Making a mockery of Justice

Shit! 500 Euro? That really is on the low end of the compensation spectrum. I guess that’s still something. I am kind of gutted that it cost me many times that in lawyer fees, not to mention Germany that my lawyer had told me would not sit well in Peace proceedings, but well, it’s done, I guess.

Again, my ignorance of the ways of a Master will be my end, small Padawan. What did you think would come next? Naturally, Amazon strikes back.

One month later, Amazon files for Appeal, and the least I can say about it is that I am floored. Do they finally bring some kind of proof that I was possibly mistaken? Ha! Nil and Nope! The Amazon way is way nastier and more perverse. Let’s go through their list:

1. Amazon demands that, before any proceeding, I should deposit caution to the tune of 11,000 Euro.
2. Amazon demands that my suit be tossed on the ground that it failed to mention my job title (article 153 of the new civil code procedure requires your role / job title mentioned. Tell me what difference would it make if was a clarinetist, but still, on that basis, Amazon demands with a straight face that the suit be declared null and void).
3. Plaintiff is a Mr Pierre-André Divisia who declares living in Taiwan, so that it is obviously not the Pierre-André Divisia in France who signed a contract with Amazon so many years ago and if that is just not the same person, he cannot claim anything related to this contract.
4. Beside, when we look at the citation, we requested documents that the plaintiff specifically refused to give (my lawyer had not given them the supporting files shared with the court: if they do not come to the court to get their copy during the audience, why should it be our responsibility to share them after the judgement is rendered?)
5. Amazon then states that in January 2016, a company called “NAME c/o TRANSPORTER, a company that seems to belongs to the plaintiff (how on earth did they come up with such a scenario is beyond me), so that self-serving “company” came to Amazon to deliver one pallet of locks and one pallet of phone supports (Amazon would from there on, stand by this re-interpretation of the fact just to add possible confusion points for the court, in spite of the numerous corrections that we made before or since).
6. That the delivery was not proven because the document only mentioned Locks. Indeed, a pallet of locks was received (1777 units), and the other pallet was never delivered (second reference, just for the phone stands).
7. That the plaintiff tried in Germany to ask the courts about it, and back then he was not sure that it was Amazon or the Transporter who had lost the goods, so in fact, the plaintiff knows nothing.
8. So. Legally, Amazon has no contract with Pierre-André Divisia (in Taiwan). There exists a contract with Pierre-André Divisia in France, but there is just no contractual obligation with that person from Taiwan.
9. In any case, since the delivery did not occur, Amazon cannot be held responsible.
10. That the plaintiff did not prove that Amazon was at fault.
11. That the amounts claimed by the plaintiff are doubtful because they are backed by invoices, including invoice by the shipping company that seems to be the Plaintiff’ own company (I was wondering why they had made up that argument earlier, here was the answer).
12. Because the plaintiff refused to give Amazon access to the documents (after the ruling??!!), Amazon has no choice but to contest the entirety of the ruling (yeah, like that’s definitely my fault)!
13. In any case, precedents demonstrate that the loss occurred by the plaintiff’ own fault, so that it should not be for Amazon to pay for it.
14. That Amazon just refused the missing pallet as it was not expected (zero backing that the pallet was returned).
15. Because Amazon acted in good faith throughout, and the plaintiff is a nasty man who engaged in multiple frivolous lawsuits in Germany and now in Luxembourg, and refused to give us his files after the first judgement, thus forcing us to place this appeal, we demand 6000 Euro in procedural damages.
16. And we also demand 5000 Euro in additional damages for abusive vexatious malfeasants acts (the plaintif had demanded 4000, gotten 500, but that should be tossed anyway), because Amazon is forced against its will to defend it’s good name for too many times.

Now therefore, Amazon demands the court to reject the original judgement in full, demands that the Plaintiff pays 11,000 Euro in security deposit, and we, Amazon the righteous, demands 11,000 Euro in compensation and punitive damages from that abusive vendor.

Talk about fighting tooth and nails! Damn!

No choice, then. I have to fight this. Of course, I have to retain the use of a lawyer (mandatory and costly), but what other choice do I have?

On 15th March, Amazon will file a slightly amended version, in which it now claims that because they did not get a chance to see our documents, January judgement was an unfair ruling (Jesus! They got 2 chances to attend the hearing, did not show up, and now claim it was unfair to them).

Pay attention, and look closely. Did Amazon produce any data? Nope. Any shred of proof? Nope, they just re-interpret my own documents. Fight on every possible technicality beside the facts? Absolutely! On top of that, full of shit, in a display of absolute bad faith, will claim that because i live today in Taiwan I have no right to even claim anything because contractually, the contract signatory is in France. No contract, no responsibility.

