not so much.

This alone should turn people libertarian, unless you fall under the incompetence umbrella directly.

Posted: **Fri May 24, 2013 2:48 pm**

smackaholic wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:If the Plaintiff is not a public figure, then strict liablity is sufficient for acutal/compensatory damages. A non-public figure plaintiff who also wants punitive damages must, at a minimum, plead and prove negligence.
Kinda funny how general competence is expected from people in the private sector, the public sector, not so much.

This alone should turn people libertarian, unless you fall under the incompetence umbrella directly.

"Public figure" has a different meaning from what you think it means.

There are all-purpose public figures, and there are limited-purpose public figures.

Think of, oh, I dunno, Tom Cruise, and you get an idea of an all-purpose public figure.

A limited-purpose public figure might be the guy in your town who's leading the effort to stop hydrofracking, if the communication relates directly to hydrofracking.

It has nothing to do with a public/private sector determination. And it applies to the plaintiff, not to the defendant.

T1B

Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz

Re: Ambulance Chasing Scumbag Quiz