Florida Man sues Verizon for $72m – for letting him commit identity theft A Florida inmate is suing Verizon Wireless after he used one of the telco's stores to commit identity theft. James Leslie Kelly, who is serving a prison term in the US state for grand theft and criminal use of personal information, is seeking $72m in damages from the telecom giant. He claims a Verizon shop in Highlands County …
Nobody laughs at the UK because we have allowed an unelected Prime Minister Theresa May to completely fuck us over.
Now see, that's where you are wrong. I do laugh at you because of that. But then again, I am nobody, so your original statement is actually true. Sorry to have wasted your time, leaving now with a never-to-be-used-again hiking map of pre-brexit UK in the pocket.
"Nobody laughs at the UK because we have allowed an unelected Prime Minister Theresa May to completely fuck us over."
Care to explain when the last time voters could specifically elect a Prime Minister?
In the UK, we vote for a party to lead the country. What they then do in terms of having a leader during their term in office is up to them. For this term, the people elected a Conservative government who, at the time, were lead by David Cameron, and are now lead by Theresa May. However you chose to interpret it, it was a vote for a Tory government, not a Cameron government. People may have assumed they were voting for the latter, but the winning party has no obligation to field a specific PM for their term.
"People may have assumed they were voting for the latter, but the winning party has no obligation to field a specific PM for their term."
My way of putting it has always been that even if you could vote directly, whoever you voted for, you always got a politician. Now that idea's been trumped.
Except
1. Usually the leaders of each party are settled before a general election so it could be argued that voters are actually voting for a prime minister despite the fact that their cross is beside the name of someeone else. Much of the election publicity produced by parties before an election is based on this idea.
2. The past tense of lead (pronounced leed) is led. Lead (pronounced led) is a heavy metal, symbol Pb, atomic number 82).
Actually we vote for a single person to represent our area, but people forget that and vote for people who will stop the party the really hate getting in, rather than for someone with similar values as them. They then bitch about how crap our system is because whoever they wanted to win didn't and forget that they didn't actually vote for them in the first place.
*golf clap*
"Nobody laughs at the UK because we have allowed an unelected Prime Minister Theresa May to completely fuck us over."
Well.... In the UK we dont vote for the PM, we vote for the party, the party leader is selected by a vote within the party (A party that you CAN join if you so wish) so to say that she is not elected is only true in as much as David Cameron was also not elected.
PS. FTFY :
"Nobody laughs at the UK because like an over told joke, its just not funny any more"
And we did not vote for article 50 either...
EU referendum was advisory, not binding. Despite what the poiliticos said.
Any sane govt would have set a referendum like this (i.e. where result could have huge consequences) as binding but also not just 50% of the votes cast, but two thirds or similar "indisputable" clear majority ()plus factoring in the different "countries" of the UK, as pro / anti overall vote was different across different parts.
As it was, we had worst possible scenario, a near 50/50 result on a non binding referendum, and almost half the people who participated in the vote feeling shafted, as result treated as a binding vote, whereas a non fag paper, "obvious" majority result would have left the losers far less irate as it would at least have been an indisputably large loss and implied a significant degree of support for the winning result.
You would think they might have learned from the Scottish referendum, which could have had major changes to UK had the result been different and again was a straight majority decision (albeit actually binding & a vague bit of planning had been given to what would happen with a Scotland out result).
EU referendum, whatever the result, was guaranteed to cause resentment in a lot of people if result was close.
I don't do politics but it seems illogical that the Scottish referendum was held before the EU one.
Maybe I should say 'suspicious' instead of 'illogical' - I mean the government doesn't come up with these ideas one day and hold a referendum the next day so there must have been at least a year or two when the work leading up to the two referendums was happening concurrently. Yet we were not given a real vote for real freedom for Scotland.
The government probably knew we would vote for independence if they knew there was a chance they would be dragging us out of the EU with them so they deliberately did our one first. Yet all along, in both referendums, they tell us it is our voice.
It's all nothing but carefully planned trickery and deceit and that's why I don't do politics.
