Shao provided a false address to the court in the subsequent conviction of the meat detention case. The real owner has been charged with cyber violence. what do you think?

Shao provided a false address to the court in the subsequent reversal of the meat detention case. The real owner has been charged with cyber violence. "150 bowl of meat-deduction counterfeiters have been prosecuted!" Ms. Zhang from Chongqing filed a lawsuit in court, demanding that the counterfeiter Shao post an apology video on the Internet, and it should not be deleted within 10 days. In addition, an apology should be announced in the local provincial newspaper, and 2,000 yuan should be paid for mental damages. The reason for Ms. Zhang's prosecution is that Shao used her home address in the process of counterfeiting litigation, which led to her being accused and vilified by netizens. Some netizens even forced themselves to sue Shao, otherwise they would send a terrorist package.

Some netizens said that since they all threatened their lives, why did they only claim 2,000 yuan from Shao? It's too cheap, so you should claim 1 10,000. In fact, from a reasonable point of view, it is ok for Ms. Zhang to sue. Who asked Shao to fill in the address and hurt people? But from a legal point of view, the court will not support so much compensation. If it exceeds too much, it may be considered as extortion.

If the perpetrator intentionally or grossly neglects to disclose the privacy of the victim and suffers serious mental damage, the victim has the right to claim compensation for mental damage. In judicial practice, in general cases of infringement of personality rights, the maximum compensation for mental damage can be claimed to be 50 thousand yuan and the minimum is 2000 yuan. Ms. Zhang chose to claim 2,000 yuan, mainly because the cyber abuser was not Shao.

Bian Xiao's point of view is that, legally, cyber violence is obviously illegal. If all the responsibilities of cyber-violence are put on Shao, it means that cyber-violence has been supported by law. This is obviously illegal. Therefore, Shao has caused mental damage to Ms. Zhang due to gross negligence, and should eliminate the influence, restore her reputation, apologize and compensate for the losses. As for the responsibility of cyber bullies, it depends on whether Ms. Zhang wants to pursue it.

Netizens randomly filled in Shao's address, and the court actually adopted many opinions. They believe that Shao's behavior constitutes a false litigation and the court should not accept it. Legally speaking, false litigation refers to the act of fabricating civil legal relations, fictional civil disputes and bringing a civil lawsuit to the people's court. False litigation, who is common in judicial practice, is: maliciously colluding with one of the husband and wife to fabricate the debt of the husband and wife; Malicious collusion with the person subjected to execution, fabricating reasons for priority seizure, seizure and freezing of creditor's rights and property and security interests.

Specific to this case, Shao sued Mao Mama's local products business department for selling three products to detain meat. This legal relationship is not fabricated. The meat detained by Mao Mama's local product management department really belongs to the "three no products". Moreover, this is not the first time to produce three no products, and there have been records of being sued before, which belongs to knowingly committing crimes.

The court in this case only needs to confirm whether the plaintiff is Shao himself, whether the defendant is Mao Mama's local products business department, and whether the product liability dispute between the two parties really exists.

As for address fraud, it affects express delivery and jurisdiction. According to the principle that the plaintiff is the defendant, if Shao wants to sue Mao's mother's local specialty business department, he needs to go to the court where the business department is located. Therefore, whether Shao filled in the wrong address actually had little impact on the trial of the case, and at most he was punished by the judge.

As for why Shao got a fake address, I think you can look at the resume of Wang Hai, the "first professional counterfeiter". It is reported that Mr. Huang, a lawyer hired by Wang Hai, was killed by the other party when he faked Yiguang in a certain country. It can be said that the greater the crackdown, the more vulnerable to life threats. Many netizens believe that Shao's behavior constitutes a crime of extortion.

In fact, this understanding is wrong, and the amount claimed by Shao is not beyond the scope of compensation allowed by law. Even if the court does not recognize Shao's anti-counterfeiting behavior, Shao only has mistakes in the application of the law, and can't directly determine that his behavior constitutes extortion. Finally, I support Shao's anti-counterfeiting behavior, which can at least purify the seller's market, but please learn legal knowledge well before anti-counterfeiting, otherwise you can only ask for it.

As for Mama Mao's local products business department, since it is a well-known enterprise in Chongqing, please make a good start and stop selling three no products. Otherwise, even if it is not the target of counterfeiters, the Food and Drug Administration will impose corresponding penalties. If you don't know anything about this matter, you can leave a message in the comment area and let's communicate together!