4 ms·

I agree with you, but remember that Jeremy turned down the 4.5 before having a chance to consult with his lawyer. So he must have believed he had a significant

I agree with you, but remember that Jeremy turned down the 4.5 before having a chance to consult with his lawyer. So he must have believed he had a significant chance of winning at that point, and his lawyer must now believe there is some chance of winning or he wouldn't take the case, but we don't know that the lawyer would have advised turning down the 4.5.

_sentient 11y ago
Are you really both asserting that the mere fact someone is willing to litigate acts as evidence to the merit of their claims? This is California. Frivolous lawsuits make up a meaningful portion of our GDP.
- tempestn 11y ago
  Certainly turning down a $4.5M settlement suggests you believe there's merit to your claims. Also, reputable lawyers won't take on a case they don't believe they have any chance of winning, and Keker & Van Nest appears to be a reputable firm. So not always, but in this case, basically yes. Admittedly there is a bit of a difference between "chance of winning" and "some merit" (unfortunately) though.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    Even SCO hired reputable lawyers. Alas, it's generally the less rational plaintiffs where people give them entirely too much credit. It's always better to wait for all the facts first. We have no reason to rush to judgement, nor is it a good idea. It simply makes one easier to manipulate, as the truth is most often the last thing to be heard. It's always easier to toss out a few quick lies than to painstakingly document the truth, especially in court.
Natsu 11y ago
His beliefs may or may not conform to reality. I don't find it worthwhile to prejudge the cases based on my read of someone's actions. He's not required to act in a rational manner and the less rational a plaintiff's behavior, the more outlandish the claims may be (see also: Paul Ceglia). So I'm going to stick with no opinion either way and wait for the hard evidence, rather than trying to read the behavior of people I don't know, who may or may not conform to my ideas of rational behavior, which is something we've yet to establish. This is very important given that flat-out crazy parties (see also: SCO) have tied up the courts for, well, decades based on stuff and nonsense (and mostly the latter). As I can't prove whether plaintiff or defendant are rational until I see evidence, we're stuck with "stay neutral until you get the facts." I've read plenty of cases and I've yet to see a case where prejudging the parties was a good idea. Contrarily, I've seen plenty of people get excited about nonsense that was laughed out of court later. So no, there just isn't a good reason to rush to judgement on this or any other case. Whether the plaintiff or defendant is right is something we should wait to decide later, once we have a more complete set of facts.

_sentient 11y ago

Are you really both asserting that the mere fact someone is willing to litigate acts as evidence to the merit of their claims? This is California. Frivolous lawsuits make up a meaningful portion of our GDP.

tempestn 11y ago
Certainly turning down a $4.5M settlement suggests you believe there's merit to your claims. Also, reputable lawyers won't take on a case they don't believe they have any chance of winning, and Keker & Van Nest appears to be a reputable firm. So not always, but in this case, basically yes. Admittedly there is a bit of a difference between "chance of winning" and "some merit" (unfortunately) though.
- Natsu 11y ago
  Even SCO hired reputable lawyers. Alas, it's generally the less rational plaintiffs where people give them entirely too much credit. It's always better to wait for all the facts first. We have no reason to rush to judgement, nor is it a good idea. It simply makes one easier to manipulate, as the truth is most often the last thing to be heard. It's always easier to toss out a few quick lies than to painstakingly document the truth, especially in court.

Natsu 11y ago

His beliefs may or may not conform to reality. I don't find it worthwhile to prejudge the cases based on my read of someone's actions. He's not required to act in a rational manner and the less rational a plaintiff's behavior, the more outlandish the claims may be (see also: Paul Ceglia). So I'm going to stick with no opinion either way and wait for the hard evidence, rather than trying to read the behavior of people I don't know, who may or may not conform to my ideas of rational behavior, which is something we've yet to establish. This is very important given that flat-out crazy parties (see also: SCO) have tied up the courts for, well, decades based on stuff and nonsense (and mostly the latter). As I can't prove whether plaintiff or defendant are rational until I see evidence, we're stuck with "stay neutral until you get the facts." I've read plenty of cases and I've yet to see a case where prejudging the parties was a good idea. Contrarily, I've seen plenty of people get excited about nonsense that was laughed out of court later. So no, there just isn't a good reason to rush to judgement on this or any other case. Whether the plaintiff or defendant is right is something we should wait to decide later, once we have a more complete set of facts.