Now, the role of a Defense lawyer is to defend its client, and the right to Defense is absolute. That said, if a lawyer can, on the ground that he is defending his client, pretend to ignore the guilt or innocence of that client, that does not give that lawyer the right to make assertions that he cannot ignore to be false. Lying is to make a false statement with the intention to deceive. As such, a lie is contrary to the dignity that exists within the oath taken by lawyers, and that dignity should theoretically force a lawyer to avoid means that lower the respect their function ought to inspire. Lawyers are instruments of Justice and as such should be prohibited to use bad means to an end, even in defense of their client. In Luxembourg, in particular, that oath clearly spells two such big No-No: respect to the court, and trust in the cause you are defending. In other words, a lawyer should never voluntarily lie to the court, but it is perfectly acceptable that he makes wrong assertions under certain implied circumstances: It is one thing to say something wrong because the client himself has misled the lawyer (possible), but it is another thing entirely when the lawyer himself decides to produce purposely misleading information. Do you trust in your cause if you have to lie for it? Do you really believe in your lie?

In this instance, let us see. Lawyer writes to the Court that Amazon has absolutely no relationship with Pierre-André Divisia with an address in Taiwan because a contract exists solely with Pierre-André Divisia, whose address is in France. Just, within Amazon own files, there are two components: One is the Commercial Contact related to the Amazon Store, and that one is indeed in France. But the second is the Financial Contact, and that one lists my Taiwanese address. Hence, it begs the question: did the lawyer commit perjury saying something that he could not ignore as being false, such as that Amazon had no knowledge of a Pierre-André Divisia in Taiwan who, therefore, had no right of action in this account?

In the 18th century, French writer Voltaire would ramble: “Lie! Lie! Lie! Something is bound to stick!”

From Voltaire to Amazon, via many others, pathological liars have proven that the method works. 3 centuries on, why change a winning formula?!

One pallet of padlocks and one pallet of Phone Support? It is not an error, it is a purposeful Lie! Just logic alone shows that 82 cartons of 48 units padlocks cannot fit a single pallet, and many deliveries that occurred before used that same setup proving it, but since the use of Logic does me a disservice, better off to lie, right? It will confuse someone at little cost, and who knows, one lie might eventually stick.

Lies also, unless you want to insult common sense and the intelligence of the Court that I own the delivery company (that I am related to it, thus implying that I am artificially inflating its invoices, rendering them questionnable). Just everything is fair game, so let’s waste everybody’s time denying all evidence, rejecting all facts, supporting the wildest theories, because that is the best I can oppose. The goal is never the search for the truth but to cloud the issue to the maximum, so that the plaintif will spend time (and therefore money) over endless explanations that I will question again later. Isn’t it amazing to be able, with a straight face, to churn so much bullshit?! 

How come there isn’t something as “abuse of the law”?

And all that sprinkled of assassin sentences such as: “Amazon is forced to defend itself against reproaches without basis.”

In all fairness, it’s a good job, a case study in bad faith but a good job, let’s be honest. It will cost me an arm and a leg to list arguments to repudiate those inanities one by one (whereas, if I was authorized to face any Amazon lawyer, I could immediately call their testimony bullshit in an instant and within seconds produce a counter proof, but this is not a TV trial, there is no debate. It is expected that you use a lawyer who needs to spend the time to learn about your case, and that you will pay a handsome hourly rate to write your arguments, but any argument can be re-attacked if you have an endless supply of bad faith, and Amazon is a world champion in that category). It is a setup that is extremely detrimental to the small guy, undoubtedly. No legal help is offered in commercial disputes, also. Regrettably, Justice is not about settling right from wrong, it is about who has the better lawyers, able to formulate things in such a way that it makes legal sense, even and especially if it does not have any other basis, and let me tell you, Amazon has bought themselves the most vile, twisted lawyers on the market. After all, they face and prevail against entire governments, pay next to zero taxes world wide, treat many employees so poorly it makes global press coverage (remember the pee in the bottle drama?). To get at them, it will cost you dearly, They are true Pros, unencumbered by moral dilemmas when it comes to finishing off a family business, or squash a bug. and unless your lawyer has quite an Amazon experience himself, he will soon realize that this is a whole different league. I found out much too late that there is no such thing as a below the belt concern in that space.

So why do it, then? Because it is mostly our own cowardice that lets those bullies get away with this behavior. Let them take advantage of you once, twice, why would anyone change their ways? You have to face the bully and call him for what he is.

A liar,

and a bully.

But back to the story.

Was the Appeal enough? Nope! Amazon also launches another suit in Opposition to the first ruling. Roughly the same line of attack. In all, from plaintiff I have become defendant in 2 separate lawsuits that both counter a judgement where Amazon did not bother to show up. Needless to say that I take that hit quite badly. Double expenses, time and energy to fight.

Eventually, the judge would recognize that you cannot launch 2 suits against one ruling, and will strike out one as without merits. A Win of no significance.

You know the saying: bad things always come in threes. As a third strike, Amazon will then offer me to settle, for 1/2 the amount it was condemned back in January. That judgement had stated that Amazon had to pay me, but in reality they only put the money in escrow to make sure I would not get it. Now, after 2 counter suits, they propose that we call it quits, should i agree to cut my losses and settle for 1/2 (which, with lawyer fees, means basically, stick it up my bottom). Good offer.