User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 7:29:12 AM EDT
[#1]
OP can go after the estate for legal expenses, but given that the estate consists of jack shit, that's a dead end.
IIRC, the estate is the only plaintiff. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 7:40:41 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ParityError: OP can go after the estate for legal expenses, but given that the estate consists of jack shit, that's a dead end. IIRC, the estate is the only plaintiff. A reminder of the estates assets: 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 7:47:40 AM EDT
[#3]
"For Wrongful Death Purposes Only"
Suicide falls under such a category? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 8:20:08 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jayne_Cobb: "For Wrongful Death Purposes Only" Suicide falls under such a category? That is the basis for my pending motion to dismiss. How can I be liable for the wrongful death of a person I didn't know, who killed themselves a week after they were standing in my store?? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 10:54:55 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: ....How can I be liable for the wrongful death of a person I didn't know, who killed themselves a week after they were standing in my store?? A jury would answer that question. If the plaintiff can convince a jury that you were negligent in the sale or transfer of that firearm, and it resulted in the death of a person, it doesn't matter if you didn't know them or the amount of time that has passed. What you believe are the facts aren't the facts as the Plaintiff sees them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 11:05:06 AM EDT
[#6]
Reading the evidence in the public record that bigbore has posted, it seems to me the only time the parents actually gave a damn about their daughter in recent years is when they saw dollar signs after her suicide.
Before that they seemed to ignore her. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 11:47:38 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DogtownTom: A jury would answer that question. If the plaintiff can convince a jury that you were negligent in the sale or transfer of that firearm, and it resulted in the death of a person, it doesn't matter if you didn't know them or the amount of time that has passed. What you believe are the facts aren't the facts as the Plaintiff sees them. Yup, and unfortunately for the plaintiff they have ZERO proof I was negligent. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 12:04:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Yup, and unfortunately for the plaintiff they have ZERO proof I was negligent. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By DogtownTom: A jury would answer that question. If the plaintiff can convince a jury that you were negligent in the sale or transfer of that firearm, and it resulted in the death of a person, it doesn't matter if you didn't know them or the amount of time that has passed. What you believe are the facts aren't the facts as the Plaintiff sees them. Yup, and unfortunately for the plaintiff they have ZERO proof I was negligent. Too bad lawyers are paid and encouraged to lie. Would be nice to get them on the stand and see if they are willing to take a perjury charge for the things they say in court |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 12:07:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freakinout: Too bad lawyers are paid and encouraged to lie. Would be nice to get them on the stand and see if they are willing to take a perjury charge for the things they say in court Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freakinout: Originally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By DogtownTom: A jury would answer that question. If the plaintiff can convince a jury that you were negligent in the sale or transfer of that firearm, and it resulted in the death of a person, it doesn't matter if you didn't know them or the amount of time that has passed. What you believe are the facts aren't the facts as the Plaintiff sees them. Yup, and unfortunately for the plaintiff they have ZERO proof I was negligent. Too bad lawyers are paid and encouraged to lie. Would be nice to get them on the stand and see if they are willing to take a perjury charge for the things they say in court |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:20:30 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Yup, and unfortunately for the plaintiff they have ZERO proof I was negligent. They don't need proof and they know it. They just need to convince jurors that your actions were negligent. "ADCO should have known" will be the song they sing. I'm thinking your judge is pushing for mediation because she wants to avoid a trial. Not avoid a trial because you'll win, but because if you lose her decisions regarding the reopening of a closed estate will be ridiculed on appeal. I'm wondering if the plaintiff exposes themselves for a countersuit because they closed the estate, then contrary to Ohio law filed a civil suit knowing the estate was closed. If Ohio doesn't allow the reopening of an estate, then plaintiffs had no basis for their lawsuit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:30:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Rexkwando will not be testifying. I'm going to make the call, even if the judge doesn't exclude him, they will not put him on stand. They have to know he's a joke. I can't believe there will be a trial in May. I think they are going to find a way out. They wanted a settlement, they dont want a trial. They can not win, their case is so weak. I would actually love to see him have to testify and get absolutely decimated on the stand. It would be pretty damn epic. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:52:27 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DogtownTom: They don't need proof and they know it. They just need to convince jurors that your actions were negligent. "ADCO should have known" will be the song they sing. I'm thinking your judge is pushing for mediation because she wants to avoid a trial. Not avoid a trial because you'll win, but because if you lose her decisions regarding the reopening of a closed estate will be ridiculed on appeal. I'm wondering if the plaintiff exposes themselves for a countersuit because they closed the estate, then contrary to Ohio law filed a civil suit knowing the estate was closed. If Ohio doesn't allow the reopening of an estate, then plaintiffs had no basis for their lawsuit. At this point everyone on both sides knows its going to be impossible to convince a jury that ADCO should have known. The improper Nunc Pro Tunc is an absolute reversible error on appeal. If that happens, it means I was harassed by an attorney for 9 months who didn't have a client. This is a cluster fuck from their point of view no matter what. Everything on my side is solid, and the insurance lawyers know this. I'm betting that's a large part of why they aren't even considering a settlement offer. I believe all the plaintiffs lawyers wanted from this was a quick settlement so they could put out a press release. