PYF Idiot Lawsuit

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Idiot Lawsuit

Sic Semper Goon: Mar 1, 2015; Eu tu?; Switchblade Switcharoo

Never actually got to be a lawsuit, but:

There was once a co-worker at my old workplace called Craig. Everyone loathed Craig because he was arrogant, belligerent and lazy. Craig had a apparently mentally defective girlfriend, whose name I no longer recall.

Craig's girlfriend one day decided that, no doubt due to Craig's interpretation of events about work, that we were all terrible people who deliberately kept Craig late at work, as opposed to him being lazy, and decided to post the following on Facebook.

"I can't wait until Craig gets home, from those arseholes at *WORKPLACE*."

Now, a relatively normal human being would have just ignored it, what with being a mild insult on the internet.

My old manager "Sniveler" was not such a man. He was both as arrogant as it is possible to be, and had an extremely fragile and tender ego. Like most petty people around here, he threatened to use the legal system for everything that irritated him (read: everything in general).

Apparently, in the 12 hours between the woman posting the comment, and I turning up to work the following day (8PM to 8AM), he *apparently* contacted a lawyer, who *apparently* told him that this was clearly a case of libel.

Now, on the assumption that he somehow got a hold of a lawyer in the middle of the night, there were several holes in his case:

* Libel is making false claims, not insults.
* This was unbelievably petty and wasting the court's time.
* The rest of us were more than happy to roll our eyes and move on.
* Even if this went to court and inexplicably won, said girlfriend was an art student on the centrelink, and had nothing to pay damages.

Sadly, the phantom lawyer didn't actually start a lawsuit, as that would have been entertaining.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 00:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 00:47

NinetySevenA: Feb 10, 2013

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

I kind of wish he won a Harrier. Either way it's an idiot lawsuit.

# ? Apr 2, 2016 05:24

AlphaKretin: Dec 25, 2014; A vase to face encounter.

...Vase to meet you?

...

GARVASE DAY!

It's been linked to already for specific examples, but Lowering the Bar is a worthwhile browse and could go in the OP.

# ? Apr 2, 2016 10:06

Drone_Fragger: May 9, 2007

NinetySevenA posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

I kind of wish he won a Harrier. Either way it's an idiot lawsuit.

People with that much money to just throw away on frivilous bullshit are the reason america is electing Donald Trump as the republican candidates.

I did like some of the courts comments from that though:

"The callow youth featured in the commercial is a highly improbable pilot, one who could barely be trusted with the keys to his parents' car, much less the prize aircraft of the United States Marine Corps."

Rip that actors career, I guess.

# ? Apr 2, 2016 10:26

Hermsgerv�rden: Apr 23, 2004; Møøse Trainer

http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000002847155/verbatim-what-is-a-photocopier.html

What, really, is a photocopier?

# ? Apr 3, 2016 00:04

christmas boots: Oct 15, 2012; To these sing-alongs 🎤of siren 🧜🏻‍♀️songs
To oohs😮 to ahhs😱 to 👏big👏applause👏
With all of my 😡anger I scream🤬 and shout📢
🇺🇸America🦅, I love you 🥰but you're freaking 💦me 😳out; Biscuit Hider

Drone_Fragger posted:

People with that much money to just throw away on frivilous bullshit are the reason america is electing Donald Trump as the republican candidates.

I did like some of the courts comments from that though:

"The callow youth featured in the commercial is a highly improbable pilot, one who could barely be trusted with the keys to his parents' car, much less the prize aircraft of the United States Marine Corps."

Rip that actors career, I guess.

Are case decisions always like that? I'd probably read more of I knew that judges were having fun with it.

"The teenager's comment that flying a Harrier Jet to school 'sure beats the bus' evinces an improbably insouciant attitude toward the relative difficulty and danger of piloting a fighter plane in a residential area."

# ? Apr 3, 2016 19:21

du -hast: Mar 12, 2003; BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT GENTOO

Noooo this thread can't die

# ? Apr 5, 2016 16:20

Teddybear: May 16, 2009; Look! A teddybear doll!
It's soooo cute!

