
Judge.me - A Private Small Claims Internet Court - TelmoMenezes
http://www.judge.me/
======
grellas
Fascinating concept that potentially can work: private arbitration is a matter
of contract, there is nothing in law limiting the ability of parties to agree
to be legally bound by a determination reached by a private party (i.e.,
arbitrator) with whom they contract to make such a decision, and the law
provides well-established enforcement mechanisms by which arbitration awards
can, if necessary, be taken to court and converted into judgments without too
much fuss.

Judge.me also seems like it has taken a credible first cut at a form of
execution that is at least workable. It has avoided the very thorny choice of
law issues that can arise where the contracting parties are in different
locations by essentially having the parties agree up front to be legally bound
by what amounts to a free-floating form of law to be applied by the arbitrator
regardless of what technical choice of law issues would normally prescribe. It
has avoided the problems that can arise with discovery procedures in
arbitration by limiting the whole arbitral process to a 1-day to 3-day
exchange of evidence by email exclusively. It has also kept processing costs
low by reserving for itself the right to choose and assign the arbitrator, by
drawing its arbitrators from an established pool as contractors, and by
dispensing with the need for witnesses, transcripts, rules of evidence, and
all other technical aspects of judicial hearings (again, the parties agree up
front to these limitations and that is why they can be legally bound by them
even though they are highly unusual by court standards).

What all this means is that this is an innovative way to extend technology to
dispute resolution but it will, of course, only appeal to those who can abide
by the limitations. To me, this means that the system may lend itself well to
small-dollar disputes but not to anything involving complex facts or larger
claims. The absence of live testimony and the absence of discovery are
particularly limiting in this context - if you can't find out too much about
what the adverse party is going to claim and if you can't get your hands on
evidence he holds to rebut it, you may be severely prejudiced. At some point
not too far up the dollar scale, this likely becomes too risky (this would
depend on the individual facts of a case). Beyond this, arbitration generally
does not fit too well into non-monetary claims and judge.me would not be an
exception to this. Still, for small-dollar cases, it would seem to be an
interesting alternative to the small claims court systems in place throughout
the U.S. and elsewhere.

The big challenge here will be to see how technology can be used to allow the
service to overcome some of the limitations noted above while still keeping it
streamlined and cost-effective. I am not sure this can be done but this is an
interesting first step and there clearly would be a huge demand for cost-
effective handling of claims at a higher level. It will be fascinating to see
how this develops.

~~~
Alex3917
"the law provides well-established enforcement mechanisms by which arbitration
awards can, if necessary, be taken to court and converted into judgments
without too much fuss."

What I heard from another entrepreneur in this space (there are several
competitors) is that small claims court is effectively not legally binding in
most jurisdictions, because very few judges are going to issue a bench warrant
or seize your house even if you blatantly don't pay the judgment against you.
So even if there is a contract here, it doesn't seem like this would be any
different unless there is enough money at stake that it's ultimately no longer
under the small claims umbrella if the contract gets violated.

/Not a lawyer

~~~
ams6110
If people on the losing side of a small claims decision are willing to ignore
it, why would they be any more likely to abide by the result of a judge.me
decision?

(edit: re-reading what you wrote, I think that is your point)

~~~
orblivion
Couple ideas:

Judge.me should have a public list of shamed people who haven't paid their
bills. If it gets big enough this might be relevant, people might look at
judge.me to see if a person they do business with is reputable. Or maybe it
could somehow be reported to the credit bureaus.

Another one is if Judge.me holds the potential payments in escrow before the
judgement takes place.

~~~
peterjancelis
User profiles are indeed the long term goal. This would result in a pure
private law instead of the hybrid model we have now where we still need
government courts for enforcement.

~~~
Angostura
Just so you know - your 'How it works' page contains a large number of phrases
that you presumably intended to mark [as links] bu which aren't links. Looks a
bit odd.

~~~
peterjancelis
Yes, I still have to write the [content pages] for those.

------
koeselitz
This seems like it was put together with a lot of care and thought, so I don't
want to be a downer, but - I have some serious philosophical issues with the
way this service is currently being presented. Arbitration is not judgement;
and an arbitrator is not a court, not even a small-claims court.

