Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 09:11 AM EDT |
mw or pj? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 09:12 AM EDT |
A summary in posts title is nice . . . Thnx -> Thanks [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 09:48 AM EDT |
If was me,
this is where I would be forced into bankruptcy and have to hire a lawyer to
fight off all of the other lawyers and their collection agents.
Like body-surfing a crowd of zombies, I don't think you get to the end in once
piece.
---
a small fish in an even smaller pond[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
Good question.
Maybe the lawyer advised him, but the client wanted to go full steam ahead
anyway?
Or, maybe the lawyer didn't, and was going along for the ride all while...
(hours add up)?
It is a good question, but most likely we will never know?
I saw a law firm one time, knowing of Supreme Court rulings on public trust
doctrine - go to court and go to court for their client attempting to get
something that the Supreme Court has said based on previous cases, was not
possible. Did the client know of the Supreme Court's rulings already on facts
that mirrored their case, maybe, or maybe not? Did the law firm know of the
Supreme Court's rulings, maybe, or maybe not?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 12:40 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 1425 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
In the US, if you sue someone who does not have the money to defend themselves,
you either win a settlement or bankrupt them before anything like this happens
to you.
Only rich people can expect this kind of "justice." For the rest of
us, if some deep-pocketed slimeball sues, we lose. It does not matter if we are
innocent or not. It does not matter what the law says. No money to defend?
You lose.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT |
Funny.
No, I'm not a particularly slow reader.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 05:41 AM EDT |
It appears from reading the judge's determination in document 280 that only the
Florida RICO allegations resulted in the award of attorney's fees, due to
specific provisions in that statute.
So I don't think you <i>can</i> expect that those indulging in this
kind of behaviour will get their comeuppance. It seems Gray's big mistake was
making unfounded RICO allegations in particular.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 12:45 PM EDT |
until you get cases like this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|