Sestock Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Read this crap. There is no way that this person should be allowed to continue being a judge. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_...on_dollar_pants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkS_A18138 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Need to find that scumb bag judge's email or phone number and start having some fun with the net!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sestock Posted May 3, 2007 Author Share Posted May 3, 2007 Here is the asshat's bio http://oah.dc.gov/oah/cwp/view,A,3,Q,604474.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSCHIEFEN Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW SORRY OUR SYSTEM REALLY IS! ONLY PARASITES BEHAVE IN THIS MANNER! ANY JUDGE WHO WOULD EVEN HERE THIS CASE SHOULD BE SENT DOWN THE ROAD. THIS GUY SHOULD BE HUNG WITH THE OTHER HORSE THIEVES THAT HAVE DESTROYED THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN HISTORY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 It's a disgrace to the bench, a disgrace to the law, and a disgrace to a noble profession. I do hope everyone understands that this sort of craziness is the exception to the rule, which is why it is the subject of news headlines. The vast majority of the time, our country's civil justice system works pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 The scary thing is that the plaintiff could cause so much expense to defend the suit that the cleaners offered $12,000 to settle the case. Only self-representing lawyers can get away with this - any non attorney trying to get contingency fee counsel for something this bogus will get laughed out of the law office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
996fan2007 Posted May 5, 2007 Share Posted May 5, 2007 I hope the judge for the case sanctions the crap out that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toowide Posted May 5, 2007 Share Posted May 5, 2007 Let's just hope he doesn't get the judge that released a convicted murderer for like 6 weeks to get his affairs in order. Remember I said CONVICTED MURDERER. You guessed it... he didn't come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 When it comes to judging how our legal system works, just remember three things: (1) You shouldn't believe everything you read, in the papers or on the internet. (2) Even if what you read is technically true, there's always more to the story than gets reported. (3) Those sensational stories that get media attention are being reported because they are the wild exceptions to the boring, ordinary, and fairly reasonable implementation of justice that is the rule in most jurisdictions around the country. Our legal system sure ain't perfect, but it's by far the best in the world. Don't forget it was carefully designed by the same founding fathers who drafted the Second Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineshootah Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Here is the asshat's bio http://oah.dc.gov/oah/cwp/view,A,3,Q,604474.asp I went to the site... " The requested article is no longer published. " hummmm..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folsoml Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Good news! The dry cleaners won! "A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands" or to agree to demands that the merchant would have reasonable grounds for disputing, the judge wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 In our civil justice system, common sense prevails most of the time--it just doesn't create sensational media headlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Law Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 The system worked as it should with the "gatekeeper" (the judge) filtering out the crap. This was clearly crap. That admin. law judge is a disgrace to the profession. I hope the state bar takes a long look at this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Too bad the guy only has to pay the court fees, ~$1000. I think the court system should be set up so you had to put down something like 10% of what you are suing for, sort of like the $100 you have to put down if you want to go to arbitration at a match. This would cut down on a lot of frivalous law suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 I think the court system should be set up so you had to put down something like 10% of what you are suing for, sort of like the $100 you have to put down if you want to go to arbitration at a match. This would make it difficult for people who suffered terrible injury requiring millions for lifelong medical care. But, realistically, we are never going to see reform that will meaningfully reduce the ability of contingency fee lawyers to ply their trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFD Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 The article I saw indicated the Koreans spent at least $30K defending against this asshat. I would hope he's be disbarred and forced to pay their legal fees. It would be nice if there was a review process where all lawsuits get an initial stamp of approval, or the lawyer gets a smack in the head if its determined to be frivalous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Law Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 * * *It would be nice if there was a review process where all lawsuits get an initial stamp of approval, or the lawyer gets a smack in the head if its determined to be frivalous. There is. It's called a Motion to Dismiss (or Demurrer in some jurisdictions) and Discovery. That's basically what happened here. The wheels of justice are slow but steady. It's not like on "Law and Order." The article indicated that the trial judge had yet to rule whether the plaintiff had to pay attorney's fees. I hope that he does have to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now