I mean: I think it's great that Judge.me is totally upfront about all the
other details in their service, and they seem to be on the level as far as
their legitimacy according to the New York Convention. What's more, this is
really a very useful service - hiring a high-priced lawyer (international law
is not a common specialty) for international arbitration over a small $1500
freelance gig seems silly and wasteful.

Still - though I have some faith in the value of this product, and I even feel
as though it's relatively reliable and would likely work in most cases for its
clients, I sense that there are some problems lurking behind the service
simply because of how it represents itself. What I'm envisioning is a
situation where the company finds itself a party to some legal action; my
feeling is that, no matter where you are in the world, actual judges
themselves have very little sympathy or goodwill toward companies that
represent themselves as courts.

Again, sorry to be so negative about this; these are just my own feelings
about it.

~~~
peterjancelis
I appreciate your feedback Koeselitz.

The "Small Claims Court on the Internet" marketing line is only used on the
homepage, the actual information, arbitration clause, case filing and
arbitration agreement make it very clear that we offer international ex aequo
et bono arbitration.

The subtitle also clearly states "alternative to court".

------
gee_totes
2 Interesting things:

From the arbitration agreement:

 _Services performed by Judge.me are governed by the laws of the State of Hong
Kong. Purchasing the services of Judge.me or any reliance on any condition,
representation, warranty or implied warranty (none of which are stated and all
being expressly disclaimed) signifies an agreement to submit to the personal
and subject matter jurisdiction of the courts situated in Hong Kong.
Participants waive any and all rights to challenge venue or to remove the
action to any other court._

Hong Kong?

Also, what happens if judge.me goes out of business? How will parties who
enter into a contract with the judge.me arbitration clause resolve conflicts?

~~~
guan
Is there such a thing as a State of Hong Kong?

~~~
hollerith
Does it matter? Hong Kong has a judicial system with a long track record.

~~~
guan
It’s confusing to have legal agreements that refer to non-existent entities.
What would you think of a contract governed by the laws of the Kingdom of
California?

------
tptacek
Just so you know ahead of time: no company you do business with that has
actual counsel is going to accept an arbitration clause affirming an agreement
to use "judge.me" as its arbitrator.

Still, potentially useful for ad hoc arrangements between smaller firms.

~~~
TelmoMenezes
Sure, nor will they accept bitcoins as payement. Now. That's just the status
of all ideas when they are born.

~~~
tptacek
You know, you're right. I was imprecise. Let me restate:

Just so you know ahead of time: no company you do business with that has
actual counsel is going to accept an arbitration clause affirming an agreement
to use _any_ specific arbitrator you've chosen; in all likelihood, most real
companies will flatly refuse mandatory binding arbitration.

~~~
dctoedt
> _in all likelihood, most real companies will flatly refuse mandatory binding
> arbitration_

That's not correct, Thomas. All kinds of big and small companies include
mandatory binding arbitration provisions in B2B and especially B2C contracts.

(In B2C contracts, a big part of the appeal of an arbitration provision is
that the U.S. Supreme Court recently said, in _AT &T Mobility v. Concepcion_
[1], that B2C contracts can essentially eliminate consumer class-action
lawsuits by requiring individual arbitrations and jumping through a few minor
hoops.)

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_v._Concepcion>; see also
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1708881634152670...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17088816341526709934)

~~~
tptacek
I don't mean to dispute that B2B contracts often include arbitration clauses
(though obviously I did just that; sorry). Clearly they do. I'm disputing that
an (e.g.) freelancer has a chance in hell of getting arbitration into a real
company's master agreement that didn't already include arbitration.

You're the expert: what do you think the odds are here? My experience is
limited to watching the redlines ping-pong over simple choice of state law in
our own contracts.

