If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Miami Herald)   Good news: You won your age discrimination lawsuit. Bad news: You lost $80,000 settlement by violating its confidentiality clause. Fark: Because your daughter bragged about settlement funding her European vacation on Facebook   (miamiherald.com) divider line 107
    More: Florida, age discrimination, Gulliver Schools, Facebook, European Vacation, Gulliver, lawsuits, legal settlements, clauses  
•       •       •

7868 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 5:25 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-28 06:19:02 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: sheep snorter: "Daddy? Where did you get all this money from for my European vacation?"

"I, Uh, Oh, drug dealing. OK, are you happy now."

/farked up 'confidentiality agreement' is farked up.
//Never sign one, you ignorant f*cks.

Hey, he was getting $80k for farking free from a nuisance lawsuit. A free $80k is worth signing an NDA.


Defendants don't pay out $80,000 settlements on "nuisance suits." This was a claim with merit.

Also: if it was a "settlement" nobody "won" the lawsuit. It never went to trial because it was resolved out of court.
 
2014-02-28 06:19:49 PM
I'd hit it.
 
2014-02-28 06:20:41 PM
I dont think I would tell my kids about something like this, probobly my wife though if I had one. She would wondrer where the money came from anyway. I think the hardest part was since she attended the school her dad was headmaster at. She would be privy to things that most people would not.
 
2014-02-28 06:23:30 PM

JohnAnnArbor: BeerBear: [img.fark.net image 400x399]

here's another pic of her, what a charmer

And here she is at a costume party.  Note what the box says.  Classy.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x632]


wow, she really is a moron
 
2014-02-28 06:23:57 PM
There's a Gulliver's Travels joke in there but I can be bothered to ferret it out.
 
2014-02-28 06:24:26 PM

downstairs: I bet both parties were allowed to say "we've settled for an undisclosed sum"


I bet you need to RTFA

The terms hinged on a confidentiality agreement that according to Wells required Snay and his wife to keep the "terms and existence" of the agreement private.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/26/3961605/daughters-facebook-boas t -costs.html#storylink=cpy
 
2014-02-28 06:24:49 PM

Baz744: Also: if it was a "settlement" nobody "won" the lawsuit. It never went to trial because it was resolved out of court.


Exactly.  Essentially the point of settlements is both parties essentially "win."  He gets his money, they don't have their name tarnished.
 
2014-02-28 06:26:11 PM

KidneyStone: downstairs: I bet both parties were allowed to say "we've settled for an undisclosed sum"

I bet you need to RTFA

The terms hinged on a confidentiality agreement that according to Wells required Snay and his wife to keep the "terms and existence" of the agreement private.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/26/3961605/daughters-facebook-boas t -costs.html#storylink=cpy


Ok, sorry... I'm wrong then.  I was just assuming, based on how many news stories mentioned "they settled for an undisclosed amount, neither admitting fault"... etc...

All good... he was in the wrong then.  As was she.
 
2014-02-28 06:27:25 PM

StopLurkListen: I don't really care about the case -- other than it sucks to have something ganked away by lawyers.
Lawyers are awful, soulless subhuman evil parasites.

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 420x250]


Um, keep in mind that they only got the settlement in the first place due to lawyers.
 
2014-02-28 06:28:56 PM

Baz744: Debeo Summa Credo: sheep snorter: "Daddy? Where did you get all this money from for my European vacation?"

"I, Uh, Oh, drug dealing. OK, are you happy now."

/farked up 'confidentiality agreement' is farked up.
//Never sign one, you ignorant f*cks.

Hey, he was getting $80k for farking free from a nuisance lawsuit. A free $80k is worth signing an NDA.

Defendants don't pay out $80,000 settlements on "nuisance suits." This was a claim with merit.

Also: if it was a "settlement" nobody "won" the lawsuit. It never went to trial because it was resolved out of court.


It's an age discrimination suit. By definition its a nuisance lawsuit.

The school paid to avoid the risk of a jury giving him more, and asked that he sign an NDA. If he didn't want to sign the NDA, he was free to go to court.

Anyway, in the end justice seems to have been served here. Other than the school having to pay the lawyer fees.
 
2014-02-28 06:33:55 PM
Facebook for the win.
 
2014-02-28 06:35:33 PM
Oh I would be SOOOO pissed at my kid.
 
