What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
77 Comments
- chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42May 22, 2006
Dear Mac Community:
Hello! My name is Jason Tomczak. Many people around the world rightly know me as a mild-mannered techie, photographer, writer, and nature-lover. I am an Apple fan and have been fortunate enough to use Mac computers and other Apple products since about 1985.
On October 19, 2005, my life changed due to the unauthorized conduct of others. From that date forward, countless numbers of people around the world were driven to hate me and slander my name, sometimes using foul and threatening language.
Since October 19, 2005, my name has been infamously tied to the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action law suit filed against Apple.
What You Don't Know About The Nano Suit
The truth is that I never sought out nor did I ever hire David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro to represent me in any case, much less the iPod Nano Class Action suit.
The iPod Nano Class Action law suit was initiated by David P. Meyer & Associates Co. LPA of Columbus, Ohio and their representative firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP of Seattle, Washington and filed on October 19, 2005.
David P. Meyer & Associates contacted me, soliciting my opinions and comments about the scratching of my iPod Nano after finding Nano-related blog posts I'd written on my own website, on The Unofficial Apple Weblog and on The MacCast. They informed me that they had received an "overwhelming number of complaints" about the Nano and that they wanted my "insight into the problem". Yes, I answered their communication and told them that I had problems with my iPod Nano, however I clearly told them that they should do their own professional and technological study of the iPod Nano.
I emphasized that I did not have any access to any specific data about the materials used in making the iPod Nano. David P. Meyer & Associates used my personal comments and opinions as the basis of the iPod Nano suit. To my knowledge, there was no actual technical study done on the iPod Nano before the Class Action suit was filed.
Additionally, I told David P. Meyer & Associates that I wanted to remain private, and that my wish for privacy, among other considerations, would preclude me from getting involved in the case.
No Documentation
At no time did David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro ever receive any attorney-client agreement form from me. On their own time and based on their own schedules and plans, they prepared the paperwork and filed the iPod Nano Class Action suit in California using my name as Lead Plaintiff, however this was done without my knowledge or consent.
The Filing and The Call
The senior partner of David P. Meyer & Associates and one of his representatives called me during the afternoon of October 21, 2005 to urgently request my signature on an attorney-client agreement - two days after the Class Action suit was filed; two days after they began their action against Apple; two days after the press had begun running the story. They then warned me that my family, friends, clients and I should expect to hear from the media and others interested in the iPod Nano Class Action suit.
During that phone call to me, David P. Meyer and his associate blamed the faulty Nano filing on Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.
Spin Cycle
During that week and the following months, my name was posted in relation to the iPod Nano Class Action suit on websites all over the world, even in foreign publications like Russia's "Pravda" newspaper, the Enquirer, Stuff Magazine, Popular Mechanics, CNN, BusinessWeek, MTV, VH1, etc.
Google results for my name skyrocketed. I began getting hate mail from people upset about the iPod Nano suit. I had to take my website down and remove legitimate references to my name on numerous web services. My fiancee and I were afraid to go outside in our own home town for fear of recognition and reprisal.
Call For Help
Given the gravity of the situation I was facing, I had to hire a law firm to protect myself, clear my name and set the record straight. David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, when contacted by my lawyers, did not even offer to correct any of their press releases. Not even an official apology was offered.
Law Firms' Defense Begins
A David P. Meyer & Associates representative contacted my lawyers with a highly suppositional account of what my intentions might have been; that perhaps I had second thoughts or "buyer's remorse" about the suit, etc. They snubbed the fact that David P. Meyer & Associates violated my request for privacy and non-involvement and the fact that neither David P. Meyer & Associates nor Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro ever received a single document or written communication from me agreeing to be any part of the iPod Nano Class Action law suit.
Then David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro each hired professional defense law firms to fight against me. These two powerful law firms hired two highly aggressive defense firms to confront me, a sole individual.
Things Get Very Personal
Their malpractice defense law teams ordered me for deposition in Los Angeles. During the first day of my deposition, which was scheduled for April 20 and April 21, 2006, David P. Meyer & Associates' and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's lawyers deposed me for about 6 hours. Were the majority of their questions directly related to the Nano issue? No. They wanted to know details about my family, the personal circumstances of why my parents got divorced, what I thought about their divorce; where I went to grammar school, high school, college, what my majors were; names, locations and ages of family members and a number of other personal topics seemingly unrelated to the Nano issue. The bulk of the questions were, in my personal opinion, invasive, inappropriate, off-topic and an attempt to overwhelm me.