Geniasis posted:

Are case decisions always like that? I'd probably read more of I knew that judges were having fun with it.

"The teenager's comment that flying a Harrier Jet to school 'sure beats the bus' evinces an improbably insouciant attitude toward the relative difficulty and danger of piloting a fighter plane in a residential area."

Some judges have fun with their decisions and try to make the law accessible.

Selya, on the First Circuit, writes like a pompous rear end.

An Actual Selya Decision that Just Came Out posted:

"Finding the plaintiff's antitrust claims wanting and
its companion claims equally impuissant, the district court
entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant."

"These abecedarian principles are sufficient to resolve
the case at hand."

"Instead, we reject Flovac's argument as
sheer persiflage."

The man takes great pride in making poo poo opaque and making it difficult for the layman to understand what's happening. It's elitist garbage and it's counterproductive to democracy.

# ? Apr 5, 2016 16:58

im pooping!: Nov 17, 2006

in the words of my 12th grade english teacher:

eschew obfuscation

# ? Apr 5, 2016 17:04

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

quote:

On this note. We had a local business owner buy 600 dollars in shoes. The check passed the screening system, but bounced. However you can put a check through twice before not being allowed to deposit it again. The guy refused to return the shoes, so my boss held that check and called the bank every day for 2 weeks. Eventually the lady at the bank was used to talking to him and called him to say there were enough funds for the check to clear. Apparently the guy was an rear end to the cashier and she recognized his name from checking his balance daily. He drove down and cashed the check, and deposited it in his register. The guy calls him and is loving livid. I can hear him screaming obscenities at him at the top of his lungs. Apparently the guy put just enough in the bank to clear a check for a ticket, and the department issued a warrant for his arrest for writing a hot check.

# ? Apr 9, 2016 14:31

Gridlocked: Aug 2, 2014; MR. STUPID MORON
WITH AN UGLY FACE
AND A BIG BUTT
AND HIS BUTT SMELLS
AND HE LIKES TO KISS
HIS OWN BUTT
by Roger Hargreaves

tentative8e8op posted:

Oh my god, the list really keeps going for 57 pages

Hahaha the loving Warsaw Pact

# ? Apr 9, 2016 16:14

im pooping!: Nov 17, 2006

hey my dnd character is a level 11 Shite Cleric

# ? Apr 9, 2016 17:10

Stex T: Mar 7, 2005; Shut the fuck up and get out. Have fun being a slave of the rich and powerful.

Alex Kozinski is my hero and I was sad when he didn't get the Supreme Court nod.

quote:

MCA filed a counterclaim for defamation based on the Mattel representative's use of the words �bank robber,� �heist,� �crime� and �theft.� But all of these are variants of the invective most often hurled at accused infringers, namely �piracy.� No one hearing this accusation understands intellectual property owners to be saying that infringers are nautical cutthroats with eyepatches and peg legs who board galleons to plunder cargo. In context, all these terms are nonactionable �rhetorical hyperbole,� Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 863 (9th Cir.1999). The parties are advised to chill.

Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2002)

# ? Apr 9, 2016 19:25

ugh its Troika: May 2, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Abovethelaw seems to think Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker is BS, so I'm not sure how much I'm willing to trust them.

# ? Apr 9, 2016 20:41

Drone_Fragger: May 9, 2007

I mean, gawker did do everything within their power to make the jury detest them, so I guess there is that.

# ? Apr 11, 2016 07:42

Aphrodite: Jun 27, 2006

He also bribed his (ex-)friend to change his position, so I mean obviously it's bullshit.

# ? Apr 11, 2016 13:53

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Beekeeping and You posted:

Any insane documents that the government is forced to look at is fine for the sake of this thread, because I don't want to limit the schadenfreude

Around ten years ago, this was mailed to a large international investment bank where it was passed to a friend who works in compliance, who was told he could share it as long as nothing identifying the bank was included. Any big financial institution out there has received these, so that's not a problem.

