$900 trillion suit

i understand her situation ...however this is total GREED !

what an idiot !!


http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/staten_island_mom_hits_city_wi.html

Only put it so high so they settle for a fraction of that at a measly, 100million!

RawBudzski said:

Only put it so high so they settle for a fraction of that at a measly, 100million!

Click to expand...

yeah i understand that ... 100 mill is still GREED!

Damn, and I though DROPZILLA was spending too much on his gucci accessories, that's one pricey suit.

RawBudzski said:

Only put it so high so they settle for a fraction of that at a measly, 100million!

Click to expand...

couldnt have said it better myself. however, shes probably wanting a billion.

That high a figure would be for punitive damages. The whole idea behind punitive damages is to hit the offending party hard enough to "get their attention" and prevent repeat torts. If you sued Chrysler over a defect in a car that cost you your leg, would suing them for just personal damages ensure that they corrected that defect? Would suing them for $1,000,000?
I support the hell out of her!!! Like every other area of it's existence, the government is WAAY out of control when it comes down to family law. They allow case workers (poorly trained) to make judgement calls and interpret law.
Had a buddy of mine who had a new driveway poured, and while he was at work, his son and friends decided it would be "cool" to ride bikes thru the setting concrete. When he got home, he tanned the kid good and sent him to his room without supper. The kid called the child abuse hotline, and to make a long story short, it was almost 18 months before the kid made it back home from foster care, and dads reputation in the community was shattered.

Man, a $2000 suit would make me look like a king. OK, a junior associate vice king. Dogsbody to the assistant undersecretary to the third minister for capture of Royal flatus. Uhh, better make that a $3000 suit. cn

<edit> Just opened the link. By the surname she's Nigerian. So she's used to large sums. Why just last week she placed 63 derailed inheritances with a median value of $13.7 MM - and for the extremely reasonable retainer of $7800.- each.

In removing the boys, the city contended Ms. Ogunbayo was mentally unstable and had refused treatment, said court papers. She allegedly suffered from hallucinations and delusions, and also left the boys at home alone for extended periods while she was working, the city maintained.

Click to expand...

If the facts are correct and she was deemed unstable and refused treatment then she should have the kids removed

Kush70 said:

If the facts are correct and she was deemed unstable and refused treatment then she should have the kids removed

Click to expand...

And just WHO sets those standards? A caseworker with barely an associates degree? No child should be taken from the home without EXTENSIVE investigation of the circumstances. Now if the kids are coming to school bruised and battered on a regular basis, yes an emergency removal would be called for, but NOT just because some case worker thinks its wrong to leave the kids alone for 7 hours. From all of the medical and educational accounts, the kids were well taken care of and well adjusted. And one of the kids started getting in trouble AFTER he was placed in foster care. That speaks volumes about what effect the entire thing has on the kids. Who protects the kids from the state?
Who defines "unstable"? The law protects the welfare of the children, not the mental health of the parent. "Unstable" as she might be, her kids were well taken care of by all other accounts!
Dont we have enough Government interference in our daily lives? Do we REALLY need the government to tell us how to raise our kids? Shit, by todays standards my mom and dad both would be doing time for child abuse!!!

Jack Harer said:

And just WHO sets those standards? A caseworker with barely an associates degree? No child should be taken from the home without EXTENSIVE investigation of the circumstances. Now if the kids are coming to school bruised and battered on a regular basis, yes an emergency removal would be called for, but NOT just because some case worker thinks its wrong to leave the kids alone for 7 hours. From all of the medical and educational accounts, the kids were well taken care of and well adjusted. And one of the kids started getting in trouble AFTER he was placed in foster care. That speaks volumes about what effect the entire thing has on the kids. Who protects the kids from the state?
Who defines "unstable"? The law protects the welfare of the children, not the mental health of the parent. "Unstable" as she might be, her kids were well taken care of by all other accounts!

Click to expand...

ok then the question becomes What is EXTENSIVE? and how many hours of the day can you leave your kids alone and how many days of the month .. and on and on...

yes the law protects the welfare of the children not the mental health of the parent , However if the parents are unstable they shouldn't be around the kids

especially at 12 and 10.. I wouldnt leave my 10 and 12 year old at home alone for any amount of time...

