Jump to content
Paulding.com

Paula Deen lawsuit.... Dismissed


Recommended Posts

http://www.tmz.com/2013/08/12/paula-deen-racial-discrimination-case-thrown-out-lisa-jackson/

 

In one of the most supremely ironic court decisions in a long time, a judge just threw out the racial discrimination claim filed against Paula Deen -- the very lawsuit that destroyed the famous chef.

 

A judge just ruled ... Lisa Jackson had no right to claim racial discrimination, BECAUSE SHE'S WHITE! Any comments that Deen or her cohorts may have made had no legal consequence to her, because she's simply not the right color.

 

Jackson made a tenuous argument that someone in her family was bi-racial -- something that may not be true at all. But the judge said even if it were true, she was at best an "accidental victim."

 

Short story -- Jackson ruined Paula with a bogus claim.

 

The case goes on, because Jackson also claims sexual discrimination, and so far there's not basis to doubt that she's a woman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tmz.com/2...t-lisa-jackson/

 

In one of the most supremely ironic court decisions in a long time, a judge just threw out the racial discrimination claim filed against Paula Deen -- the very lawsuit that destroyed the famous chef.

 

A judge just ruled ... Lisa Jackson had no right to claim racial discrimination, BECAUSE SHE'S WHITE! Any comments that Deen or her cohorts may have made had no legal consequence to her, because she's simply not the right color.

 

Jackson made a tenuous argument that someone in her family was bi-racial -- something that may not be true at all. But the judge said even if it were true, she was at best an "accidental victim."

 

Short story -- Jackson ruined Paula with a bogus claim.

 

The case goes on, because Jackson also claims sexual discrimination, and so far there's not basis to doubt that she's a woman.

 

Nope. Paula released the deposition publickly .....she did not have to agree......and since the racial suit has been dismisssed, Paula can not come after her for the judge's ruling that she had not right to claim racial dscrimination.

 

Problem is, she ain't got nuthin old Paula wants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the judge threw out the entire lawsuit on the basis that their is no reason she can claim racial discrimination? Okay I get that, but weren't there sexual discrimination accusations in that lawsuit as well? And they're just going to dismiss those? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for Paula that she didn't have to thru this mess, just shocked. Guess the judge figured if she was making a faulty or unreasonable accusation on racial discrimination, that her accusations on sexual discrimination probably didn't hold water therefore throwing the entire case out. Oh well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the heck kind of attorney sets this type of suit up? You would think they would KNOW they didn't have a case.

 

They never thought it would go to court. I'm sure they expected Paula to write a check and stay out of court. She just wasn't as smart as they gave her credit for being.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While you can't get blood from a turnip, I wonder if Paula could sue Jackson for essentially costing her millions and millions and millions in endorsements and legal fees? It's really a shame that this kind of lawsuit goes so far and ruins someone. Paula has been dragged through the mud and for what?

Edited by momof 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that intentional? :pardon:

 

Yep.

 

I have a feeling that if she had it to do over she would be happy to write a check for an out of court settlement.

 

BTW, I have never cared for Paula. She gripes my butt with that annoying, through her nose YAWAL thing she does every time she takes a breath. But I don't like seeing anyone railroaded because they tell the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.

 

I have a feeling that if she had it to do over she would be happy to write a check for an out of court settlement.

 

BTW, I have never cared for Paula. She gripes my butt with that annoying, through her nose YAWAL thing she does every time she takes a breath. But I don't like seeing anyone railroaded because they tell the truth.

You're probably right, but at what point do you stop writing checks to any and all who threaten baseless lawsuits just to stay out of court? It's not like I'll ever have that problem, but it must get so old to have to pay people not to take you to court with lies just so they can have a payday. I guess it didn't work out like Jackson thought it would, I wonder when she realized she'd bitten off more than she could chew?

 

There was another guy that was threatening the same thing in NYC very recentlty,'pay me or I'll say so and so'. That was nipped in the bud pretty quickly. And Matt Lauer was a complete jacka$$ to PD in an interview, I think some pretty big people are going to owe Ms. Deen some pretty big apologies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They never thought it would go to court. I'm sure they expected Paula to write a check and stay out of court. She just wasn't as smart as they gave her credit for being.

