Lawsuits Filed Options

[Artiste]

Hmm. I wonder if http://www.Pickle-Publishing.com/defensefund.htm might do the trick. What do you think?

Sounds good!

This post has been edited by Artiste: May 23 2007, 09:50 PM

[mozart]

how about .........

"www.Pesos-Para-Pickledillo.com" ?

Now Mo, Stop that !!!
soz mr. gherkin. couldn't help me self.

Hmm. I wonder if http://www.Pickle-Publishing.com/defensefund.htm might do the trick. What do you think?

This post has been edited by mozart: May 23 2007, 08:01 PM

[Fran]

Hmm. I wonder if http://www.Pickle-Publishing.com/defensefund.htm might do the trick. What do you think?

Well, that address takes me to the same page I have been using under another link. Yeah. More links are great!

PayPal is easy! I have used them for years. They are clear and concise! They document everything! i have always been pleased with their services.

OK, folks, all together now, 1...2...3 anti up!

[Observer]

If 3ABN can raise millions from the poor, so can our cause! I don't have any money, but I will give what I can spare every month for sure. My contributions aren't big, but if put with everyone else's pennies, we can surely hit $50,000 - $60,000!

However, I am afraid that estimate is going to be a bit low. Lawyers cost more that that!

Bob, what is it going to take to keep you and Gailon safe in all aspects?

Folks, dig even deeper than before. Let's get this over with!

Thank you Gailon and Bob, for doing what we could not!

Fran:

I have no arguement with you estimate of legal costs.

I have intentionally attempted to be in the low end of the range, and yet be a little realistic.

This post has been edited by Observer: May 24 2007, 06:10 AM

[Pickle]

There's a job to be done, right?

Gailon told me awhile back that this could easily be a $100,000 case.

[joyce]

There's a job to be done, right?

Gailon told me awhile back that this could easily be a $100,000 case.

It can be done fairly easily. That is if eveyone that is a member on BSDA will contribute a little. IF 2,000 members will contribute just $10 five times in one year that will make a grand total of the $100,000. That is if I did the math right.

We can be a mighty army for a just cause.

Joyce

[howdy]

Someone please explain to me.
If these gentlemen have been telling the truth what are they worrying about.
I will wait and see.

howdy

[Rosyroi]

Someone please explain to me.
If these gentlemen have been telling the truth what are they worrying about.
I will wait and see.

howdy

Just what I was thinking howdy.

A question, if Joy and Pickles won the suit won't the prosecutors have to pay the bill?

Just wondering

Rosyroi

[beartrap]

Just what I was thinking howdy.

A question, if Joy and Pickles won the suit won't the prosecutors have to pay the bill?

Just wondering

Rosyroi

Very good questions.

If a person is sued by a giant corporation and they don't have the money to pay for an attorney, travel, discovery, depositions, and all the many other large expenses that a huge company with a score of lawyers and endless money can force out of a small person over the course of years that are often involved in this kind of suit, that little person will lose. They will not have the wherewithall to get to the point where a judge might order the pleadant to cover their legal fees, which will then be appealed. The money has to be paid all along the way. It is the way of our judicial system that if you don't have a lawyer and the other guy has twenty of them, you WILL lose no matter how innocent you may be.

Also, unless it is a tort case where you are the plaintiff, a lawyer will not take the case on contingency. Attorneys generally require a down payment (that can be very substantial) and they also require funds for operating expenses. So, yes, there is something for these gentlemen to worry about. They are two little people who can't afford an attorney between the two of them, and they are facing a giant corporation and a very litigious donor with millions of dollars and a score of attorneys who are determined to destroy them. LOL, where is John Grisham? We need him to write the ending to this mess.

This post has been edited by beartrap: May 24 2007, 09:52 PM

[Pickle]

Howdy,

I hope I've made it quite clear that I'm not worried at all. And Gailon certainly isn't. He's been hoping Danny would sue him for months and months. Not sure if that goes back to September, but it goes back aways.

[Shepherdswife]

I have a question:

Why have we not seen any type of legal action against T or D re: the abuse cases? I understand the dynamics of fear and shame--I was a victim myself, but several have come forward by email or letter already, is there not one of them who qualifies or do they all have statute of limitations issues?

