Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Brokerage-Chat Site Securities Fraud: A Lawsuit -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (3000)	12/4/2004 6:07:00 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 3143

The key sentence in that post seems to be Judge Sparks also stated, "If there is any possible way to dismiss this case, I will." Judges hate pro se litigants who tie up resources of the court. I'm not judging the merits, but just stating reality. It's human nature,and you can see why when you read some of these posts. Pro se stuff takes many times the amount of time and usually it boils down to, "It's a matter of principle. I'm right and everyone else is wrong." Judges like to have lawyers on both sides who go by the rules and where everything is finite and every tiny thing is not treated as a possible appeal. Again, I'm not judging or saying that things should not be better. The court system may be the most inefficient aspect of American business in the 21st century and this is a prime example. Over 90% of cases settle and should settle sooner. One has to be close to insane to push something through the morass of "due diligence", which means expensive discovery and $$$$$$. Very few civil cases justify the huge fees that are generated. However, the answer isn't necessarily to "kill all the lawyers." When there is a pro se litigant, the inefficiencies expand exponentially.