2014-02-28 06:41:23 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: It's an age discrimination suit. By definition its a nuisance lawsuit.


No.
 
2014-02-28 06:48:47 PM

Geotpf: StopLurkListen: I don't really care about the case -- other than it sucks to have something ganked away by lawyers.
Lawyers are awful, soulless subhuman evil parasites.

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 420x250]

Um, keep in mind that they only got the settlement in the first place due to lawyers.


And that they signed off on the settlement rather than actually pursuing and winning the case in court, in which case they could have talked about it as much as they wanted. Keeping the settlement secret seems a fairly reasonable restriction given that the general perception of a settlement is that the party settling must be guilty, which largely leads to settlements often being pointless unless such restrictions are allowed.
 
2014-02-28 06:51:12 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Baz744: Debeo Summa Credo: sheep snorter: "Daddy? Where did you get all this money from for my European vacation?"

"I, Uh, Oh, drug dealing. OK, are you happy now."

/farked up 'confidentiality agreement' is farked up.
//Never sign one, you ignorant f*cks.

Hey, he was getting $80k for farking free from a nuisance lawsuit. A free $80k is worth signing an NDA.

Defendants don't pay out $80,000 settlements on "nuisance suits." This was a claim with merit.

Also: if it was a "settlement" nobody "won" the lawsuit. It never went to trial because it was resolved out of court.

It's an age discrimination suit. By definition its a nuisance lawsuit.

The school paid to avoid the risk of a jury giving him more, and asked that he sign an NDA. If he didn't want to sign the NDA, he was free to go to court.

Anyway, in the end justice seems to have been served here. Other than the school having to pay the lawyer fees.


Wikipedia redirects from "nuisance lawsuit" to "frivolous litigation." It in turn defines "frivolous litigation" as: "the practice of starting or carrying on lawsuits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won."

This Harvard paper proposing a solution to the problem of nuisance suits defines "nuisance suit" as: "a legal action in which the plaintiff's case is sufficiently weak that he would be unwilling to pursue it at trial."

Neither of these definitions comport with your usage, which in effect describes "all lawsuits." One of the principle incentives for defendants to settle in most cases is that the jury might award more than what the plaintiff is willing to settle for.

I know you are a Republican. I know it infuriates you that laws sometimes compel you to act in accordance with the dictates of public morality instead of private financial interest. I know you think you should have the right to fire someone any time you want, for whatever reason you want, ranging from refusal to give you a blowjob to race to age.

What you need to recognize, though, is that your anger doesn't reflect a flaw in the system, but rather a defect in your own character. The system isn't bad. You are.
 
2014-02-28 06:55:58 PM

Tillmaster: LZeitgeist: Did the school's lawyers have the daughter sign the confidentiality agreement? Since she was being directly affected by the events and outcome, they should have had her sign as well, but they didn't.

Suck it, school - pay up!

Nice try, but her father broke the agreement by telling her.


Because no one ever inferred anything every before.
 
2014-02-28 06:56:27 PM
Just sell the rights to your story and make a movie or book out of it. They'll easily make that paltry $80k back and make that company look like asses. win-win
 
2014-02-28 07:05:52 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: "Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT."

Something tells me she just cost herself a European vacation. Too bad, I've heard they're pretty awesome.

[rstvideo.com image 850x478]


Don't worry, she'll be replaced by the next movie anyway.
 
2014-02-28 07:09:41 PM

Baz744: Debeo Summa Credo: Baz744: Debeo Summa Credo: sheep snorter: "Daddy? Where did you get all this money from for my European vacation?"

"I, Uh, Oh, drug dealing. OK, are you happy now."

/farked up 'confidentiality agreement' is farked up.
//Never sign one, you ignorant f*cks.

Hey, he was getting $80k for farking free from a nuisance lawsuit. A free $80k is worth signing an NDA.

Defendants don't pay out $80,000 settlements on "nuisance suits." This was a claim with merit.

Also: if it was a "settlement" nobody "won" the lawsuit. It never went to trial because it was resolved out of court.

It's an age discrimination suit. By definition its a nuisance lawsuit.

The school paid to avoid the risk of a jury giving him more, and asked that he sign an NDA. If he didn't want to sign the NDA, he was free to go to court.

Anyway, in the end justice seems to have been served here. Other than the school having to pay the lawyer fees.

