If you get a tweet saying "someone said this really bad thing about you" DON'T FOLLOW THE LINK!!!
It is a bogus phishing program.
Trust me, if people say bad things they do it openly… .
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Mr. Morton:
Here's my question for today - as if to prove you don't have to "follow the link" to find the critical comments! Mine are right here in front of you. It seems Sherry Sherrett's settlement is $450K. The judge (Byers) said the following to Ms. Sherrett: "Madam, you killed him. In my book, that means you go to jail". So when a system that forget's it gatekeeping of expert witnesses responsibilities and then reluctantly gives the victim of its collective ineptitude only $450K - does that suggest to you the players have changed their bumbling ways and/or learned anything? I bet the combined salary of the crown lawyer - the judge - and the defence lawyer far exeeeded the $450K Ms. Sherrett will now receive to try to rebuild a life destroyed by a stubborn and persistant failure to properly vett Dr. Smith. Maybe the players should rethink whether they have (or ought to have) a duty to check for prior adverse judicial comments (Dunn's would have prevented this abuse had anyone bothered to read his comments)before judging as did Byers with only the word of a quack to support her high-handed, haughty decision. But no - the system still says - Heaven forbid - there is no duty check/chalenge opposing (inept) expert witnesses (eg. Carter). Which begs this question - if lawyers are unwilling or unable to do even that - then why hire one? Stunning. Absolutely stunning.
2 comments:
Mr. Morton:
Here's my question for today - as if to prove you don't have to "follow the link" to find the critical comments! Mine are right here in front of you. It seems Sherry Sherrett's settlement is $450K. The judge (Byers) said the following to Ms. Sherrett: "Madam, you killed him. In my book, that means you go to jail".
So when a system that forget's it gatekeeping of expert witnesses responsibilities and then reluctantly gives the victim of its collective ineptitude only $450K - does that suggest to you the players have changed their bumbling ways and/or learned anything? I bet the combined salary of the crown lawyer - the judge - and the defence lawyer far exeeeded the $450K Ms. Sherrett will now receive to try to rebuild a life destroyed by a stubborn and persistant failure to properly vett Dr. Smith. Maybe the players should rethink whether they have (or ought to have) a duty to check for prior adverse judicial comments (Dunn's would have prevented this abuse had anyone bothered to read his comments)before judging as did Byers with only the word of a quack to support her high-handed, haughty decision. But no - the system still says - Heaven forbid - there is no duty check/chalenge opposing (inept) expert witnesses (eg. Carter). Which begs this question - if lawyers are unwilling or unable to do even that - then why hire one? Stunning. Absolutely stunning.
For what it's worth, I always check out the witnesses -- both mine and the other sides...
Post a Comment