[edit: going to blur out some personal information and put the links back up]

Sadly, Odell Shannon Jr. is actually a homeless man from IL who floats back and forth between homeless shelters and jail and (I am not a psychologist, but,) probably suffers from untreated schizophrenia.

GWBBQ has a new favorite as of 22:59 on Apr 20, 2016

# ? Apr 13, 2016 03:17

RNG: Jul 9, 2009

GWBBQ posted:

Sadly, Odell Shannon Jr. is actually a homeless man from IL who floats back and forth between homeless shelters and jail and (I am not a psychologist, but,) probably suffers from untreated schizophrenia.

I always want to give these people the benefit of the doubt but then they break into "are you sick fag" or racism and it's like well, no, not cute anymore.

# ? Apr 13, 2016 04:08

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

SheriffCreepy on Reddit posted:

Ah the ghost.

Okay, so, in the first place it's always nice to get a client from a business card you left at a diner. It means people pick those things up. However, when leaving business cards at diners in certain areas of town, I should expect some issues.

This call came through on a dreary December day as I was sipping coffee and watching the snow fall. The caller ID read that it was the local hospital, and as I picked up I spoke to a rather frantic young man who informed me he was being held against his will and he needed an attorney to help him. When I asked where he was, he simply said "the 5th floor." While this may sound innocuous, every hospital has a "5th Floor," where Napoleon roams the halls freely and the residents speak to their imaginary friends who may, or may not, have been an influencing factor in why they decided that clothing was a way for the government to track them and therefore the only solution was to create Poop Pants to throw off the monitoring ability of the CIA.

Long story short on this portion, within an hour of the call a friend had dropped off my fee, and I was en route to the Fifth Floor to meet with my new client. I assumed it would be an involuntary committal defense, and after speaking with my client I gauged that, while the man was most definitely in need of mental care, he was not a danger to himself or others and was unlikely to be one. He had, in my opinion, been forced to agree to being committed by his probation officer, and frankly I wasn't going to let that stand. I got the name of some contacts from his treatment plan who were willing to vouch that he had, until recently, been compliant with his medications, and contacted his social worker who was able to confirm that, yes, since he had ceased taking the medication due to an inability to afford the medications, the county would assist him with it. A slam dunk, I would simply swing my big lawyer dick around the mental ward and get him released, then appear in the Court to defend against the involuntary committal.

Within 24 hours of being committed, my client was back at home. A hearing was set a couple weeks in the future, and I did daily checks to be certain he was compliant with his medication leading up to the hearing...until the one day I didn't.

A call from the local police was my tip off. An older officer, one I was familiar with, called to advise they had responded to a disturbance at my client's home. He apparently had been screaming in an empty room loud enough that the neighbors were concerned and called the police. The police officer, a friendly sort, gauged the situation and decided my client wasn't a threat, but asked what the situation was.

"The ghost," my client had responded, "The ghost won't get out and it won't leave me alone."

"Well," said the officer, "I can tell it to leave."

So he did. He told the ghost to leave. And then, apparently for shits and giggles, told him that it was a "civil matter" if the ghost refused to leave, and therefore an attorney would need to be contacted. At which point my client dropped my name....which resulted in the cop giving me a heads up.

So, I call my client...who is inconsolable at the concept of sharing his home with the ghost. Keep in mind, I've been to this guy's house. This is the first I've heard of a ghost. But there is a competency hearing on the horizon, and this will not play well in front of the judge.

"The cop said it's a civil matter," my client repeated about the 18th time after I told him I was not, in fact, a priest, but was a lawyer and didn't know how to perform an exorcism.

"What do you want me to do," I snapped a bit, "Evict it?"

There are moments in time when you should keep your mouth shut. This is one of them, because the immediate response was "CAN YOU? THAT'D BE GREAT!"

Well poo poo.

So, long story short, I ended up driving out there with a "Mock Up" Notice to Quit addressed to "Any spirits in possession of the property located at [1313 Mockingbird Lane] without any authority under color of law" advising them that their possession was "unlawful in nature" and ordering them to "quit and surrender the premises, or any portion thereof, within fifteen (15) days of the date of this notice."

