9 ms·
Thank you. So their scheme might be something like sue someone for $1,000 or whatever, and if they win collect $10,000 in attorney fees. But without the shado
by parfe 14y ago
Thank you. So their scheme might be something like sue someone for $1,000 or whatever, and if they win collect $10,000 in attorney fees.
But without the shadow ownership, they would only be entitled to the $1,000?
edit: although on rereading my hypothetical, I still don't understand why strictly separating ownership of the media company and the law firm wouldn't have been sufficient.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- simcop2387 14y agoThere's a pretty decent chance that it would have been sufficient to satisfy all of that, but that's not what they chose to do it seems. They instead created a company that they owned, put someone else's name on it with alleged forged signatures that had little idea what was going on ( Cooper ) and tried to do that while controlling both so that they'd have complete discretion to sue and collect fees.
- will_brown 14y ago>I still don't understand why strictly separating ownership of the media company and the law firm wouldn't have been sufficient. Lawyers are not allowed to knowingly misrepresent facts to the Court. So the Firm's interest would/should always be revealed. Ownership can always be traced back, this generally is revealed during discovery, but if as alleged the true ownership was not revealed because the very Firm who both is attorney of record and actually owns the the Plantiff's Company and the Firm willfully misrepresented that to the Court - never-mind the allegation of identify theft to deceive the Court.