Toward the end of the first day, they bluntly refused to continue the deposition as scheduled. Their abrupt cancellation will likely cost me thousands of dollars in added travel and legal expense, time away from my family and clients and added emotional stress of not being able to find closure on this horrible and sometimes terrifying experience.
A SLAPP In The Face
On May 1, 2006, David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro defense lawyers filed Motions to Strike the entirety of my case against the two firms despite evidence that I had unwillingly and unknowingly been made Lead Plaintiff in the iPod Nano Class Action suit. In their Motions to Strike my case against them, they also requested of the Court that I be held financially responsible for their attorneys' fees and costs.
The defense teams filed "demurrers" against my filings which state, in short, that David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro did, in fact, mistakenly file the iPod Nano Class Action suit with my name, but they claim that they legally had a privilege to mistakenly file documents in my name without culpability or recourse.
They also filed an Anti-SLAPP motion against me and my claims against David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion prevents me, the plaintiff, from amending my complaint against David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and delays all discovery. This means that no parties from either firm can be deposed, and possibly incriminating documents cannot be requested of them. Anti-SLAPP motions are like terribly expensive and time-consuming "pause buttons".
Where Do We Go From Here?
I've learned that every day that passes can bring big surprises - though not usually pleasant ones. I am not sure how the iPod Nano Class Action suit will turn out, nor do I know how David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro will continue to act with regard to my request for justice and the return of honor to my name. If recent actions are any indicator, I am preparing for an emotional, stressful and expensive ordeal.
Although it is too late to completely clear my name from the iPod Nano Class Action law suit, by writing this Open Letter to the Mac Community, I am hoping to make an attempt to reduce the damage already caused to my good name and to open people's eyes to the fact that I did not approve, endorse, authorize, initiate or promote the lawsuit against Apple. These actions were taken without my authority and against my express wishes by the law firms of David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.
I am frightfully aware of the fact that issuing this letter could possibly spur an even more aggressive legal attack against me as they apparently wish to suppress the truth and wish to suppress me. Whatever the outcome, whether I am successful or I am financially crippled by David P. Meyer & Associates' and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's defense firms, it is my sole intent to communicate the truth of what happened so that I can begin to find some peace of mind after the hate, harassment and embarrassment brought about by the misuse of my name in the iPod Nano suit.
Sincerely,
Jason Tomczak
c/o Cameron Totten
Sherman & Nathanson
9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 820
Beverly Hills, CA 90212 - Kendal, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40What happens when a lawyer takes viagra?
He gets taller. - robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31Lawyers like this should be disbared.
- ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27Dismembered...
- Xiata, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25@spiderland:
More like he pointed out a flaw, some douche bag lawyers decided that because he made an opinion they were going to take Apple to court on his behalf, he finds out that they did that and said "what the *****?! I never agreed to this *****!", now they are trying to dump all the legal fees on his lap.
Definite scumbag lawyers, granted that's the majority of them anyway. - MooMaster716, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Wait so lawyers can start lawsuits in your name without you having to sign something or participate physically in a courtroom? If I complain at McDonald's that the floor is hard and a lawyer asks me a question about this then 5 days later files a class action lawsuit in my name, that's legal??? What the ***** am I missing something here? someone correct me please.( I know I'm gonna get Raped for this last part)
- Xiata, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19@spiderland:
It doesn't ***** matter whether or not he wanted to participate in this class action lawsuit. What matters is these scumbag lawyers destroyed his reputation when he did not want to be publically associated with the trial.
Hypothetical (me as these jackass lawyers):
I happen to be browsing the internet trolling for opinions against companies (cause you know, the internets is serious business). Yay! I found your blog which criticizes [insert defect here] in one of [insert popular company]'s products! I got an idea!! I'll go get a class action lawsuit against [insert popular company] because [insert company's product] has a [insert defect here], and place you as the lead plaintiff. You will have to deal with [insert popular company]'s zealous fanboys threatening your family/life/reputation because I being a theoretical lawyer wanted to make a quick buck off your suffering. You might agree with my lawsuit is going for but does that matter? Not in the end, I just want to make money and you probably do too. Oh wait, you want your privacy right? Too bad. Don't like it? Go ahead, take me to court. I will try to do everything in my power to make you pay for something I started.
