Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent 488
i was following a court case where some guy pretty much got away with murder because it was at a crack house and all the witnesses were crack addicts.
so probably a sensible legal strategy.
|
Eh -- this is a very different situation, though.
The case you're referring to was a criminal case, while this is a civil action, one in which the relevance of their being crack addicts would impact the validity of the releases they signed, at least as much as it impacts the question of whether they are reliable witnesses (or in this case, reliable plaintiffs).
The underlying facts aren't really in dispute here, outside of the question of the releases' validity. The plaintiffs were filmed, and they signed releases (or such is my understanding, at least). The salient legal question is whether those releases have any validity.
My point was that noting the fact that the plaintiffs are crack addicts might not be the smartest move if you're planning to argue that your release is valid, because a release signed by someone who is intoxicated at the moment of signing is legally shaky from the word go.
More signs that this defendant
might not be too wise to the ways of the Court, from the article on baynews9.com:
Quote:
|
The owner of Shefights.net, 58-year-old Jeff Williams, showed up to the court hearing without an attorney.
|
and:
Quote:
|
The judge also entered a default against Williams for not responding to lawsuit yet.
|
Generally speaking, it really isn't the best idea to
not respond to a complaint, and as the cliche goes "he who represents himself has a fool for a client."
