Ed's Bootlegs (inc. Supreme Court summons), not so legal after all? Options

[FishOutaWater]

The Supreme Court is not the highest cour tin New York.

People generally do not pay many thousands of dollars to a lawyer to file a complaint unless they think their case has merit.

Lawyers do not file complaints with a court that contain facts they know to be inaccurate. They can't make false factuial representations to the court. A lawyer is an officer of the court with duties. If there is a fact that you don't know, you say "upon information and belief" or "allegedly".

[jclive]

The Supreme Court is not the highest cour tin New York.

People generally do not pay many thousands of dollars to a lawyer to file a complaint unless they think their case has merit.

Lawyers do not file complaints with a court that contain facts they know to be inaccurate. They can't make false factuial representations to the court. A lawyer is an officer of the court with duties. If there is a fact that you don't know, you say "upon information and belief" or "allegedly".

There are a huge number of frivolous suits filed in the US. Simply Google it for examples.

They can be free. They can cost very little. Or they can cost thousands. Some people have legal representation on retainer. Some people file on their own behalf. As we've discussed in the Alive thread about people (myself included) buying multiple copies of an album, what one chooses to spend their own money on is between the parties exchanging the funds, and no one else.

Would you ever hire a lawyer that didnt believe your word to be 'fact.' I wouldnt!

[ItchyTriggerFinger]

There are a huge number of frivolous suits filed in the US. Simply Google it for examples.

They can be free. They can cost very little. Or they can cost thousands. Some people have legal representation on retainer. Some people file on their own behalf. As we've discussed in the Alive thread about people (myself included) buying multiple copies of an album, what one chooses to spend their own money on is between the parties exchanging the funds, and no one else.

Would you ever hire a lawyer that didnt believe your word to be 'fact.' I wouldnt!

Corporate lawyers, and I'd argue most lawyers, don't care about facts. They care about what can be proved or disproved under the law.

While I'd love to live in the world where only the facts mattered, this isn't that world. If you think it is, your level of naivete is astounding.

[jclive]

Corporate lawyers, and I'd argue most lawyers, don't care about facts. They care about what can be proved or disproved under the law.

While I'd love to live in the world where only the facts mattered, this isn't that world. If you think it is, your level of naivete is astounding.

Quite the contrary, facts have little to do with it under our current system. And just because something can be proved or disproved under the law, it doesnt make something any more or less legal.

Say Johnny, in fact, killed his friend Steve. Johnny was taken to trial, and found innocent by a jury of his peers. It doesnt change the fact that Johnny killed Steve. But under the law, he is considered innocent.

[FishOutaWater]

Everyone seems to know so much about the law and the legal system. I may be in over my head here. But a lawyer cannot intentially make false representations to the court. And when people bring cases with little or no merit, they are bringing those cases because they have some settlement value based on the nuisance and expense that the case will pose for the defendant. The defendant will settle in order to avoid having to pay a lawyer to defend the case, and to mitigate the risk of loosing (even if that risk is low, there may be some value to eliminating that risk). This is not that kind of case. These lawyers are from a reputable New York firm. I am sure that their hourly rates are between $600 to $1,100 per hour. The lawyers undoubtedly met with their clients, reviewed the facts and information, reviewed documents, drafted a complaint and filed it. I am guessing that legal work from a New York firm cost easily $10,000 to $30,000, perhaps more. In this case, I do not think that CC&P filed an unmeritorious case in order to get a settlement for the nuisance value of the case from Ed. It's not that kind of case. These are parties who know each other and have breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties claims. You can't compare this case to a slip and fall case.

This post has been edited by FishOutaWater: Jul 13 2010, 4:10 pm

[OutToDry]

Once again Fish calls it like it is 100%

[FishOutaWater]

Once again Fish calls it like it is 100%

You make me blush. Really.

[ItchyTriggerFinger]

Quite the contrary, facts have little to do with it under our current system. And just because something can be proved or disproved under the law, it doesnt make something any more or less legal.

Is your reading comprehension impaired? Because your first sentence just proved my previous point.

