For those who have not observed legal processes as
Post# of 72447
Posted On: 11/24/2015 10:28:23 PM
Re: scottsmith #15904
For those who have not observed legal processes as I have (as plaintiff, I hasten to add), the process seems illogical and contradictory to normal people thinking in terms of logic and common sense, rather than the game-playing rules of the legal profession (which is often referred to as "the legal game" with good reason).
For instance, part of the game is that alternate theories of interpretation of the facts can be presented -- "if Theory A doesn't work, then here is Theory B" -- you get the idea. It doesn't matter if you allege Theory A, and also Theory B, and they utterly contradict each other, and that indisputable facts are interpreted in different ways in each theory. You still allege them both, and if the court says "nonsense" to one, then you try to make your case stand with the other.
When people talk about things being dismissed on technicalities, they indeed are things like someone having not filed something on a certain date. Sometimes the judge will grant someone a continuance when they shouldn't, even when it clearly harms the other side, just because they want to. The court process is extremely unfair, and there is mighty little justice to be found in the legal system.
I was in the jury pool for a drunk-driver case. It was evident from the questions asked to the jury pool that there was NO evidence against the driver -- the police officer failed to give him even the roadside sobriety test, much less a breathalyzer, so it came down to whose word do you believe. This case should never have been prosecuted. Yet they let the prosecutor eliminate all of the smart people on the jury, and packed it with 3 people who had relatives who were police officers. The prosecutor wiped the floor with the inexperienced obvious beginner public defender, and I am sure that the defendant was convicted, just on the basis of who was put on that jury.
So, it does look like Rosen isn't going to roll over and play dead. HOWEVER: the facts of the case are against them. The Rosen firm alleged things that they had not researched, and which were easily and provably untrue. The Rosen firm's prior relationship with their lead plaintiff, and the suspicious timing of the filing (2 hours after the Mako article) and their subsequent failure to investigate the provably untrue nature of the claims in the more than a month after the initial class action press release before the actual filing, are smoking guns.
Rosen seemingly has no choice but to pursue this because, as I think F1ash pointed out, they're backed into a corner. They are screwed if they withdraw, and screwed if there is a finding against them. It appears that they've decided to try for a "dismiss on technicalities" strategy (which is ALWAYS the first line of attack in any lawsuit). Their letter may appear disturbing at first glance, but this is part of the game -- they are still trying to glide across quicksand, and if this ends up going to a jury, Rosen and Mako are not going to prevail.
For instance, part of the game is that alternate theories of interpretation of the facts can be presented -- "if Theory A doesn't work, then here is Theory B" -- you get the idea. It doesn't matter if you allege Theory A, and also Theory B, and they utterly contradict each other, and that indisputable facts are interpreted in different ways in each theory. You still allege them both, and if the court says "nonsense" to one, then you try to make your case stand with the other.
When people talk about things being dismissed on technicalities, they indeed are things like someone having not filed something on a certain date. Sometimes the judge will grant someone a continuance when they shouldn't, even when it clearly harms the other side, just because they want to. The court process is extremely unfair, and there is mighty little justice to be found in the legal system.
I was in the jury pool for a drunk-driver case. It was evident from the questions asked to the jury pool that there was NO evidence against the driver -- the police officer failed to give him even the roadside sobriety test, much less a breathalyzer, so it came down to whose word do you believe. This case should never have been prosecuted. Yet they let the prosecutor eliminate all of the smart people on the jury, and packed it with 3 people who had relatives who were police officers. The prosecutor wiped the floor with the inexperienced obvious beginner public defender, and I am sure that the defendant was convicted, just on the basis of who was put on that jury.
So, it does look like Rosen isn't going to roll over and play dead. HOWEVER: the facts of the case are against them. The Rosen firm alleged things that they had not researched, and which were easily and provably untrue. The Rosen firm's prior relationship with their lead plaintiff, and the suspicious timing of the filing (2 hours after the Mako article) and their subsequent failure to investigate the provably untrue nature of the claims in the more than a month after the initial class action press release before the actual filing, are smoking guns.
Rosen seemingly has no choice but to pursue this because, as I think F1ash pointed out, they're backed into a corner. They are screwed if they withdraw, and screwed if there is a finding against them. It appears that they've decided to try for a "dismiss on technicalities" strategy (which is ALWAYS the first line of attack in any lawsuit). Their letter may appear disturbing at first glance, but this is part of the game -- they are still trying to glide across quicksand, and if this ends up going to a jury, Rosen and Mako are not going to prevail.
(0)
(0)