Ticketmaster settling class action lawsuit

By the way, I'm not supporting Prochaska.  Were he to come to me seeking representation, I would likely, after reading the transcript of the case, decline my services.  It SHOULD have been dismissed on summary judgement (like it was).  Again, another example of how the system cleanses itself of weak claims.

you realize that the premise you are basing your argument on is possibly flawed.

 
Perhaps.  Although I think I'm not accurately arguing my point.
 

But that is the essence of my entire point:  what you "look at and call bullshit" is totally 100% irrelevant.  And that is no slight on you

 
True.  But in this case I have the benefit of hindsight.  I can't say I'll call bullshit on a case without at least trying to determine (most of) the facts and not just those reported in a newspaper.  I know better than that.
 
I suppose I'm doing exactly what the system was designed to do in that regard.
 

That is in part why the case against OJ fell apart.  Clark couldn't (for whatever reasons) get significant parts of the blood evidence admitted, allowing the defense to connect the dots as they saw fit.

 
Yes, but that is why I can come to a different conclusion than a jury.  Now, I also understand that the jury isn't privy to what I may know, and I therefore can't criticize their verdict based on the evidence presented.  
 

Unless of course you want to institute the rule that you can't sue unless you have the ability to pay if you lose.  There's a chilling concept.

 
No, I don't want to go that far.  That's why I said earlier that a judge could decide financials based upon the merits of the case. 
 
Ah.  Never mind.  We're running in circles.

Well, we are, and I am sorry for that.  My whole position can really be boiled down to one essence:
 
"The system is flawed but not nearly as bad as some people think, and "loser pays" isn't anywhere near the panacea for those few flaws that many of those same people think." 

The funny thing, though, is that I don't disagree with any of your statement.
 
The system IS flawed but it isn't that bad.  I do think there are things we could take greater involvement in trying to improve.
 
And I wouldn't advocate a simple 'loser always pays' system because it is overkill and would destroy the system.

^^^ I'm sure you know that in many cases we do in fact use a "loser pays" scenario.  Many statutes allocate costs in that manner, and in many Federal jurisdictions, judges have the latitude to award costs to the winner. 
 
I like your comments:  we could take greater involvement (it pains me that I have to explain a lot of this stuff to people; you don't have to be a lawyer to understand how our judicial system works), and a blend of the current system and loser pays would probably make a lot of sense.
 
 

I just settled a lawsuit with my former landlord (you can read about it in a previous thread). 

The management company tried to low ball me on a settlement until I brought in a lawyer which case they gave me all my money back plus court costs. Now I can look at this and say the law worked but I don't.
 
I believe he had a weak case and I would have crushed him in court but the reason he settled had nothing to do with right or wrong, he settled because it was cheaper to give my $1,200 back than go hire an attorney and spend lots of money.
 
I basically took advantage of the system because I knew that as soon as a lawyer got involved he would be begging me to settle and that is what happened.
 
The outcome I would have preferred would have been that we argue the case in front of a judge and the loser pays both of our attorney fees.  The reason I got a lawyer in the first place was because the lease had a clause where the losing party would pay the prevailing parties fees.  The threat of having to pay two sets of legal fees would solve the problem of frivilious lawsuits.  
 
Lawyers take "risky" cases because they know it's cheaper for a company to settle than to pay.  Under a loser pays system they would not be going to court unless they had a winnable case.

ser pays, which means there is no contingency fee arrangement (since that is the alternative as implemented in the States) so I'll have to somehow come up with the money to cover a) the attorney, the b) private investigator to t

 
I'm not opposed to the "victim" getting 100% of the damages award and then an extra 33% (or whatever they charge) gets added on as an attorney fee as part of the judgment.
 
Now lets say you think you've found your 19 year old man driving the BMW and you sue him and he doesn't have any money but his parents have money and they go heavily in debt fighting this and it turns out that the 19 year old driving the BMW was totally innocent. Does he or his parents deserve to be in debt because you fucked up? Absolutely not, so you pay his legal fees. That's the way it should work and you will never be able to convince me otherwise. 
 
And I've always believed that the legal profession should be kind of like getting a masters in social work. It should be about resolving problems and disputes, not about getting rich and driving fancy cars and flying on private jets. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

chibul


I just settled a lawsuit with my former landlord (you can read about it in a previous thread). 

The management company tried to low ball me on a settlement until I brought in a lawyer which case they gave me all my money back plus court costs. Now I can look at this and say the law worked but I don't.

