Res Ipsa Loquitur

Regarding the "Lawsuit Update" below, the problem is that you were not "learned" at all. You took what a journalist reported about a legal matter as fact. You have a J.D. Act like it. Passing on reporting about legal cases without any investigation or independent analysis is like a medical doctor reporting about a medical controversy based upon a journalist´s article without any independent review of the research. Amazing.

Moreover, you did not even get the facts as reported by the journalist correct. $5,000,000 is for punitive damages to punish a multi-billion company for the tort of outrage. That´s actually pretty small stuff considering they sued my pauper of a client for $2,000,000 without even stating a proper legal cause of action. Also, you mistated the allegations that support the tort of outrage.

Moreover, it is not my responsiblity to present anything in this forum. It is YOUR responsibility as an expert on law to investigate a story and give an expert and independent analysis on it and then report that analysis. I again challenge you to get the actual pleadings and decide for yourself and publish that story.

Thank you for correcting the errors in the newspaper article(s).

This is a personal blog, with commentary and personal opinion. It is not intended to, nor does it contain, professional legal analysis of any pending case. It is not a law review article. In fact if you look around, you will find that I don't even write about legal issues very often.

If you continue making rude & disparaging personal remarks about me, I will ban you from commenting. I'm not sure why you are apparently so personally offended by my disagreeing with your client's position. Implying that I'm stupid isn't going to change my opinion. If you want to lay out the substantive issues & facts as your client sees them, your comments are welcome.

Rita,

Wrong again. I never implied you were stupid. I confirmed what you said - that you never even read the pleadings, or, in other words, that you were not well-informed. I then encouraged you to get informed and use your specialized legal knowledge to give an expert opinion of whether something does in fact "speak for itself". Nor am I offended nor have I even asserted that you disagree with my client. One has to actually be informed on something before disagreement is possible. What I have encouraged is for you to be actually be informed on topics (especially legal ones) before publishing articles about them. If you would like for me to e-mail or fax the pleadings to you, I will.

Ken, for the last time. This is not a published anything. This is a blog. I posted my personal opinion commentary about a newspaper article. If the article did not fairly represent the disputed facts, I suggest that you discuss that with the Springdale newspaper and its reporter.

If I wanted to post my legal opinion, of course I would read both sides' pleadings first. That is not what I do here. This is a personal website, not a professional one. I do not post legal opinions. If you will notice, my original posting on this matter was directed at FoxNews' mis-reporting of the case, not its merits.

Thank you for pointing out that my quote about the alleged grounds for outrage were misleading. That wasn't my intent, and I will include the article's paragraph above that quote in a correction to make it more clear. Though frankly the reporter didn't do a very good job describing your client's grounds, in my opinion.