Wikipedia redirects from "nuisance lawsuit" to "frivolous litigation." It in turn defines "frivolous litigation" as: "the practice of starting or carrying on lawsuits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won."

This Harvard paper proposing a solution to the problem of nuisance suits defines "nuisance suit" as: "a legal action in which the plaintiff's case is sufficiently weak that he would be unwilling to pursue it at trial."

Neither of these definitions comport with your usage, which in effect describes "all lawsuits." One of the principle incentives for defendants to settle in most cases is that the jury might award more than what the plaintiff is willing to settle for.

I know you are a Republican. I know it infuriates you that laws sometimes compel you to act in accordance with the dictates of public morality instead of private financial interest. I know you think you should have the right to fire someone any time you want, for whatever reason you want, ranging from refusal to give you a blowjob to race ...


www.juliencasses.com
 
2014-02-28 07:25:20 PM

God-is-a-Taco: LZeitgeist: Did the school's lawyers have the daughter sign the confidentiality agreement? Since she was being directly affected by the events and outcome, they should have had her sign as well, but they didn't.

The daughter learned of the confidential agreement because he told her. He blew it.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-28 07:36:36 PM

LZeitgeist: Tillmaster: LZeitgeist: Did the school's lawyers have the daughter sign the confidentiality agreement? Since she was being directly affected by the events and outcome, they should have had her sign as well, but they didn't.

Suck it, school - pay up!

Nice try, but her father broke the agreement by telling her.

TFA says that the daughter was being directly affected by the events at school since she attended there - how could they legally be forced *not* to tell her?


They could legally be forced not to tell her because they voluntarily signed a contract in which, in exchange for $80k, they agreed not to tell her or anyone else about the case. They broke that contract, therefore, they do not get the agreed-upon payment.

www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-02-28 07:46:32 PM
StopLurkListen:
Lawyers are awful, soulless subhuman evil parasites.

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 420x250]


...except when you need one.

Listen, I hate frivolous and unnecesary lawsuits too.  But it's an easy punchline to say "farkin lawyers, yeah!"  But without lawyers and their silly lawsuits, we wouldn't have: desegregated schools (Brown v. Board of Education), legal blowjobs (Lawrence v. Texas), Miranda v. Arizona and countless others.

/Not a lawyer
//not related to one
 
2014-02-28 08:05:04 PM

RyansPrivates: StopLurkListen:
Lawyers are awful, soulless subhuman evil parasites.

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 420x250]

...except when you need one.

Listen, I hate frivolous and unnecesary lawsuits too.  But it's an easy punchline to say "farkin lawyers, yeah!"  But without lawyers and their silly lawsuits, we wouldn't have: desegregated schools (Brown v. Board of Education), legal blowjobs (Lawrence v. Texas), Miranda v. Arizona and countless others.

/Not a lawyer
//not related to one


------------------------------------------

If there were no lawyers, you wouldn't need one.  The same cannot be said for most other professions.
 
2014-02-28 08:07:19 PM

Theaetetus: LZeitgeist: Tillmaster: LZeitgeist: Did the school's lawyers have the daughter sign the confidentiality agreement? Since she was being directly affected by the events and outcome, they should have had her sign as well, but they didn't.

Suck it, school - pay up!

Nice try, but her father broke the agreement by telling her.

TFA says that the daughter was being directly affected by the events at school since she attended there - how could they legally be forced *not* to tell her?

They could legally be forced not to tell her because they voluntarily signed a contract in which, in exchange for $80k, they agreed not to tell her or anyone else about the case. They broke that contract, therefore, they do not get the agreed-upon payment.

[www.quickmeme.com image 625x468]


These seems to be the parts that people are having a hard getting their brains around:
1) "they voluntarily signed a contract" (there were no guns aimed at his head, etc.)
2) "They broke that contract" (he did not do what he said he would do, thus, the other side doesn't have to do what it said it would do)
 Oh yeah, and now, the sad trombone, please!
 
2014-02-28 08:22:20 PM
Great, now he can sue his daughter for $80k. Better grab some extra shifts at Starbucks, missy.
 
2014-02-28 08:31:03 PM

God-is-a-Taco: God-is-a-Taco:
The daughter learned of the confidential agreement because he told her. He blew it.

Oh and for the record, if I had a daughter in that situation I would have told her . It's his fault for being ignorant of the child he raised.