I think this is a cool idea for a business, by the way.

~~~
dctoedt
If I were representing the "real company" Thomas mentions, I would absolutely
recommend that my client consider a suitably-designed arbitration provision
for a freelance designer agreement.

Not least, I'd welcome the chance to put disputes into an informal,
comparatively-inexpensive forum, where the risk of a runaway jury deciding the
case mainly out of sympathy for the freelancer is essentially eliminated.

I would almost certainly object, though, to the _ex aequo et bono_ standard
that judge.me proclaims --- that standard, in essence, gives the arbitrator
_carte blanche_ to do whatever seems good in his or her eyes, regardless what
the contract or the law says. That, coupled with the extremely-limited right
of appeal of arbitration decisions, could definitely be a show-stopper.

For those interested, as part of the materials for a law-school course I
teach, I've posted an extensively-annotated model arbitration provision [1].

[Disclosure: My wife is a full-time labor- and employment arbitrator.]

[1] [http://www.techlawnotes.com/docs/Common-
Draft-2012-02-15.pdf...](http://www.techlawnotes.com/docs/Common-
Draft-2012-02-15.pdf#page=170)

~~~
peterjancelis
Your concern is exactly why public arbitrator profiles are my number one
priority now. Arbitrator reputation should overcome the randomness concern.

------
spindritf
Founder did an AMA on reddit some time ago
[http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/t7eil/i_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/t7eil/i_am_the_ancap_founder_of_judgeme_ask_me_anything/)

~~~
orblivion
I see, so this isn't just an idea that applies to anarcho-capitalists, it's
made by one.

------
peterjancelis
I am the founder of judge.me - thanks for discussing my service here and I
will respond to some of the concerns posted here.

By the way, I am planning to apply to the next batch of Ycombinator.

~~~
AlexHamilton
This is a great concept and looks like a classic disruptive innovation play.
With the kinds of (large) contracts that I help with, it won't be an option
yet, but I look forward to seeing something like this becoming a far more
compelling option than the current arbitration offerings.

~~~
peterjancelis
It is exactly as you describe, we start with targeting the underserved low-end
market and will work our way up from there. Hope to become a compelling
service for your needs soon.

------
femto
Australia has recently enacted laws to limit the effect of unfair contracts on
consumers [1]. It comes in to play in "take it or leave it" situations, where
the consumer has no power to negotiate. How would judge.me's standard contract
clause sit with this? Could a consumer argue that they have been unfairly
forced to sign away their right to have their day in court?

[1] [http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byHeadline/Unfair-
contr...](http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byHeadline/Unfair-contract-
terms-law?opendocument)

------
jonny_eh
I love how they take Bitcoin.

The video was nice, it explained why I would want to use the service, but it
didn't explain how it works. Who's doing the judging? How is fairness ensured?
How long does it take to get a judgement?

~~~
tptacek
One of an effectively anonymous panel of arbitrators certified by the
"Chartered Institute of Arbitrators" (a UK group). It isn't clear what level
of certification is required (CIArb has several levels), or, for that matter,
what the CIArb's own requirements for obtaining any of their certificates are.

~~~
peterjancelis
The next version of my site will include public arbitrator profiles.

Some of my arbitrators:

1\. Stephan Kinsella, former Duane Morris partner, www.stephankinsella.com

2\. Patrick Tinsley, co-editor with Mr. Kinsella of The Digest of the
Commercial Laws of the World

3\. Jacob Huebert, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur in Columbus, Ohio + author
'Libertarianism Today'

~~~
tptacek
If it was me (and it isn't, so grain of salt) I'd bump the stuff about
arbitrator qualifications to the top of the site, or maybe even include it in
the value proposition: I like the idea of selling binding arbitration as an
"Internet small claims court", but you might also consider some kind of spin
on "Internet access to legal and ADR professionals".

Also: wow would I kill the Bitcoin stuff. Topple pillars of western capitalism
one at a time. :)

~~~
javert
On the other hand, I think the rapidly growing bitcoin economy probably really
needs something like this.

~~~
MrMan
Yes but this has no need for the bitcoin economy.

~~~
javert
Huh?

------
dctoedt
Item 3 of the FAQ [1] implies that there's not a separate arbitrator fee on
top of the $299 filing fee, and the arbitration agreement [2] mentions nothing
about an arbitrator fee.

So my question is: What _qualified_ arbitrator would be willing to:

* review the documents submitted by the parties;

* conduct a hearing (via Skype or G+ Hangout?); and

* explain in writing the reasons for his/her award, as required by the "Timeline" section of the arbitration agreement [2];

 _all for an absolute maximum of US$299 per case?_

[1] <http://www.judge.me/online_arbitration#process>

[2] <http://www.judge.me/arbitration_agreement>

~~~
larrys
Agree. By comparison a single panelist UDRP for a domain name is $1500 ($1300
a little less at adrforum.com)

