Originally posted by shavixmir
Yeah. I'm not sure what to think of the dealings being used for lesser sentences or the buying off of court cases.
It would seem that a crime cannot then be judged objectively.
Did person A do X?
No: not guilty
Yes: guilty and then the judge gives a set sentence which the judge can adjust according to circumstances.
What seems to be happening is ...[text shortened]... de before the judge passes sentence. That cannot be right.
Surely! Or am I missing something?
What is commonly known as the legal system in our country is a sheer garment of jargon seductively draped over a rotting carcass and skeletal bones of greed.
The one mantra for all of the practioners: billable hours.
In cases when the outcome is questionable, or if the result if tried will likely be within a reasonable amount of a settlement figure, the one bringing the charge is more likely to settle out of court to avoid the work.
It should be noted that Trump has settled a paltry amount of times in comparison to suits or claims against him.
As a business owner, he realizes the treachery of claims and has done a pretty remarkable job of balancing when to fight (and overwhelmingly win) and when to settle for the purposes of opportunity costs, among other things.
In this case--- as in nearly all class action lawsuits--- was after money.
Some also seek policy alterations to go along with compensation, but this one was alleging racketeering fraud while simply attempting to extract money with the claims.
The court-appointed firm, Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, agreed to waive their fees so that, according to their statement, more would go to the members of the suit.
That's the ol' partial truth syndrome that is such an integral aspect of being an attorney.
They know perfectly well the advertising such a high profile is worth many times over the ~$6.2M they would have profited from the settlement conditions.
Even when they're handing out charity, they're asking for a receipt...