I can't believe how stupid people are these days. People don't understand there are consequences to your actions. If you can't take care of your own kids, maybe she shouldn't have had them? Now she wants a ridiculous amount of money just because SHE fucked up. LOL!

suing the government. most fucking ridiculous thing i've ever heard of.
where does the government's money come from?
so who are you really hurting by suing the government?

Too many families have experienced the heartbreak of losing their children unlawfully, but many families have also suffered from social services stepping in too late or not at all.

I feel for her but there have been plenty of cases where children were genuinely erroneously removed and kept away from their parents much longer and they received no cash settlement. We don't know if this woman wasn't a danger to her kids. If she was mentally ill, it was probably better to keep her from them for her sake, too (with some kind of visitation obviously) I think this definitely greed. People have suffered horrific injuries and received far less compensation. Social are always going to look like villains in someone's eyes, but they have to play it safe. Children die at the hands of their parents and family all the time. But they do make mistakes, and should it one to light the error was made because of negligence on their part, not the parents (like the couple who's baby had broken bones due to an overlooked rare medical condition) THEN you sue the shit out of them. But in a time when money isn't easy for anyone, it's crazy to demand several hundred (or thousand) times the amount many of us could ever hope to earn in a lifetime.

I know the closest feeling I've ever had to losing a child is in the spiritual sense (and I'm deadly serious, I mourned) but this is crazy in the world we live in. I'm sorry if I sound callous, especially afte I defended that 15 year old murderer but...

Was I the only one who was greatly disappointed when they clicked on this post and didn't see some awesome mech armor or something. I was expecting a post on a modern day real life 6 million dollar man not boring law stuff. This thread disappoints.

this is actually quite clever (up to a point)

the only possible reason she could have had for this figure (900 trillion dollars )

is to get as much attention as she can, which is very smart, because courts rarely go against public opinion. (if she can look suitably like a good mom on tv)



could be of course the fact that if you want something from the government, you ask for much more than you actually hope for (big numbers seem to impress the "big hats")

you want 10 000? ask for a million. (government always screws with people, (since most people in power shouldnt be there(...for very good reasons..)))

but this number is so ridiculous, her lawyer would never have gone with this, except for the attention factor. get the media on her side.

i could be wrong of course, i would have to see the mom before i stated this 100% (and even then i might be wrong lol)

dont jump to conclusions.

its a huge risk though, if im right, she must be feeling pretty desperate or sure of herself.

as clearly evident in this thread, public opinion can rather quickly backfire on one.

The amount she is asking for is reason enough to think she's cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

Stoner Smurf said:

Was I the only one who was greatly disappointed when they clicked on this post and didn't see some awesome mech armor or something. I was expecting a post on a modern day real life 6 million dollar man not boring law stuff. This thread disappoints.

Click to expand...

hahshhahaha!!!

Yes, I also thought it was something to this effect. When I clicked on the link to the article I was very disappointed, although the article itself caught my interest so it worked out lol.

this is actually quite clever (up to a point)

the only possible reason she could have had for this figure (900 trillion dollars

)

is to get as much attention as she can, which is very smart, because courts rarely go against public opinion. (if she can look suitably like a good mom on tv)

Click to expand...

Good thinking. Madness or genius? Time will tell, I guess.

Stoner Smurf said:

Was I the only one who was greatly disappointed when they clicked on this post and didn't see some awesome mech armor or something. I was expecting a post on a modern day real life 6 million dollar man not boring law stuff. This thread disappoints.

Click to expand...

This thread has what people would call an "attention luring title" you click for some real nice expensive suit, and you got some boring bullshit.

Now this right here is an expensive fucking suit:

I'm willing to bet she chose 900 trillion because she doesn't know what to call 1,000,000,000,000,000 (quadrillion) and 999 trillion would sound stupid. Not that 900 trillion isn't stupid enough.
If it were to be settled in court, I think the judge would give her less than someone suing for a reasonable amount.