not logged in
| re: Meat's latest concert | |
Posted by:  |
Smeghead 01:43 am UTC 05/17/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Meat's latest concert - pidunk 12:04 am UTC 05/17/07 |
| JD Bane her PLEASE! > > > > 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 - pidunk 03:53 am UTC 05/17/07 |
| Next: | re: Meat's latest concert - Pudding 08:04 pm UTC 05/16/07 |
| Thread: | |