@sqfreak Oh, that's good. Reminds me of "clear and conspicuous" disclaimers in advertising. At some level, this is a content problem but it's also a design problem (which might be one reason I'm so interested in it).
@design_law Sometimes the point of communication is communicate.
Sometimes the point of communication is to be able to say that you have communicated.
I honestly don’t know how the law itself could mandate the first instead of the second. But it does seem (at least in my ignorance) like a question the legal system could do a better job of ask.
@inthehands Yes, exactly. I think that if judges are going to keep allowing this form of notice, they need to develop their own standard form. They could absolutely mandate a standard format and specific language.
Oh, and by the way, if you click the link, this is what you see. The text here doesn't fit the facts of these cases (control of what domain? what refund?). I'd guess this was just what Vogt used in his "pirate site" days.
"Reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action"? I think not.
(Also, the whole top banner is an image so it's completely inaccessible for anyone who needs, say, a screen reader.)
This is a design problem as much as a content problem. In addition to writing these emails and website text in plain English, how could these emails and websites be improved (assuming judges keep allowing this type of alternative service)?
@design_law maybe they needed to be hosted on the actual courts website. Links to the courts website so people can research the judge and court.
A lot of people I come across think it's a scam beacuse they check domain names and ownership etc. Often they find they're go-daddy sites and say that doesn't seem like a proper website for a law firm ... HENCE = FAKE / SCAMMER etc etc
Another problem is emails could land in spam flolder(or the black hole) becouse many SAD attorneys have not properly setup their public domain DNS setting to send email. Today there is "SPF, DKIM, and DMARC" settings to help show what emails are REAL and what emails clould be spoofing/phishing. I have used free DMARC Record Checkers to test domains vogtip(dot).com is ok while others are bad Courts should require DMARC for email "service" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC
@design_law They don’t even bother to name the defendant in the email? You have to click a potentially unsafe attachment and hunt for your name? They include a super unsafe-looking hyperlink (http not https, nonstandard TLD, malformed ? parameter)…
I almost wonder if they tried other approaches and chose this one for its low response rate.
@doncruse Well, the plaintiffs don't necessarily know the defendants' names at this point (the court allows them to sue using their seller names as aliases). But yeah, this whole email has issues.
@SADLady@doncruse Yeah. The language doesn't fit (I assume it's repurposed from Vogt's "pirate site" days), it looks totally fake. And aren't we all told not to click links in suspicious-looking emails?
@design_law Illinois Supreme Court Rule 102.(F) (B) Service by email .. (iii) stating
in the subject line of the e-mail message : “Important information—You are being sued”;
and (iv) stating in the body of the e-mail: “You have been sued. Read all of the documents attached to this e-mail. To participate in the case, you must follow the instructions listed in the attached summons. If you do not, the court may decide the case without hearing from you, and you could lose the case.”
Add comment