Lawyer sued for $38,000,000,000,000,000

[Resolute 14]

Found via Fark: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/loca...b09c17782.html

In the comments, one David Wynn Miller was referenced, and his Wikipedia article led me to these stories:

http://www.cyberclass.net/miller2.htm

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/36197

I'm sure many of our tax and financial consultants here will get a kick out of this six degrees of stupidity.

[worth]

This seems completely reasonable.

[Ren]

Geez, he might as well have just made up his own number if he was going to sue someone for more money than actually exists in the entire world. Why not go for broke and ask for a bajillion, gazillion dollars?

What a joke. No judge or lawyer with even a shred of self-respect should give a second thought to taking this clown's case, he's making a total mockery of the justice system.

[valo403]

So that's what happened to Tower

[Khel]

nvm

[kermitology]

Tower?

[Mike F]

Settle and pass the cost on to other clients.

Up that file management disbursement.

[bizaro86]

Wow. I wonder what all those trial lawyer lobbyist groups in the US think of this. It basically makes the whole system look ridiculous.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Wow. I wonder what all those trial lawyer lobbyist groups in the US think of this. It basically makes the whole system look ridiculous.

Or it just goes to show how lay people can make an even bigger mess of things than lawyers.

[VladtheImpaler]

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Ren

He's making a total mockery of the justice system.

Because up until now the American legal system was totally reasonable and had never seen such frivolous things?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Or it just goes to show how lay people can make an even bigger mess of things than lawyers.

True enough. How long will it take for something like this to get thrown out? Seems like the damages are just for publicity, since it sounds like maybe the guy had a 4k a month consulting contract that went bad.

Michael

[Ren]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Because up until now the American legal system was totally reasonable and had never seen such frivolous things?

I can think of few things more ridiculous to try and take to court than suing someone for more money than there is on the entire planet. It's like something a six year old would think up.

[fredr123]

David-Wynn Miller's website is awesome (and probably already in Tower's bookmarks): http://dwmlc.com/

[VladtheImpaler]

I think I like that title. From now on, I shall be Plenipotentiary Judge Vlad the Impaler!

[fredr123]

David-Wynn Miller's concepts in action in a Canadian decision from BC in 2001:
National Leasing v. Top West Ventures et al, 2001 BCSC 111 (CanLII)

Gold in the final paragraph:

[9] If Mr. Shandler genuinely believes he has a defence against the plaintiff’s claim, I would respectfully suggest that, without sacrificing his friendship with Mr. Naudi, he might seek advice from someone whose theories of pleadings and grammar are rather more attuned to traditional usage. It is certainly thought-provoking to consider the “de” in “defendant” as a negation of a root word “fendant”, and “plaintiff” as a verb. (If the OED is watching, Mr. Naudi said it first, not I.) But the judges and masters of the Supreme Court of British Columbia are required to be somewhat conservative, if not downright pedantic, when it comes to pleadings. Our scribble/scribble-procedures are not inflexible, but they do require that counterclaims disclose a comprehensible, arguable cause of action, and I am afraid that this one does not.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by fredr123

David-Wynn Miller's website is awesome (and probably already in Tower's bookmarks): http://dwmlc.com/

It is actually a little scary to think of how many people buy into this crackpot idiocy.