Author: Steven Schwartz
Date: 06:55:46 06/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 1998 at 07:12:29, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On June 04, 1998 at 23:41:10, Komputer Korner wrote: > >>On June 04, 1998 at 21:33:49, Steven Schwartz wrote: >> >[mega snip] >> >>>As the jury was walking back into the room after a total of >>>45 minutes of deliberation, one of the jurors turned >>>to me, smiled, and gave me a thumbs-up. The case was such a farse >>>that the jury saw right through it. >>> >>>Fidelity did not care so much about the long term ill effects of >>>rating exaggeration. They are no longer. >>>- Steve >> >>Perhaps Fidelity knew they would lose the case but in doing so would >>cause your firm irreparable harm from having to defend it. I am sure >>that your attorney insurance went up. So who wins here? The lawyers and >>judges and court reporters and court stenographers feeding off society's >>trough. Every legal case boosts employment for the above if the case >>goes to trial. The fact that your case wasn't thrown out beforehand >>leads to a thought that judges and lwayers are in on a conspricy to >>inflate the number of court cases thus keeping all the above principles >>employed. There are 2 ways to oblivion. The fast way by revolution which >>leads to Robespierre forms of government and the slow way via the legal >>system. It seems that the U.S. is definitely well on its way to oblivion >>via the 2nd method. Because the law societies of Canada do not allow >>plaintiffs to make a % deal with their lawyers, Canada does not have the >>ridiculous number of lawsuits that the U.S. has. I don't know why this >>is the case as it certainly limits employment opportunities for lawyers >>in Canada. Perhaps there is a gentleman's agreement between the powers >>that run the "STAR CHAMBER" in Canada. The U.S. society however is >>certainly on the legal road to HELL. > >I think that the difference in Canada is that the entity that loses the >case is responsible for the other entity's legal fees. This prevents >many frivolous lawsuits, because if a person or company is innocent, >suing them is only going to cost you money. > >I'm not a laywer though, and I make no warranty of accuracy or fitness >for a particular purpose of this message. <g> > >Dave Gomboc Our lawyers, who were actually paid by our insurance company, could have sued for court costs, but opted not to with a promise from Fidelity that they would not appeal the verdict (which would have cost several more $100,000s) even though we were almost certain to prevail in the appeal. Great system ;-) - Steve
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.