Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | reply to PolarBear03
Re: she really has no choice... said by PolarBear03:And if her small law firm can't afford to have it drug out... That's the thing. The RIAA is prepared to outlast even a well-heeled plaintiff in a siege. It's not a matter of refusing outright. The RIAA's lawyers will waste as much time as possible, nit-picking various points, coming to court "unprepared", anything to get yet another continuance.
That's the way that big business operates when they're the target of litigation. They don't need the best lawyers, or anything like that. All they need to do is stall until the plaintiff goes broke after spending so much time in court. That's time that they will not have to earn a living.
Yes, I know that the lawyers typically work to get a percentage of the award, if there is one. But that's only good for so long. To keep afloat financially, the plaintiff's lawyer will need to take on other cases. And the RIAA's lawyers will know when there are conflicts in the lawyer's schedule, and plan accordingly. Meanwhile the plaintiff will have to spend a lot of days in court, being deposed, and taking care of miscellaneous things that their lawyer cannot or will not handle.
Being a single mom is hard enough. Being a single mom who is still paying legal fees from being sued will probably be stretched to the limit. Having a disability on top of it all makes this a tough battle for her.
Sure she'll get her day in court. There's no doubt about that. It's whether she'll win enough, in time to do her any good. |
|
 Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | The situation could be made simple, refuse the god damn continuance by the jury or the judge himself.
Nobody should be able to drag any case for so long and let the problem resolve itself as being forced to settle or continue the case.
Hell, I want a continuance because I need to scratch my balls.
--
Duct tape, saving lives since 1942. |
|
 81399672Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2 | said by Michieru2:The situation could be made simple, refuse the god damn continuance by the jury or the judge himself. Nobody should be able to drag any case for so long and let the problem resolve itself as being forced to settle or continue the case. Hell, I want a continuance because I need to scratch my balls. judge decides regarding continuance
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on tv |
|
|
|
Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | I say make the jury decide if a continuance should be offered.
At least I know if one bastard in that box says no, the continuance can be revoked as it must be agreed upon the jury. I have rather have a few people decide it than just one guy.
--
Duct tape, saving lives since 1942. |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | reply to Time4aNAP
said by Time4aNAP 
[... : The RIAA's lawyers will waste as much time as possible, nit-picking various points, coming to court "unprepared", anything to get yet another continuance. Just an FYI for you, Barnaby - coming to court unprepared does not incline a judge to continue a hearing to a future date. If your atty arrives "unprepared," then it better be because he was just in a horrendous, fiery car wreck and lost 3 limbs as a result.
--
The Toll
|
|
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | Re: Lawyers' Excuses You might think that watching TV. But I've sat in many a courtroom where the case was continued for yet another month because an attorney claimed that he hadn't had "sufficient time" for Discovery, to go over the other party's evidence etc., and therefore wasn't prepared to go to trial just yet. And yes, the judges are quite willing to allow such tactics. Like it or not, that's how the real world works. |
|
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | reply to Michieru2
Re: she really has no choice... said by Michieru2:I say make the jury decide if a continuance should be offered. First of all, the plaintiff is usually pressured into settling for a bench trial, because jury trials are time consuming (remember that Single Mom needs that time as well) and expensive to the taxpayer. "The jury is never happy about you making them sit through a long trial, and they'll blame you since it's your call. You don't want to go into this with one strike against you already, do you?"
For the most part, the stalling takes place before the trial starts, so if there is a jury, they don't see that part anyway. Not that it matters, because it's not their call. The jury's only job is to find for the plaintiff or the defendant, and (sometimes) to decide the degree of culpability and the amount of the award. The judge alone decides how and when the case proceeds. |
|
3 edits | reply to Time4aNAP
Re: Lawyers' Excuses Agreed. I've witnessed this on several occasions now... and no where better to witness this horror of a justice system we have than the great New London Superior Court. Never heard of it? It's the court that decided the eminent domain issue and made it possible for any developer with a hard-on for your property to steal it right out from underneath you (before it was appealed to the Supreme Court where Divine Judge Sutter upheld it). |
|
