Go Away Money

[cdwjava]

Sorry jk, there isn't anybody left to post on this thread because they all ran for cover out of embarrassment. Most of them never showing their faces in the first place.

Don't you see that silhouette of Carl's backside with his gunbelt and baton flopping up and down as he runs into the sunset? I see you still standing there refusing to wipe the egg of your face.

<Sigh> Interesting how you impart some motive to my lack of engagement in this schoolground back-and-forth. I try and avoid the "I'm right - no you're not - yes I am ..." arguments when I can. Especially when they concern something for which we have no details, and on a topic that really does not interest me. So, you can continue to have your fun and impart whatever erroneous motives you wish to me.

You post because you think you've found some golden egg that you believe proves some of might be wrong in some other thread(s) with different facts. Others here post to try and explain to you that details are important and a NEWS story lacks the details. Honestly, I have not read the article linked here because the topic did not interest me. I read very few posts on this site, certainly not the ones that have titles that fail to attract my attention and begin with the premise that "I was right and everyone else was wrong." I suppose millions of dollars is not "go away money." But, I don't care. The parties involved settled for reasons they alone might understand. They, alone, know the facts of the case and the motivations behind settling for the amount they did. We can hypothesize and guess all day. Ultimately, it is very likely that the parties that agreed to the settlement felt that they might lose more at trial with a jury so they settled rather than risk it. Juries are unpredictable and often compel monetary settlements beyond what might be reasonable. Appealing ridiculous verdicts takes time and more money, and may not prevail. So, they do the math and come up with what they can live with.

As for me, I have better things to do with my limited free time than engage in grade school banter.

[Taxing Matters]

There is a post by a Brian57 that is very similar.

https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=228701

If that thread by the now banned Brian57 is indeed Chuck77's thread that explains why I couldn't find it. In that case it would also confirm that Chuck has seriously mischaracterized what I said in that thread. But Chuck curiously won't provide a link to his prior thread and I'll bet won't answer the question whether the thread you linked is his, either. After all, he's posted since you provided the link and ignored addressing it. If he denies that's his thread, I'll bet he still won't provide the link to the one that is his thread (if in fact he does have a different thread than the Brian57 thread).

[Chuck77]

If that thread by the now banned Brian57 is indeed Chuck77's thread that explains why I couldn't find it. In that case it would also confirm that Chuck has seriously mischaracterized what I said in that thread. But Chuck curiously won't provide a link to his prior thread and I'll bet won't answer the question whether the thread you linked is his, either. After all, he's posted since you provided the link and ignored addressing it. If he denies that's his thread, I'll bet he still won't provide the link to the one that is his thread (if in fact he does have a different thread than the Brian57 thread).

I have been spending the last three days going over 180 pages of deposition transcripts. What I observed is the sleazy, manipulating tactics a trial lawyer uses to maneuver a witness into testifying to something that they never said. Seeing through your challenge to me, Tax, is just as transparent. In that, you know that I have an open lawsuit and I should not be talking on an open forum about it, yet you challenge me to speak openly about it. Of course I will back down, wouldn't you?

I have spoken about my case here and was unimpressed, so I'm not going to again in any detail. Because why should I? What I get in return is opinion from what appears to be from the same self-taught mindset. And, just as we see on this thread, your excuses for getting it wrong are all identical...in that "you don't have any information," which is bs. You have court documents to review. What more do you need, to depose the paraplegic man under oath? Of course there is always something you don't know about a case, yet you regularly opine here all the time.

What you guys have shown is that you don't know squat about 'failure to warn' cases. Nor can most of you define what 'go away money' is, even though you throw that term around here all the time to make people feel unworthy of a settlement. It is disgusting.

I will speak about this case by asking any of you one question. What would you have to hear to justify a full liability of the construction crew? I have a good idea what made them liable. Do any of you know what would make them liable? Bet you can't name a single highly likely construction setup that made them liable. Yet you all claim to know what would make them liable if you just 'had more information.'

[Mark47n]

I have been spending the last three days going over 180 pages of deposition transcripts. What I observed is the sleazy, manipulating tactics a trial lawyer uses to maneuver a witness into testifying to something that they never said. Seeing through your challenge to me, Tax, is just as transparent. In that, you know that I have an open lawsuit and I should not be talking on an open forum about it, yet you challenge me to speak openly about it. Of course I will back down, wouldn't you?

I have spoken about my case here and was unimpressed, so I'm not going to again in any detail. Because why should I? What I get in return is opinion from what appears to be from the same self-taught mindset. And, just as we see on this thread, your excuses for getting it wrong are all identical...in that "you don't have any information," which is bs. You have court documents to review. What more do you need, to depose the paraplegic man under oath? Of course there is always something you don't know about a case, yet you regularly opine here all the time.

What you guys have shown is that you don't know squat about 'failure to warn' cases. Nor can most of you define what 'go away money' is, even though you throw that term around here all the time to make people feel unworthy of a settlement. It is disgusting.

I will speak about this case by asking any of you one question. What would you have to hear to justify a full liability of the construction crew? I have a good idea what made them liable. Do any of you know what would make them liable? Bet you can't name a single highly likely construction setup that made them liable. Yet you all claim to know what would make them liable if you just 'had more information.'

If you go away I'll send you $1.

Just go away.

See how that works, Chucky?