"Maybe I should say 'suspicious' instead of 'illogical' - I mean the government doesn't come up with these ideas one day and hold a referendum the next day so there must have been at least a year or two when the work leading up to the two referendums was happening concurrently. Yet we were not given a real vote for real freedom for Scotland."
Quite, Being scottish but living in England I was sided with the Better together crowd - Had I known then that we were leaving the EU I would have had a harder decision to make - not that I got a vote anyway.
Interestingly - I know a lot of my family voted for independence and listening to their reasoning reminds me alot of the brexiters.
I am still of the opinion that we should not be voting for these things, public referendums like these are ridiculous - the subject is just too complex for me to decide on. I am reminded of a George Carlin quote : "Think of how stupid the average person is... half of the population are stupider than that" (Im paraphrasing but that was the jist).
how the Do you get tazed for not having a fishing license
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime--law/pahokee-man-caught-illegally-fishing-tased-times-fwc-officer/Tuwem22PM5ZvKd1nPDiRkM/
My god I should of stopped reading.
Florida man attacks ‘spiritual’ girlfriend’s car over dead granny sex toy dream prophecy
Hey, give him a break. Beholding the vast wasteland of human stupidity that is Florida Man* surely can cause a momentary lapse of grammatical reasoning. Bit like seeing a Shoggoth up close.
* I read the dead granny sex toy thread too and my IQ dropped by about 25.
You mean "worried a burglar (not the ham one from McDonalds) would be able to sue me for leaving my window open and harming him or her while they committed the robbery."?
Many years ago in New Zealand, a burglar successfully sued for Accident Compensation when he was injured whilst burglarising someone's house.
Sometime later, another thieving bastard sued the home owner of the house he was stealing their property from because he tripped over a chair IN the house and injured himself.
I am embarrassed this happened in my country because when stupid shit like that happens, the most common reply is, "Only in America".
I recall a case where a previous employer was successfully sued under the H&S at work rules, by a burglar who fell down a hole in a construction area. And another where a person, caught in the act climbing out of a sixth floor window after a series of thefts, sued on grounds of racial discrimination. I don't recall whether he one that one, though.
This has happened in the UK too.
There was a successful lawsuit by someone who broke his back and hip trying to burgle a garage where the owner (quite deliberately) left the covers on the "service" canal a bit off to the side forming a nice 5m by 1m trapdoor.
In fact, the precedent base at present is - if there is the smallest suspicion that you have done it deliberately setting up "burglar punishment facilities", then you are at fault.
"In fact, the precedent base at present is - if there is the smallest suspicion that you have done it deliberately setting up "burglar punishment facilities", then you are at fault."
IANAL but my understanding is that the crime being committed (by the homeowner) is something like "setting man traps". In NZ at least it's still used, dating from people setting traps for poachers. This is generally a bad idea, since while scrotes are scum, you can't go around killing and maiming them. As much as that sounds nice, vigilante justice, especially blind (no check on who falls in the pit or triggers trap) is strongly discouraged.
Only know this since some charming vegan save-the-planet types poisoned the milk at a previous workplace, and that was what they got charged with, as no-one was actually harmed.
Many years ago in New Zealand, a burglar successfully sued for Accident Compensation when he was injured whilst burglarising someone's house.
I don't recall hearing of this one, and aside from a couple of breaches of privacy (very significant ones IIRC), I don't recall hearing of anyone "suing" ACC either. Do you have a link or any more details?
Sometime later, another thieving bastard sued the home owner of the house he was stealing their property from because he tripped over a chair IN the house and injured himself.
Was that here as well? I also don't recall hearing of that one. Not nice if it was.
Are we all trying to forget our own British idiocy? For starters I offer the claim by a Police Officer, who when answering a 999 call to a petrol station, tripped on a kerb on the premises. The compensation claim claimed that the owner of the petrol station failed to keep her safe as she investigated the possible break-in. Read all about it here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301650/Call-police--sue-WPC-demands-50-000-petrol-station-owner-tripping-kerb-investigating-break-in.html
"According to WFTV, Kelly entered the store on May 7, 2015 and accessed the account of another man named "James Kelly" to obtain $300 worth of "products and services." Kelly, who has a criminal history dating back to 1985, was later arrested and charged.
