-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The last post is the WINNER!
- Thread starter ninerbuff
- Start date
That's because they finally realized they couldn't win.
What region do you live in?
Many, many decades ago I lived in Northern New York and had a raccoon coat I bought off of someone who had worn it during the 1930's. I also experienced -30 and worse so I know what you're going through. The image is a good one.Tomorrow it will be below zero with a wind-chill between -20 and -40.....woohoo
I would'a been here this morning for some bodacious winning, but alas, I had work to do. I hate having to do work, especially for a legal defense. It's a frivolous suit (no evidence for the claim) which has already cost me $55,000 in legal bills in 16 months of litigation. No.....not litigation.....in the many useless steps leading up to eventual litigation. Grrrrrr!
Is it a business SLAPP suit or a personal one?
It's what happens after the death of a father who put the dumbest & angriest son in charge of his trust. There's surprisingly little legal restriction upon what trust money can be used for. In this case, he's suing to recover the value of an engine I bought from the old b****** about 12 years ago. I have a signed receipt, proof of payment, & 10 witnesses to the deal. He did no due diligence before filing suit, & has no evidence to dispute the deal's legitimacy, but courts don't require evidence at these initial stages. (An evidentiary hearing would be months away.) On top of all that, he's been paying himself $25/hour (from the trust) to sue me. In a deposition, I learned he also has other suits planned.
My opinion of the justice system is very low. This could've gone to court & be adjudicated in a couple months. But the wheels grind very very slowly.....at $300/hour.
Ugh. Any sensible person with a small sized issue would use small claims court. I suppose requesting "summary dismissal" is not an option where you live. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that if the outcome is obvious, you can ask a judge to just end a farce. But I suppose that does not apply in your situation.
For angry people who have a massive trust fund at their disposal, the nuclear option has no downside. (The trust states that if I sued him, I'd be disinherited.) Judges typically don't end such farces...summary judgement would put them & many lawyers (who donate to their campaigns) out of business. Moreover, the case was proceeding until our judge retired, & the replacement was brand new (never been a judge before), so we started over, & she's too timid to rule from the bench.
If only we had a loser-pay system, wherein suing someone & losing would mean the plaintiff must pay the defendant's legal fees.....there would be far far fewer law suits. But every Slip'n Jimmy & Saul Goodman out there know that frivolous & vexatious may be filed with impunity, no matter what the cost to the innocent party.
Thanx for this opportunity to carp about this $%$#$%%T^ing mess.
There is deep corruption in the bar. Blame it on the Democrats.
I blame Republicans, Democrats, lawyers, & secular humanists.
On second thought, scratch "secular humanists".
Can you come up with a permanent solutions though? Crazy thought: Force legal precedent to reset every 40 years. 
The laws would have to say what they meant!
The laws would have to say what they meant!
A nice barbarian invasion would do that just like what happened to Rome eventually. Of course, there are certain side-effects like generations huddling in hovels but it sure got rid of the Roman law system.Can you come up with a permanent solutions though? Crazy thought: Force legal precedent to reset every 40 years.
Barbarian invasions do occur. How I wonder does the UK struggle along under its centuries of legal precedent?
I've long advocated the "loser pay" system. If Joe decided to sue Sally, he'd think twice about it if he knew he'd have to pay her legal costs if he failed to win. 92.7% of all law suits would go away under this system.Can you come up with a permanent solutions though? Crazy thought: Force legal precedent to reset every 40 years.