So with this judge’s logic, that “ample opportunity existed for discovery” without results, most career criminals like Madoff would be free today.
~~
Yes, I wondered the same thing. Is this setting a precedent? (is that how it’s spelled? not a legal scholar)
I mean if he is LEGALLY saying that as long as someone can get away with it, they are allowed?
Every case of fraud in the country should be filing a defense with this case as an example.
“Your honor, my client should not be convicted for practicing medicine without a license. The plaintiff had plenty of time to research private medical college transcripts to see if this man who claimed he was licensed was or not and she didn’t do it in time. Therefore this lawsuit of fraud should be dismissed. It’s her fault she is missing her spleen!”
My guess is yes that is the case. But more probably,this guy is just a gutless wonder.
If he had cajone one he would call up zero ask politely for a BC and when zero refused agree to hear the case.
But then that will never happen since none of these bozos have any guts.
Posts by "lawyers" on this thread are a good example of why he won't as well. These guys have their own little club and they don't like any one rocking the boat. They have created (and modified) their own little rules and when someone else tries to call them on it,they get threatened.
Words like justice and truth have little if any meaning in todays courts,just another reason why the country is in as much trouble as it is.