556
557

We apologize (self.announcements)

ekjp[A] が 投稿x13

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]SpaceSteak 26ポイント27ポイント  (6子コメント)

Except Obama didn't have Pao's recent legal troubles. Her frivolous lawsuits are enough to highlight her major issues.

[–]Leprecon -3ポイント-2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Just because she lost doesn't make them frivolous. The courts haven't in any way called her lawsuit frivolous, that is just your opinion and not the courts opinion.

[–]isrly_eder 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

she first lost a settlement. then she lost in front of a jury. then she lost an appeal, and then was ordered to pay back KP for legal fees. instead of paying legal fees, she then refused a settlement ("please take this money and leave us alone") offer from KP and demanded more. if that's not frivolous I don't know what is. not to mention the complete adulation the media had for her throughout the trial would have compromised the result and I'm surprised the jury ruled against her.

[–]Leprecon 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

The legal fees thing was agreed upon up front before the trial and has no bearing on whether it is a frivolous lawsuit. The judge disagrees with you and at no point called the lawsuit frivolous. The judge could have dismissed the lawsuit earlier if he thought it was frivolous.

You are adding your own interpretation to events and that interpretation has no basis in reality. When you say "if that is not frivolous then I don't know what is" you are correct. You don't know what it is frivolous.

[–]karmalizing 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

You are adding your own interpretation to events and that interpretation has no basis in reality

He listed all the reasons why his interpretation has a basis in reality. You just didn't listen and are seemingly entrenched in a fallacious worldview.

[–]Leprecon 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

My reasons were clear. I said that the lawyers fees having to be paid by the other party was agreed up front and has no bearing, and at no point was the lawsuit ever described as frivolous by the judge. This poster makes it seem as if any case that is lost is automatically frivolous. The fact that the judge said no such thing should be relevant. This is not my spin on events, this is the judges spin on it...

(And judges can dismiss frivolous cases before they ever go to trial. Despite the fact that an appeal isn't likely, the initial trial was allowed to continue)

[–]karmalizing 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fair enough, I missed that point.