As I was obviously unable to obtain personal service via hand delivery, I had my client direct me to the portion of the premises the Ghost occupied, an empty spare bedroom, and made service by posting the Notice to the door of the room. I then announced that the ghost "HAD BEEN SERVED A VALID NOTICE TO QUIT AND SURRENDER POSSESSION" and went home.

A week later, as we're preparing to enter the Court for my client's competency hearing, I ask about the status.

"Oh Mr. Creepy, it worked great!" my client announced. "He moved out the same night and took all his stuff with him."

The ghost apparently had "stuff."

Anyhow, I smiled and patted my client on the shoulder as I offered some sage advice.

"Well, good," I said, "now, let's not mention this in front of the judge. He might have a problem with the service and order us to let the ghost back in if he finds out about it."

My client nodded enthusiastically. I kept him out of the mental hospital that day, and take some comfort knowing somewhere today this crazy bastard is still telling people about his great lawyer who got rid of his ethereal roommate for free.

# ? May 13, 2016 09:07

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

The Prompt posted:

Lawyers of Reddit, what is the most outrageous case someone has asked you to take?

SheriffCreepy posted:

There's a lot of them:
There's the completely guilty sex offender sitting in jail who wanted me to handle his appeal under circumstances that would have resulted in him being released...then immediately charged and convicted of a more serious crime.

[Go on�]

SheriffCreepy posted:

Well....he was guilty.

Without too much in the way of details, I was just starting out and had a not so nice basement office in a nice building. To give you an idea of the space, it was the type of place with an overhead light that buzzed annoyingly and, if working late, had no access to the bathrooms which were on a more secured first floor. Going outside for a cigarette wasn't worth the hassle after hours, so I developed a habit of smoking at my desk and blowing the smoke into a toilet paper tube stuffed with dryer sheets. Yes, this is a trick stoners will recognize, and yes, I did learn it from a client.

Anyhow, a family came into my office one evening regarding their respective son/brother. The issue was he had been charged with statutory rape of an underage girl. He was over 20, and it had gone to trial, and he had ended up being convicted of a lesser charge, namely Sexual Misconduct with a Minor. Not rape, but not good. The kid was serving some time in a jailhouse out in the country as a result, and the family wanted him out and on the street.

Now, there are reasons you can seek post-conviction relief, and reasons you can't, and after driving out to the jail and introducing myself I took what I call an "investigative retainer" to look into the merits of the matter. They paid, and I started looking into things.

First, it became abundantly clear his primary claim would arise from the fact that he didn't testify, and the fact that the kid actually didn't do it...on that day.

See, he had been dating the girl when she was underage, and they had been intimate. Then he broke up with her...and out of anger, she came up with the rape allegation, that he had shown up, forced himself on her, etc. when she found out he was dating someone else. He had a solid alibi for all of this...but it required him to testify....

...which would waive his Fifth Amendment rights and open him up to cross-examination. Wherein he'd be asked if he "ever had sex with [the victim.]" And he'd have to answer yes...and then asked about his current girlfriend...and have to advise she, too, was under the age of consent. And that he'd been intimate with her.

Sure, he'd get out of jail for sexual misconduct. Then he'd be immediately charged with at least one, maybe two, counts of statutory rape which he had admitted to on the stand.

I ended up turning down further representation on that one.

# ? May 13, 2016 09:12

Intoluene: Jul 6, 2011; Activating self-destruct sequence!; Fun Shoe

Platystemon posted:

Snip

Ethereal Roommate would be a pretty good goon name.

# ? May 13, 2016 09:27

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

RogerDeanVenture on Reddit posted:

I worked legal aid for a while. Every day was "outrageous" and goes something like this - But I have a restraining order on my first ever "client":

The very first person I ever spoke to in a legal capacity was a woman who wanted to sue her contractor for $250,000 for an unfinished job and emotional distress. First, being upset at an incomplete job isn't emotional distress. Second, The contract was only for about $100,000 and upon further questioning I learned that this contractor had actually completed all terms of the contract. This woman eventually admitted she was suing him because he was "Rude and always late."

