T1B

In another thug NBA player trial, the scumbag lawyer for the guy who hit Stephen Jackson with his car after Jackson shot the gun in the air said this:

One of his attorneys, Jeffrey Mendez, told Gifford that Willford and his cousin were afraid after the shots were fired, and that Willford then hit Jackson with the car.

"Mr. Willford, in fear of his life, in fear of his cousin's life, does what the average reasonable person would have done," Mendez said

umm hellooo?? The "average reasonable person" gets the fuck right out of there NOW, they don't try to run people over.

This guy can't possibly believe the bullshit spewing out of his dick hole, can he?

Are there actually any moral guidelines for lawyers, or do they just set those benchmarks as low as possible and then move along?


I just went thru a minor legal matter where this idiot lawyer threatened my lawyer to either pay out on a nuisance lawsuit threat, or face a court trial. $1,500 vs many thousands in legal fees was a better deal, but it was clearly unethical on the other lawyers side. He knew the case was shit, but he knew the court proceeedings would cost 5 to 10 times a settlement would so he arm barred my lawyer into upping the settlement another $500.
I'd report him if I thought it would do any good, but he'd probably get a medal for working the system to perfection instead.

The "fight or flight" mechanism fires when one's surival instinct kicks in.

Dude shoots, misses, and I'm given the choice of running and allowing him to reset, possibly aim better and shoot again .... or make sure he doesn't shoot again with the only weapon I have ... my vehicle.

It's plausible and IMHO more a matter of instinct than being "reasonable", unreasonable things happen in unreasonable situations.

Mister Bushice wrote:In another thug NBA player trial, the scumbag lawyer for the guy who hit Stephen Jackson with his car after Jackson shot the gun in the air said this:

One of his attorneys, Jeffrey Mendez, told Gifford that Willford and his cousin were afraid after the shots were fired, and that Willford then hit Jackson with the car.

"Mr. Willford, in fear of his life, in fear of his cousin's life, does what the average reasonable person would have done," Mendez said

umm hellooo?? The "average reasonable person" gets the fuck right out of there NOW, they don't try to run people over.

This guy can't possibly believe the bullshit spewing out of his dick hole, can he?

Are there actually any moral guidelines for lawyers, or do they just set those benchmarks as low as possible and then move along?

I haven't been following the case you cite, so I don't feel comfortable discussing the merits of that particular case. But you have hit upon a problem with our system. Our system is an adversarial system. Attorneys are expected to represent their clients zealously, so they have an obligation to make just about whatever argument that will benefit their client they can make in light of the facts of the case.

The system is not perfect, far from it. But it is a better system than exists in much of the world. That's more of a condemnation of those other systems than it is praise for ours.

I just went thru a minor legal matter where this idiot lawyer threatened my lawyer to either pay out on a nuisance lawsuit threat, or face a court trial. $1,500 vs many thousands in legal fees was a better deal, but it was clearly unethical on the other lawyers side. He knew the case was shit, but he knew the court proceeedings would cost 5 to 10 times a settlement would so he arm barred my lawyer into upping the settlement another $500.
I'd report him if I thought it would do any good, but he'd probably get a medal for working the system to perfection instead.

Go ahead and report him if you'd like. He won't get any medals for his conduct, but it won't do you any good, either.

Courts tend to favor settlements as an alternative ending to litigation, so in order to set aside a settlement, you'd need to have something really strong in your favor. The fact that litigation was more expensive than settlement will be of no use to you in that regard. In fact, your case is far from the only one where a settlement occurred for that very reason.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Go ahead and report him if you'd like. He won't get any medals for his conduct, but it won't do you any good, either.

Yep, just about what I figured.

Courts tend to favor settlements as an alternative ending to litigation, so in order to set aside a settlement, you'd need to have something really strong in your favor.

Actually, I did.

The fact that litigation was more expensive than settlement will be of no use to you in that regard. In fact, your case is far from the only one where a settlement occurred for that very reason.

I do realize that. I just thought that perhaps SOME moral or ethical guidelines existed. My bad.