I believe he had a weak case and I would have crushed him in court but the reason he settled had nothing to do with right or wrong, he settled because it was cheaper to give my $1,200 back than go hire an attorney and spend lots of money.

I basically took advantage of the system because I knew that as soon as a lawyer got involved he would be begging me to settle and that is what happened.

The outcome I would have preferred would have been that we argue the case in front of a judge and the loser pays both of our attorney fees.  The reason I got a lawyer in the first place was because the lease had a clause where the losing party would pay the prevailing parties fees.  The threat of having to pay two sets of legal fees would solve the problem of frivilious lawsuits.  

You totally miss the point.  Totally.  It works that way on purpose.  You think the state wants to run a court room, pay a judge, bailiff, stenographer, janitor, guards, etc. for your shitty $1,200 pissing contest?  (And I mean that figuratively.)   What if every single dispute at that level had to go through full-on trial EVERY SINGLE TIME?  Do you have any idea of the backlog that would create???  The system WANTS you to take advantage of it at that level, because it allocates the money to the people it should be allocated to:  the parties.  And your tax dollars don't have to go up to pay for the hassle - yes, it is a hassle - of hearing you whine about how clean your carpets were.   I'll bet you have no idea how much it costs to operate a court room for one day.  Please guess, as I'm curious.
 
And that is one more reason why it is not a "loser pays" scenario.  The system can't handle having every single dispute in front of it.  It just can't, and so in addition to the procedural steps in place to deal with frivolous lawsuits, there are practical process steps in place to encourage people to settle.  Settling is GOOD for the system, by and large.  The equitable solution for both parties was to give you your $1,200 back and be done with it.  And that is exactly what happened.   It forces people to address their own problems and deal with them, instead of believing that every single little beef is worthy of the State's time and money.  Next time, you should revise the lease to be more clear as to what constitutes a right to withhold, or demand that you have access to the interest-bearing account into which the deposit (I am assuming it was a deposit) was placed.  What "you prefer" is irrelevant, and often at odds with what is best for the collective. 
 
In addition to this, most people with a vested interest in having the system work smoothly (including lawyers) advocate alternative dispute resolutions, like mediation and arbitration, to solve this problem.  Which is also another piece of evidence against your irrational hatred of lawyers, since one of the hallmarks of ADR is that it requires less lawyer time, therefore less payment to lawyers (yet lawyers generally advocate it's use; go figure!). 
 

Lawyers take "risky" cases because they know it's cheaper for a company to settle than to pay.  Under a loser pays system they would not be going to court unless they had a winnable case.

Won't make a difference.  There is no guarantee in a settlement that attorney fees will be paid.  If I'm in a dispute, I'm not paying the other party's legal fees in a settlement scenario.  Why would I do that?  I can honestly say that with the exception of a debt-collection action or circumstances where it was mandated by statute, I have never been involved in a settlement that explicitly added legal fees to the settlement amount. 

chibul


I'm not opposed to the "victim" getting 100% of the damages award and then an extra 33% (or whatever they charge) gets added on as an attorney fee as part of the judgment.

Well, you're not opposed, but just about everyone else is, at least as a general proposition.  ;) 
 

Now lets say you think you've found your 19 year old man driving the BMW and you sue him and he doesn't have any money but his parents have money and they go heavily in debt fighting this and it turns out that the 19 year old driving the BMW was totally innocent. Does he or his parents deserve to be in debt because you fucked up? Absolutely not, so you pay his legal fees. That's the way it should work and you will never be able to convince me otherwise. 

 
Well, thankfully, you are in the distinct minority on that.  First off, in a trial where damages are awarded, there is no such thing as "totally innocent".  You are either culpable or not, and then to what degree.  If the case was as slam-dunk as you make it out, then the defense should make a motion for summary judgement and have the case tossed.  Second, I'm not sure I understand your revised scenario.  How did I "fuck up"?  If you are referring to my reference to being under the influence, how am I going to get all the way to a final verdict based on "drunk testimony" if the defendant is "totally innocent" and the defense is doing it's job?  You can keep making up wild scenarios that prove your point but thankfully they are jsut that - wild - and are the distinct exception to the reality. 
 

And I've always believed that the legal profession should be kind of like getting a masters in social work. It should be about resolving problems and disputes, not about getting rich and driving fancy cars and flying on private jets. 

