With their obvious new tactic trying to concoct a case for extortion and blackmail - and God help them if I find evidence to prove they were directly behind the statements made here - Berber and Moor just destroyed any chance of settling this matter amicably with a confidentiality clause. I don't think so, not anymore, as I can tell you I wrote their defense counsel yesterday. So a book is in the cards whatever happens. Whether it is published, now that's another question :-).
I don't want to talk out of turn but I've seen so many lies, so many sandbag tactics, that IMO Rule 11 needs to be strengthened, and provide for automatic and increasing fines for specific offenses. My case has dragged on for nearly three years in large part because of the repeated chicanery by the defense. It's now more than a year since the EDVA rulings. This case could have been decided long ago, and I want to say this, which might surprise some people here:
I am in all in favor of tort reform, if it's fair, especially dispensing with absurd cases where lawyers get millions and the class get coupons they never use, and also forum-shopping adios (now passed), where let's see here a law firm says let's find us a plaintiff with nice fat damages who lives in what the defense bar calls litigation Hell in Illinois, or mebbe let's head to Alabama. You see I've gone right into the lion's den in Texas, and from my research I've learned to have a great deal of respect for Texas, where lying is not acceptable at all: look at all the Wall Street scandals coming out, most of the big ones started in Texas, ball got rolling there because Texans I believe have zilch patience for white-collar crime, don't think you can get rich by creating nothing, by simply destroying people, providing no benefit whatsoever to society.
There is that saying what goes around comes around. Well, my former counsel it became obvious to me were upset when they became cornered trying to use me for a class action and I wouldn't let them, then blew my case in SFSC. They filed against Merrill and Blodget. Big case they thought worth billions. Well, guess what: <not a single plaintiff was alleged to ever have followed any of the Merrill/Blodget recs. And they thought that case should go forward? So, it was dismissed. Berber and Moor tried to claim that they didn't proximately cause any damages but so sorry the Supreme Court in Reves made very clear that conducting an enterprise through bribery = proximate causation under RICO, nice try.
I have been very disappointed with the Plaintiff's bar, so put it mildly. So far, just about all I have seen are lawyers who file class actions in their own interest and not in the interest of the victims, and while they give lip service to your ability to come to them for help, in practice what they do in anything regarding financial fraud is first read WSJ and NYT for new frauds coming to light and then go in search of plaintiff's for the case they already have prepared. In fact, one very prominent plaintiff's firm I won't name stated to me about their cases:
We have a proven formula for bringing these cases.
What is this, a recipe for salad dressing? Cookie-cutter lawsuits without originality, file 100 of them, only 3 or 4 prevail and they hit the jackpot. Those kinds of lottery-ticket actions are IMHO the major reason why the courts are overburdened, and why the courts are under extreme pressure to sort the truly serious cases from the lottery tickets. It's upset me, because I've seen this in action, and it has not helped my case. That's one major reason why as a lawyer you might respect the decision I made and that was to go to federal court, where the pleading and other requirements are MUCH more strict than in state court: there are not nearly as many frivolous cases competing with the serious ones. Bring a frivolous suit and you'll be severely punished, but if your case is substantial and well-pleaded, then the Court is going to recognize it, which I believe maybe Judge Sparks has, or, as one lawyer recently told me was one indication, he would not have called a hearing at all.
The book you write afterwards may be a primer for court reform. |
