«

> would want to keep Michael Tapes and rawworkflow.com out of it
> as he has done everything he could to help us achieve what we wanted
> even if Phase One changed their offer after the fact.

It would certainly be difficult to separate Michael Tapes dba
rawworkflow.com from any litigious action against Phase One, nor would any
competent attorney in the United States even attempt same. The (unfortunate)
fact is that Michael in his bonafide capacity with Phase One transmitted
through his website and profited therefrom certain offerings which were
later recanted. Although the recantation originated after his separation
from Phase One, all persons who profited from the alleged misrepresentations
could be held accountable for a portion of any award the court would make.
Add to that other pertinent facts-- that Rawworkflow.com, based in the
United States, is certainly a more tangible target for a "stateside action"
(that's the popular expression in Euro-legal circles), and recent rulings by
the Federal Trade Commission regarding Internet sales and their inclusion
into telephone and mail order statutes, both at the federal and state
levels, would seem to make rawworkflow.com more accessible and open to
litigation. Although there has been a "separation" of rawworkflow.com from
Phase One, at the time the offer was tendered Michael was represented as the
Senior Software consultant of Phase One, a prestigious title which also
imparts a culpable amount of authority to make representations on behalf of
Phase One. Even at this late hour, the rawworkflow.com forums could be
construed by some to be quasi-official instrument of Phase One. The bottom
line here is that even after-the-fact, you cannot separate rawworkflow.com
from Phase One-- the popular legal expression you see on Page One of any
action is the famous "et al" term--- from the Latin legal term, et alia,
which basically means "and others", to include all parties who were part and
parcel of the alleged activities at the time of their commission.

Does anyone know if the action has already commenced and how or where one
can be included as a party to this action?


"DiViNcI cOdE" <> wrote in message
news:UH4be.2166$...
> > would want to keep Michael Tapes and rawworkflow.com out of it
> > as he has done everything he could to help us achieve what we wanted
> > even if Phase One changed their offer after the fact.
>
> It would certainly be difficult to separate Michael Tapes dba
> rawworkflow.com from any litigious action against Phase One, nor would any
> competent attorney in the United States even attempt same. The
(unfortunate)
> fact is that Michael in his bonafide capacity with Phase One transmitted
> through his website and profited therefrom certain offerings which were
> later recanted. Although the recantation originated after his separation
> from Phase One, all persons who profited from the alleged
misrepresentations
> could be held accountable for a portion of any award the court would make.
> Add to that other pertinent facts-- that Rawworkflow.com, based in the
> United States, is certainly a more tangible target for a "stateside
action"
> (that's the popular expression in Euro-legal circles), and recent rulings
by
> the Federal Trade Commission regarding Internet sales and their inclusion
> into telephone and mail order statutes, both at the federal and state
> levels, would seem to make rawworkflow.com more accessible and open to
> litigation. Although there has been a "separation" of rawworkflow.com from
> Phase One, at the time the offer was tendered Michael was represented as
the
> Senior Software consultant of Phase One, a prestigious title which also
> imparts a culpable amount of authority to make representations on behalf
of
> Phase One. Even at this late hour, the rawworkflow.com forums could be
> construed by some to be quasi-official instrument of Phase One. The bottom
> line here is that even after-the-fact, you cannot separate rawworkflow.com

> from Phase One-- the popular legal expression you see on Page One of any
> action is the famous "et al" term--- from the Latin legal term, et alia,
> which basically means "and others", to include all parties who were part
and
> parcel of the alleged activities at the time of their commission.
>
>

L Bridges wrote:

> Does anyone know if the action has already commenced and how or where one
> can be included as a party to this action?

Classes are usually well advertised on the web. Google away and you
might find it.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

> Does anyone know if the action has already commenced ...

It hasn't "commenced" ... it's just some guys blowing off steam right
now, making threats in hopes of getting a refund on the SE upgrade
packages they bought.

> ... or where one can be included as a party to this action?

Seems to be limited to people who bought the SE version and also bought
the five upgrade SE bundle, which is a pretty limited class. When
Phase One dropped the SE version (which I use) they offered users a
free upgrade to Pro (ie, moving from a $250 version to a $500 version
for free) and changed the terms of the paid up upgrades. People who
bought the upgrade package feel they got a raw deal, hence the
complaints. But it's unlikely there are enough people included in this
group to warrant a class action lawsuit (ie, no lawyer will pick it up
since the numbers are too small).

Bill