ForecastPandaRain

Somebody here has seen Twin Peaks...

How is this different from Amazon or Half.com? They already have a larger supply of books which means more competition and lower prices. How do you short circuit that issue (or in other words, what makes you different)?

Since this is likely a tort case, the lawyer would take a share of the winnings (usually 20% to 1/3). They would take the case for free, and their profits would be contingent upon winning. And the winnings could be quite large. For intra-family tort disputes, insurance would likely cover the parents (if they have it). Thus the cap is not necessarily dependent upon the parents worth.

EDIT: See U.S. v. Lombard, 706 F.3d 716, 723-24 (6th Cir. 2013). This case, although criminal, sets a standard that would likely be used in a per se fraudulence, perhaps even defamation (I would need to do more research). "To strain the parent-child example, even if the child gives permission to his mother to use his information in, for example, a fraudulent credit application, the mother has not acted with “lawful authority” even with the child's permission. That is true both because its use is still “contrary to law” and because the permission has not afforded “the right or permission to act legally” on the child's behalf."

EDIT: To follow up on the argument that insurance won't be responsible, I did a little bit of research. Again, I'm not sure of the state law implications, however this excerpt should provide a little light:

"In California, section 533 of the Insurance Code Provides that an insurer is not liable for a "wilful act of the insured," which state courts have equated with an intent to harm. The section "reflects a fundament public policy of denying coverage for willful wrongs. The parties to an insurance policy therefore cannot contract for such coverage." A few states try to avoid this dilemma by enforcing an insurance contract that is interpreted to cover intentional harm, and then allowing the liability insurer to recover against the tortfeasor-insured. See Continental Casualty Co. v. Kinsey, 499 N.W.2d 574 (N.D. 1993); Ambassador Insurance Co. v. Montes, 388 A.2d 603 (N.F. 1978).

As to the argument that "parents cannot be sued civilly by their children," this passage from a Torts textbook by Michael Green, Robert Rabin, and Marc Franklin should suffice to debunk such an argument:

"Claims by children against parents for intentional harm are almost universally permitted today. For an extended discussion of an issue of first impression, concluding that a child should be permitted to sue her father for sexual abuse, se Henderson v. Woolley, 644 A.2d 1303 (Conn. 1994). The major battleground in parent-child injuries has involved negligently inflicted harms.

As taken from Broadbent v. Broadbent 184 Ariz. 74 (1995). "In several situations, parental immunity does not apply: if the parent is acting outside his parental role and within the scope of his employment; if the parent acts willfully, wantonly, or recklessly (as in this case)..."

I would like to do more research but I need to get going. But as I said before, there are likely no hard and fast rules for these things. You should certainly find a lawyer in your state before the statute of limitations is up.

[Serious Question;not sarcastic] Do you really think that you'll be able to take apart an integrated government agency with basic democratic tools like calling your congressman? I think that these tools are too weak to undermine not a only a massive bureaucracy, but an infrastructure that spans thousands of acres (i.e. the Utah computer database (300 acres), the Maryland computer database (40 acres), etc.). These bureaucracies are also insulated by being headed by appointment positions, having classified budget lines, and falling somewhere in between all three branches of government (thus, skipping much of our checks and balances system). I just can't believe that calling your congressman will be enough. Why do you think otherwise?

Thanks for the fast answer! While I still believe that these measures will only stimulate agencies like the NSA to adapt rather chip away at their power, I understand where you're coming from. Thanks for that.