CAC, Heritage, and a mystery.

Was curious what company it was and looked it up, man you were right

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Where can I find this information? I am curious.

 

Older threads here and facebook

 

He put it on Facebook? Oh, my.

 

Several times

 

That's....unfortunate if there's actually litigation in progress. I cannot imagine any self-respecting lawyer continuing to represent a client engaging in such behavior.

 

Great way to spend your life in court. Some lawyers would love this, paycheck after paycheck.

 

I believe it will be determined that in a world seemingly controlled by lies, truths occasionally are still allowed, although Serpico/Ellsberg/Snowden/Et Al may disagree about acceptance.

I've posted truths concerning the antics of this firm and more recent "conflict of interest" affiliates, which it's believed that federal adjudication may/will affirm. Individuals may ignore warnings until they're the recipient, crying for justice to a less sympathetic world. Fools often ignore "Stop Signs", allowing unrepairable damage.

JMHO

 

Thanks!

 

You ever wonder why people clam up in public about pending litigation? Aside a judicial gag order - rarely present - there are clear and pressing reasons related to how the legal system works. You can talk about it in public successfully, or you can litigate successfully.

Not both.

 

Au Contraire, I believe.

You may have heard of some recently prosecuted individuals in the Numismatic/Bullion industry, as Hannes Tulving, Mark Yaffe, Paul Montgomery, Tom Noe, Hughes/Helmer/Flynn. These are a few of many, if you investigate, you'll probably find were prosecuted with the input of victimized citizens. Individuals who would've normally felt intimidated by the power that aforementioned individuals/organizations had developed with impunity.

You may have also heard of Bernard Madoff and many others of like ilk in various endeavors.

We have prosecuted many, who in the past, because of jurisdictional constraints, were allowed to violate with impunity. I believe you'll find with new State/Federal legislation/cooperation, once the general public is informed of their rights for possible retribution, a class action can be generated. It's been shown, that if violated individuals are intimidated, threatened by others, uninformed, the cycle of injustice will probably continue, and these conglomerates will continue to grow.

I respect your intelligence, and believe you know that it's very difficult for a law firm to derive a significant Civil Action paycheck without a "class action", avoiding arbitration. Thus, we are constantly barraged with advertisements "have you been involved with ??????, you may be entitled to damages, contact ??????? & ??????"

Although it may be verboten, I think you'll find that "the Donald" may regardless of voter support, without "due process", may lose his prominence because of public reports.

JMHO

 

Would certainly have to be a glutten for punishment to supposedly take this case on a only get paid if you win contract.

Right, I would be far more worried about the counter-suits coming at this point.

 

Criminal prosecution and civil actions are not even remotely similar and comparing them is misguided at best. IF it is decided that a public statement should be released as part of the strategy the words are carely chosen and it is proof read numerous times before being released. Here we just had shooting from the hip with poor spelling and grammar that makes it look like someone who isn't all there wrote it. This case is over before it begun.

 

It has been my experience that the AG wants a class level action initiated prior to a criminal action, and generally wants/needs a voluminous file with multiple complainants.

If you review the recent Tulving actions, I believe you'll find that the criminal action was initiated after the initiation of a Civil Action, with subsequently/concurrently a Bankruptcy action.

JMHO

 

That generally is true depending on the severity and values involved for fraud. Obviously AGs will always like a bigger profile case and don't have enough hours in the day for every little thing. There is a way that pending issues could be discussed with limited disclosure or could be used to try and find others, in this case that is not what happened. Pictures of things that would have been evidence were posted, long rants written in a way that reduces credibility, one post alluded to drinking to when posting it ect. It was pretty much a text book example of everything not to do if there is pending litigation. If they didn't find the threads they certainly found the facebook posts and cannot imagine that will not be used against him if it got to court

 

Please stop!

You're business law course as a freshman in college does not entitle you to practice law.

Both civil and criminal trials adhere to the same rules of evidence. The difference is the burden of proof.

The only word you got right is misguided. You are totally misguided.

 

lol you again.

First it would be "your". You're means you are.

I never even mentioned evidence, but since you brought it up can you please tell me how strick chains of custody which prosecutors have to adhere to in criminal cases are done in civil case? I will wait.

Furthermore by changing the burden of proof which wiki got right to you as civil cases use a preponderance of the evidence you have already fundamentally changed the nature of the trial. Instead of saying you almost certainly know something happened saying I think that probably happened is good enough.

People actually familiar with the law understand the differences between civil and criminal litigation and know that there is a good reason why most lawyers will concentrate on one or the other and generally won't be hoping back and forth.

 

(1) I hope if you ever are involved in litigation, that you do not ever cite Wikipedia or any other "wiki" that can freely be edited by anyone. The judge will laugh at you as will opposing counsel.

(2) Preponderance of the evidence is the lowest standard used in civil cases, and means "more likely than not". It is very rarely used in for situations like this (I cannot think of any state that uses this for breach of contract or civil fraud cases), and the usual standard is an intermediate standard referred to in my state as "clear and convincing evidence." Some other states use a slightly different name, but it is the same standard. It is a higher standard than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but lower than the beyond reasonable doubt standard used in criminal proceedings.

(3) The other poster acknowledged different burdens of proof ; however, he was addressing the rules of evidence. There are a few areas where there are some differences (for instance the admission of hearsay documents such as lab tests in a DUI/drug cases because of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment), but otherwise the rules are very similar. In fact, my state Supreme Court routinely refers to the civil cases in criminal cases on appeal and vice versa when it comes to applying the rules of evidence. The term "rules of evidence" refers to how you get evidence into the court's record.

(4) A sizable portion of the bar does both civil and criminal work.

 

Thank you for your objective response. I personally haven't reviewed the case or followed the ramblings/posts of the individual to which you refer. I'm more interested in the presentations of participants in major trials pertaining to an industry which I personally believe has lost it's "bearings".

I believe the precedents have been/are set for a course correction, with the current states legislation, and inter-state commerce cooperative efforts of the Federal Judicium/Judicia.

I trust that your evaluation, and that of others posting here, relating to proper disclosure are correct.

The current conditions are probably an "opportunity" for a competent law firm (after a forthright/candid discussion with the plaintiff) to show the adverse mental disposition of the aggrieved.

I personally believe an investigative/expose effort by stellar individuals of like ilk to Morley Safer, Mike Wallace or Barbara Walters as a judicial precursor would have better presentation/reception than that of known prominent law firms, and the referenced individual.

JMHO

 

strict...if you correct grammar, make sure yours (or is that your's) is correct.