LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > The Fashionable

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 158
0 members and 158 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-17-2016, 10:15 AM   #1966
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
The bass player from some dumb 80s band is my friend on FB.
One of my high school friends has had a career in the recording industry - now a mucketty-muck at Pandora, used to be one of the main talent managers at Columbia.

I don't look at his friends. It just makes me feel old.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2016, 02:24 PM   #1970
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 18,595
Yesterday's Top 20

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4390

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4391

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4392

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4393

TM
ThurgreedMarshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2016, 06:19 PM   #1972
taxwonk
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
 
taxwonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
for the litigators

State claims in a verified response to discovery they don't have video footage. At clsimant's deposition, they attempt to prove claimant was not injured, as she claims. Only problem is, the video is not claimant. On the other hand, the clips ARE enough to prove the video State claimed didn't exist did, in fact exist.

State's counsel admits to spoliation of evidence. And perjury. Does the destruction of evidence and perjury support federal 1983 or 1984 action?
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
taxwonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2016, 08:16 PM   #1973
Icky Thump
Registered User
 
Icky Thump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,520
Re: for the litigators

Quote:
Originally Posted by taxwonk View Post
State claims in a verified response to discovery they don't have video footage. At clsimant's deposition, they attempt to prove claimant was not injured, as she claims. Only problem is, the video is not claimant. On the other hand, the clips ARE enough to prove the video State claimed didn't exist did, in fact exist.

State's counsel admits to spoliation of evidence. And perjury. Does the destruction of evidence and perjury support federal 1983 or 1984 action?
ouch but something deep in the recesses of my feeble mind tell me that spoliation and perjury don't create independent charges but you may want to check w someone who handles these.
__________________
gothamtakecontrol
Icky Thump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2016, 11:56 PM   #1974
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
Re: for the litigators

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump View Post
ouch but something deep in the recesses of my feeble mind tell me that spoliation and perjury don't create independent charges but you may want to check w someone who handles these.
I took down an evil empire that was going around the country suing companies that were doing a good thing (hands a bit tied here). These were patent infringement cases. Spoliation was a major argument to throw out their claims, and led to a very favorable settlement. but yeah, i don't think there was any specific claim generated by it. Didn't look though. Sidd is the only other lit guy here but I don't imagine that issue comes up much in pawn shop law. i'd google.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2016, 03:07 PM   #1975
Not Bob
Moderator
 
Not Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 6,034
Re: for the litigators

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
I took down an evil empire that was going around the country suing companies that were doing a good thing (hands a bit tied here). These were patent infringement cases. Spoliation was a major argument to throw out their claims, and led to a very favorable settlement. but yeah, i don't think there was any specific claim generated by it. Didn't look though. Sidd is the only other lit guy here* but I don't imagine that issue comes up much in pawn shop law. i'd google.
Not that you need another answer (Hank and Icky have it covered), but my feelings are hurt.

*Emphasis supplied, of course.
Not Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2016, 03:33 PM   #1976
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 18,595
Yesterday's Top 20

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4398

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4399

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4400

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4401

TM
ThurgreedMarshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2016, 05:51 PM   #1978
taxwonk
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
 
taxwonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
You spoiled discovery

Thanks to all who replied. Step Two, look into the IL equivalent of Rule 11 sanctions. State's outside counsel was pissed cause his client made him look like a clown and even he admitted the State's lawyer in this case is a total dick.
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
taxwonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2016, 11:56 PM   #1979
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
Re: for the litigators

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob View Post
Not that you need another answer (Hank and Icky have it covered), but my feelings are hurt.

*Emphasis supplied, of course.
Conf to NB: Raising the issue is a nasty thing cuz it means the law firm screwed up in how it handled evidence. I know you recognize that, but I didn't want to point to Wonk to you for further advice, because, frankly, it would be notnice for you to educate wonk on how to potentially ruin another person's career! Namaste!
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 AM.