I informed her that we would not take this case. Additionally I warned her that a failure to pay the contract would most likely result in the contractor suing her. She found this idea ludicrous and began to yell at me in my office - first person on my first day - about how she had a right as an American that I act as her lawyer. So I handle that, we are not helping her in this case.

Two days later, I get a call from the Contractor's attorney stating that this woman has cited me as her attorney and threatened a hailstorm of suits upon the contractor from me. It took all of 5 minutes for the other Attorney to realize what was going on. Heck, they even made sure to remind me of the steps I should take to protect myself from any related suits this lady might bring upon me. Actually... I still talk to this attorney, so silver lining on the first day I suppose.

About a month or two passes (foggy on timeframe). Woman comes in again, furious because the contractor sued her and was able to get a lien on the property. She said this was my fault because I didn't help her. I manage to talk her down. She then immediately gets fired up again because "they are trying to scam her into giving them all her documents." Turns out, trial on the matter was coming up in about a week, and they had requested photographs of allegedly unfinished work, damages, etc... as well as the original contract and payment receipts. Basically - all stuff very very typical and reasonable to request and that she is obligated to provide. She (and nearly every client I worked with in this capacity) thought that evidence was supposed to be a "surprise" at trial and that sharing this information would hurt her case. NO poo poo it would hurt her case because she is a liar.

Anyways, again. Not her lawyer. Actually make her sign a paper signifying she understands this. She leaves. Months pass, I'm no longer at Legal Aid. Lady finds me at my school. I get a call from the loving dean asking me to swing by. Says he just met with a disgruntled client of mine who says I cost her her home, marriage, and children (apparently things went downhill fast). She claimed she would do everything in her power to make sure I never did anything again. Anyyyways, dean is a nice guy and helped me with my restraining order paperwork.

TL:DR - First "client" ever was some crazy lady lying psycho who keept thinking I'm her lawyer. She Loses everything, stalks & threatens me, gets restraining order filed against her.

Either that or the time somebody wanted me to sue their ex's infant for lost sleep. I actually laughed because I thought they were joking. They weren't.

# ? May 13, 2016 10:15

BioEnchanted: Aug 9, 2011; He plays for the dreamers that forgot how to dream, and the lovers that forgot how to love.

I thought the Ghost Eviction was a cute way to handle the guys delusion. Didn't mind that story :3:

# ? May 13, 2016 10:22

Strom Cuzewon: Jul 1, 2010

What are the legal and ethical boundaries to humouring someone's delusions like that? Because if that hasn't worked I can see it doing some damage to people's careers and mental states.

# ? May 13, 2016 10:40

Cumslut1895: Feb 18, 2015; by FactsAreUseless

Strom Cuzewon posted:

What are the legal and ethical boundaries to humouring someone's delusions like that? Because if that hasn't worked I can see it doing some damage to people's careers and mental states.

I guess it depends on how isolated delusions are. if it's a once-off thing (which I guess it isn't) it'd be fine. On the other hand, dissenting voices may work as a way for delusional people to pull themselves back to reality.

# ? May 13, 2016 11:23

Cumslut1895: Feb 18, 2015; by FactsAreUseless

canyoneer posted:

kin
http://abovethelaw.com/2014/12/lawyer-with-3-harvard-degrees-loses-his-mind-over-4-chinese-food-overcharge/

Harvard Law rear end in a top hat threatens to sue a family owned Chinese restaurant with two locations over a $4 discrepancy between the outdated online menu prices and what he was actually charged. Backs down when publicly shamed on the internet (and has probably learned nothing)

kinda like that psychopath judge with missing pants

# ? May 13, 2016 11:40

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Strom Cuzewon posted:

What are the legal and ethical boundaries to humouring someone's delusions like that? Because if that hasn't worked I can see it doing some damage to people's careers and mental states.

Reddit had an exchange over that.

It�s long so I�ll just link it.

# ? May 13, 2016 15:16

bbcisdabomb: Jan 15, 2008; SHEESH

Cumslut1895 posted:

I guess it depends on how isolated delusions are. if it's a once-off thing (which I guess it isn't) it'd be fine. On the other hand, dissenting voices may work as a way for delusional people to pull themselves back to reality.