<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide/index.html#b3>

------
drostie
Before Survivor entered Reality Television into the collective unconscious,
there was already a predecessor: Judge Judy. Judge Judy was precisely the sort
of arbiter that judge.me aspires to be -- including the somewhat-misleading
terminology about "courts" and "judges", even though the arbiter is not
strictly bound by local laws but rather by the arbiter's whims -- also they
probably excluded the $150 cost to bring the lawsuit, since they instead sold
ads. Actually, if you told the reality TV folk about Judge Judy nowadays they
would probably ask the audience to text in votes which would determine the
ruling, and the "judge" would mostly be a mediator and host who would decide
what evidence was "admissible" for the public's consumption or so.

Judge.me might in these respects be a difficult sell. If it is ideologically
anarcho-capitalist, then that provides robustness against corruption: but it
also means that your 'judges' might simply say "yes there is this nuance in
your country's law, but I don't like it and it seems too complicated, so I'm
just going to ignore it." There doesn't seem to be an appeals process if this
happens. So the lawyers of large corporations might be very hesitant to turn
over their contracts to something so seemingly whimsical. I don't know. I am
not sure that this acts to further anarcho-capitalist idealism, but it will
probably work for its purpose as long as that idealism exists in the first
place.

~~~
peterjancelis
1\. Yes I am an anarcho-capitalist and this is the reason I started the
company.

2\. Judge Judy is indeed arbitration, where parties waive their right for
privacy in return for a free arbitration.

3\. Ancapistan would fundamentally be a Kritarchy (rule of judges), so
arbitrator reputation is crucial and case law can develop from that. Also,
even "ex aequo et bono" arbitration simply means applying contract law in
practice.

------
Iv
Ok. You won. I'm scared.

I have been wondering why there is not organization that makes it easy in 2012
to have a company that operates across several countries. I thought that
simply creating a legal framework was taking some time but that finally
legislators would manage to get there, they are just lagging behind.

But this... I don't want this. I don't want a private justice, I don't want
"arbitration" to become the norm in the way conflicts are handled in the
global village. No, this must not happen, this is the root of too many
dystopian visions.

Arbitration : this artificial "court" decides arbitrarily who is right and
once this is done, the initial dispute is still there. If the "loser" does not
accept the arbitration, you still have to go to court. It solves nothing.

You know what is the next step ? A private police to enforce the decision of
the arbitration court. You would sign in the initial agreement all the
necessary authorizations for that. It would work. It would be legal. And even
if illegal, an army of lawyers would delay several years the application of
the real law.

I don't want that.

~~~
peterjancelis
Our arbitral awards are binding in 146 countries because they comply with the
1958 Convention of New York. For private commercial disputes, governments have
given up their jurisdictional monopoly a long time ago and I disagree with you
that this is a bad thing.

~~~
Iv
Ok. Say I have a client that does not want to pay me. I live in France, the
client is in Japan. Contract signed under the Japanese law. Let's supposed we
had chosen you for arbitration. I win the arbitration but the client refuses
to comply. What happens ?

~~~
peterjancelis
You buy an Affidavit of Arbitration from us (costs $35) and than ask the a
court in any jurisdiction where the losing party has assets to recognize and
enforce your award.

Most jurisdictions will add the cost of court recognition to the amount of
assets to be seized.

<http://www.judge.me/online_arbitration#enforcement>

~~~
Iv
Ok, so instead of just going to court, I have to do arbitration first, and
then go to court. Sorry, I don't see what your added value is.

~~~
peterjancelis
1\. Recognition of arbitral award is much faster.

2\. Awards can be recognized in 146 countries.

3\. In 96% of the cases recognition is not even needed, the losing party pays
up.

~~~
Iv
1\. Sure, it is much faster than getting a court involved but I think that in
most case where you intervene, an agreement would have been reached without
going to court either.

2\. That just means that you found 146 countries where a breach of contract is
illegal.

3\. How do you measure the 96% ? I am doubtful of such a high statistic. Do
you provide legal help if going to court is necessary to enforce the
arbitration ? With such a high rate of success, it would be profitable for you
and be really helpful.

My basic claim is that your service is indeed cheap but is logically probably
worth little more than what you charge. Going into court is much more
expensive and I doubt that you really can avoid such an event.