That's exactly what it is; at least at my law school (which is a state school, top 25, but not Harvard-level) we were required to contribute a certain amount of time pro bono to help do exactly what you are suggesting.  There are whole courses that deal in nothing but client interaction; how do you walk someone through what might be one of the most trying times in their lives?  There is a heavy, heavy emphasis on alternative dispute resolution practices to help avoid "lawsuits" in the case of more straightforward cases, and an emphasis on teaching people about the law pro-actively so that they can take as many steps as reasonable to avoid problems in the future.

You keep talking about "getting rich and driving fancy cars and flying on private jets"; that is just not the reality.  I work with some of the largest law firms in the United States and I cannot point to ANY of the so-called "luxuries" that you keep harping on.  They probably exist, but like in any industry there is always going to be a "1%" that is compensated to a much higher level than the rest of the subject population.   In contrast, I know several people in the insurance industry that regularly use charter/private air for travel.  The average legal salary today is about $100,000/year, which isn't chump change, but a) isn't anywhere NEAR enough to support "luxury cars and private jets" and b) is not even close to some of the more lucrative professions today.  In fact, in one survey I read (for the purposes of this post, as I do my research) lawyers weren't even in the top 10.  NOT EVEN IN THE TOP 10.   They were in fact number 16, literally almost equal to natural science managers and slightly ahead of petroleum engineers and engineering managers.  For the record, I am actually both (I have a law license and a professional engineer's license) and I am paid less today (working primarily as an attorney) than I was at my last job (which was primarily based on my engineering background), though in fairness, both jobs rely heavily on both credentials.

I'm going to take some heat for this (and might even deserve it) but I'm going to say something really harsh, but meant with the best of intentions:  you need to go and do some research.  It is ignorant and borderline negligent (that is to say, failing to take reasonable care) in how you keep making conclusions based on incomplete, anecdotal, unconfirmed supposition, as opposed to on real, documentable, repeatable, and statistically valid facts.  I'm not kidding, and I'm not trolling.  One person's personal experience is just simply not enough.  Everything I've said here is documentable and readily available, often with a simple Google search.  You need to start doing that; you owe it to yourself and your community to be well-informed - a belief which is the basis for why I keep on with this; if even one person learns one thing they didn't know before about this subject, I'm happy.

Stadler
I'm going to take some heat for this (and might even deserve it) but I'm going to say something really harsh, but meant with the best of intentions:  you need to go and do some research. 

not harsh at all.  no heat from me.

h

Stadler

chibul


I'm not opposed to the "victim" getting 100% of the damages award and then an extra 33% (or whatever they charge) gets added on as an attorney fee as part of the judgment.

Well, you're not opposed, but just about everyone else is, at least as a general proposition.  ;) 

Now lets say you think you've found your 19 year old man driving the BMW and you sue him and he doesn't have any money but his parents have money and they go heavily in debt fighting this and it turns out that the 19 year old driving the BMW was totally innocent. Does he or his parents deserve to be in debt because you fucked up? Absolutely not, so you pay his legal fees. That's the way it should work and you will never be able to convince me otherwise. 

Well, thankfully, you are in the distinct minority on that.  First off, in a trial where damages are awarded, there is no such thing as "totally innocent".  You are either culpable or not, and then to what degree.  If the case was as slam-dunk as you make it out, then the defense should make a motion for summary judgement and have the case tossed.  Second, I'm not sure I understand your revised scenario.  How did I "fuck up"?  If you are referring to my reference to being under the influence, how am I going to get all the way to a final verdict based on "drunk testimony" if the defendant is "totally innocent" and the defense is doing it's job?  You can keep making up wild scenarios that prove your point but thankfully they are jsut that - wild - and are the distinct exception to the reality. 

And I've always believed that the legal profession should be kind of like getting a masters in social work. It should be about resolving problems and disputes, not about getting rich and driving fancy cars and flying on private jets. 

That's exactly what it is; at least at my law school (which is a state school, top 25, but not Harvard-level) we were required to contribute a certain amount of time pro bono to help do exactly what you are suggesting.  There are whole courses that deal in nothing but client interaction; how do you walk someone through what might be one of the most trying times in their lives?  There is a heavy, heavy emphasis on alternative dispute resolution practices to help avoid "lawsuits" in the case of more straightforward cases, and an emphasis on teaching people about the law pro-actively so that they can take as many steps as reasonable to avoid problems in the future.

