New lawsuit accuses PWCC of massive shill bidding

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Yes, but I don't think that should be the case. I don't like this business of civil liability if there's no criminal conviction. I don't like it at all. It's opened the door for all kinds of abuses, all kinds of shysters, all kinds of legal shenanigans.

So if I get defrauded I can't sue the fraudster if they have not been criminally convicted? If my company goes under because my monopolist competitor drives me out with predatory pricing or other abusive anticompetitive behavior, I can't sue them unless the government has prosecuted and convicted them? I could give countless examples of how crazy this regime would be. If a public company massively overstates its revenues and millions of dollars of losses ensure when the truth comes out, are investors out of luck if the government doesn't bring criminal charges? Do you realize what a tiny percentage of potentially criminal acts get prosecuted?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if I get defrauded I can't sue the fraudster if they have not been criminally convicted? If my company goes under because my monopolist competitor drives me out with predatory pricing or other abusive anticompetitive behavior, I can't sue them unless the government has prosecuted and convicted them? I could give countless examples of how crazy this regime would be. If a public company massively overstates its revenues and millions of dollars of losses ensure when the truth comes out, are investors out of luck if the government doesn't bring criminal charges? Do you realize what a tiny percentage of potentially criminal acts get prosecuted?

You could've summed it up more concisely: O.J Simpson.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You could've summed it up more concisely: O.J Simpson.

Actually I think we had that very discussion, with Baltic taking the position OJ was actually innocent because he had not been convicted.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You could've summed it up more concisely: O.J Simpson.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if I get defrauded I can't sue the fraudster if they have not been criminally convicted? If my company goes under because my monopolist competitor drives me out with predatory pricing or other abusive anticompetitive behavior, I can't sue them unless the government has prosecuted and convicted them? I could give countless examples of how crazy this regime would be. If a public company massively overstates its revenues and millions of dollars of losses ensure when the truth comes out, are investors out of luck if the government doesn't bring criminal charges? Do you realize what a tiny percentage of potentially criminal acts get prosecuted?

Well I for one am bloody sick and tired of paying ever higher insurance premiums to finance outrageous jury awards and the mansions of the shysters who filed the suits!

Originally Posted by Mark17

You could've summed it up more concisely: O.J Simpson.

INNOCENT! Case closed.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Actually I think we had that very discussion, with Baltic taking the position OJ was actually innocent because he had not been convicted.

You fascist son-of-a-bitch! What the hell is it about INNOCENT until and unless convicted in a court of law that you either don't understand - or simply don't like? It's not only the cornerstone of our legal system but is a fundamental bulwark against the overarching power of the State. Without that fundamental bulwark any and all of us could and would be put away simply because we hold "inconvenient" political views. See the Soviet Union. My own uncle was taken to Siberia where he perished.

Any lawyer who doesn't embrace the principal of INNOCENT until proven guilty wholeheartedly without any ifs, ands or buts should be disbarred immediately.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Well I for one am bloody sick and tired of paying ever higher insurance premiums to finance outrageous jury awards and the mansions of the shysters who filed the suits!



INNOCENT! Case closed.



You fascist son-of-a-bitch! What the hell is it about INNOCENT until and unless convicted in a court of law that you either don't understand - or simply don't like? It's not only the cornerstone of our legal system but is a fundamental bulwark against the overarching power of the State. Without that fundamental bulwark any and all of us could and would be put away simply because we hold "inconvenient" political views. See the Soviet Union. My own uncle was taken to Siberia where he perished.

Any lawyer who doesn't embrace the principal of INNOCENT until proven guilty wholeheartedly without any ifs, ands or buts should be disbarred immediately.

SMH. I may change my signature line to fascist son of a bitch, it has a nice ring to it. I may drop the hyphens though. You are, as you were in the other thread, completely mischaracterizing and taking on a straw man. I absolutely believe in the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. Again, there is a difference between legal innocence and moral innocence.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

SMH. I may change my signature line to fascist son of a bitch, it has a nice ring to it. I may drop the hyphens though. You are, as you were in the other thread, completely mischaracterizing and taking on a straw man. I absolutely believe in the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. Again, there is a difference between legal innocence and moral innocence.

Isn't there also a difference between being innocent and being found not guilty in a trial?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Isn't there also a difference between being innocent and being found not guilty in a trial?

That's my point. You may not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt even though you actually committed the crime. The system is imperfect. And of course occasionally people who did not commit the crime are found guilty.

[jingram058]

Without any theatrics or drama, may I ask a simple question? I know some of you are lawyers. Whatever happened to double jeopardy? If you are found guilty or not guilty, should that not be the end of it? When did it become acceptable to have a criminal AND a civil trial? Has that always been the case? First time I saw this was with OJ.

