not logged in
| re: Meat's latest concert | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 12:04 am UTC 05/17/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Meat's latest concert - Smeghead 08:45 pm UTC 05/16/07 |
> The language in a suit, which is by > > definition an adversarial statement within an adversarial > > process, is not of necessity to be taken literally. > > A sworn statement as to why he should be given posession > of something Jim owns is not meant to be taken as truth? > Loafer logic to be sure. Perjury is a crime because it is > wrong. Merat committed that crime and Jim gave in and > gave Meat what he wanted. Meat should have been charged > with Perjury by the court and put behind bars. During the litigation, I researched whatever I had the limited capability that I have, and took into the process the understanding that lawyers are the unnamed parties in the suits they bring to court. They do the arguing, they do the winning and losing, and they get the glory and money or the bills. A case with this high dollar ticket on it was surely a contingency case. I wanted to see what kinds of lawyers were these that took this information and went to play with it. Why? Because in Los Angeles especially, there is a breed of high-power lawyer that will actually fabricate for advantage. How they go about doing so is not something that I know. This puts into suspension the idea that someone would lie to their lawyer, because that happens quite alot as one could imagine. But, suppose, one isn't paying attention, and says a few things that the lawyers can use to stretch? One thing I noticed or drew from what the post-suit speakings yielded, is that Meat did not know what the lawyers intended, and did not know what they wrote, and furthermore did not intend to sue Jim. Why don't we just for the moment, without hearing those statements of ooops, where can ooops be found, outside of Meat? In the lawyers, I thought, so I looked up what I could about them. In lawsuits, hardly anyone investigates the lawyers, but I did. I once had an estate attorney give away my rights because he was paid three thousand dollars effectively to do so....even though he was supposed to have been representing me......and this lawyer unabashadly said, "Give a lawyer three thousand dollars and they will say anything for you." Which this guy did.....and, as it was also worked out, this shady guy took half of that, by the hands of the co-counsel, from me. So, I don't really put much stock on L.A. attorneys. He was recommended by one of the top attorneys Beverly Hills. So, from that experience, I got very careful. There was also another attorney I once saw, who let their client file a paper unsigned into the court which had nothing but fabrications on it, and as long as that attorney got paid, he was fine with it. Some lawyers earn the bad reputations given to lawyers.....and some lawyers work to earn the bad reputations. I was thinking, here is a suit that nobody ever saw coming, and where did it come from? It came from lawyers. Not just any lawyers, I learned, but lawyers who were not able to keep a stable office address. Lawyers who 1) had no experience on the published bar roster of litigations, no firm affiliation, who was virtually fresh out of law school, who operated out of one of those virtual offices with several area codes for cellphone, fax, and phone....and only a home address to verify which was already moved out of the year before......that's the junior of the pair.........and the senior of the pair, he lost his office address when he left his firm of high visibility, scared by the Pelicano investigations, whom was one of the partners in his firm. So, where the fault lies in a really bad lawsuit, is often in the ones who wrote it. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Meat's latest concert - Smeghead 08:45 pm UTC 05/16/07 |
| Next: | re: Meat's latest concert - tealcyfre 01:43 am UTC 05/17/07 |
| Thread: |
|