Well.. the application states it is a *calculation*. Calculations are mathematics, and mathematics is not patentable. This is a non-starter, especially after Bilski.
Well.. RICO is criminal law and not civil law. It would not allow the patrons to ask for their money back or other related damages.
Well.. He can put it like he wants, however, there are data protection laws in lots of countries. If you does not want to abide by them, maybe he wants to pay the penalties that such behaviour will incur
1) Whom would a judge side with?
Or jury.. however, in this case the amount probably rather puts it into a small claims court, hence a judge. Maybe they should take the case to Judge Judy
Secondly, a hotel can refuse service to anyone, at anytime, for any reason. Hotels are privately-owned businesses. If you don't like the hotels exercising their private property rights, you're free to not patronize The Palazzo or The Venetian. Furthermore, the hotel reserves the right to determine what constitutes "disorderly conduct" or using "false pretenses" to obtain accommodations. Renting out a suite is an obvious attempt to deprive CEA of the money they're asking for a booth.
Well.. Even hotels are privately-owned enterprises, they are no sheriffs. If someone books a room in a hotel, a legal contract is formed. Even the hotel must obey by the terms of the contract, or they are in breach of contract and can be ask to pay compensation if necessary by trial in court.
False pretenses must be proven. A question if the use of the room is limited could make the argument that there was no attempt of a false pretense since then you would not ask any questions which could result in an answer you would want to avoid.
The CEA is not party to the contract between the hotel and the patron and hence due to privity in contract cannot ask any other terms to be enforced. All terms would have to been made explicitly communicate by the hotel to the patron before the contract was finalized, i.e. the room was booked.
IAAL, however, as usual, this does not constitute legal advise. If you need legal advise to your particular situation, please retain a properly accredited lawyer for the jurisdiction in question.
Civil cases do not really consider an "absolute" guilt. In civil cases it is decided whose story in balance with the other story is a little bit more likely to be right.
In any case, in both jurisdiction, first it has to be shown that there is a prima facie case, i.e. that the statements are really made etc.
If this hurdle is taken by the plaintiff, the respondent can either fight the submission that they made such statements, or make submissions that it was not slander/libel for other reasons.
However, the burden is just to show that it is a little bit less libel than it would be. Proof as an absolute or beyond reasonable doubt is never necessary in civil cases, that burden is only on prosecutors in criminal cases.
So you never have to absolutely proof anything. You just have to ensure than it is less likely that it is more likely that your defense is valid than not.
The difference in different jurisdictions are what kind of arguments can be made, i.e. what standards must be met in checking if information is right or wrong. In the UK a higher duty is required to make sure that information is confirmed, in particular if it is written or broad casted by media organisations or newspapers. As I understand it, in Canada and US this requirement is a little lower.
Furthermore, public figures in Canada and US have less right of privacy as for instance in the UK.
Disclaimer: As always these statements are my opinion and do not constitute legal advise. If someone reading them needs legal advise, they are advised to consult a practicing lawyer in the particular jurisdiction in question.
You open up the floodgates with a new defence of ignorance, stupidity and incompetence. The solution's worse than the problem.
Indeed, recklessness would not be punished that way.
The average person isn't an expert on everything, so generally their comments will reflect that. If someone said "Dell laptops are crap, my computer won't even boot up" and the fact is they just did something stupid like erase the MBR, that shouldn't be considered libel because they were not experts.
Well, in fact there are different standards. Since the requirement is to do "reasonable" research of a fact, the standard of what is reasonable for an expert and a layperson would be different.
An incorporation is a legal but not natural person. Hence, it might be difficult to claim that the statement comes from the incorporation. Furthermore, the board of directors has also fiduciary duties in regards to the incorporation and can be made personally liable if they neglect in those duties. Since you would likely be (one of) the director(s), you might still be liable for it.
The issue with the CHRT is not libel but discrimination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversies has probably some better explanations about the controversy.
Even if you are acquitted, you still will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars (or pounds), as well as a great deal of your time, defending yourself.
If you win in a civil matter, you can ask the court to order that the other party must pay your legal costs. This is in particular true for vexatious or misconceived claims.
... but to say we're a bunch of peons living under a tyrant is not only incorrect, its callously wrong.
Would that be considered libelous?
Usually a plaintiff (claimant in UK) must also show that either the plaintiff or the defendant have a reasonable association with the jurisdiction in which they taker legal actions. I think, a Canadian suing another Canadian, or a US citizen doing the same to another US citizen would have trouble to establish the necessary requirement.
Furthermore, it needs to be considered, that the harm is also different depending to the notoriety of a person. A celebrity known in the UK (and maybe earning income through advertising inside the UK) will have a different possibility of showing actual harm and damages created than someone who does not know anybody in the UK and will never earn any income that is related to the UK.