THAT is what these lawyers did. THAT is complete *****. - Trjn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20@spiderland, he wasn't on board with the lawyers.
That's the whole point. - mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18No it's not legal, and that's the point. They filed suit on his behalf for some unknown reason, and then asked him for permission after the fact, to which he said no. Now they are going into denial mode and basically trying to get him to give up so they don't get it trouble.
- Gardenhead, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Well, thats just *****.
- KayEssCiv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Maybe he should go to the Apple lawyers defending the class action suit and get them to put pressure on David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. This should please Apple's lawyers and might even work for free for him.
- mistshadow2k4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Not all. A few are about exposing companies doing what they shouldn't, like the class-action lawsuit that exposed the fact that McAfee had written and released a virus into the "wilds" of the internet. Them being a corporation you can't just press charges and get them arrested like you can anyone else (although you damn well should be able to, shouldn't you?).
- arthurbarnhouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13The law is a dangerous beast.
If the company wins any money, do you suppose he'll take his share? - scut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I think the community needs to get together and help this guy out a la the outpouring that helped the guy who was mistreated (being nice) by that online camera 'operation'. Send your letters now!
- salsaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11MOD PARENT UP. Jason Tomczak needs help-- this is illegal and unethical. Attorneys need to be disbarred for this BS. ANY GOOD ATTORNEYS DIGGIN' THIS? This would be a great pro bono case-- this guy needs heavy professionals to take down these professional scumbags.
- TellarHK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Guess who just got a copy of that Open Letter sent to them? The Ohio State Bar Association at http://www.ohiobar.org/ however they will want a printed and mailed copy of any complaint in order to be an official request for an investigation.
Someone should be leaning on the bar in other states such as California, where this company practices law. The acts described above are highly unethical, if not criminally extortion. - Junto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Or whoever invented lawyers should be sued :)
- vtwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The main spokesperson in the nano class action suit from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro is lawyer Steve Berman.
Mr. Steve Berman is a friend of Bill Gates and Microsoft, he defended MS in over 50 court cases against class action suits made by the states and consumers. (And he did a rap song with Eminem?)
I have a nano since November 2005, I use it almost everyday, without a protection case, and the screen is still perfectly readable. This suit had two goals: to hurt Apple, and possibly make money in the process. - nickpowers101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7In my opinion, law firms like that are evil.
- scootinger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12IMO most, if not all class-action lawyers are complete scumbags.
- orijimi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Best news story on Digg. Ever. I bet there have been plenty of people who have been in the same situation, but were entirely shushed.
- robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not a chance.
They lose --> They blame his no participation as lead complainant.
They Win --> They claim he wanted no part in it. - Danielbone1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That sucks for him, but now that he is on the front page of Digg his name will be out there positively.
I just sent the link to some friends and they can't get on cause he is getting hammered by clicks.
Hope there aren't repercussions from releasing this letter. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sure but your firm requires you to bill a minimum amount of hours each year or your gone, plus the more hours you bill the more money you make. In most firms there is no review of billing data, and most clients will never ask for a itemized bill. My lawyer charges me $500 to write a simple letter, he was telling me that he billed so many hours last year that if they reviewed his hours he would have to clone him self to account for all the time he charged people last year. Remember it's all about the money and the bottom line of the firm!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6what I love about class action is that for each name they put on the suit the lawyers get about $4000.
Now they put your name on the suit for you if you do not want to be part of the suit you must file a claim with all courts that may hear said claim, that you wish to be released from it. you will never see any money it all goes to pay off the time they say they put into the claim. example if I was a lawyer this 2mins I took to type this into digg would be billed as 2 hours (the min charge a firm will allow a lawyer to bill). - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Dups:
You don't know what you're talking about. As a lawyer, I am required to accurately document my time and to itemize how that time was spent. My files are open for review by the client, to whom the file, in actuality, belongs. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Dups:
Demand to see the file and his timesheets for the days that he's done work on your case. Also, you may wish to adopt a "if it isn't written, it didn't happen" stance. You had a "meeting?" Where's the memo? No memo, you didn't have a meeting. Keep in mind, he can charge for typing the memo.