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:57:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: I never saw them. I was in a room with the claims adjuster. Plaintiffs were in a different room. The attorneys and mediator were in another room. None of what was said today is admissible, so I may well have offered a bag of dicks given the opportunity to sit across from them - which is probably why the put the parties in separate rooms. Bring them a bag of these.  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:01:59 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By voodochild: I would actually love to see him have to testify and get absolutely decimated on the stand. It would be pretty damn epic. I need to post his full deposition transcript as well as her parents transcripts. There are all kinds of golden nuggets I haven't shared. You will not believe how epic their cross examination is going to be. It will be a train wreck. A very entertaining train wreck. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 3:46:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Yup, and unfortunately for the plaintiff they have ZERO proof I was negligent. I would want to start a defamation case against the brady campaign for hiring some smuck to try and ruin my reputation based of a convicted felon and no proof what so ever of any wrong doing on your part, much less the witnesses lack of credibility that seemingly can't hold a job. I know....when elephants fly and all but damn...that was some low level horse shit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 5:44:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Docket was just updated:
Title : ORD:TRIAL DATE CONFIRMED Case called for Final Settlement Pretrial on April 17, 2024. Magistrate John Wilmore presided on behalf of Judge Lindsay D. Navarre. Attorney C. BENJAMIN COOPER present on behalf of Plaintiff. Client present. Attorney ROBERT J. BAHRET present on behalf of Defendants. Client also present. It having been represented to the Court that the parties did not reach a resolution in this matter, it is ORDERED that this cause is confirmed for trial on May 21, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. April 18, 2024 JUDGE LINDSAY D NAVARRE |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 5:57:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: A reminder of the estates assets: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/12678/nasssets-2735447.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By ParityError: OP can go after the estate for legal expenses, but given that the estate consists of jack shit, that's a dead end. IIRC, the estate is the only plaintiff. A reminder of the estates assets: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/12678/nasssets-2735447.jpg Sounds like you should form an LLC with zero assets and just go try and start sueing these jackasses for random shit. Also, a quick question for the judge, since the estate has zero assetts, how is it funding the suit and expenses? Perhaps the IRS would be interested in just what the money flow is in all of this, and if everything is being properly reported. They don't really like it when people make fake shell companies and hide money movement. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 7:43:53 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: Also, a quick question for the judge, since the estate has zero assetts, how is it funding the suit and expenses? Perhaps the IRS would be interested in just what the money flow is in all of this, and if everything is being properly reported. They don't really like it when people make fake shell companies and hide money movement. I'd bet the Brady Campaign is paying for it. The attorney is working contingency so he doesn't get paid unless he wins the suit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:19:24 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: Also, a quick question for the judge, since the estate has zero assetts, how is it funding the suit and expenses? All the details are in their contract - - here |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 12:54:51 AM EDT
[#20]
I’ve been loosely following this injustice and am curious, don’t recall it being discussed earlier, does it seem like their point to pushing this the whole time is some kind of settlement $ instead of actually going to trial?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:03:35 AM EDT
[#21]
ADCO will come out victorious. I have spoken.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 6:34:04 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Princeton: I’ve been loosely following this injustice and am curious, don’t recall it being discussed earlier, does it seem like their point to pushing this the whole time is some kind of settlement $ instead of actually going to trial? Read THIS. Try not to laugh at the outlandish claims/threats they made and were never able to prove or follow through on. Only about 1% of civil trials go to court, they are all about settlement $. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 7:22:30 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bubbles: I'd bet the Brady Campaign is paying for it. The attorney is working contingency so he doesn't get paid unless he wins the suit. Remember when the Brady Bunch pushed a dead woman's parents into suing Lucky Gunner, and then said "sucks to be you" when the court found in LG's favor? But IIRC the plaintiffs in the frivolous suit were responsible for the defendants' legal fees only because of a Colorado state law. https://www.guns.com/news/2015/04/23/aurora-theater-victims-family-may-owe-280000-in-lucky-gunner-lawsuit |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 8:52:21 PM EDT
[#24]
Who wants to take bets as to how the next 4 weeks play out?
The deadline for the motion to exclude their joke expert witness is in 2 days. Will the bad guys take the time to submit a reply in opposition? Will my attorneys even submit a motion to exclude him? I think it would be cool to make them pay his expenses to travel/testify and destroy him in the court room. There is still a pending motion to dismiss sitting on the Judges desk. The judge can end all this tomorrow and rule in favor of summary judgment. I'm sure the mediator told her it was his opinion there is no way we are setting. The judge can clear it off her docket and be done, simply by doing her job. I'm good with those options, in any mixture. I know what I have to do, I'm confident I kick ass testifying, and it will be OVER! My fear is an Ohio Rule 41 dismissal. In Ohio, a plaintiff can dismiss the case themselves the day before the trial. Doing so, gives them ONE YEAR to refile and start all over. So if they just wanted to be pricks, they can dismiss it tomorrow, refile in May 2025 and start from scratch with a new trial date in 2027. Or, they can dismiss with no intention to refile just to keep it hanging over mine and the insurance companies heads. They can't have much if any confidence in their odds to win at trial - and they know if they win the improper nunc pro tunc is a killer reversible error. If they are going to do a Rule 41 dismissal, they will probably do it sooner than later instead of risking the Judge ruling in my favor for SJ before hand. If they dismiss before the judge rules, the MSJ is moot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:06:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Scoobysmak]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Who wants to take bets as to how the next 4 weeks play out? The deadline for the motion to exclude their joke expert witness is in 2 days. Will the bad guys take the time to submit a reply in opposition? Will my attorneys even submit a motion to exclude him? I think it would be cool to make them pay his expenses to travel/testify and destroy him in the court room. There is still a pending motion to dismiss sitting on the Judges desk. The judge can end all this tomorrow and rule in favor of summary judgment. I'm sure the mediator told her it was his opinion there is no way we are setting. The judge can clear it off her docket and be done, simply by doing her job. I'm good with those options, in any mixture. I know what I have to do, I'm confident I kick ass testifying, and it will be OVER! My fear is an Ohio Rule 41 dismissal. In Ohio, a plaintiff can dismiss the case themselves the day before the trial. Doing so, gives them ONE YEAR to refile and start all over. So if they just wanted to be pricks, they can dismiss it tomorrow, refile in May 2025 and start from scratch with a new trial date in 2027. Or, they can dismiss with no intention to refile just to keep it hanging over mine and the insurance companies heads. They can't have much if any confidence in their odds to win at trial - and they know if they win the improper nunc pro tunc is a killer reversible error. If they are going to do a Rule 41 dismissal, they will probably do it sooner than later instead of risking the Judge ruling in my favor for SJ before hand. If they dismiss before the judge rules, the MSJ is moot. What all has to be present for them to refile the case in a year? If the year comes and goes and they don't file I assume at that point it would be over. Why would they expect any different results in a year? (not a change of results but just to participate in the lawfare going on....  ). Not like the old guy's testimony will change as putting him on the stand as a convicted felon and one step head of Xiden in the nursing home probably isn't smart.Shouldn't technically the MSJ still apply regardless, not like they can use a time machine and magically change the dates to be "correct." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:15:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: bigbore]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Scoobysmak: What all has to be present for them to refile the case in a year? If the year comes and goes and they don't file I assume at that point it would be over. Why would they expect any different results in a year? (not a change of results but just to participate in the lawfare going on.... ). Not like the old guy's testimony will change as putting him on the stand as a convicted felon and one step head of Xiden in the nursing home probably isn't smart.Shouldn't technically the MSJ still apply regardless, not like they can use a time machine and magically change the dates to be "correct." Nothing has to change for them to refile. They get a clean slate with all new scheduling for discovery and depositions, and experts, etc. I'll have to pay more legal fees. My insurance rates will stay high because the lawsuit. IMO, plaintiff would be better off if the boyfriend dies/too ill to testify. That way they can play his video deposition and my side won't be able to cross examine. I've thought about why they are doing this to me every day for the last 2 years when I KNOW they have nothing, and the only answer that makes sense is - because they can. This is what our "legal" system is set up to do. ETA - I dunno about the MSJ - could I just resubmit that on day one and ignore the rest of the stuff? Or, do they have to file and answer to the new complaint and go through discovery first? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:18:29 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Nothing has to change for them to refile. They get a clean slate with all new scheduling for discovery and depositions, and experts, etc. I'll have to pay more legal fees. My insurance rates will stay high because the lawsuit. IMO, plaintiff would be better off if the boyfriend dies/too ill to testify. That way they can play his video deposition and my side won't be able to cross examine. I've thought about why they are doing this to me every day for the last 2 years when I KNOW they have nothing, and the only answer that makes sense is - because they can. This is what our "legal" system is set up to do. ETA - I dunno about the MSJ - could I just resubmit that on day one and ignore the rest of the stuff? Or, do they have to file and answer to the new complaint and go through discovery first? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By Scoobysmak: What all has to be present for them to refile the case in a year? If the year comes and goes and they don't file I assume at that point it would be over. Why would they expect any different results in a year? (not a change of results but just to participate in the lawfare going on.... ). Not like the old guy's testimony will change as putting him on the stand as a convicted felon and one step head of Xiden in the nursing home probably isn't smart.Shouldn't technically the MSJ still apply regardless, not like they can use a time machine and magically change the dates to be "correct." Nothing has to change for them to refile. They get a clean slate with all new scheduling for discovery and depositions, and experts, etc. I'll have to pay more legal fees. My insurance rates will stay high because the lawsuit. IMO, plaintiff would be better off if the boyfriend dies/too ill to testify. That way they can play his video deposition and my side won't be able to cross examine. I've thought about why they are doing this to me every day for the last 2 years when I KNOW they have nothing, and the only answer that makes sense is - because they can. This is what our "legal" system is set up to do. ETA - I dunno about the MSJ - could I just resubmit that on day one and ignore the rest of the stuff? Or, do they have to file and answer to the new complaint and go through discovery first? Do any of the plantiffs have a job or employment? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:20:41 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cyclone: Do any of the plantiffs have a job or employment? The plaintiff is the estate of a dead person, so no. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:30:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Nothing has to change for them to refile. They get a clean slate with all new scheduling for discovery and depositions, and experts, etc. I'll have to pay more legal fees. My insurance rates will stay high because the lawsuit. IMO, plaintiff would be better off if the boyfriend dies/too ill to testify. That way they can play his video deposition and my side won't be able to cross examine. I've thought about why they are doing this to me every day for the last 2 years when I KNOW they have nothing, and the only answer that makes sense is - because they can. This is what our "legal" system is set up to do. ETA - I dunno about the MSJ - could I just resubmit that on day one and ignore the rest of the stuff? Or, do they have to file and answer to the new complaint and go through discovery first? What are the odds you get a better judge? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:32:24 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: The plaintiff is the estate of a dead person, so no. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By cyclone: Do any of the plantiffs have a job or employment? The plaintiff is the estate of a dead person, so no. What about the live people who are attaching themselves to it that want you to settle? Any possibility to sue them or garnish their wages? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 10:02:31 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Scoobysmak: What are the odds you get a better judge? It would be the same judge. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 10:02:55 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cyclone: Any possibility to sue them or garnish their wages? none |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 9:35:56 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: The plaintiff is the estate of a dead person, so no. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By cyclone: Do any of the plantiffs have a job or employment? The plaintiff is the estate of a dead person, so no. An estate that was closed and reopened unlawfully |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 9:45:40 AM EDT
[#34]
So if the estate has nothing, if they won a settlement, who would get the monies? Would they have to go through probate? How would the parents "profit" from this?
