[LINK] Re: World's first, ACCC initiates Google legal proceedings

[Adam Todd]

At 05:16 PM 11/09/2007, Eric Scheid wrote:
>an update on this old thread:
>
>Watchdog bitten in Google case
>
>http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22398199-15318,00.html
>
>The consumer watchdog suffered a blow in its mammoth court case against
>Google, when a judge said yesterday its court documents were almost
>"incomprehensible", "opaque" and "somewhat repetitious".

Oh this is the new method of Court handling I see.

He with Bigger Pockets gets called "Good Concise and Clear" and he 
with lesser pockets gets the above.

Now where have I see this a lot lately.  Oh yes - V the State of 
NSW.  Strangely the State nd the Judge had no problem identifying all 
the issues, torts and damages in the "unintelligible, prolix ..."

Strange how that works huh.

>The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was ordered to write out
>summaries of its key allegations against various Google companies to clarify
>its case.

Oh at least the ACCC got a chance!

>Justice Allsop [...]

U-oh.  I've had Alsop.

>made several comments on the documents he had seen so
>far, in which the ACCC had provided numerous definitions of internet-related
>concepts, some of which required further definition.

Funny, now we're going into Evidence.

>"It becomes very difficult to succinctly and precisely explain matters using
>this technique and with respect it had caused many of the problems
>identified by (Google's barrister) Mr (Tony) Bannon as to lack of clarity,"
>Justice Allsop said.
>
>"Very often an inability to express a proposition with the clarity
>(required) reflects something wrong with the proposition." Earlier, Justice
>Allsop asked the ACCC's barrister, Christine Adamson, to give further
>details to back its claim that members of the public had been misled by
>Google.

That's a double whammy in some respects.  It seems that in the first 
stance, the judge says that the issues can't be identified, and in 
the second stance identifies the substantive issue for which the case is about.

Now I've seen this before:  http://aussiejustice.inoz.com/

A great transcript of the hearing where NO evidence was Adduced.  And 
a Judgement that "finds" things based on evidence that doesn't 
exist.  Not to mention that the rules of the court and the 
Legislation was dispensed with.

Of course you can see how wrong the Judge is when you read the 
Affidavit in reply.

Welcome to Australia - Prison Colony.  All prisoners are entitled to 
have a day in court.  Just forget about Justice and Law - cause the 
Judges toss those out.


>Not so much "watchdog bitten" but rather smacked on the nose with a rolled
>up newspaper because it just made a stinky mess.

No I don't think it made a stinky mess.  I think the Deeper Pockets 
process is running the game.