And also, threaten to report his practices to your State's Bar Association. Every carrier I work for gets an itemized bill. An itemized bill has been the client's right since 1968. I bill about 10 hours a day. I do it by working 12 hours a day. No one gets double-billed.
It sounds like he's double- (possibly triple-) billing which is against the canon of ethics. If he doesn't drop the bill, threaten a report to the disciplinary board. The threat of disciplinary action usually gets a lawyer's attention. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes, and there are plenty of legitimate class action suits against companies that discriminate against women, minorities, etc.
Not all lawyers are scumbags. Just most of them. ;) - Stopher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Class action lawsuits are a great idea that have been exploited by scumbag lawyers. I have a nano. It ot scratched. I kinda knew it could happen when I threw it in my pocket with my keys. I only see the scratches when I whip out my microsope and scan the surface of the thing. They're there. I'm not crazy about them but they heardly make the thing unusuable and I certianly woudn't sue anyone over them. I think that wear and tear is something to be expected on any item you lug around all over the place and put through daily use.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This is wrong. Lawyers are required to accurately document the time they actually spend working for a client, and may only bill for time actually spent on a client's behalf. So, to bill for 2 hours, the lawyer would have to spend an additional hour and 58 minutes working.
This can be accomplished by thinking about the time spent Digging on the client's behalf (formation of legal strategy), or reading comments in the Digg article (related material), or by printing out a copy of the Digg page with comments and the original article linked (paperwork, so additional fees can apply). - rwelsh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@novaneil: Kevin's a cool guy and Digg's an excellent site...but if it's not easy to find on a search engine like Google, just because Kevin Rose has a bunch of these...things?...doesn't mean everyone's heard of them.
More importantly, what do "Cheryl Buses" have to do with Jason and his letter, the whole -point- of this submission? Because so far all I've heard about them are vague references and snotty attitudes towards people inquiring what they are. - funkyebk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is it just me or does it seem like mcbesq isn't getting that "opting out of the class" when the "class" was based on, and opened on his behalf, without his consent, doesn't fix the problem?
I am not a lawyer, mcbesq so don't go butch and call me down on not being one- it's plain common sense- if an individual did not initiate the services of a firm, that firm is acting unethically. Period. These clowns may be too good to chase ambulances, but they seem willing to chase a blogger home from the Apple Store. - rwelsh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I see aide coming from Apple - an interested party - a baaaaad move. Sure it may -sound- like a good idea but that's just more ammo for the Dynamic Duo to use on Jason.
It's an idea, but it's not so simple; it'd need a lot of consideration. - mjaleo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Poor guy, he's getting absolutely screwed by the legal system.
These guys are absolute SCUM if what he's claiming is true. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is a class action suit. His remedy is to opt out of the class. He will not be able to receive any monies from the final judgment but he preserves his right to bring a suit of his own should he so choose.
signed/
a New York-based personal injury/products liability attorney who spends 50-60 hours a week litigating - rspeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Now that is a very interesting idea.
- JaceFuse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Under the assumption that Jason could be forced to take down this site or at least specifically the detailed account of all that has happened, I recommend everyone make a copy of his text.
You just never know. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Zethris:
Remind me again...
Are you a lawyer? Do you do civil litigation? Have you ever litigated a lawsuit? Do you have any experience in products-liability lawsuits.
No? Well, I am, I do, and I have. I know quite a bit more than you on the subject of civil litigation, especially products liability actions.
In other words: shut the hell up, noob. You don't know what you're talking about. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4OK:
Here's a particularly evil way to win against this firm. Jason, send a letter to Hegens AND Apple's counsel waiving your attorney-client privilege and attorney-work product privilege.
I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS! THIS IS A WAIVER OF RIGHTS. WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHTS COULD AND VERY WELL MAY HAVE ADVERSE EFFECTS ON YOUR LITIGATION.
A quick way to lose your case is to waive your privileges, which would, in essence, turn the Hegens file, at least as it pertains to you, into fair game. I recommend against it. That's said, it is a pretty effective f*ck you, guaranteed to cause a lawyer at the firm to drop a couple alka-seltzers.
I do not recommend you do it. I do not represent you. This advice could have adverse effects on your case. - DogHumpsMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The point is moot, not mute. Not trying to play grammar Nazi or anything, it just completely changes the meaning of your point.
On topic, I agree, it wasn't a very good idea to offer an opinion to the law firm, even with the "Do your own research" response he gave. that being said, it still doesn't make it right what they did, and I hope that if is account is accurate, these ***** get disbarred for what they have done. It's unethical and sickening what these people will do to make a buck while the rest of us work for what we have. I wish this guy the best, because he's taking it sans Vaseline. - rwelsh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@mcbesg: Sure that's the option. That doesn't do jack about all the time, money, defamation and harassment he's had to endure. And how is he to opt out of a class-action suit he never officially entered? Did I miss a very important point here??
- LinuxGalore, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10if you "ever" talk to "any" legal representative especially lawyers.
DON'T SAY A THING.
Always get them to talk your legal representative and tell them to fsk off and get a warrant.
Cant get any simpler than that, the guys a moron, lawyers don't give a flying flock about who they represent, lawyers just care about getting paid after it all finishes.
Ive seen lawyers burn so many people over the years it amazes me people keep lining up to get shafted up the rear again and again. - rwelsh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kolais: Well first, I want to point out that link dies; you'll need to strip the trailing right paren off of the URL, then it works. Second, I'd take any documents on their site being true or unbiased with some serious discretion.
(sorry, was supposed to be a reply under your own comment...it didn't quite work that way.) - mcherm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1mcbesq:
Okay, if you're so expert, please cite a case where the *lead plaintiff* opted out of a class. For that matter, I don't believe I'm familiar with other cases that were filed without the permission of the lead plaintiff, although I am sure it must have happened.
I thumbs-down'ed Zethris for calling you a "dumbass", but your original posting is incorrect. The ability to opt out of a class is there for the sake of members of the class who do not wish to participate in the proceeding or the resolution. That ability to opt out is NOT there to address the situation where the *lead plaintiff* wishes to be disassociated with the case. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I need to address this. I spoke in haste and anger when I said "STHU, N" That was inappropriate.
- mcherm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Now that's a creative legal solution! I wouldn't recommend it either, but it's a really clever approach.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Like I said - I'm a litigator. I'm a paid a**hole. That said, I always remember that the name in the caption is not my name. It's my client's name and I owe a duty to him/her.
Jason may want to consider a tort case against the firm for whatever variety of defamation California recognizes. I do not practice in California and do not claim to know what kinds of defamation are recognized in California. That said, it sounds like a "false light" kind of claim. There may be grounds for fraud, although Jason would have to prove that the firm used his name with knowledge that they did not represent him.
Moreover, Jason may wish to write to the Judge and/or Magistrate Judge presently hearing the class action suit, requesting Rule 11 sanctions be levied against the firm. He should send a copy of the letter to the firm and all other counsel that are party to the suit.
Generally, when I ask for sanctions (or have been offered to have sanctions levied against my adversary by the judge), I find that asking for any sanctions to be paid into the State's indigent defense fund helps curry a little sympathy.
The bottom line, in all aspects of life, if someone is taking advantage of you, don't just take it. MAKE SOME NOISE! And that is advice to anyone. - ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If the lead plaintiff drops out of the case, wouldn't that kill the case? Couldn't the plaintiff fire the lawyers then drop the case or does that not work for class-action suits?
- muller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, because they have nothing but our best interests in mind at all times.
/sarcasm - rwelsh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's where I stand, brotherman. Say that ethics, while noble, will get stomped on by the legal system by lawyers trying to make a buck all you want; I still say that those violations of simple ethics are the problem at the root of this. A man is being whittled down here. Say that you should never talk to a lawyer without your own - I agree! But lawyers are supposed to advocate -for- the law, and should do it ethically. Instead this country, this world, is becoming more and more a place where I feel like I almost need my personal lawyer to approve and advise on everything I do. I don't want to live in a country where freedom of speech and opinions are some of our foundations, yet those opinions might have our legal system destroying my life.
Go figure. -
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is