Say, Bob, purchases a consumer product in the State of California where he is a resident for the purposes of California law although not a resident of the U.S., a State for the purposes of the 1961 and ‘63 Conventions (on Diplomatic and Consular Relations respectively).
The sale turns out to be the result of formal policy-driven consumer fraud of such scale upon which Bob shall prevail on causes of action against the manufacturer, distributor, and/or seller under Business & Professions Code § 17200 $ 17500. The anticompetitive effect of the practices are of such magnitude that it substantially direly affect businesses of sending State operating in California and the U.S.. The unlawful practices harm the sending State.
- a. For the purposes of receiving legal aid or legal representation as an indigent or destitute consumer/buyer of the consumer goods to bring, is Bob entitled to seek the assistance of the consulates or embassies of the State of his nationality or nationalities that is or are a party to the above Conventions and are a “State” and “sending State” in the U.S. for the purposes of the above Conventions to bring any actions against the manufacturer, distributor and/or seller in a California/U.S. court?
.1. b. If (1.a.) yes, may he also receive such legal aid or legal representations?
Does it make a difference if the scope of the law suit is sufficiently broad that it may doom the future of the manufacturer for systemic fraudulent practices etc.?
May it be deemed by any means espionage if Bob never was in the employ or a contractor of the manufacturer, distributor or seller nor did he obtained any information by any means illegal, but as a result of his capacity as a consumer, buyer and/or party to the sales contract?