What Are The Odds?

**Ken** · 06-12-2009, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Ole WV Coot

If I happen to get hit either by accident or design just what % am I gonna be taken for? Just a reminder, we Rednecks from the Hills shoot good and have little sense of humor.

Those thievin' $!&%#^+$ get from 33% to 40%, Coot. Call me. I'll hook you up - professional courtesy. From one miserable $!&%#^+ to another!

**Rick** · 06-12-2009, 11:08 PM

I have a really bad habit of watching the judge shows when I sit down for lunch. Tuesday or Wednesday there was a pretty good one. Two guys in a bar, argument, one guy goes home the second goes swings by his place later and smashes out the car windows.

Judge: "Could you see the person breaking out your car windows?"
Plaintiff: "Oh, yeah. He was only about 30 feet from my window."
Judge: "How dark was it?"
Defendant: "It was really dark, your honor."
Laughter erupts in courtroom.
Defendant realizing what he just did. "...In the bar that night."

Riiiiiight.

**Sam** · 06-13-2009, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Ken

Predators. D@mn lawyers are just predators.

There are lawyers and then there are ambulance chasers. I have a feeling Ken is not an ambulance chaser for two reasons.
1. Ethics.
2. Chasing ambulances is hard at his age. (joke)

-Sam

**Ken** · 06-13-2009, 01:44 PM

Thanks, Sam!

Personal injury lawyers can be tough. But the truth is, there would be far fewer of them if insurance companies just treated people fairly. They don't. Insurance companies often refuse to pay necessary medical bills, won't pay anywhere close to the true replacement value of a total loss car, etc. They have more lawyers on their payroll than you could imagine. And if you drive into Boston, just look around. The tallest buildings by far were built by insurance companies. All true. Sad, but true.

You know what's even worse? Divorce lawyers. Some go into negotiations in good faith. Many others believe that their client is "entitled" to more than half of everything their spouse has and will ever earn in the future. Judges in divorce courts don't want to deal with issues of "fault" - that's way too much work for the $140K they get paid each year. There are no longer "consequences" to be faced for bad acts committed. I've seen cases that make me sick.

Just one example: Wife doesn't work, cheats with multiple partners, uses drugs, pays no attention to the house and kids, and files for divorce. Husband, who works hard and then comes home and takes care of the house and kids while wife is "out" gets his head handed to him. Husband is "removed" from the home, and wife ends up with the kids, the house, child support, alimony, and most of the husbands property. Boyfriends move in and out........ It's a travesty. The system sucks.

That's why most of my practice (2/3) is criminal law. My clients are often a higher caliber of people than in many other types of cases.

The truth is, the whole system should be torn down and replaced with one that works. This one fails far too often. If anyone wants, I can start a thread on this topic.

**Ken** · 06-13-2009, 02:18 PM

Here are two examples. Neither was one of my cases, but one came down as a decision from a Mass appellate court - can't remember if it was the Appeals Court or the Supreme Court, and I don't want to look it up because I just get sick when I read it. Shortly after, a virtually identical case was decided by Florida's Supreme Court.

Facts:

1. Woman dates guy "A." They later break up.

2. Woman then marries guy "B."

3. While married to B, she gets pregnant by A, who she is seeing behind B's back. B has no idea that A is still in the picture.

4. About 10 years later, woman and B are divorced. B, believeing the child is his, willingly agrees to pay child support, medical expenses, future college expenses, etc. B never even thinks of asking for a DNA test.

(And can you imagine how the child would feel when he/she finds out that Daddy was trying to deny paternity? Doesn't do much for the father-child relationship, does it?)

5. Mom then marries A. Mom and A tell the child, now an adolescent, that A is really the father, not B. Both mommy and A talk really badly about B.

6. Child tells B that he/she no longer wants to go on "visitation" because B is not really dad and is a bad person.

7. B freaks out, hires a lawyer, and goes to court. He requests a DNA test. Finds out that he really isn't dad - A is.

8. Since he isn't "dad" and the child no longer wants to have anything to do with him, B petitions court to terminate child support payments, medical payments, and the order that he pay future college expenses.

9. Both cases make their way to the appeals court (in Mass and Florida).

10. Both courts rule that the original orders remain valid, and that B must continue to pay child support payments, medical payments, and future college expenses for a child who is not his and wants nothing to do with him. (In Mass, the order remains in effect until the child turns 23 years old.)

11. WHY???? Because the law in both states (and most other states as well) requires a father to contest paternity within one year of the first support order that is issued. After that, the issue of paternity can never be challenged again, even if valid grounds are discovered in the future.

Is this fair? The courts could have made an exception - God knows they do in so many other cases - and even acknowledged the unfairness of their decisions. But hey, the law is the law, right?

What the Hell are our idiot judges and legislatures thinking????

Can anyone explain to me why our legal system shouldn't be torn down and rebuilt to achieve a fair outcome to cases?

Sadly, I don't practice "justice" - I practice "law." One has nothing to do with the other.