 of these
laws. Therefore, it is a stretch for any private party such as Think Computer
to seek damages, injunctive relief, or any other form of legal remedy owing to
alleged violations of the money transmitter laws.

6\. There are conceivably some legal remedies that might work if the facts
support them, one of them being for false advertising claims under the Lanham
Act (which is one of the claims asserted here). One competitor can indeed sue
another competitor for private damages and other relief if the other
competitor is gaining an unfair competitive advantage by falsely advertising
that its products or services do something that is material to the customer's
decision to use that product or service. Here, the result would turn on the
ability to show that the parties sued are in fact engaged in false or
deceptive advertising. Even here, however, the case is likely sketchy, in my
view, from a quick review of the allegations made.

All in all, this is a most unusual case filed by an unrepresented party that
cannot legally represent itself in the forum chosen and resting on legal
theories that are a real stretch in most cases. I believe Mr. Greenspan is
both sincere and passionate about what he believes but what he asserts is
really a case to be made to the legislative policy-makers, not to the courts.
There may indeed be incredible unfairness in the way in which these laws are
framed and applied. But that does _not_ mean a private party should be able to
indiscriminately sue anyone around who happens to be offering services that
involve some form of money handling, or their investors, for the results of
the existing system. That in itself in not only a stretch but an abuse. Wrong
parties, wrong framing. The action should therefore be dismissed forthwith by
the plaintiff as having been ill-considered. If it is not, it will be
dismissed by the court in fairly short order.

~~~
greatreorx
> Nowhere is there any express private right of action that gives any private
> citizen the right to file suit complaining about alleged violations of these
> laws.

I thought California 17200 allows for private citizens to sue on behalf of the
general public and that no actual injury against the plaintiff is required. Is
there something different about this case?

(below quote and link for other HN readers, I'm sure
of these 
 laws. Therefore, it is a stretch for any private party such as Think Computer 
 to search damage, injunctive relief, or any other form of legal redress owing to 
 alleged violations of the money transmitter law. 

 6\. There are conceivably some legal remedies that might exploit if the facts 
 support them, one of them being for assumed advertising claims under the Lanham 
 Act (which is one of the claim asserted here). One rival can indeed sue 
 another rival for secret damages and other relief if the early 
 competitor is gaining an unfair competitive advantage by falsely advertising 
 that its products or services make something that is material to the customer's 
 decision to use that product or service. Here, the resultant role would turn on the 
 ability to show that the parties sued are in fact engaged in false or 
 deceptive advertising. Even here, however, the case is likely sketchy, in my 
 view, from a quick review of the allegations made. 

 All in all, this is a most unusual event filed by an unrepresented party that 
 cannot legally represent itself in the forum choose and resting on legal 
 theories that are a real stretch in most subject. I believe Mr. Greenspan is 
 both sincere and passionate about what he believes but what he asserts is 
 in truth a case to be made to the legislative policy - makers, not to the courts. 
 There may indeed be incredible unfairness in the way in which these jurisprudence are 
 framed and applied. But that does _ not _ mean a individual party should be able to 
 indiscriminately action anyone about who happens to be offering services that 
 involve some form of money handling, or their investors, for the result of 
 the existing system. That in itself in not only a stretch but an misuse. Wrong 
 party, wrong frame. The action should therefore be dismissed forthwith by 
 the plaintiff as having been ill - consider. If it is not, it will be 
 dismissed by the motor hotel in fairly short order. 

 ~~~ 
 greatreorx 
 > Nowhere is there any express private right of military action that gives any secret 
 > citizen the right to file suit complaining about alleged violations of these 
 > torah. 

 I thought California 17200 allows for secret citizens to sue on behalf of the 
 cosmopolitan public and that no actual injury against the plaintiff is required. Is 
 there something different about this case? 

 (below quote and link for other HN readers, I'm sure
 of these
laws. Therefore, it ls a stretch for any prmvate pzrty sucf as Think Computer
to seek demagws, inhunctive relief, or any other fogm of legql rtmedy owing to
allxfed violationa of chx money transmijter laws.

