It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by trebor451
and then yes, I am thankful that the US legal system, an entity completely foreign in concept and practice to tezz, will mean there is no chance at all.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, what I said is that for corporations, many times it is less expensive to settle out of court than it is to take a case to court...even when you are in the right. Do not read anything else into the statement.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Unfortunately, thats how our legal system works anymore. A lot of times its cheaper for a corporation to pay someone off than it is to take it to court...even when you are in the right.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Then you obviously missed the comment about 10,000 dead lawyers....
Originally posted by turbofan
While the anonymous 'egspurts' hide behind their keyboards, the professionals
and witnesses to this crime are hard at work. Let's hope this case goes to trial
and the media picks up the noise. Spread the word:
Originally posted by jprophet420
No it doesnt mean that the plaintiff has a case. It means their money people have figured out how much in legal fees that the airline would have most likely ended up paying throughout the case and appeals.
Right, and the only way the legal fees are going to cost you is if the plaintiff has a case, otherwise it gets thrown out.
Kolstad and Wittenberg and Balsamo, et al really don't do anything other than make people wonder about the quality of airline pilots these days
Originally posted by jprophet420
Kolstad and Wittenberg and Balsamo, et al really don't do anything other than make people wonder about the quality of airline pilots these days
People less qualified than them.
Like you.
So lets have experts evaluate their claims in court, and utter ********** evaluate them on the net.
Originally posted by trebor451
Originally posted by turbofan
While the anonymous 'egspurts' hide behind their keyboards, the professionals
and witnesses to this crime are hard at work. Let's hope this case goes to trial
and the media picks up the noise. Spread the word:
TF...Tino....dude....seriously. I really don't worry or care about who PfT pimps up as their "experts" - Kolstad and Wittenberg and Balsamo, et al really don't do anything other than make people wonder about the quality of airline pilots these days. I really don't worry about the credibility of your organization when you have a lunatic like John Lear and his moon-based brain on your list of "experts". I really don't worry about your "experts" saying "Gosh! I couldn't fly a 757 like that!" when there are documented cases of casual and light-civil pilots, with nothing more than a C-172 license, climbing into a 757 sim and doing *exactly* that which your "experts" say they can't do - and the C-172 pilots do it over and over and over again.
But climbing onto this April Gallop joke of a lawsuit is simply...unbelievable, even for you PfT people. The "@gmail.com" email address of the filing lawyers notwithstanding, the errors of fact (claiming Burlingame was a "National Guard" reservist), the Gallop claims that missile batteries were "stood down" when there haven't BEEN any "missile batteries" for many, many, many years (a fact that "professionals" such as yourself should know by now) - the thing is simply rife with errors that will end up getting it thrown out in on that alone.
Why would you align yourselves with a legal vehicle that has simply so many errors and has absolutely no chance of success? Being stupid out of ignorance is one thing - being voluntarily stupid when you should know better is something totally different. I keep trying to give you PfT people the benefit of many, many doubts, but you keep lowering the stupid bar to new and heretofor unherald lows.
[edit on 18-7-2009 by trebor451]
Originally posted by trebor451
Bumped because I want an answer.
Originally posted by trebor451
Originally posted by turbofan
While the anonymous 'egspurts' hide behind their keyboards, the professionals
and witnesses to this crime are hard at work. Let's hope this case goes to trial
and the media picks up the noise. Spread the word:
TF...Tino....dude....seriously. I really don't worry or care about who PfT pimps up as their "experts" - Kolstad and Wittenberg and Balsamo, et al really don't do anything other than make people wonder about the quality of airline pilots these days. I really don't worry about the credibility of your organization when you have a lunatic like John Lear and his moon-based brain on your list of "experts". I really don't worry about your "experts" saying "Gosh! I couldn't fly a 757 like that!" when there are documented cases of casual and light-civil pilots, with nothing more than a C-172 license, climbing into a 757 sim and doing *exactly* that which your "experts" say they can't do - and the C-172 pilots do it over and over and over again.
But climbing onto this April Gallop joke of a lawsuit is simply...unbelievable, even for you PfT people. The "@gmail.com" email address of the filing lawyers notwithstanding, the errors of fact (claiming Burlingame was a "National Guard" reservist), the Gallop claims that missile batteries were "stood down" when there haven't BEEN any "missile batteries" for many, many, many years (a fact that "professionals" such as yourself should know by now) - the thing is simply rife with errors that will end up getting it thrown out in on that alone.
Why would you align yourselves with a legal vehicle that has simply so many errors and has absolutely no chance of success? Being stupid out of ignorance is one thing - being voluntarily stupid when you should know better is something totally different. I keep trying to give you PfT people the benefit of many, many doubts, but you keep lowering the stupid bar to new and heretofor unherald lows.
[edit on 18-7-2009 by trebor451]
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Originally posted by jprophet420
No it doesnt mean that the plaintiff has a case. It means their money people have figured out how much in legal fees that the airline would have most likely ended up paying throughout the case and appeals.
Right, and the only way the legal fees are going to cost you is if the plaintiff has a case, otherwise it gets thrown out.
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that defence attorneys work for free? If so, you have a singular lack of understanding on how the legal system works.
Originally posted by jprophet420
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that defence attorneys work for free? If so, you have a singular lack of understanding on how the legal system works.
I'm suggesting that there is such a thing as due process. Do you know what that is? It means that all evidence has to be reviewed. You can swamp defense attorneys with this for some time but thats about it. If you present a case that doesn't have enough evidence, yes it will cost money to defend but it won't get far, won't cost a mountain. If you present a case that has enough evidence to make it to a jury it will cost them more money. If you present a case that has enough evidence to make it to a jury and possibly convince them, it's sometimes easier make a payoff at that point.
Originally posted by trebor451
I know it is the weekend and that is probably why the CIT/PfT Team hasn't commented. I'll bump it one more time and look for an answer to my question (below) tomorrow.
Originally posted by trebor451
Bumped because I want an answer.
Originally posted by trebor451
Originally posted by turbofan
While the anonymous 'egspurts' hide behind their keyboards, the professionals
and witnesses to this crime are hard at work. Let's hope this case goes to trial
and the media picks up the noise. Spread the word:
TF...Tino....dude....seriously. I really don't worry or care about who PfT pimps up as their "experts" - Kolstad and Wittenberg and Balsamo, et al really don't do anything other than make people wonder about the quality of airline pilots these days. I really don't worry about the credibility of your organization when you have a lunatic like John Lear and his moon-based brain on your list of "experts". I really don't worry about your "experts" saying "Gosh! I couldn't fly a 757 like that!" when there are documented cases of casual and light-civil pilots, with nothing more than a C-172 license, climbing into a 757 sim and doing *exactly* that which your "experts" say they can't do - and the C-172 pilots do it over and over and over again.
But climbing onto this April Gallop joke of a lawsuit is simply...unbelievable, even for you PfT people. The "@gmail.com" email address of the filing lawyers notwithstanding, the errors of fact (claiming Burlingame was a "National Guard" reservist), the Gallop claims that missile batteries were "stood down" when there haven't BEEN any "missile batteries" for many, many, many years (a fact that "professionals" such as yourself should know by now) - the thing is simply rife with errors that will end up getting it thrown out in on that alone.
Why would you align yourselves with a legal vehicle that has simply so many errors and has absolutely no chance of success? Being stupid out of ignorance is one thing - being voluntarily stupid when you should know better is something totally different. I keep trying to give you PfT people the benefit of many, many doubts, but you keep lowering the stupid bar to new and heretofor unherald lows.
[edit on 18-7-2009 by trebor451]