You knew it was coming... (tsunami lawsuit)

Stop being your usual dumbfuck self, Duffer. You, as always, have overgeneralized and made yourself look like your usual ass self.

Now, dirtfarmer, Since California is one of the largest states, has one of the largest populations in the US, and has the 4th largest economy in the WORLD, you can expect that there would be more lawsuits-frivolous or not.

Since the median income level(and intelligence, if you are any sort of barometer), the size of the economy, the size of the population of lawyers and the size of the population of nutcase wanksters is much smaller in Dirtfarmerville, SD, you can expect many less lawsuits.

So have a bite of this, Mistuh Pissy :rolleyes:

Nothing worse than someone who runs around and generalizes on an entire population based on how many lawyers and lawsuits there are…


Oh yea, the goddamn Holocaust pales in comparison… :stuck_out_tongue:


Where the fuck do you get off? “My usual dumbfuck self”? I’ve seen plenty of drivel you’ve posted here, tough guy. Back away. So now we can’t make comaprisons to professions based on what state we’re talking about?

Fucking douche. You really won this one. :rolleyes:
BTW, when the lawyer files, guess what official decides if the case has merit to go to the next step? Don’t hurt yourself, I’ll let you know. It’s a judge. But since judges were once lawyers, we also have to take into account what someone’s previous job was if it’s in the same field. Right?

God you’re worthless sometimes. Fuck you.


The quintessential duffer response. The rest is, as always, feckless twaddle.

If duffer’s posts had even the eensiest bit of feck, we’d be much better off.

While I’m more than happy to join the chorus of folks crying, “Asshat!” I’d like to point out that if the lawyer can uncover any evidence of a credible official saying (even casually), “You know, we should really think about building a tsunami dectection network in the Indian Ocean.” He’s got 'em.

Why? Even if the US had a tsunami detection system fully in place, the US Government doesn’t owe a warning to a bunch of French and German tourists in Thailand. Sure, it would be a rotten thing to withhold one on purpose, but that doesn’t make it actionable in court.

Zev Steinhardt

Ah, but the standards for civil and criminal prosecution are waaaay different. This ambulance chaser’s after money, not justice, so he’s not going to try and get them for criminal negligence, he’s going to make it a civil trial, one filled with endless video clips of children being swept away or found dead, hours and hours of peopel testifying to the horrors they had to endure. He’s going to play on the jury’s heart strings and hope for a big cash settlement.

Remember the cops that beat Rodney King won in criminal court (and so did OJ), but lost in civil court (just like OJ).

How do you see this as relevant?

I thought it was a German lawyer commencing an action in New York to preserve evidence.

We ran around on this one in a previous thread. Those countries surrounding the Indian Ocean value a cyclone/monsoon detection and monitoring system instead of a tsunami detection system because of the higher frequency (and loss of life) of the storms.

The main thing I’m curious about is why does the U.S. have jurisdiction and venue? Are they suing on behalf of any U.S. victims? Do any of the Defendants have their headquarters in New York?

Nope, they won in local criminal court, but lost in federal criminal court on civil rights violations grounds.

I’d have to disagree. If the President said that, he’d be most likely to be able to just sign off on the money being used somehow.

If it was a member of Congress, that person could introduce a bill to fund it, putting it up for vote.

If a Cabinet member proposed it, it would have to find sponsorship in Congress to be even considered.

If Joe Dokes in Maine proposed it, well, it would probably be posted here.
And with the right lawyer (i.e. one with a pulse) you could argue that the person only suggested thinking about building it. Not actually building it.
Though, I understand what you’re saying with regards to arguing law these days.

Live and learn I guess. :smack:

duffer, with no rancor, please look through this thread and figure out which post was the first that included any partisan sniping. Please figure out whether that sniping was necessary. Please decide whether people were appropriate to jump on that sniping and declaim it.

I’m also wondering how this lawyer has standing.


LHoD, I know exactly what started it, it was quoted for me. The quote used, however wasn’t a swipe at all lawyers in CA. I’d hardly lump together Marcia Clark and Johnnie Cochran. It was an off-handed dig at certain courts in the state. As well as the liklihood of certain areas of the state where this would be taken as a legit case.

Not my fault some are hyper-sensitive. That’s life. Especially amongst open-minded and tolerant people.
BTW, my self-quote post was referring to my thought of one pit thread where everyone would agree, barring convoluted arguments, that the lawyer filing the suit was an assbag. Hence the self inflicted headache-by-smack.

“Left Coast”? Maybe people are hypersensitive, but this was:
a) a partisan dig; and
b) completely irrelevant to the thread; and
c) something you’ve done before.

May I suggest a new guideline for yourself? Never be the first person to make a partisan dig in a thread.


Fine I’ll wait for yours. Are you done? Can we get back to the OP?