Text 10, 76 rader
Skriven 2005-05-03 13:00:34 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
     Kommentar till en text av All For Comment
Ärende: Msg by Ward Dossche Re: New Z6C
=======================================
Forwarded from the IC echo by Janis Kracht Originally by Ward Dossche

This sure seems like complete baloney to me.. or perhaps in Ward's part of
world it is true.

Comments please?

Thanks,
Janis

=================cut here==========

Peter,

> WD> The court here acknowledged Fidonet being a legal
> WD> entity, as that ruling was never appealed it means that
> WD> anywhere in the EU at least per that ruling Fidonet IS
> WD> a legal entity.

> Was the acknowledgment for Fidonet as a legal entity, or for a person
> representing Fidonet?

Fortunately/unfortunately (*) both I think.

First, the case was not ruled as inadmissable, so since it was filed against my
persona as a person high enough up in the hierarchy and not dismissed out of
hand, it means that a coordinator can be held personally liable for his/her
actions.

Second, the court ruled that (very abbreviated personal opinion here) while
being at the edge of be labeled "frivolous" it was clear that the statutes of
Fidonet (meaning P4) described the appeal process and that appeal-process was
not followed hence the case was dismissed.

The reasoning of a court here is that if there is an association of any kind
with whatever common agreed upon document to govern it, that rules of internal
order must be exhausted first before addressing a court of law.

P4 is such a set of internal rules and qualifies.

So is Fidonet a legal entity? Yes, by all means. Every time a group of people
assemble around a common cause with common agreed upon rules and regulations in
the eye of the law they are a legal entity in the realm of the non-profit
sector. It is possible to not register such a group and its bye-laws or
statutes with whatever legal entity it usually is done, in that case each
member is personally liable for his/her personal actions for the umpteenth part
of such a group.

An example, if such an entity (in Dutch it is called "feitelijke vereniging"
... Jan, Michiel ... "help") were to have 20 members and were to cause, let's
say, $1.000.000 of damages somewhere via the activities of said association,
then each individual member would be liable for $50.000.

> If the former, then what "Legal Document" was used to establish that
> identity? Perhaps Fidonet is still listed somewhere as an incorporated
> society... which means there must be legal officers representing it...

Not necessary. If 3 friends get together in a pool-hall and call themselves
"the happy snooker-shooters" and publicly identify themselves as such, that is
enough. No further legal incorporation is necessary to establish liability.

Just think about how many Hell's Angels clubs there are, how many have been
successfully sued and how few were legally incorporated.

> Hmmmmm, what cans of worms have you opened here Ward........;-)

An interesting one because I'm affraid very many people think they are not
involved nor liable for their actions.

 \%/@rd

-+- DB 1.58/001877
 + Origin: MANY GLACIER *** Preserve - Protect - Conserve *** (2:292/854)

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)