How did that sign make all they way up there? The number of people that had to have looked at that sign before it was posted had to be more than 5 at the least.
Someone early on in the process made a typo in a form somewhere, then:
I get paid to process orders, not proofread
I get paid to manufacture the sign, not proofread
I get paid to package the sign for shipping, not proofread
I get paid to put the sign up, not proofread
And good for all of them, they're right. Quality control should be paid for, and if you're not being paid to do quality control, don't fucking do it.
The fact the contractor is paying means somewhere along the line of subcontracting someone typed it in wrong. The contractor likely aren’t the ones making the sign, and there may even be another level of subcontractors each getting more specialized in there if the main contract is for the entire State.
Yeah but like… have you seen how big those signs actually are? If you’re working with them, they’re so big that it’s hard to read them up close. And the pieces might have been upside-down, making it even harder. I’m willing to give most of the people involved a pass. But not the people at the sign shop that should be checking before cutting the decal or whatever, or the people doing (or rather not doing) quality control before letting the sign leave the shop, or whoever was standing around watching when they were putting the sign up (unless they pointed it out and got told they’ll put it up anyway until they get a fixed one).
Why is that not just one big stencil? Why do they have to lay down each letter individually? No idea. Unless that is the stencil, which makes it worse.
I worked for a company who went with a cut rate insurance provider one year who basically denied or screwed up every claim. This required calls, faxes and hours wasted any time anyone had a medical procedure. The kicker was that the insurance company hours were the same as our company hours so all of this had to happen during company time. They went with a proper provider the next year.
If you don’t keep logs, and someone has evidence you did something wrong, then there won’t be any opposing evidence that you were in the right. So the jury will start out siding against you, and you won’t have any way to win them back.
In fact if a judge thinks you didn’t keep logs because you were afraid they would incriminate you, then they will tell the jury to consider the lack of logs as further evidence against you.
This isn’t a prosecution, and nobody is alleging a crime. This is a civil lawsuit.
In a civil lawsuit, the standard of evidence is much different. You do not have to “prove” things beyond a reasonable doubt like in a criminal trial. The jury is instructed to weigh the evidence like a balance, and whichever side has the best evidence wins. Even if it’s only a small difference that only slightly favors one side, they win.
That’s why it’s so important to have evidence that counters whatever the other side claims. You are bound to lose if your opponents are the only ones offering evidence on their side of the balance.
Agree. I believe I acknowledged that in my last sentence.
My point is a frivolous claim is a thing , and someone bringing a claim must suffice a basic level of evidence to even proceed. Indeed, as you say, “judgement” is at a lower final standard in a civil suit.
At a glance this looks like a subject matter jurisdiction objection (as distinct from personal jurisdiction), which is not waivable and can be raised at any time or sua sponte–so you can keep it in your pocket forever and raise it whenever you’re desperate, which seems to be the case here.
Edit: Looked at the motion, and that’s what this is. It doesn’t necessarily mean the motion is meritorious, but it’s timely.
If a bank sells a mortgage, there obviously has to be a buyer.
Any buyer who does their due diligence is going to see a mortgage on a commercial office property, and weigh the risks of the borrower defaulting on their mortgage, or the borrower not being able to refinance when the mortgage is due.
So given the current environment for commercial offices, any reasonable buyer is going to offer to buy commercial office mortgages at a discount, maybe even at a significant discount, which likely means a financial loss for the bank anyway.
So what’s the difference if the bank holds on to the mortgage, and if the borrower defaults, then seizing the building, i.e. the real asset, and auctioning it off for whatever it can get?
Wouldn’t the loss on a mortgage default and asset seizure, likely the be about same as the loss as selling to a prospective buyer for the mortgage, a buyer who had properly calculated a discount for the risk into their purchase price?
Not going to achieve anything. Everything has already been moved to banned.video under a new name. All income goes to his dad’s business too, so again, not impacted
The loss of his entire studio and all of his trademarks is going to have a huge impact on his ability to succeed moving forward. Starting a new show on a fringe platform with no budget is honestly quite desperate. His best path to success is to try to ride a wave of victimhood, and he can’t do that without once again spreading lies about the Sandy Hook families, so he either needs to find a new angle, or he’s diving headfirst into another lawsuit that he will absolutely lose.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.