You keep talking about "getting rich and driving fancy cars and flying on private jets"; that is just not the reality.  I work with some of the largest law firms in the United States and I cannot point to ANY of the so-called "luxuries" that you keep harping on.  They probably exist, but like in any industry there is always going to be a "1%" that is compensated to a much higher level than the rest of the subject population.   In contrast, I know several people in the insurance industry that regularly use charter/private air for travel.  The average legal salary today is about $100,000/year, which isn't chump change, but a) isn't anywhere NEAR enough to support "luxury cars and private jets" and b) is not even close to some of the more lucrative professions today.  In fact, in one survey I read (for the purposes of this post, as I do my research) lawyers weren't even in the top 10.  NOT EVEN IN THE TOP 10.   They were in fact number 16, literally almost equal to natural science managers and slightly ahead of petroleum engineers and engineering managers.  For the record, I am actually both (I have a law license and a professional engineer's license) and I am paid less today (working primarily as an attorney) than I was at my last job (which was primarily based on my engineering background), though in fairness, both jobs rely heavily on both credentials.

I'm going to take some heat for this (and might even deserve it) but I'm going to say something really harsh, but meant with the best of intentions:  you need to go and do some research.  It is ignorant and borderline negligent (that is to say, failing to take reasonable care) in how you keep making conclusions based on incomplete, anecdotal, unconfirmed supposition, as opposed to on real, documentable, repeatable, and statistically valid facts.  I'm not kidding, and I'm not trolling.  One person's personal experience is just simply not enough.  Everything I've said here is documentable and readily available, often with a simple Google search.  You need to start doing that; you owe it to yourself and your community to be well-informed - a belief which is the basis for why I keep on with this; if even one person learns one thing they didn't know before about this subject, I'm happy.

 
 
Basically under my "revised" scanerio what I am saying is that if you take a weak case to court and you loose you have to pay the other parties legal fees. This would eliminate frivolous and weak lawsuits, but it would also mean potentially less lawsuits which is why all the lawyers in this forum are going nuts. 
 
The lawsuit against me for $10,000. There's no reason why I couldn't just show up present my side, the other party presents their side and the Judge makes a decision that's binding. This case could have been over with in 30 minutes but instead it dragged on for 3 years while my legal fees mounted astronomically. That's the problem with the system.
 
Looks like you did look up Patricia McColm. She also sued Bank of America and lost but Bank of America still had to pay $27,000 in legal expenses, so explain to me how that is "winning".  In the current legal system even if you win you loose 

Stadler

chibul


I just settled a lawsuit with my former landlord (you can read about it in a previous thread). 

The management company tried to low ball me on a settlement until I brought in a lawyer which case they gave me all my money back plus court costs. Now I can look at this and say the law worked but I don't.

I believe he had a weak case and I would have crushed him in court but the reason he settled had nothing to do with right or wrong, he settled because it was cheaper to give my $1,200 back than go hire an attorney and spend lots of money.

I basically took advantage of the system because I knew that as soon as a lawyer got involved he would be begging me to settle and that is what happened.

The outcome I would have preferred would have been that we argue the case in front of a judge and the loser pays both of our attorney fees.  The reason I got a lawyer in the first place was because the lease had a clause where the losing party would pay the prevailing parties fees.  The threat of having to pay two sets of legal fees would solve the problem of frivilious lawsuits.  

You totally miss the point.  Totally.  It works that way on purpose.  You think the state wants to run a court room, pay a judge, bailiff, stenographer, janitor, guards, etc. for your shitty $1,200 pissing contest?  (And I mean that figuratively.)   What if every single dispute at that level had to go through full-on trial EVERY SINGLE TIME?  Do you have any idea of the backlog that would create???  The system WANTS you to take advantage of it at that level, because it allocates the money to the people it should be allocated to:  the parties.  And your tax dollars don't have to go up to pay for the hassle - yes, it is a hassle - of hearing you whine about how clean your carpets were.   I'll bet you have no idea how much it costs to operate a court room for one day.  Please guess, as I'm curious.

And that is one more reason why it is not a "loser pays" scenario.  The system can't handle having every single dispute in front of it.  It just can't, and so in addition to the procedural steps in place to deal with frivolous lawsuits, there are practical process steps in place to encourage people to settle.  Settling is GOOD for the system, by and large.  The equitable solution for both parties was to give you your $1,200 back and be done with it.  And that is exactly what happened.   It forces people to address their own problems and deal with them, instead of believing that every single little beef is worthy of the State's time and money.  Next time, you should revise the lease to be more clear as to what constitutes a right to withhold, or demand that you have access to the interest-bearing account into which the deposit (I am assuming it was a deposit) was placed.  What "you prefer" is irrelevant, and often at odds with what is best for the collective. 

