Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 07:16:36 06/08/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 1998 at 17:06:26, Komputer Korner wrote: >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 > > >This won't stop somebody with more money from trying to bankrupt a >smaller competitor or company/person they don't like. Lawyer costs are >always much more $ than court costs in a case that drags on for a long >time. The situation is so ridiculous in the U.S. that you are losing >your competitive edge because of fear of and actual result of lawsuits. >I fear the same thing will happen in Canada but things take longer to >become practice up here. When I said legal fees, I was including attorney fees as well. But you're right, you still have to be able to come up with the money first, before you can get it back if you win. Dave Gomboc
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.