Say Johnny, in fact, killed his friend Steve. Johnny was taken to trial, and found innocent by a jury of his peers. It doesnt change the fact that Johnny killed Steve. But under the law, he is considered innocent.

First of all, Johnny isn't found innocent. He's found "not guilty" which means that, under the law, the prosecuting attorneys did not successfully make their case.

But again, thank you for making my case for me.

[VoodooLady]

You make me blush. Really.

all the kudos are well deserved. your posts are non-judgmental, to the point, and well reasoned..

[Bremang]

Everyone seems to know so much about the law and the legal system. I may be in over my head here. But a lawyer cannot intentially make false representations to the court. And when people bring cases with little or no merit, they are bringing those cases because they have some settlement value based on the nuisance and expense that the case will pose for the defendant. The defendant will settle in order to avoid having to pay a lawyer to defend the case, and to mitigate the risk of loosing (even if that risk is low, there may be some value to eliminating that risk). This is not that kind of case. These lawyers are from a reputable New York firm. I am sure that their hourly rates are between $600 to $1,100 per hour. The lawyers undoubtedly met with their clients, reviewed the facts and information, reviewed documents, drafted a complaint and filed it. I am guessing that legal work from a New York firm cost easily $10,000 to $30,000, perhaps more. In this case, I do not think that CC&P filed an unmeritorious case in order to get a settlement for the nuisance value of the case from Ed. It's not that kind of case. These are parties who know each other and have breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties claims. You can't compare this case to a slip and fall case.

yes, the guys are putting their money where there mouth is. They very well may have money coming back to them.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jul 14 2010, 1:06 am

[Bremang]

Lawyers do not file complaints with a court that contain facts they know to be inaccurate. They can't make false factuial representations to the court. A lawyer is an officer of the court with duties. If there is a fact that you don't know, you say "upon information and belief" or "allegedly".

What is the language they used regarding the million dollar deal? I think someone said something about it, sounding like it was along the lines of upon information and belief.

[jclive]

Is your reading comprehension impaired? Because your first sentence just proved my previous point.
First of all, Johnny isn't found innocent. He's found "not guilty" which means that, under the law, the prosecuting attorneys did not successfully make their case.

But again, thank you for making my case for me.

Innocent... not guilty.. youre splitting hairs there my friend. And just as it means the prosecution didnt successfully make their case, it also means that the defense actually did their job.

[jclive]

Everyone seems to know so much about the law and the legal system. I may be in over my head here. But a lawyer cannot intentially make false representations to the court. And when people bring cases with little or no merit, they are bringing those cases because they have some settlement value based on the nuisance and expense that the case will pose for the defendant. The defendant will settle in order to avoid having to pay a lawyer to defend the case, and to mitigate the risk of loosing (even if that risk is low, there may be some value to eliminating that risk). This is not that kind of case. These lawyers are from a reputable New York firm. I am sure that their hourly rates are between $600 to $1,100 per hour. The lawyers undoubtedly met with their clients, reviewed the facts and information, reviewed documents, drafted a complaint and filed it. I am guessing that legal work from a New York firm cost easily $10,000 to $30,000, perhaps more. In this case, I do not think that CC&P filed an unmeritorious case in order to get a settlement for the nuisance value of the case from Ed. It's not that kind of case. These are parties who know each other and have breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties claims. You can't compare this case to a slip and fall case.

So I guess you missed my original point. I posed the discussion about frivolous suits in general, not in relation to this one.

Believe it or not I do think that there is merit to CC&P's suit. I just dont think its nearly as serious, or devious, or as one-sided as they make it sound. Will they get all that they are asking for? Not even close. But everyone will walk away happy.

[VoodooLady]

Innocent... not guilty.. youre splitting hairs there my friend. And just as it means the prosecution didnt successfully make their case, it also means that the defense actually did their job.

I'm sure OJ would love your take on this

[jclive]

I'm sure OJ would love your take on this

That's a great example there! He killed those people. Or he did not kill those people. One of those statements is without a doubt, fact.

But in the eyes of the law, he didnt kill those people. The actual fact does not change simply because of how the eye's of the law view the situation.