What's new
By:

Erin Andrews - Awarded $55M

Sirkickyass said:
This was, in large part, the defense used by Marriott. Let's just say that your female jurors will decide you owe more money for trying that one.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that was part of the defense. What a stupid and disgusting stance for a professional law firm to take.
I mean.. really dumb.
 
^That somewhat reminds me of a fraud case I am an expert witness for the plaintiff.

A real estate broker fraudulently signed documents (posing as FDIC) and making the defendant believe he got the best deal on a multi-million dollar land deal.
The broker, though, negotiated the deal with the feds and told the plaintiff/buyer a much higher number. Then the broker placed himself between the feds and the buyer and siphoned over a million dollars.

Get this.

The plaintiff's defense team alleged there was no harm to the defendant because he was able to sell the land at a profit.

huh?

So the buyer made an offer to the FDIC for, say, $4,000,000. The FDIC accepts the offer. The broker lies to the buyer and says the FDIC countered (with falsified documents) at $5.2M and buyer accepts.
Now the buyer resells the property for, say, $6M and the defendant states no damage.

I can't believe how ignorant/stupid some "high-powered" attorneys can be. All the above did was piss off the judge and jury.
 
Dr. Jones said:
^That somewhat reminds me of a fraud case I am an expert witness for the plaintiff.

A real estate broker fraudulently signed documents (posing as FDIC) and making the defendant believe he got the best deal on a multi-million dollar land deal.
The broker, though, negotiated the deal with the feds and told the plaintiff/buyer a much higher number. Then the broker placed himself between the feds and the buyer and siphoned over a million dollars.

Get this.

The plaintiff's defense team alleged there was no harm to the defendant because he was able to sell the land at a profit.

huh?

So the buyer made an offer to the FDIC for, say, $4,000,000. The FDIC accepts the offer. The broker lies to the buyer and says the FDIC countered (with falsified documents) at $5.2M and buyer accepts.
Now the buyer resells the property for, say, $6M and the defendant states no damage.

I can't believe how ignorant/stupid some "high-powered" attorneys can be. All the above did was piss off the judge and jury.
Click to expand...

I can't believe the percentage for brokering the fee wasn't enough for his wallet. What a jack wagon
 
Dr. Jones said:
^That somewhat reminds me of a fraud case I am an expert witness for the plaintiff.

A real estate broker fraudulently signed documents (posing as FDIC) and making the defendant believe he got the best deal on a multi-million dollar land deal.
The broker, though, negotiated the deal with the feds and told the plaintiff/buyer a much higher number. Then the broker placed himself between the feds and the buyer and siphoned over a million dollars.

Get this.

The plaintiff's defense team alleged there was no harm to the defendant because he was able to sell the land at a profit.

huh?

So the buyer made an offer to the FDIC for, say, $4,000,000. The FDIC accepts the offer. The broker lies to the buyer and says the FDIC countered (with falsified documents) at $5.2M and buyer accepts.
Now the buyer resells the property for, say, $6M and the defendant states no damage.

I can't believe how ignorant/stupid some "high-powered" attorneys can be. All the above did was piss off the judge and jury.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the defense lawyers have to argue something, whether they believe it or not.
 
Dr. Jones said:
^That somewhat reminds me of a fraud case I am an expert witness for the plaintiff.

A real estate broker fraudulently signed documents (posing as FDIC) and making the defendant believe he got the best deal on a multi-million dollar land deal.
The broker, though, negotiated the deal with the feds and told the plaintiff/buyer a much higher number. Then the broker placed himself between the feds and the buyer and siphoned over a million dollars.

Get this.

The plaintiff's defense team alleged there was no harm to the defendant because he was able to sell the land at a profit.

huh?

So the buyer made an offer to the FDIC for, say, $4,000,000. The FDIC accepts the offer. The broker lies to the buyer and says the FDIC countered (with falsified documents) at $5.2M and buyer accepts.
Now the buyer resells the property for, say, $6M and the defendant states no damage.

I can't believe how ignorant/stupid some "high-powered" attorneys can be. All the above did was piss off the judge and jury.
Click to expand...

I hope the broker lost his license.
 
Dr. Jones said:
I get that, I do... but they also have some duty to be smart/implement good strategy.


He lost, treble damages, lost license.. pending possible sentencing.
Click to expand...

I didn't read the complaint. If she argued loss of income, it is the logical defense. If anything, her career took off. Still, a bit scummy.

Glad the guy lost. I've seen some crazy land deals myself. The worst RE situation being a trustee of a retirement plan purchasing a landlocked parcel as an investment getting an appraisal as it could be developed. The ****ty appraiser took the guys word that it could be developed and did an appraisal based on a Google Maps view. The trustee was charged criminally for fraud, and was personally liable for the losses, which aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy. I doubt he will ever have money again after he gets out of prison.
 
green said:
Or the settle the crap out of the case and call it a win.
Click to expand...

That is what you do after you lose round 1. Guarantee the $50 will never be paid. Not sure if J&S liability applies here, but either way, it will get negotiated way down. If you think some of the tactics were disgusting, wait until you see what her lawyers get paid from this. Probably 30 to 40% of the final settlement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top