• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The Convoluted Conundrum of Court

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Does anyone else here feel our system of justice has failed us? Who here believes that far too many lawyers, who are technically officers of the court, lie six ways to Sunday because they're far more concerned about winning their cases than ensuring, as is their duty as officers of the court, justice is appropriately dispensed? Who here has seen a judge, when faced with a preponderance of evidence towards one conclusion, decide to the contrary based on nothing more than she's worked with the opposing attorney for a number of years and that she "trusts him implicitly?"

The ^^^above^^^ is true, and despite all parties, including the judge, having been delivered a certain piece of paper well ahead of court, despite that same piece of paper being presented in court, under oath, and admitted to the court record, the judge, chums of the other attorney, sided with that attorney in her decision, even going so far as to claim, "I have yet to see any evidence of the alleged document in question."

Fortunately, based on the document, the court record, filings by the attorney, and the judge's ruling, the attorney was censured and suspended from practicing law for six months. Unfortunately, that does little harm to a lawyer practicing in a firm, as they're still allowed to do work as a paralegal. About the only thing they cannot do is represent a client.

Since it was his antics in violation of his oath of office which cost me more than $20,000, I'd have preferred to see him censured and suspended from practicing law for three months while being forced to pay me 25% of the mean of his annual gross income for the previous three years. That would have just about covered the debt while sending a clear message to other attorneys: Quit Lying.

What about the judge? Was she censured? Was she forced to vacate or change her previous decision?

Nope. She, the ultimate authority in this debacle, got away scott-free, and I was the one left holding the $20,000 loss.

Pardon me if I do not appear to hold the courts or out system of justice in high esteem. In my experience, they have yet to earn it, while having most certainly earned loads of disdain.

Well, that's my story. Let's hear yours! Perhaps someone within the system will read this and think twice about just how much deceit and subterfuge can cost an innocent party.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Two things brought this to mind this morning:

1. The 15-year anniversary of the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. Apparently, there's much more to the issue than an apparently frivilous lawsuit.

2. Convicted murder testifies contrary to previous disclosure to another inmate. Amanda Knox remains jailed. How much you want to bet the prosecution, eager to keep Knox behind bars, offered Guede early release or transfer to an easier prison in exchange for him recanting his previous statements?

Since-what's the ribbon after the Air Medal? I don't recognize it.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
Two things brought this to mind this morning:

1. The 15-year anniversary of the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. Apparently, there's much more to the issue than an apparently frivilous lawsuit.

2. Convicted murder testifies contrary to previous disclosure to another inmate. Amanda Knox remains jailed. How much you want to bet the prosecution, eager to keep Knox behind bars, offered Guede early release or transfer to an easier prison in exchange for him recanting his previous statements?

#1. Yes, I agree. Any idiot who needs a warning label to know coffee is hot is probably too stupid to read the label anyway. In cases like this the justice system is being abused. Unfortunately those within the justice system that could of stopped this lawsuit from progressing did not.

2. That case is playing out in Italy's court system not ours so I can't say too much about that one.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
#1. Yes, I agree. Any idiot who needs a warning label to know coffee is hot is probably too stupid to read the label anyway. In cases like this the justice system is being abused. Unfortunately those within the justice system that could of stopped this lawsuit from progressing did not.

Have you actually read the McDonald's coffee case facts?
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
In regards to the McD issue, both parties are at fault. There is no reason for the coffee to have been so hot that it caused second degree burns (that is excessively hot), but at the same time the woman should have realized "duh, coffee=hot" and not of needed a label.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
In regards to the McD issue, both parties are at fault. There is no reason for the coffee to have been so hot that it caused second degree burns (that is excessively hot), but at the same time the woman should have realized "duh, coffee=hot" and not of needed a label.

Third degree burns.

And the court did assign split fault. She was partially at fault for the coffee being spilled. McDonald's was partially at fault for having way f'ing hot coffee...
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Third degree burns.

And the court did assign split fault. She was partially at fault for the coffee being spilled. McDonald's was partially at fault for having way f'ing hot coffee...

And the end result is now we often have tepid coffee by the time we get around to drinking the coffee.

I am split on that case, opinion wise, yes she got burned but guys like me in construction on a cold day working outside want our coffee as hot as possible by the time we get to the jobsite. But do understand that yikes they fried (boiled?) an old lady.
 
Last edited:
Top