|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:35:44 -0600, Tim Peters <tim.one@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>[jstevh@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>[...]
>
>>> The biggest problem I see is with the international scope of this
>>> thing in terms of going after some of you, but for the people in the
>>> US, all that matters is I find some attorneys willing to take the
>>> case.
>
>> There should be no problem finding an attorney to take the case
>> if you pay him up front.
>
>Yup, I'm sure he could buy all the legal attention he can afford. OTOH,
>it would probably be a more effective use of cash to hire a PR firm --
>more attention per dollar.
>
>> Finding an attorney to take the case on, um, the word's on the tip of
>> my tongue... finding an attorney to pursue the case with an
>> arrangement that he only gets paid if you win might be harder.
>
>"Contingency" is probably what you had in mind: a lawyer agrees to take
>the case in return for, e.g., a third of the damages awarded -- they
>take the case "on a contingency basis".
That's it, thanks.
I guess the Alzheimer's is acting up again.
>But if he can't afford to buy all the legal attention he wants, it may
>actually be more realistic to search for a lawyer willing to take the
>case on a "pro bono" (free of charge, period) basis. For example, search
>for a lawyer who is also a mathematical crank. They would already have
>an axe to grind against "the establishment". Of course they would have
>to be incompetent in several other respects too to believe that James's
>experiences constitute "the smoking gun" they've always suspected exists
>-- but then wishful thinking is a given here.
>
>While I'm not a lawyer, I'll gladly accept US$500/hour to search for such
>a lawyer for James :-)
************************
David C. Ullrich
|
|