Mister Bushice wrote: This guy can't possibly believe the bullshit spewing out of his dick hole, can he?

As Tom poited out in a moment of clarity… It’s call self defense.

clearly unethical on the other lawyers side.

Why?

He knew the case was shit…

How do you know that?

So...when you discharge a firearm as a result of what began as a verbal altercation, you run the possible risk that someone might fear for their life and use any means at their disposal to stop the threat?


Wow, who woulda thunk it.

Plus, you're dealing with people who are genetically predisposed to violence, so some leeway should be granted.

Jsc810 wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:The system is not perfect, far from it. But it is a better system than exists in much of the world. That's more of a condemnation of those other systems than it is praise for ours.

Much of the world? Where in the world is a better system?

Nowhere to my knowledge.

The phrase "much of the world" was used to recognize the fact that some parts of the world have a system similar to ours and in some cases, modeled upon ours.

Mister Bushice wrote:

Courts tend to favor settlements as an alternative ending to litigation, so in order to set aside a settlement, you'd need to have something really strong in your favor.

Actually, I did.

What? If the other party's case was shit, presumably you knew that going in. Yet you still agreed to the settlement.

You can't get it tossed, at least not from what I know. Chalk it up and move on.

Jsc810 wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:I just thought that perhaps SOME moral or ethical guidelines existed. My bad.

They do. Here are the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and probably every state has a local version.

So is there anything in that document that covers when one lawyer calls another lawyer and says" If you give us more money I'll make this go away"?

Mister Bushice wrote:Are there actually any moral guidelines for lawyers

I laughed.

When the other lawyer needed MY lawyer to tell him his clients last name, I sort of began to wonder what he was in it for.


It went sort of like this:

So, I'm looking to get more money for ah umm umm
(papers shuffle) Jimmy ( papers shuffle) ...

My lawyer :Smith?"
Other scumbag: "yeah. Jimmy. If you'll pay me 2,000 now I'll file a (whatever they call a cancellation) tomorrow"

My lawyer was pretty damn disgusted. The guy didn't even know what actually happened and just seemed to cut right to the money talk, knowing a court case would cost much, much more no matter the outcome.

It didn't cost me anything as this was an insurance matter, but it just seemed like extortion at a legal level.

Mister Bushice wrote:.. but it just seemed like extortion at a legal level.

What's wrong with that ?


Sincerely
IRS

Tom In VA wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:.. but it just seemed like extortion at a legal level.

What's wrong with that ?


Sincerely
IRS

Yea what's wrong with that?

Sin,
DA's and their plea 'offers'

Would you ever ask a DA that question in reverse ?


"Of all the defendants you put away, how many were actually innocent and convicted because you suppressed evidence even though they didn't do the crime."

Jsc810 wrote:Different rules apply, the DA has a higher standard.

I do ?

Sincerely
Mike Nifong

What's missing is a mechanism to stop the frivolous lawsuits of all types, and that stopgap COULD be provided by lawyers, if they were ethical enough. (laugh track) They know the law better than the average citizen, and you'd think they have enough self respect (laugh track) to police their own.

Sure, there are going to be questionable law suits always, but there just don't seem to be enough guidelines in place to rein in the total bullshit ones that get through.

If I'm paying the money on the retainer and hourly fees to any Attorney I hire to represent my case, they better use everything legally possible to win judgement in my favor. I don't give a fuck how much he wants to embellish my situation as long as it casts reasonable doubt towards any claims of wrongdoing (true or fabricated) I am accused or damages I may be seeking against others. That's the job Attorneys are supposed to do, it's unethical for an Attorney not to have a Client's best interest in mind if he collects their money with no intention of rendering them all the Services that the Bar allows.

Sincerely,

Y2 "The Real Killer" K
T1B "Cul de Smack" Board

Jsc810 wrote: And Moving Sale, I withdraw the question...

I'll answer it.

How many 'who done its' have I had? about 15? How many didn't do it? 5 maybe? About one a year.

How many times did my 'guy' do something but the DA overcharged or mischarged so those charges were dropped or dismissed leaving charges that my clients actually did do? About 75% of the time.

