Every long-term reader knows I am about process, not the result. Now imagine someone sues you in a federal case, wherein you can respond Admit to every allegation. Once you have done that all that is left is damages.
Where is the incentive to Admit to the claims if the Plaintiff can still force you into a deposition?
If you read the article in the Texas Tribune concerning the Texas Supreme Court stopping the deposition of Ken Paxton, you would never know the argument for Ken Paxton was, since he admitted to everything there was nothing to ask him about.
Now, a side not, if the Plaintiffs could show specific questions which may go to malice which could impact damages there may be an issue. But that was not the case.
Now the Tribune tells you Paxton settled the case, and the plaintiffs agreed to the settlement, but the Legislature refused to finance the settlement.
When you read the article, the tone is the Republican Texas Supreme Court ran cover for Paxton. No, that did not happen. Paxton admitted to all the allegations thereby negating any reason for a deposition. Paxton's admissions mean the Plaintiffs win.
The trial court in my opinion acted with malice and in total disregard for the law. We all know I do not favor disregard for the law.
When I look at this, I do not consider I do not like Paxton or the Texas Supreme Court.
When a man walks into court and says, "I admit to everything", you do not harass him with a deposition. This was a clear abuse by the trial court.
No comments:
Post a Comment