Comments on: “Crook”, “con artist”, “fraud” https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/10/crook-con-artist-fraud/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sun, 25 May 2008 23:14:23 +0000 hourly 1 By: wavemaker https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/10/crook-con-artist-fraud/comment-page-1/#comment-4466 Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:25:25 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4063#comment-4466 This is really garden variety. They had a (sort of) business relationship. Bock felt she ha dbeen dissed. She made (prima facie) defamatory per-se comments about Scheff that she was not prepared (or able) to prove in Court.

The ridiculous part appears to be the amount of the verdict. What was that based upon?

]]> By: David Nieporent https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/10/crook-con-artist-fraud/comment-page-1/#comment-4465 Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:42:27 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4063#comment-4465 Tom: the defendant in this case ultimately defaulted, apparently at least in part because she couldn’t pay her attorney; under a loser pays regime, the defendant’s lawyer would have had an incentive to stick with the case, assuming the defendant’s position had merit.

As for your question, obviously indigent is indigent. The plaintiff can’t get blood from a stone.

]]> By: Tom T. https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/10/crook-con-artist-fraud/comment-page-1/#comment-4464 Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:26:22 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4063#comment-4464 Note that under a loser-pays regime, she would be entitled to her legal fees as well. Not sure how that works when the loser is indigent, though.

]]>