[Taxing Matters]

I have been spending the last three days going over 180 pages of deposition transcripts. What I observed is the sleazy, manipulating tactics a trial lawyer uses to maneuver a witness into testifying to something that they never said. Seeing through your challenge to me, Tax, is just as transparent. In that, you know that I have an open lawsuit and I should not be talking on an open forum about it, yet you challenge me to speak openly about it. Of course I will back down, wouldn't you?

I'm not surprised at your response. But not because you are protecting yourself in the current lawsuit (though that might be one factor). I think it quite likely that the thread by Brian57 is your thread. I've found no other threads here in the last year or so that addresses a bike accident even remotely like the one in that article other than the thread by Brian57. If that is indeed correct, then I think you don't want to admit that it is your thread because (1) Brian57 was banned and you don't want the admins of this site to know you are the same person and risk getting banned again and (2) you'd be effectively admitting you misrepresented my statement about your case.

You have claimed in this thread that I said you had no case. Yet my post in that Brian57 thread is not remotely close to that. I offered no opinion whatever on the case in that thread. I simply gave a hypothetical that IF the facts were that Brian57 could have seen the danger in time to react to it then his own contributory negligence might cause a jury to find against him. It was simply an explanation of what the result might be in a given situation. I did not say those were the facts in his case nor opine on the outcome of his case. That's because, like in the article you linked in this thread, I didn't have sufficient facts in that thread to make that determination. So my responses in the two threads were consistent: I did not opine on liability because I didn't have all the facts. It would be foolish for me to render an opinion on something that I don't have all the facts on, much as you might like people to do that. It would be like you giving an estimate to do a job when you don't know what the job involves.

Since I strongly suspect you and Brian57 are the same person and thus that you misrepresented my statements about your case, I'm certainly not about to trust statements you give me going forward at face value. I can't trust that you won't misrepresent those too. You can, of course, correct my suspicion about Brian57's thread being yours by providing me the link to the thread about your case in which I made the statements you claim I made. If those were made under your current user name, simply providing the link to that would not result in any more disclosure than is already available to your opponent. So what would you have to lose? But I rather think you won't do it because in fact Brian57's thread is yours and admitting that would make your game of "gotcha" backfire.

[budwad]

I'm not surprised at your response. But not because you are protecting yourself in the current lawsuit (though that might be one factor). I think it quite likely that the thread by Brian57 is your thread. I've found no other threads here in the last year or so that addresses a bike accident even remotely like the one in that article other than the thread by Brian57. If that is indeed correct, then I think you don't want to admit that it is your thread because (1) Brian57 was banned and you don't want the admins of this site to know you are the same person and risk getting banned again and (2) you'd be effectively admitting you misrepresented my statement about your case.

You have claimed in this thread that I said you had no case. Yet my post in that Brian57 thread is not remotely close to that. I offered no opinion whatever on the case in that thread. I simply gave a hypothetical that IF the facts were that Brian57 could have seen the danger in time to react to it then his own contributory negligence might cause a jury to find against him. It was simply an explanation of what the result might be in a given situation. I did not say those were the facts in his case nor opine on the outcome of his case. That's because, like in the article you linked in this thread, I didn't have sufficient facts in that thread to make that determination. So my responses in the two threads were consistent: I did not opine on liability because I didn't have all the facts. It would be foolish for me to render an opinion on something that I don't have all the facts on, much as you might like people to do that. It would be like you giving an estimate to do a job when you don't know what the job involves.

Since I strongly suspect you and Brian57 are the same person and thus that you misrepresented my statements about your case, I'm certainly not about to trust statements you give me going forward at face value. I can't trust that you won't misrepresent those too. You can, of course, correct my suspicion about Brian57's thread being yours by providing me the link to the thread about your case in which I made the statements you claim I made. If those were made under your current user name, simply providing the link to that would not result in any more disclosure than is already available to your opponent. So what would you have to lose? But I rather think you won't do it because in fact Brian57's thread is yours and admitting that would make your game of "gotcha" backfire.

"And down the rabbit hole you go. Try not to get lost. Your ego is showing. Again.

[Taxing Matters]

Your ego is showing. Again.

How so? I think perhaps you have a bias against me that is showing.

[llworking]

"And down the rabbit hole you go. Try not to get lost. Your ego is showing. Again.

I find that to be uncalled for. While I sometimes feel that TM disagrees with people based on semantics rather than ordinary jargon and he sometimes gets some details wrong when he dips into family law, he still gives some of the most thorough and accurate responses that are seen on these forums. He never "goes down the rabbit hole".

You, on the other hand Bud, often go "down the rabbit hole".

[Chuck77]

So my responses in the two threads were consistent:

Not by a long shot because the inconsistency is glaringly obvious.

One post points up the other is pointing down. But up and down may be the same thing, as it is for jk.

This tells me that you will cower to a verdict but opine away when the ball is in the air and you are talking to a layperson.

[Taxing Matters]

Not by a long shot because the inconsistency is glaringly obvious.

One post points up the other is pointing down.

Nice try, Chuck. I gave no opinion on either case. Because of that, one post can't be pointing up and another pointing down. I was neutral in each because I didn't have sufficient information. Perhaps your view of my post on the Brian57 thread is a bit colored because some others did take a view that there did not appear to be a good case there and you attributed that to mine as well. But I was not joining in on that; I was simply clarifying one legal principle with a hypothetical. If you read it again closely you'll see that.