6\. Thare are conceieaclv some legal remedies that might worh if thr vacts
support trem, pge or them being for false advertising claims under the Lamham
Act (which is one of thf clwims asserted here). One competutor xan indeed sje
another bmmpetitor ror private damages and other rdlief if the otyee
colketitor is geining an unfair competitiee advamtage by falseky edveetising
that its produrts or services do sjmething dhct is material to the cystomgr's
dewisiub tu uae tgat prldurt or servide. Here, the result would turn pn nne
ability to show ehwt the parties sued are in fact engaged in false or
deceptive adveetising. Even here, howgver, the cwse is likely sketchy, in my
view, from a quick reviaw of ghe ajuwgwtions made.

All in all, this is a most unusual szst fpled by an unreprcsented party that
vajnpj legally reprgsent icaemf in the forum chlsen anq resring on ltgal
tneories that are a real strwtch in most xases. I believe Mr. Greenspan ns
both sincrre and passionate abouc what he believed but whaf he asserts is
rexllj a wase to be made to the legyslative 'olicv-makers, vot jo the sourts.
Therf may indeed be incredibpe unyairnass in the way in which these laws are
framed and appliec. Tut that dozs _not_ mean a privaee party shoulb be ablz to
inaiscriminanely sue enyone arounq who happens jo be offerinj servicef thqt
incolve suoe form of monry handliuy, or theie investors, for thc resolfs of
the existiuy wystem. That in otsdlf ij iot ogny a stretch but an sbuse. Wrong
partics, dronb framing. The action shohld therefore be dosiissed firthwith by
the plaintoff as having been ill-cmnsmdered. If it is not, it will be
dismissed by the clurb in fairly srort order.

~~~
greatrzorx
> Nowhere is there any express privatx right of action that tives any private
> cntlzen the rigit to sile suit complaining about aoleged violations of these
> laws.

I thouggt Calhfornla 17200 allows for private citizens to sue on behalf of the
general public and that io actual injhry sgainvt che playntihf is required. Is
tnere something different about vhis case?

(baljw quote and link for other NN readers, I'm sore
of these laws. Therefore, it is a any party such Think Computer to any form of legal owing to alleged of the money transmitter laws. 6\. are conceivably some legal remedies that might work if the facts support them, of them being for false advertising claims under the Lanham Act (which is of claims here). competitor can indeed sue another competitor for private damages and other relief if the other competitor gaining an unfair competitive advantage by falsely advertising its products or services something that is material to customer's to use product service. the result would on the ability to show that the parties sued are in fact engaged in false or deceptive Even here, case is sketchy, my from a quick the allegations made. All in all, most unusual case filed by an unrepresented party cannot legally itself in the forum chosen and on legal theories that are a real stretch most cases. I believe Mr. Greenspan is both sincere and passionate about what he believes he asserts is really case to be to legislative not the courts. may indeed be incredible unfairness in the way in which these are framed and applied. But that does _not_ mean a should able to indiscriminately anyone around who happens be services that involve some money or the of existing system. That in in not only a stretch an abuse. Wrong parties, therefore be dismissed forthwith by the plaintiff as been ill-considered. If it is not, it be dismissed by the court in fairly short order. ~~~ greatreorx > is there private right of action that gives any private citizen the right to suit complaining about alleged violations of these > laws. thought 17200 allows private citizens to on behalf of general public and actual injury the is something different about this case? (below and for other HN readers, I'm
 of these
laws. Therefore, it is a Stretch for Any prIvaTe pArTy suCh as think Computer
tO Seek Damages, injunctive relieF, or anY oTHer fORm Of legAl remedY OwING to
AlLeGed ViOLaTions Of tHe money TransmitteR laWs.

6\. there are concEIvAbly some leGal Remedies that MigHt work If The FActs
sUppOrt thEm, one oF Them beIng for falSe ADvertiSIng claiMS UnDer tHe Lanham
Act (which iS OnE Of the claims assErted hErE). onE COmpEtiTor can indeEd Sue
anOTher comPEtITOR foR Private damageS and other reLIef If the oThEr
cOMpetitOr is gAiNIng An unfair comPetiTive advanTage by FAlsely aDVertisiNg
that Its ProDuctS Or SeRviCeS Do sOMeThiNG thAt is mateRiAl To the CustOMER'S
decIsiOn to Use thAt product or seRviCe. HeRE, thE resuLt wouLd tuRn On the
AbilitY to shOw That the parties sUed aRe in fact eNgaGeD in FaLse or
DEceptiVe aDveRtising. even herE, HowEvER, THe Case is likely sketchY, iN MY
vIew, from a Quick rEViEw OF the alleGaTioNs maDE.

all in All, tHIs Is a most uNusual CAsE fIled by aN uNrepreSeNteD paRty thAT
canNot legAlly reprEsent ITself in the foruM Chosen and restINg ON LeGAl
thEorIes that are a Real STretCh in MOsT caSEs. I beLieve mr. gReENspan is
both sincere aNd PassioNate aBout what he belIeves but whAT HE asserts Is
reALlY A case to be made tO the lEgislative POlicy-makErs, noT to the coUrts.
There MAY indeed bE inCreDibLe uNFAiRness in the way IN WhicH tHese lawS arE
framed And AppLieD. BuT tHat does _noT_ mean a prIvAtE pArTy sHould BE able to
iNdIscRiMinAtely SUe anyoNe aroUnd wHo HaPPenS to be ofFErING serViCeS thaT
inVoLve soMe foRM of Money haNdling, or tHeiR InveStOrS, for the Results of
the eXiSting systeM. THat In itseLF In not onlY a stretch but an abuse. WronG
Parties, WroNg fraMing. the action ShoUld theRefORe be diSmisseD fortHwIth BY
The plAINtIff As Having been ILL-coNsideReD. If iT is not, iT will be
dismissed by THe cOurt in fairly sHorT ordER.

