Taking your parents to court: what are we becoming? - Page 3

CorsebouTheReturn · #41 02.09.2011, 16:53

	Quote:	scrambled
	what you need to take away from the article is this: 1. father tried to pursuade them not to file the suit, but failed and took the case anyways - wtf if he really didnt want them to sue then he would not have taken the case. 2. the reason they needed their father to represent them is that no lawyer in their right mind would bother to take on a case like this since it is a waste of their time and money. before we eventually get comments about how crazy the US legal system is and how americans are sue-happy, keep in mind that: 1. it's better to give people access to courts rather than filter out claims and block access based on somebody's arbitrary judgment on what is considered meritorious or frivolous 2. as you see, the justice system is sane and the correct outcome was reached. 3. lawyers are the first line of defense against stupid lawsuits because they won't take on dumb cases.

Thank you captain obvious!

Unfortunately he could have taken the case to protect the ex-wife. Seeing the determination of the children, they would go to a lawyer anyway.
And what better than " an inside job" to accomplish his goals?

As a matter of fact they lost, he made a poor defense of their case, he "won": that's what he wanted.

*Yes it's allegations, but don't invent crap based on very very poor assumptions you made.

CorsebouTheReturn · #42 02.09.2011, 16:56

	Quote:	Angela-74
	Dude it is my opinion WTF? He did represent his children if he was opposed he should have stepped aside...

What if he wanted to defend them against the 2 other lawyers?
What could be better than a "sabotage", an insider technique to make a poor defense of their accusations?

Your opinion? No. It was allegations:
You said "the dad is evil".

It's a public place, what if he reads that?

Can you accuse someone in public and pretend to your defense that it was "your opinion"?

scrambled · #43 02.09.2011, 17:23

	Quote:	borntough
	I completely agree. However courts after hearing the case must penalize suits deemed to be frivolous. That is something which is not being done. Ahem....really now? edit...Read the comments section too I respectfully disagree for the following reason. A Lawsuit (stupid or valid) is an opportunity to change the customer. Lawyers are rarely paid based on the result of the verdict hence it makes sense to file as many cases as possible

your link actually supports my position that courts generally get it right - the claims were stupid and the plaintiff lost in every instance.

since we're talking about a US lawsuit here, I will point out that almost all personal claims are handled by lawyers working on contingency - meaning they get paid a percentage of the winnings. this is why lawyers don't take on cases that are obviously losers in the US. not sure how they do it in your country.

	Quote:	CorsebouTheReturn
	Thank you captain obvious! Unfortunately he could have taken the case to protect the ex-wife. Seeing the determination of the children, they would go to a lawyer anyway. And what better than " an inside job" to accomplish his goals? As a matter of fact they lost, he made a poor defense of their case, he "won": that's what he wanted. *Yes it's allegations, but don't invent crap based on very very poor assumptions you made.

listen idiot, it's clear you are the one making the wild assumptions here. i'm making a reasoned judgment based on the facts. you are talking conspiracy double agent inside job theories.

CorsebouTheReturn · #44 02.09.2011, 17:29

	Quote:	scrambled
	your link actually supports my position that courts generally get it right - the claims were stupid and the plaintiff lost in every instance. since we're talking about a US lawsuit here, I will point out that almost all personal claims are handled by lawyers working on contingency - meaning they get paid a percentage of the winnings. this is why lawyers don't take on cases that are obviously losers in the US. not sure how they do it in your country. listen idiot, it's clear you are the one making the wild assumptions here. i'm making a reasoned judgment based on the facts. you are talking conspiracy double agent inside job theories.

Haha

Who's the "idiot" who said:

2. the reason they needed their father to represent them is that no lawyer in their right mind would bother to take on a case like this since it is a waste of their time and money.

That's right. They only found 2 other lawyers...

Looks like a lot of people not in their "right mind" here...

PS: "you making a reasoned judgment based on the facts"?

You have no facts or correct fact to say " if he really didnt want them to sue then he would not have taken the case. ".

You don't know his motivations, you just assume.

I gave you 1 fake example to show you it could have been motivated by anything else.

#45 02.09.2011, 21:46

	Quote:	CorsebouTheReturn
	What if he wanted to defend them against the 2 other lawyers? What could be better than a "sabotage", an insider technique to make a poor defense of their accusations? Your opinion? No. It was allegations: You said "the dad is evil". It's a public place, what if he reads that? Can you accuse someone in public and pretend to your defense that it was "your opinion"?

paranoid much?

biff · #46 02.09.2011, 22:13

	Quote:	CorsebouTheReturn
	Very good candidate to Jury duty. Make allegations based on not much, then accuse the opponents to your fallacious theory of being taking drugs... Very good vision of justice and morale here! PS: how about we shoot the guy based on your extremely accurate facts? Is not how we do in Mexico?

Yaaaaaawwwwwnnn.