seif rips gold

[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
If Italy is the best you can come up with to counter that opinion, then your argument is lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see no future in a protracted debate with you on this topic, but I think you are confused. The most objective measure of corruption is probably Transparency International's CPI, which assigns Italy a dismal score. For specific numbers related to the judiciary, the best source is probably Global Integrity who assign Italy's judiciary a score of 69, which is absolutely terrible. Accusations and even convictions relating to judicial bribery remain fairly common. Recently, a former defense minister was convicted of bribing multiple judges in Rome.

[Masquerade]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not really trying to make this a insult towards you but IMHO your comment doesn't say much for you does it? Unless I misunderstood you then you're basically saying it's ok to lie to someone as long as it's not in writing.

[/ QUOTE ]
What part of [ QUOTE ]

If Gold reneged on a deal then I hold him in as much contempt as anyone else

[/ QUOTE ] didn't you get? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I was not saying it was morally acceptable. I was saying that if two people privately agree a deal with nothing in writing it's going to be exceptionally difficult for the aggrieved party to seek legal redress.

In this particular case there may well be additional evidence from third parties or voicemails which will be germane. I was making a more general point that if you're going to fall back to using the law to resolve a dispute then you should have something down in writing to start with. If you're going to rely on a warm, fuzzy sense of fair play and trust then don't expect the court system to necessarily bail you out when things turn sour.

I found Seif's article rambling, incoherent and illogical despite its brevity. If that's the finest legal mind fighting Leyser's corner then he's got big problems.

[NicksDad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not really trying to make this a insult towards you but IMHO your comment doesn't say much for you does it? Unless I misunderstood you then you're basically saying it's ok to lie to someone as long as it's not in writing.

[/ QUOTE ]
What part of [ QUOTE ]

If Gold reneged on a deal then I hold him in as much contempt as anyone else

[/ QUOTE ] didn't you get? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I was not saying it was morally acceptable. I was saying that if two people privately agree a deal with nothing in writing it's going to be exceptionally difficult for the aggrieved party to seek legal redress.

In this particular case there may well be additional evidence from third parties or voicemails which will be germane. I was making a more general point that if you're going to fall back to using the law to resolve a dispute then you should have something down in writing to start with. If you're going to rely on a warm, fuzzy sense of fair play and trust then don't expect the court system to necessarily bail you out when things turn sour.

I found Seif's article rambling, incoherent and illogical despite its brevity. If that's the finest legal mind fighting Leyser's corner then he's got big problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

There were a few sentences in your OP that looked like it's ok to lie as long as noone can prove it. If you didn't mean it that way then I'm sorry.

Once again I havn't followed this case so I have no real clue as to what went on between Gold and the other fella.

But from what I read (or thought I read) it wasn't Gold denying saying all that. Just that he wasn't going to pay up. Didn't he admit to calling this guy and repeating the agreement so there was proof?

If that is even close to being the truth then I think Gold should have to pay him the 6 million and interest since the day Gold won the WSOP. I don't say that just because you could convince a judge or jury. But maybe that will stop the next scumbag from trying to cheat someone out of something they owe.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Italy is the best you can come up with to counter that opinion, then your argument is lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see no future in a protracted debate with you on this topic, but I think you are confused. The most objective measure of corruption is probably Transparency International's CPI, which assigns Italy a dismal score. For specific numbers related to the judiciary, the best source is probably Global Integrity who assign Italy's judiciary a score of 69, which is absolutely terrible. Accusations and even convictions relating to judicial bribery remain fairly common. Recently, a former defense minister was convicted of bribing multiple judges in Rome.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh, sir!

Hey, Chomp ... totally pawned on this one!

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The American justice system is the most inequitous, unfair and corrupt of it's kind wnywhere in the developed world. In fact, amongst 1st world countries, it without a shadow of a doubt the WORST justice system. And it's not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

this paragraph is far stupider than anything seif wrote

[/ QUOTE ]


You name me a 1st world justice system that is worse than America's, and I'll bow to your greater knowledge in a heartbeat.



[/ QUOTE ]

Germany, France, heck pretty much any country operating under the "French Law" system, All of the former Soviet Republics including Russia, I could go on.

Edit: Also, China, Japan, (holy lack of due process, batman).

[Peter McDermott]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You name me a 1st world justice system that is worse than America's, and I'll bow to your greater knowledge in a heartbeat.



[/ QUOTE ]

Germany, France, heck pretty much any country operating under the "French Law" system

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather find myself facing charges in front of a Dutch court or a German court than a US court in almost any circumstances.