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 9:50:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: PepePewPew]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: My fear is an Ohio Rule 41 dismissal. In Ohio, a plaintiff can dismiss the case themselves the day before the trial. Doing so, gives them ONE YEAR to refile and start all over. So if they just wanted to be pricks, they can dismiss it tomorrow, refile in May 2025 and start from scratch with a new trial date in 2027. Or, they can dismiss with no intention to refile just to keep it hanging over mine and the insurance companies heads. That's insane. I'll assume you're correct about Ohio rules of procedure, but here's the federal Rule 41. Note that it works for the plaintiff before the defendant responds or files a MSJ, not after the defendant has invested time/money into the defense. https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-vi-trials/rule-41-dismissal-of-actions/ Rule 41 – Dismissal of Actions (a) Voluntary Dismissal. (1) By the Plaintiff. (A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. (B) Effect. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits. Edited to add the Ohio rule 41. Same thing except the deadline is the trial opening in the courtroom instead of the defendant filing a response. Filing a counterclaim also ends it. But no counterclaim was filed here because the 'plaintiff' is dead and penniless. But I don't see where it does anything to restart any statute of limitations. How long is the SOL period and what's the start date, the day she was pronounced dead? (A) Voluntary dismissal: effect thereof. (1) By plaintiff; by stipulation. Subject to the provisions of Civ. R. 23(E), Civ. R. 23.1, and Civ. R. 66, a plaintiff, without order of court, may dismiss all claims asserted by that plaintiff against a defendant by doing either of the following: (a) filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the commencement of trial unless a counterclaim which cannot remain pending for independent adjudication by the court has been served by that defendant; (b) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits of any claim that the plaintiff has once dismissed in any court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 9:54:04 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad: So if the estate has nothing, if they won a settlement, who would get the monies? Would they have to go through probate? How would the parents "profit" from this? Any settlement/award would go through the probate court and be paid out to the administrator of the estate, in this case, her mother. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 11:17:41 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Read THIS. Try not to laugh at the outlandish claims/threats they made and were never able to prove or follow through on. Only about 1% of civil trials go to court, they are all about settlement $. "Paul was hospitalized for over a month. (E. Roebke Dep., p. 14.) He underwent roughly 11 electroconvulsive therapies just in order to cope with life. (Id.) He has been diagnosed with major depression. (Id.; see also P. Roebke Dep., pp. 35–36.) Elaine lost her only daughter and travel partner. She needs prescription sleep aids to get through the night. (E. Roebke Dep., p. 39.) And their only living child, Eric Roebke, had a “mental breakdown” because of his only sibling’s death and “didn’t work for over a year.” (Id. at p. 40.) Eric was admitted to a mental health treatment center and was placed on psychiatric medications to cope with the loss of his sister. (Id. at pp. 41–42.)" That's quite a few words to get to the point which is "this whole family is a bunch of slapdick retards and the sooner they follow their cunt daughter to oblivion, the better off we'll all be." Fuck you Brady lawyers; fuck you squarely in your collective asses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 11:38:50 AM EDT
[#38]
Would it be possible to counter-sue the attorney or attorneys that are representing the estate of the plaintiff for damages, seeing as how they have cost you so much and due to increased insurance rates due to their actions, will continue to cost you? They have to know that they don't have a case, and yet are continuing to put in the work to fuck with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 11:42:26 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gingerbreadman: Would it be possible to counter-sue the attorney or attorneys that are representing the estate of the plaintiff for damages, seeing as how they have cost you so much and due to increased insurance rates due to their actions, will continue to cost you? They have to know that they don't have a case, and yet are continuing to put in the work to fuck with you. Absent a specific statute or a (very rare) finding that a cause of action is frivolous, or a finding of fraud on the part of the plaintiff's attorneys, the attorneys are immune - only the actual plaintiff is liable for costs. And since the plaintiff here is an estate with $0.00 in assets... Ain't our legal system grand? |
|
|
|