In addition to this, most people with a vested interest in having the system work smoothly (including lawyers) advocate alternative dispute resolutions, like mediation and arbitration, to solve this problem.  Which is also another piece of evidence against your irrational hatred of lawyers, since one of the hallmarks of ADR is that it requires less lawyer time, therefore less payment to lawyers (yet lawyers generally advocate it's use; go figure!). 

Lawyers take "risky" cases because they know it's cheaper for a company to settle than to pay.  Under a loser pays system they would not be going to court unless they had a winnable case.

Won't make a difference.  There is no guarantee in a settlement that attorney fees will be paid.  If I'm in a dispute, I'm not paying the other party's legal fees in a settlement scenario.  Why would I do that?  I can honestly say that with the exception of a debt-collection action or circumstances where it was mandated by statute, I have never been involved in a settlement that explicitly added legal fees to the settlement amount. 

Under a loser pays scenario the amount of lawsuits would drop substantially.  Under a loser pays scenario contingency fee lawyers would be a little bit more cautious about taking cases.  They now know that even if they don't have a great case, companies will settle out of fear of prolonged litigation

chibul


Basically under my "revised" scanerio what I am saying is that if you take a weak case to court and you loose you have to pay the other parties legal fees. This would eliminate frivolous and weak lawsuits, but it would also mean potentially less lawsuits which is why all the lawyers in this forum are going nuts. 

 
NO NO NO NO NO.  For the thousanth time, NO.  First, I'm the only lawyer going nuts, and I WANT few lawsuits.  What I don't want is a chilling effect on access to the courts that is NOT related to the legal aspect of the case:  what are the facts, and how do they apply to the selected legal theory.  These are very very different concepts. 
 
Right now, the parties control their destiny.  I choose to sue you, I have to factor in my costs against any award I might get.  You have to account, in your actions, what it might cost to continue to fight me.  This is how virtually everything works in life.  Nothing new.  What isn't good is to have me having to forecase what you might or might not spend in an action.  It isn't up to me to control. 
 

The lawsuit against me for $10,000. There's no reason why I couldn't just show up present my side, the other party presents their side and the Judge makes a decision that's binding. This case could have been over with in 30 minutes but instead it dragged on for 3 years while my legal fees mounted astronomically. That's the problem with the system.

It's not a problem with the system.  It is a problem FOR YOU.  Sorry, but very very different.  The system works fine in thousands of instances every year, it didn't work for you.  So sorry, but that doesn't mean we have to change the system. 
 
You don't know it, of course, but you have your solution.  It's that way now, you just don't realize it.  You keep selecting these one or two examples (including your own, which is irrelevant in my book beacuse you are a party in the case.  You're biased).  For every lawsuit that ends in the scenario you paint, there are THOUSANDS - yes, THOUSANDS - that are settled amicably by the parties, are settled through mediation, or are settled through arbitration (which is your "if I had my way" scenario).  Minimal costs, binding solution, and often a salvaged relationship. 

Looks like you did look up Patricia McColm. She also sued Bank of America and lost but Bank of America still had to pay $27,000 in legal expenses, so explain to me how that is "winning".  In the current legal system even if you win you loose 

Again, the ONE example that illustrates your point, ignoring the thousands of examples that don't.

Just like the chapter I just found called "The Trouble With Lawyers" by John Stossel, from which I notice you have taken passages almost verbatim.  There's some critical thinking for you. ;0  Mentions McColm, the "luxury cars"... just about every comment or argument you've made has come from Stossel's book.   I read the article (actually I read it before, but it didn't click until it was fresh against your posts), and he is wrong too.  Not so much "wrong" (though he does have incorrect facts in his book), but he is far too reliant on his libertarian beliefs to create a fair or credible response to the current system. 
 