~~~
peterjancelis
1\. I fail to see how using an arbitration clause in your contracts results in
only disputes that would be resolved without court.

2\. It means 146 countries have signed the 1958 New York convention.

3\. The 96% is a CIArb statistic.

------
dreamdu5t
One step closer to anarcho-capitalism! Much love and respect Peter-Jan! This
is an amazing service that many have been hoping for.

Ping me if you have UX needs.

------
phleet
I don't know how well advised saying "No legal mumbo jumbo" then immediately
using the latin phrase "ex aequo et bono" is.

~~~
peterjancelis
Ha, good point. Ex aequo et bono is the legal mumbo jumbo term to say no legal
mumbo jumbo :)

~~~
tdoggette
Yeah, but what does it _mean_?

~~~
peterjancelis
It translates as "based on fairness and equity", i.e. the arbitrator applies
equity principles (contract law) instead of a specific local law.

------
devinmontgomery
So, the site makes it easy to seek a binding decision against someone that's
enforcable anywhere. If I'm the potential plaintiff that's great! But if I'm
the potential defendant, I just say no to the request. I want it to be
inconvenient to bring a binding decision. I at least make the P go through the
pain of seeking out a physical arbitrator. In the status quo - no decision - I
win.

~~~
peterjancelis
You are right. Agreeing to use an arbitration service such as judge.me is much
easier pre-dispute (arbitration clause) than post-dispute (submission to
arbitrate, i.e. just case filing and hoping the responder accepts the case).

------
amix
Great to see somebody from Startup Chile! Congrats on the launch Peter :-)

------
latchkey
While I find this business extremely fascinating, I find their Careers page
even more interesting. <http://www.judge.me/careers>

Particularly: "Every 6 months, the entire team votes on hire / fire for each
team member." - You've just been voted off the island!

~~~
delinka
Maybe you could get a binding arbitration clause in your employment agreement.
Though I don't know who you could suggest as arbiter...

------
chrsstrm
It's a good idea in theory, but I don't see it being realistic in many cases
where your legally under-represented plaintiff would be able to win. First you
have to get the other party into arbitration. At this point they have already
breached their agreement, so even if it is a clause in a contract, who says
they are going to participate? You would need considerable leverage to compel
them to spend the $149 to end the dispute. And then assuming you do win, what
compels them to honor the judgement? I did read the FAQs, but if I have to go
to a court to effect a lien or seizure, why did I spend $149 on arbitration
when I could have spent $50 to file in court in the first place?

~~~
tptacek
Because actually prevailing in court will cost more than $50, whereas
prevailing in a legal claim for the award of a binding arbitration is very
inexpensive; in reality, most bona fide disputants in arbitration can be
expected to simply pay.

~~~
chrsstrm
The filing cost does vary between jurisdictions, but about $50 to file,
another $20-30 depending on how you serve the defendant, and since there are
no attorneys in small claims, that about covers it. the time spent in court
could be considered a wash compared to the time spent collecting and sending
evidence for arbitration. The point being, my expectation in the first place
was that the client would honor the agreement, so expecting them to honor a
judgement is a little hard for me to believe. Why take the roundabout path
when I can go straight to court? I guess based on my own experience I don't
feel this service covers the typical dispute worthy or arbitration/legal
action. A civil end to a dispute can only be accomplished by two civil parties
working it out.

------
joshmlewis
I think this is a great idea. Sounds really solid and thought out. The design
isn't exactly amazing, but it's ok. I'd suggest hiring a designer (or me) for
a little cash to help straighten a few things out.

~~~
thehodge
Also I'm not sure I'd trust a legally binding service to a .me domain..

------
amccloud
Design appears to be inspired by stripe.com

~~~
peterjancelis
That is correct.

------
rpm123
I had just about given up on a slightly similar idea I had been working on
briefly called <http://www.TinyCourt.com>. Much more downmarket than yours,
using mechanical turk to provide verdicts on petty squabbles with family,
friends, co-workers, etc., almost more as an entertainment product than actual
arbitration. The enthusiasm for this idea in the comments makes me think I
might have been about to give up too early.

------
Mizza
That's funny, I actually stumbled upon this recently.

Interesting concept, would be cool if it caught on! Suffers from a chicken-egg
problem, though.

