"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:KbCdnfH_fZg1T7TcRVn-pQ@comcast.com...

> Lawyers are generally money grubbing folks. They go for where the money
is.
> That's why they sue the company in a slip and fall, and not the 16 year
old
> mop pusher, the person directly responsible. And why is that? Because a
16
> year old mop pusher has no money.

That's a valid point, Jerry Braun once told me in this forum that I was
"judgement proof" due to not having enough money to be worth suing.
However, if you stuck to what I actually wrote instead of making something
up, you'd note that I said the janitorial company, not the kid holding the
mop, the company probably is worth suing.

> In this instance, some guy who happens to own some land with NOTHING
> DEVELOPED ON IT, where's the money? If you're in the middle of a city,
and
> the land is simply appreciating in value for some real estate mogul, you
> might have gotten extremely lucky and managed to hurt yourself on the land
> of someone with money. However, if the land is on the outskirts of a
city,
> or in the middle of nowhere, odds are good that it's just "some guy". If
> that's the case, there literally is no money to get. A lawyer is not
going
> to waste his time on such a case because there is no value in him pursuing
> it.

I once sued a company that strictly speaking was no longer in operation,
they owed me an a lot of other guys some money, the way it works Jeff is
first you get a judgement against the owner, then if he fails to pay, you
get something like a writ of execution, and the Sheriff seizes their
property, sells it at auction, pays the people with the judgement and gives
the rest, less costs, back to the original owner. If you doubt this Jeff,
get yourself some real estate, then fail to pay taxes on it. Get back to us
with a detailed description of what happened after the government got tired
of demanding your back taxes.

> Furthermore, the reason why people can sue a company for negligence
> resulting in injury is because there is a certain level of expectation
when
> it comes to the upkeep of the area in question. A slip in a supermarket
is
> generally pursued because of water on the floor or something like that,
> specifically water where there really shouldn't be water. In the case of
> undeveloped land, there is no such expectation of upkeep, nor warranty as
to
> specific use. In other words, the land is not subject to a level of
upkeep
> that would allow a lawyer to realistically sue for personal injury as a
> result of using that land.
>
> Dev, you're really scatty these days.

Again you sidestep what I actually wrote in order to make your point, seems
to be your standard practice these days Goslin. The fact is that lawyers
sue all the time even with no expectation of actually winning a judgement,
because they know in the long run many of their targets will just settle out
of court rather than go through a long and expensive legal battle. I know
of several paintball companies that have written big checks to grinning
lawyers because it was just easier and cheaper than spending years in court
paying their own lawyers to eventually "win."

Oh, silly me, I forgot, anything that Jeff hasn't seen with his own eyes
never really happened, doesn't exist, so why am I wasting my time.

In article <f3qWc.503169$Gx4.3434@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, DGDevin
says...
>
>I once sued a company that strictly speaking was no longer in operation,
>they owed me an a lot of other guys some money, the way it works Jeff is
>first you get a judgement against the owner, then if he fails to pay, you
>get something like a writ of execution, and the Sheriff seizes their
>property, sells it at auction, pays the people with the judgement and gives
>the rest, less costs, back to the original owner.

Or, if the owner was smart, he would just wave his Articles of Incorporation at
you, and you'd be SOL.

"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
news:f3qWc.503169$Gx4.3434@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> That's a valid point, Jerry Braun once told me in this forum that I was
> "judgement proof" due to not having enough money to be worth suing.
> However, if you stuck to what I actually wrote instead of making something
> up, you'd note that I said the janitorial company, not the kid holding the
> mop, the company probably is worth suing.

And, if you could follow a line of reasoning, a person owning "some
undeveloped land" may not be a good candidate for suing, mainly because the
land itself may not be that valuable, and the person may be an individual,
rather than representing a corporation worth suing. So, yes, I agree, the
individual is not worth suing. But what is important is to note that a
person who owns land may be just as "sue-worthy" as any other individual out
there(ie not very likely to be a good "sue" candidate). Unfortunately, you
can't seem to grasp the notion I'm putting forth.