BTW- I see you working and my answer is that sure some people would do more time, but that would make the DA press the violence and theft charges and drop the stupid silly drug stuff. End result = more time for the badguys and little to no time for the druggies which is fine by me.

Y2K wrote:, it's unethical for an Attorney not to have a Client's best interest in mind if he collects their money with no intention of rendering them all the Services that the Bar allows.

It should be just as unethical to try and collect money not deserved, especially when it is crystal clear that is the case.

For example, the mcdonalds coffee lady who got millions for spilling hot coffee on herself. Sure, a jury awarded it, but a lawyer represented her.

If I tell someone "don't walk over there" and they do, I should not be sued because "over there" was not safe. Fuck them for being stupid.

Just MO. Save your reality checks, I know.

Mister Bushice wrote: For example, the mcdonalds coffee lady who got millions for spilling hot coffee on herself. Sure, a jury awarded it, but a lawyer represented her.

I love this one.
You are talking about Stella Liebeck right? First off the coffee was about 180 degrees when it should be at 135 to 140 degrees.
Second according to this. McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. Lastly the 2.7 million in punitives were reduced to $480,000 which was never paid thru the court... the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

Jsc810 wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:It should be just as unethical to try and collect money not deserved, especially when it is crystal clear that is the case.

Except that "crystal clear" is not the burden of proof. In a civil case, the usual burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, or just over 50%. That is to be distinguished from beyond a reasonable doubt, which is used in criminal cases.

So you're saying that there aren't any shit lawsuits out there?

Moving Sale wrote:McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above

Then you lawyers have a built in scam, eh?

Since(ask any health department worker) any hot food stored/served BELOW 140 degrees is unfit for human consumption, as well, since it becomes a bacterial risk. Matter of fact, thye standard for the health department here is to WRITE TICKETS to resaurants who keep food below 141 degrees(unless it's below 41 degrees).


So, since it's THE LAW that foods must be kept at at least 140 degrees, a consumer has a REASONABLE EXPECTATION that hot foods will be...


are you sitting down for this...

Hot.


Novel fucking concept, and every single person who's ever eaten at a restaurant knows this. And anyone who has ever drank coffe knows to handle a hot cup of coffee with caution.


Now, if an employee had actually spilled the coffee on her...no brainer.

Spill something that's FREAKING ADVERTISED as "hot" on yourself....tough titty.

Jsc810 wrote:
Any ideas on how to reduce their number?

Simple.


Kill all the lawyers.


Although God seems to be beating us to it as far as a particular one in Louisiana goes...

Dinsdale wrote: Since(ask any health department worker) any hot food stored/served BELOW 140 degrees is unfit for human consumption, as well, since it becomes a bacterial risk.

What a crock of shit. They do not say they are U4HC. Potentially Hazardous Foods like meat and dairy can be dangerous if stored below 140. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about McD serving coffee which burns in 3 to 5 seconds or coffee that burns in 30.

Care to try again?

Jsc810 wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:So you're saying that there aren't any shit lawsuits out there?

Sure there are shit lawsuits, I've had to defend many of them.

Any ideas on how to reduce their number?

Sure. If you are standing there in a court and KNOW that a lawsuit is shit, WHY doesn't the other lawyer know the same thing?

Start from there.

No, what were talking about is someone selling a legal product that includes in its name/advertising "HOT."

What you choose to do with it is your business. I recommend against pouring it on your lap, unless you're a lawyer.

Fucking scumbag lawyers have all but eliminated personal responsibility in this country. And don't even try to deny it, since it would be hollow to the point of tears of laughter. The scumbags see a way to make easy millions, and ethics be damned.

Dinsdale wrote:No, what were talking about is someone selling a legal product that includes in its name/advertising "HOT."

What you choose to do with it is your business. I recommend against pouring it on your lap, unless you're a lawyer.

Fucking scumbag lawyers have all but eliminated personal responsibility in this country. And don't even try to deny it, since it would be hollow to the point of tears of laughter. The scumbags see a way to make easy millions, and ethics be damned.

