Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Evening Legal Briefs

View
4 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

4. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Sep 12, 2012, 08:37 ViRGE
 
But it isn't punitive damages that are being levied against her, they're statutory. And those are set by Congress.

And don't get me wrong, I think it's an outrageous amount, but legally speaking there's no reason to believe it would be overturned.

This comment was edited on Sep 12, 2012, 08:54.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Sep 12, 2012, 03:30 Cutter
 
This case isn't about her guilt - which has been ascertained and upheld - it's about the size of the damages awarded which are unconstitutional as punitive damages go. The punishment has to fit the crime so to speak. Much in the same way that someone who steals a candy bar isn't going to be hit with a $50,000 fine.

"We will seek certiorari from the Supreme Court to correct that error."

Which means that the SCOTUS will be reminding/directing the lower courts about the guidelines for punitive damages already established by them. So I don't know what you were talking about. She may be the biggest jerk in the world but the judgements against her are patently absurd.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"Bye weeks? Bronko Nagurski didn't get no bye weeks, and now he's deadů Well, maybe they're a good thing." - Moe
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Sep 12, 2012, 00:41 ViRGE
 
Cutter wrote on Sep 11, 2012, 23:51:
Hope they win in the SCOTUS!
She won't. Here's a good summary as to why:
I've read in the past about her case and this is what I remember being her main problems.

1) She had bottom of the barrel lawyers in all of her trials. If I remember correctly at one of the later trials she was actually represented by law school students who prior to the trial basically bragged that this case was going to be "easy" to win. Practicing law for real may just be a little tougher than it seems in class, boys.
2) She has been perceived extremely negatively by juries, which has definitely led to the size of the judgements against her.
3) She's been her own worst enemy when testifying, but that relates to #1 in large part. She lacks a credible excuse for her behavior and seemed to jurors to be a liar and trying to cover up what she did. That has worked heavily against her in reaching a verdict.
4) She has consistently displayed an outsized ego and an erroneous belief that she can beat the charges by going to court when in fact she has probably had the weakest case of anyone to ever challenge the RIAA. I would call her delusional.

In summary, she's got a terrible case and she's tried to win it on the cheap and the outcomes are predictable.
Basically all of the critical evidence points to her having committed the crimes in question, and she has been unable to offer any reasonable alternative explanation that would defend her from this evidence. Hence the courts will find her guilty every time.

This comment was edited on Sep 12, 2012, 00:47.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Sep 11, 2012, 23:51 Cutter
 
Hope they win in the SCOTUS!
 
Avatar 25394
 
"Bye weeks? Bronko Nagurski didn't get no bye weeks, and now he's deadů Well, maybe they're a good thing." - Moe
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo