Spoliation cites

[Sandy Sandfort]

VI2 wrote:

> There is a trend to making
> everything illegal.  Your
> qualifications to read tea
> leaves are no better than my own.

Well James, you got it right once.  My qualifications for reading tea leaves
are no better than your own.  However, my qualifications for reading and
understanding laws and court precedents are vastly superior to yours.  (For
what it's worth, I'm sure there must be something you are more qualified to
do; I just don't know what it is.)

> By the time "spoilation" reaches
> the condition that you anticipate,
> we will not be hiring lawyers for
> their knowledge of the law, but
> for their knowledge of connections.

(a) Since I have not discussed the topic of "spoilation" (or even
spoliation) on this list, you are obviously reaching.  You have no idea what
I anticipate.

(b) You have just given a very good additional reason to hire lawyers in
addition to their obvious superiority in understanding legal trends.

With regard to (b), not a lot of mainstream lawyers are going to be
sympathetic or versed in the sorts of things you and other people on this
list are likely to run afoul of.  It's interesting to me that you and the
other two village idiots seem hell bent on antagonizing your most likely
legal allies.  But then, you are village idiots.


 S a n d y