Outatime wrote:
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > So I take it neither of you two jokers have ever been in an accident?
> >
> > ---- happens and you two are waaaaayyyyy out in left field attacking
> > some poor guy with 'No' facts at hand....
> >
> > Talk about a pair of losers....
>
> I disagree, Mike. Fact: a woman rear-ends another vehicle. This moron
> suggests she retain a lawyer to fend off collection efforts. I think
> this is scuzzy behavior, and anyone who defends it is way off base.
>
> Ten years ago in Sacramento, a female doctor with a blood alcohol level
> exceeding 0.20 drives up the wrong way onto a freeway offramp, hitting a
> car head-on, killing all 4 kids inside. All 4 families file wrongful
> death suits, and rightfully so. She lawyers up, waits until all 4 have
> filed, then drops a Chapter 7 on the whole mess and WALKS AWAY like
> nothing ever happened. Truly the pinnacle of scuzzy behavior.
>
> I've never been charged with causing an accident. I've been on the
> butt-end of several, and every single time, the clod who caused it tries
> his/her damndest to snake out of their financial responsibility. The
> last moron who did this ended up facing me in Superior Court; I took his
> condo, car, and his 401-k to satisfy the judgement. (No, he didn't feel
> the need to bother carrying liability insurance.)
>
> So, don't preach to me about '---- happens.' I want to see someone
> giddy with apology while pulling out the checkbook to take care of the
> damages for a change, instead hiring lawyers to block collection
> efforts. Don't want to end up on the ***-end of a lawsuit? Then drive
> like you own a brain. It's that simple.

You two are going on like the OP and his wife are sleazebags with
absolutely no evidence that 'I' have seen to back that up.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, I am currently really messed
up due to a careless driver. He even had insurance, but our 'no fault'
system is basically broken and requires lawyers to sue. The insurance
companies won't offer anything serious in compensation short of a trial.

Mike

 

Outatime wrote:
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > So I take it neither of you two jokers have ever been in an accident?
> >
> > ---- happens and you two are waaaaayyyyy out in left field attacking
> > some poor guy with 'No' facts at hand....
> >
> > Talk about a pair of losers....
>
> I disagree, Mike. Fact: a woman rear-ends another vehicle. This moron
> suggests she retain a lawyer to fend off collection efforts. I think
> this is scuzzy behavior, and anyone who defends it is way off base.
>
> Ten years ago in Sacramento, a female doctor with a blood alcohol level
> exceeding 0.20 drives up the wrong way onto a freeway offramp, hitting a
> car head-on, killing all 4 kids inside. All 4 families file wrongful
> death suits, and rightfully so. She lawyers up, waits until all 4 have
> filed, then drops a Chapter 7 on the whole mess and WALKS AWAY like
> nothing ever happened. Truly the pinnacle of scuzzy behavior.
>
> I've never been charged with causing an accident. I've been on the
> butt-end of several, and every single time, the clod who caused it tries
> his/her damndest to snake out of their financial responsibility. The
> last moron who did this ended up facing me in Superior Court; I took his
> condo, car, and his 401-k to satisfy the judgement. (No, he didn't feel
> the need to bother carrying liability insurance.)
>
> So, don't preach to me about '---- happens.' I want to see someone
> giddy with apology while pulling out the checkbook to take care of the
> damages for a change, instead hiring lawyers to block collection
> efforts. Don't want to end up on the ***-end of a lawsuit? Then drive
> like you own a brain. It's that simple.

You two are going on like the OP and his wife are sleazebags with
absolutely no evidence that 'I' have seen to back that up.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, I am currently really messed
up due to a careless driver. He even had insurance, but our 'no fault'
system is basically broken and requires lawyers to sue. The insurance
companies won't offer anything serious in compensation short of a trial.

Mike

 

Mike Romain wrote:

> You two are going on like the OP and his wife are sleazebags with
> absolutely no evidence that 'I' have seen to back that up.
>
> I don't disagree with what you are saying, I am currently really messed
> up due to a careless driver. He even had insurance, but our 'no fault'
> system is basically broken and requires lawyers to sue. The insurance
> companies won't offer anything serious in compensation short of a trial.

LOL. Methinks the OP was a troll, and James has a twisted sense of
humor. And you're right: insurance companies love no-fault, which
basically translates into no-pay.

My solution: drink heavily.

 

Mike Romain wrote:

> You two are going on like the OP and his wife are sleazebags with
> absolutely no evidence that 'I' have seen to back that up.
>
> I don't disagree with what you are saying, I am currently really messed
> up due to a careless driver. He even had insurance, but our 'no fault'
> system is basically broken and requires lawyers to sue. The insurance
> companies won't offer anything serious in compensation short of a trial.

LOL. Methinks the OP was a troll, and James has a twisted sense of
humor. And you're right: insurance companies love no-fault, which
basically translates into no-pay.

My solution: drink heavily.

 

Mike Romain wrote:

> You two are going on like the OP and his wife are sleazebags with
> absolutely no evidence that 'I' have seen to back that up.
>
> I don't disagree with what you are saying, I am currently really messed
> up due to a careless driver. He even had insurance, but our 'no fault'
> system is basically broken and requires lawyers to sue. The insurance
> companies won't offer anything serious in compensation short of a trial.

LOL. Methinks the OP was a troll, and James has a twisted sense of
humor. And you're right: insurance companies love no-fault, which
basically translates into no-pay.

My solution: drink heavily.