$900 trillion suit

sso

sso

Well-Known Member
Carne Seca said:
The amount she is asking for is reason enough to think she's cuckoo for cocoa puffs.
Click to expand...
yeah, its an insane gamble.

but, if she then came on the news and made it all about the baby... ;)

everyone would forget the money (she might even say something to that effect ("i dont care about the fucking money, i just wanted your sure attention and my baby")

then again.

i could be wrong and she just plain boring insane and greedy.

we dont know yet.
 
sso

sso

Well-Known Member
...i dont see how this would have even gotten to court if not a ploy, unless the courts have become so ridiculous.

900 trillion would bankrupt america itself.



could be of course a ploy to just get attention and money...

but like i said, wont know till we know more.
 
Total Head

Total Head

Well-Known Member
i have a few issues with story.

the first is that the dollar amount obviously is ridiculous. i understand the intent with "overshooting" but after a certain point you are just mocking the whole process and forcing me to call your true intent into question.

the other issue is that this could set an unwanted precedent. maybe this lady was a swell mother and was truly "wronged", but a decision in her favor for a high dollar amount could really muddy the waters in cases of true neglect and abuse. imagine social workers afraid to do their jobs for fear of being sued or otherwise financially retaliated upon. imagine all the nasty useless crackhoe moms that will use a case like this to try and smear others in an effort to take the heat off themselves.

the system needs reform, big time, but this will not help the cause at all.
 
ganjames

ganjames

Well-Known Member
*See's the title*
"Hmm, expensive suit, I wonder which designer it's from."


*Opens thread*
"Oh... Umm... Well that's lame, but who knows? Maybe this might actually be interesting."


*Opens news link, reads title*
Staten Island mom hits city with $900 trillion suit

"Ohh, so she hit the city wearing her new expensive suit! Now we got something here."


*Scrolls down to read news article*
"wtf..?"



This is not news! Bitches like money, tell me something I don't know.
 
Corxrew

Corxrew

Well-Known Member
sso said:
yeah, its an insane gamble.

but, if she then came on the news and made it all about the baby... ;)

everyone would forget the money (she might even say something to that effect ("i dont care about the fucking money, i just wanted your sure attention and my baby")

then again.

i could be wrong and she just plain boring insane and greedy.

we dont know yet.
Click to expand...
Her kids are 16 and 13.

I would like to mention though that she probably does have a valid case that the government dun fucked up.
Her kids were perfectly healthy and did well in school, all they have against her is she might have been a bit nuts and that she left her kids home alone when she was at work.
At 10 and 12 years old I don't see her leaving them home alone as that big of a deal...
 
mrboots

mrboots

Well-Known Member
OK, a 900 trillion dollar lawsuit. I thought you meant a 900 trillion dollar suit of clothes. Like that million dollar bra that Victoria's Secret makes.
 
sso

sso

Well-Known Member
Total Head said:
i have a few issues with story.

the first is that the dollar amount obviously is ridiculous. i understand the intent with "overshooting" but after a certain point you are just mocking the whole process and forcing me to call your true intent into question.

the other issue is that this could set an unwanted precedent. maybe this lady was a swell mother and was truly "wronged", but a decision in her favor for a high dollar amount could really muddy the waters in cases of true neglect and abuse. imagine social workers afraid to do their jobs for fear of being sued or otherwise financially retaliated upon. imagine all the nasty useless crackhoe moms that will use a case like this to try and smear others in an effort to take the heat off themselves.

the system needs reform, big time, but this will not help the cause at all.
Click to expand...
well.

the amount is so insane, that they could never pay it.

period.

they know that and she is bound to know that, unless she is insane and severly devoid of reality.

her lawyer has to know that too..

even if she won, she´s never going to get anywhere close to a fraction of that number.

it has to be a publicity stunt (for whatever reason, good or bad)
 
sso

sso

Well-Known Member
Corxrew said:
Her kids are 16 and 13.

I would like to mention though that she probably does have a valid case that the government dun fucked up.
Her kids were perfectly healthy and did well in school, all they have against her is she might have been a bit nuts and that she left her kids home alone when she was at work.
At 10 and 12 years old I don't see her leaving them home alone as that big of a deal...
Click to expand...

yeah, see, the publicity stunt is allready working.
:)

best of luck to her i say.
 
mame

mame

Well-Known Member
It's the burden of the state to establish probable cause, and it's the burden of the state to produce evidence that proves one guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If the state took her kids without those than she should be entitled to sue for damages, as she has.

Your worry shouldn't be about how this will effect social workers, your worry should be the effect on individual rights - which in this case, seem to have been trampled on.
 
sso

sso

Well-Known Member
mame said:
It's the burden of the state to establish probable cause, and it's the burden of the state to produce evidence that proves one guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If the state took her kids without those than she should be entitled to sue for damages, as she has.

Your worry shouldn't be about how this will effect social workers, your worry should be the effect on individual rights - which in this case, seem to have been trampled on.
Click to expand...

the problem with this is

i could lie right in your face about something and you would never know.

and if i had an ulterior agenda for doing so?

even a petty one? (Advancing a job or making myself feel big by tearing you down (of whom i was jelous or someting))

or something

people can be fooled, even the smartest and wisest.

and people make mistakes, even the smartest and wisest,

one should always account for that.
 
mame

mame

Well-Known Member
10 and 12 isn't even that bad anyway, I was left alone and told to babysit my younger siblings all the time around 12-14ish. Besides, "according to the National Child Care Information Center, only Illinois and Maryland currently have laws regarding a minimum age for leaving a child home alone".

But after I looked around it seems there are some other applicable laws though, like in Oregon there is this:

163.545 Child neglect in the second degree
Click to expand...
(1) A person having custody or control of a child under 10 years of age commits the crime of child neglect in the second degree if, with criminal negligence, the person leaves the child unattended in or at any place for such period of time as maybe likely to endanger the health or welfare of such child
Click to expand...
So if I'm reading this right, if you leave a " child unattended in or at any place for such period of time as maybe likely to endanger the health or welfare of such child" and they're 10 or under than that's a crime; But the state would have to prove this is occuring and they'd have to do so without infringing on individual rights, which seems pretty difficult if you just leave your kids at home.
 
tip top toker

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
My mum used to leave us at home all the time while she went to the shops, our family is just fine. Child ABUSE is one thing, but leaving the house is a completely different thing. But hey, we signed the birth certificates, we effectively handed over ownership.

Governemnts can go and get fucked when it comes to family affairs is my stance. It's none of their business, but their business is control so they do everything they can to make everything their business.
 
Total Head

Total Head

Well-Known Member
mame said:
It's the burden of the state to establish probable cause, and it's the burden of the state to produce evidence that proves one guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If the state took her kids without those than she should be entitled to sue for damages, as she has.

Your worry shouldn't be about how this will effect social workers, your worry should be the effect on individual rights - which in this case, seem to have been trampled on.
Click to expand...

the way this will effect social workers WILL effect individual rights, the children's in particular. social workers are basically social advocates for people, many of whom are unable to advocate for themselves, such as children, the elderly, and the mentally disabled. there very well may have been some poor decisions here, but there also exists the possibility that this woman was in fact mentally unstable and may have posed a danger.

while i don't want to see an erosion of parent/caregiver's rights, i don't want a situation where those caregivers are able to make heinous decisions in the name of their own freedom, while neglecting the freedom of people who are unable to advocate for themselves.
 
sso

sso

Well-Known Member
though, mmm, when i say i could lie to your face, i mean just that.

i dont lie unless i have to

as in police asking "do you have any marijuana"

ill happily lie to that :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top