Frivolous lawsuit against SocNet by military impostor

[Brihard]

Just doing my bit to spread the word about a true POS who's getting suit-happy after 'stolen valor' was struck down in court. This subforum semed the best to target the community most likely to value this and to help disseminate it further.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=30958

http://www.popehat.com/2012/07/23/de...d-its-members/

[Potemkin]

Mr. Giduck consistently provided background information to various organizations throughout the USA alluding to his military experience in SOF. This information is on the internet in cached files or the actual web sites.

We know what has really happened, someone went back and hacked the Google cache and planted information injurious to Mr. Giduck. A lot of people are complaining that has happened to them.

Seriously, who is taking up contributions for SOCNET?

[jessicasmith]

A woman hit in the face with a baseball at a little league game is suing a 13 year old boy for $150,000; Another woman is suing her local police department for allowing her to date an officer; in an unrelated matter, lawyer recently attempted to sue two different charities. All of these pending lawsuits have been deemed ‘frivolous’ by the media and have garnered a lot of public attention. What it is about these types of lawsuits that seem to draw so many people’s interest?

[Pablo Escobar]

Originally Posted by jessicasmith

A woman hit in the face with a baseball at a little league game is suing a 13 year old boy for $150,000; Another woman is suing her local police department for allowing her to date an officer; in an unrelated matter, lawyer recently attempted to sue two different charities. All of these pending lawsuits have been deemed ‘frivolous’ by the media and have garnered a lot of public attention. What it is about these types of lawsuits that seem to draw so many people’s interest?

Im not sure I understand your question.

Are you saying that these suits are NOT frivolous?

Are you concerened that the publicity for these suits is meritless?

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by jessicasmith

A woman hit in the face with a baseball at a little league game is suing a 13 year old boy for $150,000; Another woman is suing her local police department for allowing her to date an officer; in an unrelated matter, lawyer recently attempted to sue two different charities. All of these pending lawsuits have been deemed ‘frivolous’ by the media and have garnered a lot of public attention. What it is about these types of lawsuits that seem to draw so many people’s interest?

The phrase “frivolous lawsuit” is thrown around a lot these days, especially by defendants. America is often viewed as a country with the most of these types of lawsuits. The real stand out moment for some people is the infamous McDonald’s lawsuit in which a woman who spilled coffee in her lap sued the company for incorrect labeling on the cup. There were many complexities to this case, but it was widely reported by the media to be a frivolous and ridiculous lawsuit. This led to widespread public disbelief when the plaintiff won the suit and was awarded a large financial settlement. There was a media storm surrounding the case, with people calling it a flagrant abuse of the legal system.

One of the main reasons proposed as to why these lawsuits achieve such notoriety is some of the cultural biases Americans have about lawyers in general. The public often views lawyers in a relatively negative light, often thinking of them as a “necessary evil.” When you add that existing notion to a lawsuit such as the one brought against McDonald’s for mislabeling of coffee cups you can begin to see how many Americans might be outraged.

The truth is that the McDonalds situation, like most of these lawsuits, is more complicated than was widely reported. The woman who brought the suit received third degree burns on her legs and stomach area which cost her thousands of dollars in medical bills and lost work time. When she asked for some recompense for her injury, McDonalds initially offered $800 to cover her $20,000 in bills. McDonalds also refused a $90,000 offer to settle and then a $300,000 offer to settle pre-trial. By the end of the lawsuit, the woman had her medical bills paid off and was offered 2.9 million dollars as compensation for pain and emotional damages.

The point of this brief analysis of the Hot Coffee lawsuit is to show that what is widely reported to be a frivolous suit by the media can sometimes have merit and much more complexity than reporters may lead you to believe. I recommend that you always check the sources and read the actual court briefs before you make a judgment on a case like this.

~

[Potemkin]

Originally Posted by Sonny

[INDENT]The truth is that the McDonalds situation, like most of these lawsuits, is more complicated than was widely reported. The woman who brought the suit received third degree burns on her legs and stomach area which cost her thousands of dollars in medical bills and lost work time. When she asked for some recompense for her injury, McDonalds initially offered $800 to cover her $20,000 in bills. McDonalds also refused a $90,000 offer to settle and then a $300,000 offer to settle pre-trial. By the end of the lawsuit, the woman had her medical bills paid off and was offered 2.9 million dollars as compensation for pain and emotional damages.

This sounds more like a person who needed some money for medical bills because of a stupidity.

She didn't have the money and wanted some from McDonald's.

She wanted $20k and they didn't want to pay.

To me, it looked like the jury agreed she needed they money for medical bills, and McDonald's had plenty of it so they could afford it.

In retrospect it would have made good financial sense to give her some and buy her off. It doesn't make the plaintiff right.

[NowVoyager]

Originally Posted by Potemkin

This sounds more like a person who needed some money for medical bills because of a stupidity.

She didn't have the money and wanted some from McDonald's.

She wanted $20k and they didn't want to pay.

To me, it looked like the jury agreed she needed they money for medical bills, and McDonald's had plenty of it so they could afford it.

In retrospect it would have made good financial sense to give her some and buy her off. It doesn't make the plaintiff right.

And ........... IIRC didn't she place the cup of hot coffee between her legs??

Heck, that's the first place I would think of placing something scalding hot and liquid; between my thighs ......... NOT!!!

Sorry but like the comedian says: "You can't fix stupid."