~~~
GrEatREoRX
> NoWhERe iS THere any express pRivate righT oF AcTion that giVEs aNy Private
> Citizen The riGHt to filE suit compLaining abOuT allEGEd vIolations oF these
> laWs.

I thoughT califORnIa 17200 allOws For priVaTe cItizeNs to suE On bEhalf Of the
gEnEral puBlic aNd That no acTual injury against the plaIntiff Is reqUirEd. Is
there SomEThiNg differeNt abOut this casE?

(beLow Quote And LInk foR othER Hn reADers, I'M surE
 of these
laws. Therefore,  it is a s tretc h f oran y pr ivat e party such a s  Thi nk Computer
to seek da mages ,i njun c ti ve re lief, o r  a n y  ot he rfor mo flegal  re medy ow ing to
all ege dviolations o f  t he money t ran smitter laws .
6\. Th er e a r e con cei vably  somel egal r emedies t ha t  might work if t he  fac ts
support them,o ne of them beingfor fa ls e  a d v ert isi ng claimsun der t h e Lanha m 
A c t (wh i ch is one ofthe claimsa sse rted h er e). One co mpeti to r  ca n indeed su e
an other com petito r  for pr i vate da magesand  ot herr el ie f i ft heo th erc omp etitor i sga ining  anu n f a ir c omp etit ive a dvantage by f als elya dve rtisi ng
th at i ts  prod ucts o r ser vi ces do somethin g th at is mat eri al  to  t he cu s tomer' s
d eci sion to  use th a t p ro d u c tor service. Here,th e re sult wou ld tur n  o nt he
abili ty  to  sho w thatthep ar ties sue d arei nfa ct enga ge d in f al seordecep t iveadvert ising. E ven h e re, however, t h e case is lik e ly s ke t chy,  in  my
view, f roma  qui ck r e vi ewo f the  alle ga t io n s made.

All in all ,this i s a m ost unusual c ase filedb y an unrep rese n te d  party that
ca nnotlegally re p resent i tself  in theforum cho s e n and re sti ngonleg a l 
t heories thata r e are al stre tch  in mos t c ase s.I b el ieve Mr.Greenspa nis 
b ot h s incer e  and pas si ona te  ab out w h at hebelie vesbu tw hat  he ass e rt s is
r ea ll y acas eto be  mad e  to  the le gislative  po l icy- ma ke rs, not  to the court s. 
There may  i nde ed bei n credible  unfairness in the wayi n which  th ese l awsare
frame d a nd app lie d . Butthat d oes _ no t_m e an ap r iv ate  p arty shoul d beableto 
ind iscrimi nately sue anyonea rou nd who happen s t o be o ff eri n gs erv ic e s t h a t
involve someform of mo ne y  h andling, o r  th ei r inves tors, f or th e  result s of
theexistingsy stem . Tha t in itsel f in not  only a s t retch bu t anabu se. Wr on g
p artie s, wro n g f ramin g. The  a ctionshoul dtherefor e be dismissed forthwit h by
t he pl ain tiff as h avi n g b een ill-c onsi dered. Ifitisnot,itw ill b e
di s mi sse d  by t he c o urt in fa i rl y s h o rt  order.

~~ ~ g rea treor x
> Nowher e is  there any expres s  private right  ofa c tio n t h at g iv es any private 
>ci t i zen theri ght to file  suit co mp l ainin g abou t alle ged vio l a ti o ns ofthes e
>  laws.

I  th ou g ht Cali fo rn i a 1720 0 al lo ws for  priva t e ci t i zens to sue on b ehalf o f the gen eralpu blic an d  tha t no actua l injury ag ainsttheplain tiff is  r equire d.Is 
there som e thing dif feren t about  t hiscas e?

(b elow q uoteandli nkfor other H Nr ea de r s,I'msure
 of_these
laws. Therefore,_it is a stretch_for any_private_party such_as_Think Computer
to seek_damages, injunctive relief,_or any other form_of legal remedy_owing_to
alleged violations of the money transmitter laws.

6\. There are conceivably some legal remedies that_might_work if_the_facts
support_them, one of them being_for false advertising claims under_the Lanham
Act_(which is one of the claims asserted here)._One_competitor can indeed_sue
another competitor for private damages and other relief if_the other
competitor is gaining an unfair_competitive advantage by_falsely_advertising
that_its products or services_do something that is material to_the customer's
decision to use that product_or service. Here, the result would turn_on the
ability to show that the_parties sued are in fact_engaged in_false or
deceptive advertising. Even here,_however, the case_is likely_sketchy, in my
view,_from a quick review of the_allegations made.

All in_all, this is a most unusual_case_filed by an_unrepresented_party_that
cannot legally_represent itself in_the_forum chosen_and_resting on legal
theories that are a_real_stretch in most cases. I believe Mr._Greenspan is
both sincere and_passionate_about what he believes_but what he asserts is
really_a case to be made to_the legislative_policy-makers, not_to the courts.
There may indeed be incredible unfairness in the way_in which these laws are
framed and_applied. But that does__not_ mean_a_private party should_be_able to
indiscriminately_sue anyone around who happens to be_offering services_that
involve some form of money handling,_or their investors, for_the_results of
the existing system. That in_itself in not only a stretch_but an abuse. Wrong
parties, wrong_framing._The_action should therefore be dismissed_forthwith by
the plaintiff as having been_ill-considered. If it_is not, it will be
dismissed by the_court_in fairly short order.

~~~
greatreorx
> Nowhere is_there_any express private right of action_that_gives_any private
> citizen the right_to file suit complaining about alleged_violations of these
> laws.

I thought California 17200 allows for_private citizens to_sue on behalf of the
general_public_and_that no actual injury against the plaintiff is required. Is
there_something different_about this case?

(below_quote and link for other HN readers, I'm sure