From what my brother has told me from working in mental health for fifteen years: If the delusions are harmless, you play along and agree noncommittally. Some guy wants to tell you he's Jesus? You say, "OK Jesus, you want toast with your eggs?" If the delusions are harmful to someone you try to steer them away from the behavior. Research shows that people with mental illnesses manifesting as delusions actually cannot be reasoned with if it would go against their delusions, so if you can deflect you deflect and if you can't you get ready to never hear the end of how the guy slept for five thousand years last night.

# ? May 13, 2016 16:48

As Nero Danced: Sep 3, 2009; Alright, let's do this

22 Eargesplitten posted:

Basically Dale Gribble.

Funny you mention that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfSkBONbDwA

# ? May 14, 2016 05:12

Aesop Poprock: Oct 21, 2008; Grimey Drawer

As Nero Danced posted:

Funny you mention that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfSkBONbDwA

holy poo poo

# ? May 14, 2016 09:44

GOTTA STAY FAI: Mar 24, 2005; ~no glitter in the gutter~
~no twilight galaxy~; College Slice

Platystemon posted:

[Go on�]

I'm glad he turned down representation because he's a lovely loving lawyer

"Yeah, I know you didn't do what she said you did but if they ask about any other crimes unrelated to what you're charged with, you have to tell them ok"

# ? May 16, 2016 21:47

the future is WOW: Sep 9, 2005; I QUIT!

GOTTA STAY FAI posted:

I'm glad he turned down representation because he's a lovely loving lawyer

"Yeah, I know you didn't do what she said you did but if they ask about any other crimes unrelated to what you're charged with, you have to tell them ok"

How does advising the guy not to open himself up to questioning that could lead to a more serious conviction (and a second statutory rape charge on top of that) make him a lovely lawyer? The guy already managed to avoid both the original rape allegation as well as a statutory rape charge, so it seems like that was good advice.

# ? May 22, 2016 02:08

mostlygray: Nov 1, 2012; BURY ME AS I LIVED, A FREE MAN ON THE CLUTCH

Judge Schnoopy posted:

They distinguish between their federal entity (a name with a bunch of documentation attached to it) and their physical self (their person), and claim that by acting as their physical self they are immune to most procedures and laws as those laws are enforced on their entity. They are, however, entitled to federal benefits (such as legal protection, bill of rights, so forth) that are provided to their entity.

It's a bunch of *top secret* logic loops that they believe were installed as a back door by Illuminati or Freemasons or Lizard People to allow themselves freedom above the system. They think that by invoking this logic they too can be above the system, a sovereign citizen.

As a friend of a Sovereign Citizen, I can tell you that it's more like a religion than an interpretation of law. Capital letters make a difference somehow. Fringes on flags. Admiralty Law vs British Common Law (not sure how that fits in). A lot of yelling about guns and gun control. Belief that you can make a magic mark on any invoice that will automatically cause the feds to pay for your bill. Belief that you are not a person somehow but you are a man. You don't need to have a drivers license because you aren't driving, you are traveling.

The last time I was talking to this friend, he was insisting that Democrats were trying to take all the guns away. I mentioned to him that I'm a bleeding heart liberal DFL'r who believes in single payer health care, free abortions for trans-gendered lesbian men (figure that one out), and paying criminals to not commit crimes. Yet I have a half a dozen guns that I purchased legally with my FFL3. It turns out, that even with his gun obsession, he doesn't own a single one. He never even hunts, yet he obsesses over guns. Sovereigns are poo poo-house crazy. He's a nice guy, just crazy.

# ? May 22, 2016 03:17

Drunk Nerds: Jan 25, 2011; Just close your eyes; Fun Shoe

FFT posted:

anyone tempted to bring up McDonald's Coffee Lady should learn better in the process of picking a link.

Glad someone beat me to this.