Also, the dude is 69 with a daughter in that was just in gradeschool. I won't feel bad for him and his young trophy wife.


Not in grade school, she attends Boston College. Here is her picture.

l1.yimg.com
 
2014-02-28 08:34:50 PM

StopLurkListen: By the way, 1200 friends on Facebook?

That's ridiculous. Do people just accept/send invites to anything with a pulse?


Actually by the average teenage girls' standard that number is pretty low.
 
2014-02-28 08:50:07 PM
As the former President of the Stoner's Club of Gulliver I am getting a kick out of.....
 
2014-02-28 08:53:29 PM

Warlordtrooper: Such clauses in settlements should be banned because they are blatantly unconstitutional.


Except they're blatantly not.

Under the laws of practically everywhere, settlement offers and deals cannot be subsequently used in any litigation. So such clauses prevent both sides from later whipping out such agreements and saying "But you settled with Joe Schmoe for $80K in THAT case, why won't you agree to $80K for MY client in THIS case you sleazy cheap piece of garbage?!?" Settlement arrangements need to be confidential so that sleazy cheap companies will be encouraged to settle without fear that their settlements will be used against them later in court by other litigants.

Sorry, you lose this round.
 
2014-02-28 09:00:40 PM
ftfa: Dad is 69 and this 'genius' daughter of his is in high school.

And we just had that link re: how children of old dads are subpar?... there's your proof.
 
2014-02-28 09:10:21 PM
she done goofed. its just that simple.

that said i hate stipulations like this.

also i wonder if the daughter's action could affect the settlement if she was not party to it, ah well easy come easy go.
 
2014-02-28 09:16:52 PM

bratface: God-is-a-Taco: God-is-a-Taco:
The daughter learned of the confidential agreement because he told her. He blew it.

Oh and for the record, if I had a daughter in that situation I would have told her . It's his fault for being ignorant of the child he raised.

Also, the dude is 69 with a daughter in that was just in gradeschool. I won't feel bad for him and his young trophy wife.

Not in grade school, she attends Boston College. Here is her picture.

[l1.yimg.com image 400x399]


I'm kind of surprised that she screw something up of this magnitude.
 
pla
2014-02-28 09:30:07 PM
I see a lot of schadenfreude going on in here, but it surprises me no one has a problem with the bigger issue here that this school broke the law, got spanked for it in court, yet somehow magically get to keep that news out of the press?

They should need to publish an apology in the goddamned New York Times, and lose the right to hire or fire anyone without running it past the DA for the next 50 years!  But oh, no, they lost a paltry 80k, and that in a secret verdict?  Fark that!

/ That said... Get out of the fast lane, fogeys!
// Handbasket, please...
 
2014-02-28 09:31:37 PM
He should have just said based on my mood change and us buying her a vacation she assumed we won the settlement. But he admitted he told the daughter, he does have a good reason for telling her though if your daughter was upset about what happened telling her you won your case is logical.
 
2014-02-28 09:34:52 PM

weapon13: Warlordtrooper: weapon13: This family learned a valuable lesson... Keep your mouths shut.

Perhaps if the school did't want people to know they discriminated based on age, then instead of trying to silence people they should perhaps not discriminate by age.

I'm not cheering for the school, what they did was wrong. What I'm trying to say is that some NDAs are pure BS but they are legal. Come on, If you were in that situation, would you sign, keep your mouth shut and get $80,000 or tell everyone and get $0?


None of the above.  Take the case to court and either get jackschit or a payday with no strings attached.  Cause you know that with an NDA like that, the school is going to be watching everyone's public social media for a hint of breaking the NDA.  I'm sure they'd have a fill-in-the-blank letter sitting on the lawyers desk with "You violated the NDA with ___________.  Pony up the payment, biatch.  Signed, Dewey Screwem Esq".
 
2014-02-28 09:41:07 PM

pla: the bigger issue here that this school broke the law, got spanked for it in court, yet somehow magically get to keep that news out of the press?


Behold, the magical power of the confidentiality agreement.
 
2014-02-28 09:44:42 PM

TOSViolation: RyansPrivates: StopLurkListen:
Lawyers are awful, soulless subhuman evil parasites.

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 420x250]

...except when you need one.

Listen, I hate frivolous and unnecesary lawsuits too.  But it's an easy punchline to say "farkin lawyers, yeah!"  But without lawyers and their silly lawsuits, we wouldn't have: desegregated schools (Brown v. Board of Education), legal blowjobs (Lawrence v. Texas), Miranda v. Arizona and countless others.