I totally agree with your second argument regarding personal responsibility, however in the case of the McDonald's customer, she was right to sue.

Her argument wasn't that it was hot and they were neglegent in packaging their materials, it was that their coffee shouldn't be so fucking hot that it causes 3rd degree burns on your legs. Don't know if you've never had the misfortune of having to drink the swill they used to serve at McDonald's in the pre-Starbucks on every corner era, but that shit was so hot you couldn't even sip it until it had cooled off for half an hour. There's no need for it to be THAT hot.

Dinsdale wrote:No, what were talking about is someone selling a legal product that includes in its name/advertising "HOT."

But the product is scalding so that would mean they fucked up their warning. When is McD going to take responsibility for their actions?

Moving Sale wrote: But the product is scalding so that would mean they fucked up their warning.

"Hot" VERY clearly includes "scalding." This isn't a courtroom, so don't even try to sell your stupidity here.


So, if something is merely advertised/labelled "hot" it suddenly becomes alright to pour it on your lap, whereas if it said "scalding" it isn't?


Are you fucking retarded?


There you have it, folks -- the lawyers MO -- take a semantics debate and make it your main focus why you're getting a huge cut of millions of dollars.


Which is why lawyers are the LEAST TRUSTED/respected professionals in the country. Props on beating out used car salesmen, scumbags.

Jsc810 wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:

Jsc810 wrote: Sure there are shit lawsuits, I've had to defend many of them.

Any ideas on how to reduce their number?

Sure. If you are standing there in a court and KNOW that a lawsuit is shit, WHY doesn't the other lawyer know the same thing?

Start from there.

OK, let's take a simple example, a guy (Mr. Defendant) runs a red light and hits Ms. Plaintiff's car. Ms. P has witnesses who say the light was green for her, and Mr. D has witnesses who say he had the red light, plus Ms. P was speeding. He said, she said, and all believe they are telling the truth. Each side thinks the other's case is shit; why did she file the suit in the first place, why doesn't he pay what he owes?

Of course, those issues become much murkier when more complex facts and law are involved.

You've picked an odd one to start with, but really if he ran the light and knew it, and there no dispute on that point, and no one on site had a radar gun and no tickets were issued, then the speeding point is moot. He should have paid, thus eliminating the need for a lawsuit.

Lets just even begin with one that isn't so murky. Take a case where a supermarket has posted signs on an aisle that say "keep out" or "caution - wet slippery floor" and some ass ignores the signage, walks down there, falls and breaks a leg, then sues the store for whatever.

Why is any lawyer accepting this case?

Dinsdale wrote: "Hot" VERY clearly includes "scalding."

Why because you say so? So there is no need for the word scalding? Thanx for the heads up.

So, if something is merely advertised/labelled "hot" it suddenly becomes alright to pour it on your lap, whereas if it said "scalding" it isn't?

If you are going to serve coffee that burns in 3 sec you might want to make sure people know that. That or take responsibility for your actions and make good if someone is burned due to your mislabeling of your product.

There you have it, folks -- the lawyers MO -- take a semantics debate and make it your main focus why you're getting a huge cut of millions of dollars.

Words have meaning you silly tard.

Which is why lawyers are the LEAST TRUSTED/respected professionals in the country. Props on beating out used car salesmen, scumbags.

Why don't sharks eat Lawyers?

Mister Bushice wrote: Take a case where a supermarket has posted signs on an aisle that say "keep out" or "caution - wet slippery floor" and some ass ignores the signage, walks down there, falls and breaks a leg, then sues the store for whatever.

Why is any lawyer accepting this case?

Big difference from 'keep out' to 'caution - wet slippery floor.'

But I'll take the 'Caution' one.
"The duty owed to a business invitee is of the highest responsibility. The reason for this is, if you operate a business and a welcomed customer comes into your business, you have an absolute obligation to make sure your premises is free of defects and is safe for the public as a whole. If there are any defects on your property you not only have an absolute duty to warn the public of the defect but you also have a duty to repair any dangerous conditions which exist on your premises."
If the floor is slippery it is dangerous. A warning is not enough. The store must make the floor unslippery or close until it is.