My wife has a bunch, just off the top of my head:

Lady rides a bumper car, lady sticks her arm out of car, arm gets smashed. Lady sues. My wife's firm is like, "lady, it has `bumper cars' in the drat name, you knew there was risk." Lady loses

My wife had security cam footage of a case she had to defend where this lady Overloads her cart at <popular national department store> and shoves it into the cart escalator. Of coursse it jams up the whole thing. Lady climbs up into the cart escalator and starts wrestling with it. Employee doesn't see this and reverses the cart escalator, causng the cart to bump nto her head repeatedly. What's super-sad is that my wife was just like "okay, here I'll cut you a check for a few grand, there weren't any long term damages. " But the lady wanted a big payout so she racked up tons of attorneys fees and doctor visits and ended up just negotiating for like a few hundred more and ended up in debt over the whole thing.

That's a whole industry here in SoCal:
Shady lawyer finds dumb person who injured themselves doing something dumb
Shady lawyer promises big payout, sends dumb person to infinite doctor scans. The shady doctor is in on it too.
Case never materializes dumb person is on the hook for all these legal and doctor bills.

Drunk Nerds has a new favorite as of 04:04 on May 22, 2016

# ? May 22, 2016 03:45

Drunk Nerds: Jan 25, 2011; Just close your eyes; Fun Shoe

Guy buys property in west hollywood. Guy claims ten parking spot passes, in perpetuity, were promised.
loving common sense states that nobody has ten passes that let you park in a garage forever in goddamn West Hollywood. Not only that, there is no mention of this in the contract he signed.
poo poo is going to trial

# ? May 22, 2016 03:53

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

mostlygray posted:

As a friend of a Sovereign Citizen, I can tell you that it's more like a religion than an interpretation of law. Capital letters make a difference somehow. Fringes on flags. Admiralty Law vs British Common Law (not sure how that fits in). A lot of yelling about guns and gun control. Belief that you can make a magic mark on any invoice that will automatically cause the feds to pay for your bill. Belief that you are not a person somehow but you are a man. You don't need to have a drivers license because you aren't driving, you are traveling.

The last time I was talking to this friend, he was insisting that Democrats were trying to take all the guns away. I mentioned to him that I'm a bleeding heart liberal DFL'r who believes in single payer health care, free abortions for trans-gendered lesbian men (figure that one out), and paying criminals to not commit crimes. Yet I have a half a dozen guns that I purchased legally with my FFL3. It turns out, that even with his gun obsession, he doesn't own a single one. He never even hunts, yet he obsesses over guns. Sovereigns are poo poo-house crazy. He's a nice guy, just crazy.

The best description I've ever seen of sovereign citizens is that they think laws have cheat codes. I'm also with you on being far-left and having guns, but that's probably a matter for another thread.

Drunk Nerds posted:

Guy buys property in west hollywood. Guy claims ten parking spot passes, in perpetuity, were promised.
loving common sense states that nobody has ten passes that let you park in a garage forever in goddamn West Hollywood. Not only that, there is no mention of this in the contract he signed.
poo poo is going to trial

I'm on the east coast. Is this like NYC where reserved parking spaces go for $40k a year?

# ? May 22, 2016 03:55

Drunk Nerds: Jan 25, 2011; Just close your eyes; Fun Shoe

GWBBQ posted:

The best description I've ever seen of sovereign citizens is that they think laws have cheat codes. I'm also with you on being far-left and having guns, but that's probably a matter for another thread.

I'm on the east coast. Is this like NYC where reserved parking spaces go for $40k a year?

NYC is a good comparison, yeah. Not quite as expensive, but 10 lifetime parking spots aren't something you'd just throw in as a bonus for a small building sale.

Lady sues <major department store>, claiming she slipped and now has back problems.
My wife inverstigates and finds:
- There is no footage of her falling
- She was actually clocked in at work at the time across town
- She has a decades-long, documented history of back problems
.
The sad thing is, my wife usually ends up cutting a check for these weirdos for like a few hundred, because taking it to court would cost the insurance company she's defending like $10,000 in legal fees.

# ? May 22, 2016 04:07

Carbon Thief: Oct 11, 2009; Diamonds aren't the only things that are forever.