/Not a lawyer
//not related to one

------------------------------------------

If there were no lawyers, you wouldn't need one.  The same cannot be said for most other professions.


Not sure if serious...

We need lawyers because we have laws and a court system.  I'm just curious how you would conduct trials?  Everyone represent themselves? What about if the defendant is under age? Mentally incompetant?  Or if someone sells you food a product that maims you, blinds you, etc, because of negligence what then?

Listen, I don't like the frivolous nature of some of the shiat that goes down, but it sure as hell beats anarchy.
 
2014-02-28 09:45:30 PM

DarthBart: None of the above.  Take the case to court and either get jackschit or a payday with no strings attached.


More like take the case to court for the slight chance of a small payday which gets almost entirely eaten up by legal fees, a far larger chance of jackschit with a $100k bill for the school's legal fees, or sign on the dotted line and keep your mouth shut for a guaranteed $80k.
 
2014-02-28 09:57:54 PM

Gordon Bennett: Anayalator: I didn't know you could take a European vacation on Facebook. Sounds sucky.


You don't even need Facebook. Here's a trip to France.
[www.bundyology.com image 512x384]


Oh man we're broke cha cha cha,
everybody flat broke cha cha cha
livin` in the gutter cha cha cha
early gra-ave cha cha cha
ok, everybody SHOOT ME!
 
2014-02-28 10:13:14 PM

skinink: She'll always have Paris, Texas or Beslippers. Maine as a consolation prize.


i3.ytimg.com

And no pics of Euro Trip?  Farkers are slippe
 
2014-02-28 10:31:13 PM

the ha ha guy: DarthBart: None of the above.  Take the case to court and either get jackschit or a payday with no strings attached.

More like take the case to court for the slight chance of a small payday which gets almost entirely eaten up by legal fees, a far larger chance of jackschit with a $100k bill for the school's legal fees, or sign on the dotted line and keep your mouth shut for a guaranteed $80k.


Nope, fark that. I don't play carrot on a stick games.
 
2014-02-28 10:38:48 PM

StopLurkListen: I don't really care about the case -- other than it sucks to have something ganked away by lawyers.
Lawyers are awful, soulless subhuman evil parasites.

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 420x250]


You do know Shakespeare was actually stating that lawyers protect society from tyranny and injustice, right? That quote from Henry VI is actually an uttered prerequisite to overthrowing the government and replacing it with tyranny.

Although I am in favor of tort reform, I do believe the government and corporations need someone to keep them in check and so far there's nothing like pecuniary interest to do it. I'm not too thrilled with class-actions where lawyers get millions and plaintiff's get $1.00 off their next bill, or frivolous cases that are settled to save the cost of a defense, but I really don't want corporations being able to calculate the risk/profit on unsafe products or deplorable conditions. Lawsuits, and the unknown verdict of the jury, help. As for the government, only the extremely naive would accept the government being able to exclusively oversee itself. On a micro scale, just think about every police internal affairs investigation - how many end up with a finding against the police even when the facts are blatantly obvious? On a macro scale, we're seeing right now what a government without oversight can do to our privacy and liberties.

Incidentally, dispute resolution is one of the first things a society creates. People have been arguing, and seeking outside assistance in resolving those arguments, literally since the dawn of humanity. As society becomes more advanced it also becomes more specialized, hence lawyers.

And no, I really don't know why I'm bothering to argue reason to the fark community...
 
2014-02-28 11:02:05 PM

pla: I see a lot of schadenfreude going on in here, but it surprises me no one has a problem with the bigger issue here that this school broke the law, got spanked for it in court, yet somehow magically get to keep that news out of the press?

They should need to publish an apology in the goddamned New York Times, and lose the right to hire or fire anyone without running it past the DA for the next 50 years!  But oh, no, they lost a paltry 80k, and that in a secret verdict?  Fark that!

/ That said... Get out of the fast lane, fogeys!
// Handbasket, please...


Troll or dumb or didn't read it?  Now's your chance to decide!
 
2014-03-01 12:50:43 AM

Warlordtrooper: Such clauses in settlements should be banned because they are blatantly unconstitutional.


Not sure if serious.