Your making money off of me so you better make sure I'm safe.

But your real questions is are there frivolous lawsuits? Yes. WAY to many. Anybody that is shocked by that has not been following along.

I've spilled coffee on myself plenty of times. Couldn't tell you if it was "hot" or "scalding." I do know each time it hurt like hell, though, and I once burned the inside of my thigh, which made wearing a pair of jeans pretty painful for a couple days.

The thought of going after millions immediately after never crossed my mind though. But I do believe I swore at myself for being clumsy, and acted more careful next time.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I've spilled coffee on myself plenty of times. Couldn't tell you if it was .. "scalding." I do know ... I once burned ... my thigh....

I vote for scalding.

Hot is a matter of degree, scalding is not.

Moving Sale wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I've spilled coffee on myself plenty of times. Couldn't tell you if it was .. "scalding." I do know ... I once burned ... my thigh....

I vote for scalding.

Hot is a matter of degree, scalding is not.

Fire, which can burn human skin, can be appropriately described as "hot." Same as coffee. "Hot" is a general description for anything having a high temperature, or giving off heat. Yep, even heat that's close to boiling point. It's an appropriate warning. At some point, a little common sense should be employed.

Moving Sale wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote: Take a case where a supermarket has posted signs on an aisle that say "keep out" or "caution - wet slippery floor" and some ass ignores the signage, walks down there, falls and breaks a leg, then sues the store for whatever.

Why is any lawyer accepting this case?

If the floor is slippery it is dangerous. A warning is not enough. The store must make the floor unslippery or close until it is.

That is not practical and you know it.

Lets just say there is a spill and signs are put up that the aisle is closed for cleaning and someone walks around the sign, slips and falls. A lawsuit ensues.

WHY is any lawyer taking it?

But your real questions is are there frivolous lawsuits? Yes. WAY to many. Anybody that is shocked by that has not been following along.

No, my real question is: if all of you lawyers KNOW there are frivilous lawsuits, why are you taking them on?

And forget about the cloudy ones that require mediation, litigation, or adjudication to clarify. I'm talking about the blatant ones that NEVER should have been accepted simply on moral or ethical grounds that they are full of shit and everyone knows it.

Mister Bushice wrote: No, my real question is: if all of you lawyers KNOW there are frivilous lawsuits, why are you taking them on?

And forget about the cloudy ones that require mediation, litigation, or adjudication to clarify. I'm talking about the blatant ones that NEVER should have been accepted simply on moral or ethical grounds that they are full of shit and everyone knows it.

To hell with them fellas. Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms.

You only get as much justice as you can afford.

Well, therein lies the crux of the problem. As long as the ignorant are coddled by the greedy/complacent, nothing substantive will ever happen to fix it.

Mister Bushice wrote:Well, therein lies the crux of the problem. As long as the ignorant are coddled by the greedy/complacent, nothing substantive will ever happen to fix it.

The 'crux' of the problem is that with anything GOOD, you get some BAD. Does the GOOD, outweigh the BAD ? In our judicial system I think the resounding answer is YES.

I think your crux, sux. :P

#1,

Did the prosecuter know his client was lying?

If so he should be fined and suspended for knowingly bringing shit to court.

If not, there's nothing you can do about this type of issue, however, the ones I'm talking about are where an individual comes to an attorney and says " I want to hire you to sue that guy over there because he slandered me. The attorney looks it over and sees what a piece of shit the case is but takes it on and takes the guys money anyway, knowing the chances are low he'll get anything near what he's asking but that the payday will still be there for the lawyer.

THAT is the shit that should go first.

Oh and another thing that should be done is a law should be made that if someone takes someone else to court and it is proven anywhere along the way that they lied, misrepresented the truth, or ignored/suppressed information inorder to try and win, the case will be dismissed and they will carry the full weight of all court costs, plus a fine on top of that, or inthe event you cannot pay, you spend time in jail.

That might have got Inmate C thinking twice.

Unless you start somewhere, nothing happens. Right now there is too little accountability on all sides.