The only exception would be if I were richer than O.J.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather find myself facing charges in front of a Dutch court or a German court than a US court in almost any circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell that to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. A Dutch court ordered her to be evicted from her apartment because of the diminution in property values to her neighbors from death threats to her from Islamist scumbags.

What's your basis for your preference to be in a Dutch court rather than an American one? I myself have precisely the opposite preference.

[Peter McDermott]

But if Ali had been in the USA rather than in Holland, she'd have been either shipped to Guantanamo as a terrorist, or deported as an illegal immigrant, not just evicted from her house, so the issue would never have arisen.

And her eviction had nothing to do with property values. Rather, people felt that she was likely to attract terrorist activity in the area and so her 'bravery' actually posed a threat to their safety. Presumably, you aren't suggesting that Americans don't take their security seriously? Because I travel to both countries regularly, and I know which of the two has the higher level of petty, over-the-top security checking and it isn't The Netherlands.

As why I'd prefer to be in front of a Dutch court as opposed to a US court -- well, there are several reasons:

1.) the quality of my defense isn't as likely to depend on how wealthy I am. See the latest Grisham, in which the lawyer is paid $3000 to mount a defence in a murder trial, so acting in his client's interest is actually costing him a fortune.

2.) I'm never going to be wrongly executed by a Dutch court.

3.) Politics will play a much smaller role in determining whether the case will be brought in the Netherlands.

4.) If convicted in Holland, I'd be sent to a reasonably decent and humane prison and wouldn't be forcibly buggered by the brothers on a regular basis.

Don't get me wrong: this isn't standard European anti-Americanism. I envy aspects of your political system and some of the aspects of how your court system works. And I'm British, so we invented the adversarial system. *And* I'm married to a lawyer, so at least half of our household income depends upon it.

Obviously, both sides have strengths and weaknesses, but on balance I'd definitely rather be tried in Holland than the UK or the USA.

[RemyXO]

US legal system is tailored to drag the litigation forever and allow lawyers buy million-dollar homes. Law of precedence that we borrowed from the Great Britain is complete BS. Why the f**k I have no chance of winning my case just because some court in 1969 decided a SIMILAR issue in favor of the opposing side.

Keep living under a delusion that US is the best country in the world with the best legal system. OJ Simpson case and Frist's bill haven't taugh anyone anything. Just wait till you get booked for online poker and spend all your bankroll on lawyer and court fees.

Remy over and out.

EDIT: Just remembered an article in Dallas Morning News a couple of months ago where a 50-year old woman, high-school history teacher was arrested (in error) for allegedly unpaid parking ticket. They "misplaced" her file and she ended up spending 5 days in county jail without ever seeing a judge. Guards telling her to shut the [censored] up and wait. Cell overcrowded with druggies and drunkards. Feeding on water and nasty sandwiches. Her family going nuts. I say, [censored] this system to high heavens. The only people who like it are cops and lawyers.

[Martin Aigner]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Italy is the best you can come up with to counter that opinion, then your argument is lost.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I see no future in a protracted debate with you on this topic, but I think you are confused. The most objective measure of corruption is probably Transparency International's CPI, which assigns Italy a dismal score. For specific numbers related to the judiciary, the best source is probably Global Integrity who assign Italy's judiciary a score of 69, which is absolutely terrible. Accusations and even convictions relating to judicial bribery remain fairly common. Recently, a former defense minister was convicted of bribing multiple judges in Rome.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[/ QUOTE ]


Hm, maybe my english is too weak to fully understand that site, but give me the choice and I´ll take a trial in a german court over an american any day, although according to that site Germany scores only 79 vs USA 94.

Also from
The same site
[ QUOTE ]
39 Can citizens access the judicial system?
- 39a: In practice, citizens earning the median yearly income can afford to bring a legal suit.
Score: often/0.75
Comments: According to the U.S. Census, median household income was $42,228 in 2001. It is hard to say how much citizens with that income could afford, but even postulating that they could afford to spend roughly one-tenth of that income, or $4,223, we need to acknowledge that legal fees vary greatly, depending on the quality of legal services and on the amount of legal work involved. Moreover, some lawyers agree to work on a contingency basis such that their fees are contingent on winning the suit. Some law firms offer pro bono services to indigent citizens, and some nonprofit organizations offer legal services at a reduced rate or free of charge.
References: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p60-218.pdf

- 39b: In practice, a typical small retail business can afford to bring a legal suit.
Score: rarely/0.25
Comments: Legal fees vary greatly, depending on the quality of legal services and the amount of legal work involved, but are generally prohibitive for a typical small business. Pro bono and nonprofit legal assistance, moreover, is usually available for individuals and not businesses.
References:


[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn´t it be one of the basic principals of fair juristication be that ANYBODY has in practice the possibility to go to (and win at) court?