The school says they will pay $80k if he keeps it quiet. He agrees. He doesn't keep it quiet. He breaks agreement and returns money. Simple.
 
2014-03-01 01:01:47 AM
claimed age discrimination and retaliation that involved his daughter

she ... was aware that they were in mediation with Gulliver attorneys.


How could they hide it from her? They get that far, then all of a sudden, "suit, what suit, honey?"

Snay, however, immediately told his daughter that he'd settled and was happy with the results.

Isn't the typical agreement something like: only say "we had a disagreement, but it was resolved to our mutual satisfaction"? (IANAL, but have seen a couple) And if she wasn't party to the agreement, she isn't bound by it, is she?

Sounds like their effort to cover it up failed without any real violation, and they're trying to use that to weasel out of it.
 
2014-03-01 01:58:19 AM

Gyrfalcon: Warlordtrooper: Such clauses in settlements should be banned because they are blatantly unconstitutional.

Except they're blatantly not.


This. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." That is, the *government* can't restrict your freedom of speech. It doesn't restrict private parties.

Under the laws of practically everywhere, settlement offers and deals cannot be subsequently used in any litigation. So such clauses prevent both sides from later whipping out such agreements and saying "But you settled with Joe Schmoe for $80K in THAT case, why won't you agree to $80K for MY client in THIS case you sleazy cheap piece of garbage?!?" Settlement arrangements need to be confidential so that sleazy cheap companies will be encouraged to settle without fear that their settlements will be used against them later in court by other litigants.

"Cannot be used in litigation" doesn't mean they're required to be confidential, does it? On the contrary, if can't be used against them in court, they don't need to keep it confidential to prevent that, right?

IANAL, and I realize it's naive to think it would matter. Of course they're going to want to hide it for a variety of reasons, and they're going to insist that non-disclosure be part of the terms.

What particularly bothers me is when it's about a defective product or other issue that hurts people, and the company uses that to cover it up and goes right on hurting people. (There are a number of examples, but I'm too lazy to look them up right now.)
 
2014-03-01 02:43:38 AM
lh3.ggpht.com
 
2014-03-01 03:03:52 AM
FTFA, IANAL:

The parties agreed an NDA. In addition to ensuring the existence of the settlement was not disclosed, it probably had a clause that in the event of any dispute about implementation of the settlement, there could be recourse to legal action.

Father tells daughter (would have been OK if she kept her mouth shut).

Daughter tells world, *thus demonstrating father has breached NDA*.

School refuses to pay up.

Per the agreement, father brings the matter before the court to enforce payment.

Court listens to school's defence, agrees that bragging about the agreement to 1200 people on FB means the NDA has not been kept confidential, and upholds school's refusal to pay.

Sounds like lose/lose to me.
 
2014-03-01 04:19:16 AM
He's not just out the 80k, now he has to pay his lawyers. He's out about $150k that the school was gonna pay.

That's not including the lawyers fees from the appeals.
 
2014-03-01 04:20:30 AM

Dacker: StopLurkListen: I don't really care about the case -- other than it sucks to have something ganked away by lawyers.
Lawyers are awful, soulless subhuman evil parasites.

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 420x250]

You do know Shakespeare was actually stating that lawyers protect society from tyranny and injustice, right? That quote from Henry VI is actually an uttered prerequisite to overthrowing the government and replacing it with tyranny.

Although I am in favor of tort reform, I do believe the government and corporations need someone to keep them in check and so far there's nothing like pecuniary interest to do it. I'm not too thrilled with class-actions where lawyers get millions and plaintiff's get $1.00 off their next bill, or frivolous cases that are settled to save the cost of a defense, but I really don't want corporations being able to calculate the risk/profit on unsafe products or deplorable conditions. Lawsuits, and the unknown verdict of the jury, help. As for the government, only the extremely naive would accept the government being able to exclusively oversee itself. On a micro scale, just think about every police internal affairs investigation - how many end up with a finding against the police even when the facts are blatantly obvious? On a macro scale, we're seeing right now what a government without oversight can do to our privacy and liberties.

Incidentally, dispute resolution is one of the first things a society creates. People have been arguing, and seeking outside assistance in resolving those arguments, literally since the dawn of humanity. As society becomes more advanced it also becomes more specialized, hence lawyers.

And no, I really don't know why I'm bothering to argue reason to the fark community...


Keep fighting the good fight!

/fist bump for making the effort.
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report