~~~
peterjancelis
We only did 3 cases last month, so yes I agree with you. The arbitrator side
is going great, we just need more case load.

~~~
tptacek
Do you have a "model case" that you think fits in your sweet spot?

Have you thought about brainstorming through a specific set of model cases:
for instance, construction contracting (apparently an arbitration mainstay),
or web design, or stuff like that, and then building a "product" around each
of those cases so you can tune your marketing and built industry-specific
social proof?

~~~
peterjancelis
I think software development and design disputes might be a sweet spot: Small
value contracts (most below $100K), often international, parties often dispute
project delivery and payment.

~~~
willyt
I think there is a statutory requirement for an arbitration clause in UK
construction contracts.

~~~
peterjancelis
Yes, construction and real estate in general is a major area for arbitration.

------
tferris
The point of getting a lawyer (1) and later going to court (2):

(1) At some point in a conflict it's not the technical expertise anymore which
one may get with a lawyer—no, it's that there's is somebody who is not
emotionally involved, who doesn't fear to loose, finally someone whose mind is
at 100%, who is fully aware and who has no emotions like fear, hate and lack
of self-control which could impair negotiations in court.

That's the main reason one should get a lawyer: those who are involved in a
case cannot perform as good as the not involved lawyer. And latter is
important because the court shall get a truthfully and entire picture in order
to reach a fair verdict which is in your very best interest.

With Judge.me, it's strongly recommended to get a lawyer or another not
involved third party who is in favor with me anyway and this person would just
say, 'hey I don't know Judge.me, even worse I don't know the people there and
I do not know their history of cases and how their decision making process is.
I cannot prepare you carefully as I could do if we went to a normal court and
thus, I cannot tell if you gonna win. So, I'd suggest to go to a normal court
(2)"

------
clebio
I clicked on this because there was a post on HN just the other day about
_judg.me_ [1] and I assumed this was a follow-up. Interesting that this is
entirely unrelated, but so close in the URL.

[1]: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4012478>

------
rmc
I'm not sure about the logo. It's a set of tipped scales. On one hand I
suppose you're showing how you'll weigh it up and measure the cases, but it
can also imply your unbalanced and unfair from the start.

------
law
My biggest problem with this is that "fairness" isn't objective and impartial,
which is in contrast to the intent of U.S. law. Fairness is a function of
one's life experiences, which may differ between arbitrators and subsequently
shift the balance of equity between claimants. This issue compounds when
multicultural parties are adversaries in arbitration. Plus, arbitration
provisions are themselves subject to the selected forum's laws of contract
construction. This means that a court could throw out the entire contract. Oh
right, and then there's the issue of judgment enforcement: once your
arbitration is decided, you'd still need a court to enforce the judgment.

~~~
tptacek
Courts generally enforce arbitration clauses even when they're consumer-facing
and one-size-fits-all. You'd still have to go to court to enforce the claim if
one party didn't pay it, but you probably wouldn't have to re-argue the case;
the courts apparently just verify that any procedural agreements were upheld
and then accept the arbitration decision.

From reading up on pitfalls of arbitration clauses, it seems the opposite
problem is stickier: arbitration is by design not subject to legal appeal, and
attempts to carve out rights of legal appeal in arbitration clauses have
failed in court.

~~~
law
I'm referring to some problem that renders specific provisions of a contract
unenforceable. In some jurisdictions, absent a severability clause, the entire
contract could be thrown out, meaning that judge.me would no longer have
consent of the parties to arbitrate the dispute.

But I agree: arbitration vs. litigation is typically an "either or" scenario;
you don't get the best of both worlds.

------
mleonhard
Do you perform arbitration "in accordance with the commercial arbitration
rules of the American Arbitration Association"?

~~~
peterjancelis
No, we offer ex aequo et bono arbitration based on the Lex Mercatoria, the
merchant law that developer in the middle ages. Basically contract law as
known in common law systems.

------
jack-r-abbit
Interesting idea. Good luck to you and the business.

But why are so many [things] in the [How it works] page [wrapped] with
[brackets]?

~~~
peterjancelis
Because I still need to write the [content pages] for that.

------
no_flags
Who says the free market can't provide law and order!

------
dataisfun
Modria is the leader in this space.