Now, Kelly is filing a suit of his own in the Central Florida District court, claiming that Verizon violated his civil rights by allowing him to commit the crimes"
This man when into the store to commit a crime and now claims they violated his civil rights by allowing him to do it. Seriously!
Sorry James Kelly but you committed the crime and you should now deal with the consequences of your actions.
(Okay, that's clickbait in the title)
TV station name needs to be corrected from WFTV to WTFV.
Wait. 37 convictions under his belt. What was that three strikes thing everyone was ranting about?
Right, Florida. Too much orange juice and sunshine on the beach, or way too many Cuba Libre I suppose. I know, he can claim Vitamin D overdose and get a doctor to back it up and get a discharge on one of his 37 convictions! Hell, maybe he's diabetic! <HDR ref>
Never mind that, I'm suing you lot for mental cruelty (crimes against spelling and grammar (I am one of the defendants, mind - I'm completely unbiased)), as well as an injury claim for straining a muscle once from laughing so hard. How dare you all egregriously entertain me when I'm trying to read a serious news site?!.
8-}
"I'm suing the person that I ran over for leaving a dent in my car!"
I wouldn't laugh. A few years ago a motorbike rider chose to ignore a "STOP" sign and drive across a dual carriageway at a junction. They hit the passenger door of my car and knocked themselves out (but fortunately lived). The police investigated and determined it was the biker's fault for ignoring the sign. Later the rider sued me for the damage to his bike.
This guy is a prat - end of. Throw out the case with prejudice and hold him responsible for Verizon's legal costs (not that they'd actually get paid, mind).
However, if the other James Kelly (i.e. the actual victim of the identity theft) were to use the details from this filing to raise his own suit against Verizon for negligence, that one's got legs.
That Kelly gets his name wrong?
Also Kelly seems to suffer from the problem of the poorly educated that "herein" is assumed to be some sort of talisman that makes a document more legal if you use it and use it often.
This is reminding me of the case of Bunt vs Tilley and others. Bunt sued Tilley and the others for libel and damages relating to all sort of things including IIRC impotence. He tried to sue each of their ISPs also claiming that their libels were the responsibility of the ISPs. Bunt had asked for advice before embarking on this self-litigation but chose to ignore it. The advice was that Tilley et al had libelled him but this did not make the ISPs culpable. Also Tilley et al were as poor as church mice so not worth pursuing in court. The end result was a spectacular shot foot as the Judge ruled that the ISPs had no part in the libel and made Bunt pay their costs. That bankrupted Bunt.
At least this proved that the UK does have people of equal stupidity to litigants in the USA.
JackThompson
Even in the US we get tired of these ass holes. This guy kept on suing video game makers/publishers and losing that the judge finally yanked hi law license and said all future law suits must be signed off by another lawyer will ti risk his license
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(activist)
Are we believing that he walked into the store with the intention of being the other JK, or perhaps when the store looked up JK on the computer and offered him the victim on a plate that he said yes that's me... If so I can see how the store did not correctly identify the customer in this case, and how their data breach presented the victim to the ne'er-do-well.. I think there is a case to answer here. For both parties.
I was told that the major weakness of the USA legal system was that the litigant set the amount of damages, and the court/jury only decided if their case was true. Hence the ludicrous amounts paid out and the willingness to sue about anything; mathematically far better than a lottery ticket.
I assume that this has been at least partially remedied.
Loser pays may discourage frivolous law suits but it also can favour those with massive (effectively unlimited) funds such as insurance companies who can keep stringing out a case and loading up the costs until the financial risk of losing the case (and being bankrupt) forces the abandonment of valid claims.
I suspect that (much as with IT lack of security) this is all considered just a cost of doing business and damages are effectively paid by customers/general public.
If he had claimed $7k (or even $70k) he may well have been paid off as the cheapest option.
For an example you only have to look at the recent surge in whiplash claims after car accidents in the UK. Paid out so easily it became an industry which they are now trying to stop.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
