Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
better yet, what kind of lawyer would even consider taking up such a frivolous lawsuit.
l
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
better yet, what kind of lawyer would even consider taking up such a frivolous lawsuit.
l
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
One that had a payment on his Porsche due and doesn't mind that his father is ashamed of him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
All seriousness, government entitites can't countersue on cases like this; however, individuals can. Have the widow sue the crap out of the family for their POS of a son causing the death of her husband, the Deputy. Violated his civil rights by killing him. That's what they are alleging in their suit. Sue them back! Take every damn penny that family has, to include their damn double-wide they live in. Of course, in reality, what will she get? Not much, because the POS wasn't worth anything, didn't have anything and didn't have insurance on anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMat
Ding! Ding! You sir, are correct!!
Let's see here...you have a scumball that kills a deputy while trying to escape, gets killed himself afterward, and his family wants their pound of flesh? After this little episode, they should be forced to publicly apologize for the conduct of the misbegotten slimeball AND THEIR OWN. They should also beg forgiveness from the family of the deputy for their callous and idiotic behavior. Anyone want to bet half (or more) of this slimy brood are on some sort of welfare?
And this ambulance chaser they have ought to do the same thing. This is the sort that all the really bad jokes are about. He makes Frank Azar look GOOD.
I'd have been more than happy to give the sh**ball CPR...jumping up and down on his chest while wearing combat boots.
You know, I wouldn't be turned off at a public demonstration to protest this and bring it to light. As long as it was held on one of my days off.
Seems to me that any time someone says, "It's not about the money". . .
IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY!
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Just read a story about a law firm that was formed to pursue copyright infringement for photos published on line by a few newspapers.
The firm OWNS the copyrighted images produced by these paper, including the Denver Post.
When they find them, they immediately sue whoever posted it - blogger, whoever... No demand to remove it, just an immediate lawsuit.
Reports are they average 5,000 per settlement.
So 'scumbag lawyer' is redundant. You ever hear a lawyer badmouth any member of his profession for this kind of thing? It doesn't happen, they're sorta like muslims not badmouthing muslims - although the bar association happily disbars members who badmouth other members. So even if they want to say something, their own professional organization keeps them from doing so.
This story is fucked up and I can't believe an attorney would have such a disregard for morals and ethical fundamentals to take this case. But..
A trial is going to cost the government a couple hundred thousand dollars. If the family loses they are on the hook for the government's attorneys fee's. The family most likely doesn't have anything to lose and will claim BK if they lose the case, if not just change their names and relocate and use a dead persons social security number to reestablish themselves.
So... you're the government and you know what this attorney is trying to do. Cost Vs. Risk tells you that you should pay the family enough money to go away quietly. If you don't do it that way the tax payers will be on the hook for more than hush money they will be on the hook for an entire trial.
It's wrong and it pisses me off but this is the way our system works.
This is a good example where loser pays would be good. It would discourage law suites like this if the loser had to pay the legal expenses of both sides. They would have to set it up that the lawyer would have to pay if the loser didn't have the money.