You'll note, if you had done your research (which you didn't) that his argument is a smoke screen.  He's not writing an article that agrees with your points; he is using your points to make a more subtle argument, a VERY VERY pro-corporate argument.  He's using your examples to further the argument that many corporations have, that is, it should be harder to bring the deep pockets into court.  He doesn't give fuck one about you and your $10,000 litigation (I still can't get past how you were sued for $10K and settled for $40K...) or whether the little guy has a voice.  He wants corporations to not have to be subject to lawsuits.  Period.

chibul
 

Under a loser pays scenario the amount of lawsuits would drop substantially.  Under a loser pays scenario contingency fee lawyers would be a little bit more cautious about taking cases.  They now know that even if they don't have a great case, companies will settle out of fear of prolonged litigation

Uh, no, no they wouldn't.  If anything, "loser pays" is BETTER for the lawyers, and here's why.
 
I'm thinking of suing my landlord.  I go to a lawyer, and say "here's my case, and I have no money, so I'd like a contingency fee".  He ONLY gets paid if I win, and only to the extent I make enough to cover his fee.  So he as at best a 50-50 shot of seeing any money, and less than that of seeing all his money.  He is absol-OOT-ly going to counsel me on the economics of the case.  I'm suing for X, it will cost Y, and I can only hope to recover Z.  Z HAS to be greater than Y, and should be some reasonable percentage of X +Y, or he's going to tell me it isn't worth it.  This conversation happens every single day countless times in law offices all over the country.
 
I'm thinking of suing my landlord.  I go to a lawyer, and say "here's my case, and I have no money, so I'd like a contingency fee".  He's gonna say "No dice, amigo." The other lawyer gets paid whether we win or lose, so why shouldn't he?  So he's going to want his money as we go along, so we don't get into a scenario where I've spent the money I would have paid him.  So I have to come up with the coin as we go, making it far more likely I am going to be susceptible to "big pocket bullying" and far more likely I am going to have either settle or drop the lawsuit - no matter how good the merits are - before I get a judgment, which is necessary to determine "win or lose".  I'm not taking a contingency fee, because I can't put my money at risk like that.  In any scenario, the lawyer gets paid win or lose, whether they win or lose.  At least under the current system, with a contingency fee, there is incentive for the lawyer to take good cases because otherwise they aren't going to see a dime. 
 
 

Exceptions don't prove anything.  Give it a rest.

Chibul, what is it YOU do for a living?  Because as soon as I know, I'll go dig up dirt on the profession, then apply my findings to all.
 
I hoped this thread (my thread) died in time for Christmas, and wish it would have stayed dead.  Thanks Bud!

I read this article late last night and seemed to miss the point. Is it that it is a travesty that the store went out of business because someone filed an ADA lawsuit against them? I do feel for the business owner. But, is it the ADA lawsuit that caused such disruption in their business or was it just the straw that broke the proverbial camels back of their already failing business? Or was it just the ADA law in general that it is bad? After all, those disabled people shouldn't have any expectation to have access to stores! Let them roll around in the street! I suppose Chibul would be happy then.

This isn't about making businesses "ADA compliant" this is about lawyers putting money in their pockets, nothing more.  It's about greed plain and simple. 
 
That business is just one example.
 
You say I guess it's better that these disable people roll around in the street. Well what about the unintended consequences, people who love that restaurant can't eat their anymore and employees now are out a job in a bad economy.  It's all good though because the lawyers are richer.
 
60% of disabled people were employed before the ADA, and that statistic has gone down over 10% and the reason for that is because of fear of lawsuits. If you have to fire somebody with a disability you might be subject to a discrimination lawsuit so it's safer to just not hire them in the first place. 

You can cherry pick examples of scumbags in every profession.  I could cherry pick through this forum and come up with "proof" that all Dream Theater fans are ecstatic with ADToE and love the mix.  I could also cherry pick through the forum and come up with "proof" of the exact opposite.  The stuff you are posting makes you look like Blabbermouth.

Chris Hinton


You can cherry pick examples of scumbags in every profession.  I could cherry pick through this forum and come up with "proof" that all Dream Theater fans are ecstatic with ADToE and love the mix.  I could also cherry pick through the forum and come up with "proof" of the exact opposite.  The stuff you are posting makes you look like Blabbermouth.

This isn't "cherry picking" this is a big problem!

That is exactly what it is.  You know why?  Because a lawyer doing a good thing isn't news.  It doesn't sell papers or attract viewers or drive web traffic.  So those stories don't get printed.  And on the rare occasion that they do, they don't get circulated because they don't get people up in arms and feeling either superior or like a victim.

Keep this civil.

Sorry -- didn't mean to disparage Blabbermouth.