When there are legal ways to subvert justice, it cannot reasonably be referred to as a justice system.

Of course, I should point out that, as far as I can tell, the only real legal route to subverting justice that took place here was Giuffre not filing a criminal case when she had the chance. And, as satisfying as it would have been to send him to jail, this was only ever a civil case.

Hadn' t the statute of limitations ran out?

(February 15, 2022 at 10:36 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(February 15, 2022 at 7:56 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: (Bold mine)

Wrong.



Source:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutor...settlement

Boru

Google all you like matey...

You have spent HOW many hours in an American courtroom suing someone?

You spent HOW many hours discussing your case with your lawyer?

None?

Gee... How about that.

I lost several years of my life dealing with this bullshit - and spent DAYS on discussion with my lawyer talking about how these things work.

But you got google....

You have a point. Clearly your personal experience is much, MUCH more a reflection of the state of the law than the definition offered by Cornell Law School. Those fuckin' bozos.

Boru

(February 15, 2022 at 11:32 pm)Foxaire Wrote: When there are legal ways to subvert justice, it cannot reasonably be referred to as a justice system.

Happy to see you back! Hope everything's ok.

Boru

(February 16, 2022 at 5:12 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(February 15, 2022 at 10:36 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Google all you like matey...

You have spent HOW many hours in an American courtroom suing someone?

You spent HOW many hours discussing your case with your lawyer?

None?

Gee... How about that.

I lost several years of my life dealing with this bullshit - and spent DAYS on discussion with my lawyer talking about how these things work.

But you got google....

You have a point. Clearly your personal experience is much, MUCH more a reflection of the state of the law than the definition offered by Cornell Law School. Those fuckin' bozos.

Boru

Where in your source does it say the defense MUST offer a settlement?

It doesn't.

Now think this through very carefully.....

Why would they?

Because they're good guys? Because they feel bad? Because they want you to be happy? 

....

AS A RULE - any offer they do make wíll be a pittance - IF they do make an offer. It' s called "go away and fuck off money". 

If you have a real case - you are LESS likely to get an offer.

They don' t want to pay and the odds are in their favor.

It varies by state - but here in Michigan your odds of winning as a plaintiff are pretty dismal. If you manage to win at trial - the defense will go for appeal - and half of the cases get thrown out without trial in favor of the defense. 

Plus - why offer money? You might die, go to prison - or just plain give up.

They play the odds.

(February 16, 2022 at 9:06 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(February 16, 2022 at 5:12 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: You have a point. Clearly your personal experience is much, MUCH more a reflection of the state of the law than the definition offered by Cornell Law School. Those fuckin' bozos.

Boru

Where in your source does it say the defense MUST offer a settlement?

It doesn't.

Now think this through very carefully.....

Why would they?

Because they're good guys? Because they feel bad? Because they want you to be happy? 

....

AS A RULE - any offer they do make wíll be a pittance - IF they do make an offer. It' s called "go away and fuck off money". 

If you have a real case - you are LESS likely to get an offer.

They don' t want to pay and the odds are in their favor.

It varies by state - but here in Michigan your odds of winning as a plaintiff are pretty dismal. If you manage to win at trial - the defense will go for appeal - and half of the cases get thrown out without trial in favor of the defense. 

Plus - why offer money? You might die, go to prison - or just plain give up.

They play the odds.

Where did *I*say the defense MUST offer a settlement? Pretty sure I never said that, so good job addressing a point nobody made.

Boru

(February 16, 2022 at 11:16 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(February 16, 2022 at 9:06 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Where in your source does it say the defense MUST offer a settlement?

It doesn't.

Now think this through very carefully.....

Why would they?

Because they're good guys? Because they feel bad? Because they want you to be happy? 

....

AS A RULE - any offer they do make wíll be a pittance - IF they do make an offer. It' s called "go away and fuck off money". 

If you have a real case - you are LESS likely to get an offer.

They don' t want to pay and the odds are in their favor.

It varies by state - but here in Michigan your odds of winning as a plaintiff are pretty dismal. If you manage to win at trial - the defense will go for appeal - and half of the cases get thrown out without trial in favor of the defense. 

Plus - why offer money? You might die, go to prison - or just plain give up.

They play the odds.

Where did *I*say the defense MUST offer a settlement? Pretty sure I never said that, so good job addressing a point nobody made.

Boru

Post #4

Quote: In point of fact, it is the defendant who almost always makes the offer of a settlement. Unquote.

(February 16, 2022 at 11:44 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(February 16, 2022 at 11:16 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Where did *I*say the defense MUST offer a settlement? Pretty sure I never said that, so good job addressing a point nobody made.

Boru

Post #4

Quote: In point of fact, it is the defendant who almost always makes the offer of a settlement. Unquote.

Is it the word ‘almost’ that’s giving you trouble?

No one has to offer a settlement ever, in any civil case. But when it is, the offer ALMOST always comes from the defendant.

Boru

Rectal recitation....

A reall offer is like a sasquatch sighting.