[jayshum]

Not a lawyer, but from Wikipedia, it appears that double jeopardy is in the Constitution and only applies to criminal trial:

In the United States, the protection in common law against double jeopardy is maintained through the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides:

... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Without any theatrics or drama, may I ask a simple question? I know some of you are lawyers. Whatever happened to double jeopardy? If you are found guilty or not guilty, should that not be the end of it? When did it become acceptable to have a criminal AND a civil trial? Has that always been the case? First time I saw this was with OJ.

There is no double jeopardy posed by having to face both a criminal and civil trial-- never has been. One can deprive of you of your liberty and the other of your property. As the former is far more serious, it requires the higher burden of proof-- beyond a reasonable doubt. Note that the jury is not instructed on "innocence", but is instead asked to find a defendant either guilty or not guilty. That is not just a question of semantics, and the difference is intentional.

You also can be tried for the same crime in multiple jurisdictions--technically not the same statute being violated but the same underlying actions comprising a violation of law in two different sovereigns, e.g., both state and federal law. I would defer to the criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors on the board to expound on this if anyone is interested.

It hasn't happened a lot, but now and then in my practice I have a civil case where the defendant was also charged with a crime arising out of the same event. Picture a drunk driving case causing injury, for example. If the defendant is convicted, the plaintiff in the civil case is pretty much home free, since there was a finding that defendant did it beyond a reasonable doubt. If he is found not guilty, the civil client/victim can still proceed because he only needs to show the defendant more likely than not was acting in a culpable manner. Plaintiff still needs to prove his case, but he is not precluded by some argument of double jeopardy because that defense would be inapplicable.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Without any theatrics or drama, may I ask a simple question? I know some of you are lawyers. Whatever happened to double jeopardy? If you are found guilty or not guilty, should that not be the end of it? When did it become acceptable to have a criminal AND a civil trial? Has that always been the case? First time I saw this was with OJ.

Lets say I'm in the crosswalk and you run me over.
And you get caught.

Criminally you could be found guilty or not guilty of a few things. None of that compensates me for my injuries.

So I have to sue to get my bills and loss of work covered. (Or more likely here in MA, my insurance makes a deal with your insurance company. )

Or the reverse.
I do something illegal causing you a loss. So you sue me. In the process of that it turns out the illegal thing gets found out. Now I can be arrested for that.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That's my point. You may not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt even though you actually committed the crime. The system is imperfect. And of course occasionally people who did not commit the crime are found guilty.

Or of course, not even getting to trial.
There's a Texas judge who posts a lot of his hearings, many on probable cause.
On some, it's pretty obvious the person did what the charge says.
But, the facts are weak/
Like one woman was charged with DUI and probably a couple other things.
Car hits another car on the high way, leaves.
Witness gives plate number to police who go to the house.
Woman who is the registered owner answers the door obviously drunk.

Witness only had the plate number. Cops only had the registration and that dhe was drunk at home. So no evidence of being the driver, or of being drunk while driving because she could have gotten home sober and hit the bottle straight away.

Dismissed......

Yeah, she did it. But it's not proveable.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I may change my signature line to fascist son of a bitch, it has a nice ring to it. I may drop the hyphens though.

Talk's cheap. I'm waiting. You may perhaps have noticed that I've already changed my own.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You are, as you were in the other thread, completely mischaracterizing and taking on a straw man. I absolutely believe in the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. Again, there is a difference between legal innocence and moral innocence.

Originally Posted by jayshum

Isn't there also a difference between being innocent and being found not guilty in a trial?

I'll leave moral judgements to the clergy. My specific interest is the protection of the individual (including myself of course) from malicious prosecution by the State.

I can't believe that you and so many others absolutely fail to understand that if O.J. Simpson could be convicted on the basis of the evidence presented at his trial (which basically consisted of "Well he must have done it!"), then any of us is in jeopardy of being convicted for any murder anywhere! And that's something I find really chilling. I much rather prefer the presumption of innocence, case closed.

It doesn't take much grey matter to understand that underlying principle but somehow when it comes to O.J. Simpson all too many observers/commentators just stop thinking. Let me repeat, if any man can be convicted without strong evidence presented in an impartial court of law, then tomorrow that man may be you! There have already been far too many examples of wrongful convictions over the years. The presumption of innocence is a principle that must never be undermined, and loose talk does precisely that.

I for one am dedicated to my inalienable rights as an individual (regardless of jurisdiction). I see whoever would erode those rights as an implacable enemy.



P.S. Keep in mind that I wasn't the one who introduced O.J. Simpson into this discussion.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

You fascist son-of-a-bitch! What the hell is it about INNOCENT until and unless convicted in a court of law that you either don't understand - or simply don't like?

[Mark visualizes Baltic Fox screaming these words at Commissioner Landis after he banned confessed (but declared not guilty in court) conspirators Cicotte, Williams, et al, for throwing games for money.]