Maybe something is in the works and it cannot be talked about, but does anyone know why nothing has happened so far? Is it the threats? Lack of physical evidence? Local police issues?

I guess I can handle the length of the wait if I know that someone is doing something! I can't do anything for the victims personally in these areas, not knowing them, but I hope somebody is.

shepherdswife

[Pickle]

If Illinois lifts the statute of limitations, look out.

Until then you've got folks that were either over 18 at the time, who waited too long to say anything, who waited too long to think about filing, who haven't come forward yet, who have consulted attorneys or agencies who think that nothing can be done, or who might be doing something without everyone knowing what they're doing.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[Observer]

A general comment, not directed to anyone:

Earlier this month I was sitting in the office of an attorney. We were discussing legal issues of mutual interest to us, both present and past.

During that converesation he brought up a case from the past in which he had been involved. He won the case, and got the judgement that he sought. But, as the judge delivered the decision, the judge looked at the attornies on the winning side and verbally said:

"You may have won this case. But, you are likely to find that you have achieved a Pyrrhic victory."

Folks, lawyers work hard to keep from being involved in Pyrrhic victories. They do not like to win those.

As I review the suggestions comming from both sides in regard to suggestions for litigation, as I reflect on them, I cleary believe that victory in some of the suggested cases would be Pyrrhic in the end, and therefore not worth winning. As a military officer, I can say that some battles are not worth winning. One should chose their battles carefully.

[Grith]

A general comment, not directed to anyone:

Earlier this month I was sitting in the office of an attorney. We were discussing legal issues of mutual interest to us, both present and past.

During that converesation he brought up a case from the past in which he had been involved. He won the case, and got the judgement that he sought. But, as the judge delivered the decision, the judge looked at the attornies on the winning side and verbally said:

"You may have won this case. But, you are likely to find that you have achieved a Pyrrhic victory."

Folks, lawyers work hard to keep from being involved in Pyrrhic victories. They do not like to win those.

As I review the suggestions comming from both sides in regard to suggestions for litigation, as I reflect on them, I cleary believe that victory in some of the suggested cases would be Pyrrhic in the end, and therefore not worth winning. As a military officer, I can say that some battles are not worth winning. One should chose their battles carefully.

Definition of "Pyrric victory" from Wikipedia:

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor. The phrase is an allusion to King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties when he defeated the Romans during the Pyrrhic War at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC. After the latter battle, Plutarch relates in a report by Dionysius:

“ The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.”

In both of Pyrrhus's victories, the Romans lost more men than Pyrrhus did. However, the Romans had a much larger supply of men from which to draw soldiers, so their losses did less damage to their war effort than Pyrrhus's losses did to his.

The report is often quoted as "Another such victory over the Romans and we are undone". While it is most closely associated with a military battle, the term is used by analogy in fields such as business, politics, law, literature, and sport to describe any similar struggle which is ruinous for the victor.

Am I correct in seeing a suggestion that even if the DS side wins, they may actually lose more than they will gain?

[Fran]

A general comment, not directed to anyone:

Earlier this month I was sitting in the office of an attorney. We were discussing legal issues of mutual interest to us, both present and past.

During that conversation he brought up a case from the past in which he had been involved. He won the case, and got the judgement that he sought. But, as the judge delivered the decision, the judge looked at the attorneys on the winning side and verbally said:

"You may have won this case. But, you are likely to find that you have achieved a Pyrrhic victory."

Folks, lawyers work hard to keep from being involved in Pyrrhic victories. They do not like to win those.

As I review the suggestions coming from both sides in regard to suggestions for litigation, as I reflect on them, I clearly believe that victory in some of the suggested cases would be Pyrrhic in the end, and therefore not worth winning. As a military officer, I can say that some battles are not worth winning. One should chose their battles carefully.

Are you trying to tell us the end does not justify the means?

Am I correct in seeing a suggestion that even if the DS side wins, they may actually lose more than they will gain?

Well, that was my question too? Could he have meant that Gailon and Joy could have a Pyrrhic Victory?

I found it hard to decide.