<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Crook&#8221;, &#8220;con artist&#8221;, &#8220;fraud&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://overlawyered.com/2006/10/crook-con-artist-fraud/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://overlawyered.com/2006/10/crook-con-artist-fraud/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:26:11 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: wavemaker</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2006/10/crook-con-artist-fraud/comment-page-1/#comment-4466</link>
		<dc:creator>wavemaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:25:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4063#comment-4466</guid>
		<description>This is really garden variety. They had a (sort of) business relationship. Bock felt she ha dbeen dissed. She made (prima facie) defamatory per-se comments about Scheff that she was not prepared (or able) to prove in Court.

The ridiculous part appears to be the amount of the verdict. What was that based upon?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is really garden variety. They had a (sort of) business relationship. Bock felt she ha dbeen dissed. She made (prima facie) defamatory per-se comments about Scheff that she was not prepared (or able) to prove in Court.</p>
<p>The ridiculous part appears to be the amount of the verdict. What was that based upon?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Nieporent</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2006/10/crook-con-artist-fraud/comment-page-1/#comment-4465</link>
		<dc:creator>David Nieporent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:42:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4063#comment-4465</guid>
		<description>Tom: the defendant in this case ultimately defaulted, apparently at least in part because she couldn&#039;t pay her attorney; under a loser pays regime, the defendant&#039;s lawyer would have had an incentive to stick with the case, assuming the defendant&#039;s position had merit.

As for your question, obviously indigent is indigent.  The plaintiff can&#039;t get blood from a stone.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom: the defendant in this case ultimately defaulted, apparently at least in part because she couldn&#8217;t pay her attorney; under a loser pays regime, the defendant&#8217;s lawyer would have had an incentive to stick with the case, assuming the defendant&#8217;s position had merit.</p>
<p>As for your question, obviously indigent is indigent.  The plaintiff can&#8217;t get blood from a stone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom T.</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2006/10/crook-con-artist-fraud/comment-page-1/#comment-4464</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom T.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:26:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4063#comment-4464</guid>
		<description>Note that under a loser-pays regime, she would be entitled to her legal fees as well.  Not sure how that works when the loser is indigent, though.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Note that under a loser-pays regime, she would be entitled to her legal fees as well.  Not sure how that works when the loser is indigent, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