[description of lein execution snipped]
> the rest, less costs, back to the original owner. If you doubt this Jeff,
> get yourself some real estate, then fail to pay taxes on it. Get back to
us

I'm well aware of how this process works. However, for a person owning a
"plot of land", specifically undeveloped land in the middle of nowhere, like
would typically be used to play paintball, the land is rarely worth enough
to cost justify the process for a lawyer.

> Again you sidestep what I actually wrote in order to make your point,
seems
> to be your standard practice these days Goslin. The fact is that lawyers

Actually, if anyone is doing that, you are. Or at least you are
specifically avoiding seeing the line I am making from one point to the
next.

> Oh, silly me, I forgot, anything that Jeff hasn't seen with his own eyes
> never really happened, doesn't exist, so why am I wasting my time.

Honestly, you're simply being deliberately obtuse.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

In article <KbCdnfH_fZg1T7TcRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

> Lawyers are generally money grubbing folks. They go for where the money is.
> That's why they sue the company in a slip and fall, and not the 16 year old
> mop pusher, the person directly responsible. And why is that? Because a 16
> year old mop pusher has no money.

FYI: the legal slang is "deep pockets".

--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.net>
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"

In article <cgdk4p02eni@drn.newsguy.com>,
Jason G <jrgusenet@yahoo.REMOVEooTHISooPART.com> wrote:

> In article <f3qWc.503169$Gx4.3434@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> DGDevin
> says...
> >
> >I once sued a company that strictly speaking was no longer in operation,
> >they owed me an a lot of other guys some money, the way it works Jeff is
> >first you get a judgement against the owner, then if he fails to pay, you
> >get something like a writ of execution, and the Sheriff seizes their
> >property, sells it at auction, pays the people with the judgement and gives
> >the rest, less costs, back to the original owner.
>
> Or, if the owner was smart, he would just wave his Articles of Incorporation
> at
> you, and you'd be SOL.

The "corporate veil" can be peirced, especially if the incorporation
is a corporate fiction. You really have to keep up with your bylaws and
hold and record your annual meetings to keep the seperation up. A lot
of small corporations don't.

--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.net>
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0bGdnW4BiaS44bTcRVn-qA@comcast.com...
> "Insane Ranter" <spam@not.me> wrote in message
> news:xzaWc.5952$0o5.2356@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> > Your a sue happy nut always looking to strike it rich by suing right and
> > left aren't
>
> "YOU'RE" as in YOU ARE, you non-sentance finishing retarded ADD
sufferer...
>

Well you know I told you that..

LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!

"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
news:ZdhWc.237925$OB3.173824@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Insane Ranter" <spam@not.me> wrote in message
> news:xzaWc.5952$0o5.2356@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > Only if the people that got hurt sued. But I doubt that they win unless
> you
> > got some stupid idiotic court setting.....
>
> "If"? Look what happens when someone slips and falls in a shopping
center.
> They sue the mall, all the stores including ones that just signed a lease
> and haven't opened yet, the janitorial company, and probably the company
> that installed the floor. Why? Because they (or rather their lawyers)
know
> most of those companies will pay them off to be dropped from the lawsuit,
> it's cheaper to settle out of court than to fight it. And guess what, it
> happens in paintball too, don't kid yourself that you need a goofball jury
> to lose a lot of money on something like this.
>
>

Loser pays system is what we need..

(Insane Ranter <spam@not.me> uttered
> "DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
>> ...Because they (or rather their lawyers) know most of those
>> companies will pay them off to be dropped from the lawsuit, it's
>> cheaper to settle out of court than to fight it. And guess what, it
>> happens in paintball too, don't kid yourself that you need a
>> goofball jury to lose a lot of money on something like this.
>
> Loser pays system is what we need..

In many cases, a loser pays system is what we have. I believe you
need to see things through to the end before the judge can give you
costs, though.


Rick
--
key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
What difference does it make if you have two tanks to my one,
when you spread them out and let me smash them in detail?
:Erwin Rommel