SD, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 11:55:34 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ParityError: Absent a specific statute or a (very rare) finding that a cause of action is frivolous, or a finding of fraud on the part of the plaintiff's attorneys, the attorneys are immune - only the actual plaintiff is liable for costs. And since the plaintiff here is an estate with $0.00 in assets... Ain't our legal system grand? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ParityError: Originally Posted By Gingerbreadman: Would it be possible to counter-sue the attorney or attorneys that are representing the estate of the plaintiff for damages, seeing as how they have cost you so much and due to increased insurance rates due to their actions, will continue to cost you? They have to know that they don't have a case, and yet are continuing to put in the work to fuck with you. Absent a specific statute or a (very rare) finding that a cause of action is frivolous, or a finding of fraud on the part of the plaintiff's attorneys, the attorneys are immune - only the actual plaintiff is liable for costs. And since the plaintiff here is an estate with $0.00 in assets... Ain't our legal system grand? I, for one, would love to see a law created for tort reform that is a civil suit is taken on contingency that the lawyers are partially on the hook for a defense counter suit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 12:00:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By elmidgeto: I, for one, would love to see a law created for tort reform that is a civil suit is taken on contingency that the lawyers are partially on the hook for a defense counter suit. Considering 90% of those in congress are lawyers, that's not gonna happen. |
|
|
|
SD, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 12:03:12 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: Considering 90% of those in congress are lawyers, that's not gonna happen. I know, but one can always dream, and harass their local reps to try to get something drawn up. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 12:17:13 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Brob324: "Paul was hospitalized for over a month. (E. Roebke Dep., p. 14.) He underwent roughly 11 electroconvulsive therapies just in order to cope with life. (Id.) He has been diagnosed with major depression. (Id.; see also P. Roebke Dep., pp. 35–36.) Elaine lost her only daughter and travel partner. She needs prescription sleep aids to get through the night. (E. Roebke Dep., p. 39.) And their only living child, Eric Roebke, had a “mental breakdown” because of his only sibling’s death and “didn’t work for over a year.” (Id. at p. 40.) Eric was admitted to a mental health treatment center and was placed on psychiatric medications to cope with the loss of his sister. (Id. at pp. 41–42.)" That's quite a few words to get to the point which is "this whole family is a bunch of slapdick retards and the sooner they follow their cunt daughter to oblivion, the better off we'll all be." Fuck you Brady lawyers; fuck you squarely in your collective asses. You should read These. Tells you all about the family home life. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 9:18:45 PM EDT
[#44]
If the plantiff files for the dismissal, then that should truly mark the end of the case (in your favor). I will send you a PM shortly with my logic. I’m sure their attorneys are following this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 9:26:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DD1801: If the plantiff files for the dismissal, then that should truly mark the end of the case (in your favor). I will send you a PM shortly with my logic. I’m sure their attorneys are following this thread. They can subpoena ARFCOM for your DM if they want. They will have a year to re-file but while it’s dismissed the “evidence” against me isn’t getting any better for them. It’s still a nothing-case if they do re-file. They would only be doing it to fuck with me because they know how bad I want a trial. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 9:32:05 PM EDT
[#46]
I think it would be cool to make them pay his expenses to travel/testify and destroy him in the court room. Do it.. I would bet that any lawyer would salivate at the chance to destroy that clown in court. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 9:42:06 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By voodochild: Do it.. I would bet that any lawyer would salivate at the chance to destroy that clown in court. My attorneys filed the motion to exclude him today. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 9:43:12 PM EDT
[#48]
I thought Palmetto State Armory already put this guy out of business
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 6:57:58 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbore: My attorneys filed the motion to exclude him today. Maybe they'll ask for a hearing, so the attorneys can still get a chance to obliterate him on the stand. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 8:26:05 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zpduff: I thought Palmetto State Armory already put this guy out of business You didn't think long about that notion. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