I just remembered a case from when I briefly worked as a law clerk. Man is driving on a back road in crappy weather. Loses control, smashes into a few mature trees that are along the property line of Lady. Man's insurance company agrees to pay to have the damaged trees replaced. They explain this to Lady. She agrees, but says "I'm away for the weekend, come on Monday". Monday morning the guys from the tree company/greenhouse bring in the new trees (they are the same size and species as the ruined ones) and get them planted, taking away the smashed dead ones. Lady gets home and freaks out. Apparently she misinterpreted "we will replace the trees" as "we can and will repair the existing trees". She demands the old trees be returned and put back. (I think at this point they'd been cut up or pulped; either way, they were already broken irreparably in the crash.) Her son, a lawyer, helps her launch a lawsuit.

By the time I was working at the firm (we represented, of all people, the tree company) the accident had happened about 9 years prior. We were getting close to trial. At this point, Lady had died several years earlier, leaving lawyer son the property (he didn't even live there; his firm was in another city). He still maintained the suit.

So, how did this get resolved? My boss, for some reason, thought to check the surveys of the property. It turned out that the trees were never on her property, they were on county land. Was the county upset about the replaced trees? Nope, they were perfectly satisfied with the new ones. Lawyer son ended up finally dropping the suit.

# ? May 22, 2016 04:55

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

mostlygray posted:

Admiralty Law vs British Common Law (not sure how that fits in).

If memory serves British Common Law is the basis of pretty much all legal systems in the western world. Because...I guess that matters?

Maritime law was separate and different for a variety of reasons; the biggest of which was that ships at sea could be gone for months and months and months. They might leave home and not come back for years at a time and visit many nations. There was (still is, I think?) a weird amalgamation of law sets that is international that covers the law of the sea. The ocean is a big place and pretty hard to police so nations kind of got together and said "OK we all agree to these laws for the ocean, right?" It is, of course, spotty and bizarre at times but it does, in fact, exist.

Which is where the distinction between an admiralty court and a common law court comes from and why that cheat code supposedly exists. The theory is that if the court is actually an admiralty court then only international sea laws exist there so you can't charge the sovcit with local laws. Check and mate, I'm leaving, bye. Of course anybody that isn't a complete imbecile knows why that's absolutely idiotic. Still doesn't stop people.

This is also where "well my legal person is a boat so your laws don't mean anything to me, nyah" comes from. If there's a gold fringe you're being tried in admiralty court which means that you're a boat. Because...apparently...maritime law doesn't have anything to do with sailors? (hint: it actually does)

# ? May 22, 2016 05:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 00:47

quidditch it and quit it: Oct 11, 2012

ToxicSlurpee posted:

If memory serves British Common Law is the basis of pretty much all legal systems in the western world. Because...I guess that matters?

Maritime law was separate and different for a variety of reasons; the biggest of which was that ships at sea could be gone for months and months and months. They might leave home and not come back for years at a time and visit many nations. There was (still is, I think?) a weird amalgamation of law sets that is international that covers the law of the sea. The ocean is a big place and pretty hard to police so nations kind of got together and said "OK we all agree to these laws for the ocean, right?" It is, of course, spotty and bizarre at times but it does, in fact, exist.

Which is where the distinction between an admiralty court and a common law court comes from and why that cheat code supposedly exists. The theory is that if the court is actually an admiralty court then only international sea laws exist there so you can't charge the sovcit with local laws. Check and mate, I'm leaving, bye. Of course anybody that isn't a complete imbecile knows why that's absolutely idiotic. Still doesn't stop people.

This is also where "well my legal person is a boat so your laws don't mean anything to me, nyah" comes from. If there's a gold fringe you're being tried in admiralty court which means that you're a boat. Because...apparently...maritime law doesn't have anything to do with sailors? (hint: it actually does)

Someone should do an A/T thread on this, I think it's pretty interesting. A weird level of delusion where people think they've seen through the Matrix and everyone else will now do what they want because of language!

# ? May 22, 2016 09:27

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Idiot Lawsuit

«‹›6 »