Of course you are correct.

 

People playing the race card for personal gain. Low life's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the heck kind of attorney sets this type of suit up? You would think they would KNOW they didn't have a case.

 

Our tort system allows plaintiffs and their attorneys to sue for whatever they want. "You can sue the Pope for spitting on the sidewalk".

 

With no repercussions when thrown out or they lose.

 

In most of the rest of the developed world, the loser including their attorney who is ultimately responsible, are liable for ALL court costs on a suit like this when they lose. Hence, these other judicial systems see the cases go to court in 4-5 months. For us it takes years, and no one has to pay anything unless a bona fide settlement offer has been made and rejected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will be very difficult for the woman to prove Paula guilty of sexual discrimination when both are women.

Jackson targeted the money with anything she could grasp and in the end it bit her on the behind. There need to be consequences when people ruin your reputation, cost you money and attempt to turn you into a pariah in the eyes of the world.

 

And once again, at what point do you say no to extortionists and let the case come full circle in the courts. Unfortunately, Paula may have chosen the wrong case to go ahead with, look what it's cost her. And if this gal wants to sue PD's brother, by all means, let her. But she's after the cash and I doubt Bubba can compare with Paula.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson targeted the money with anything she could grasp and in the end it bit her on the behind. There need to be consequences when people ruin your reputation, cost you money and attempt to turn you into a pariah in the eyes of the world.

 

And once again, at what point do you say no to extortionists and let the case come full circle in the courts. Unfortunately, Paula may have chosen the wrong case to go ahead with, look what it's cost her. And if this gal wants to sue PD's brother, by all means, let her. But she's after the cash and I doubt Bubba can compare with Paula.

 

One thing Paula should consider is a new attorney. I didn't see the trial, but he should have objected to the questioning or coached Paula about admitting to having EVER used the overly-hyped word. Paula's answer should have been "do you have a video of me saying n______r? :blink: No? In that case, no."

Edited by feelip
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing Paula should consider is a new attorney. I didn't see the trial, but he should have objected to the questioning or coached Paula about admitting to having EVER used the overly-hyped word. Paula's answer should have been "do you have a video of me saying n______r? :blink: No? In that case, no."

She did that about a month ago, from what I understand she cleaned house with new attorneys and a publicist. But it may have been too little too late. She definitely got rid of the guy who let the questioning continue those months ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our tort system allows plaintiffs and their attorneys to sue for whatever they want. "You can sue the Pope for spitting on the sidewalk".

 

With no repercussions when thrown out or they lose.

 

In most of the rest of the developed world, the loser including their attorney who is ultimately responsible, are liable for ALL court costs on a suit like this when they lose. Hence, these other judicial systems see the cases go to court in 4-5 months. For us it takes years, and no one has to pay anything unless a bona fide settlement offer has been made and rejected.

:good: all for the Loser pays system, would cut out a lot of the BS lawsuits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the judge threw out the entire lawsuit on the basis that their is no reason she can claim racial discrimination? Okay I get that, but weren't there sexual discrimination accusations in that lawsuit as well? And they're just going to dismiss those? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for Paula that she didn't have to thru this mess, just shocked. Guess the judge figured if she was making a faulty or unreasonable accusation on racial discrimination, that her accusations on sexual discrimination probably didn't hold water therefore throwing the entire case out. Oh well.

 

 

The entire lawsuit was not thrown out. The sexual harassment claims remained in the suit and the case will go on for those claims.

 

One thing Paula should consider is a new attorney. I didn't see the trial, but he should have objected to the questioning or coached Paula about admitting to having EVER used the overly-hyped word. Paula's answer should have been "do you have a video of me saying n______r? :blink: No? In that case, no."

 

 

In a deposition, the attorney can object to the question, but the witness still has to answer it (unless the opposing attorney withdraws the question). The objection is noted and the deposition goes on. This case contains race discrimination claims and allegations that the word was used so it makes perfect sense that she would be asked if she had ever used the word. As for her attorneys coaching her, the only coaching the witness should receive is to remind her to tell the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire lawsuit was not thrown out. The sexual harassment claims remained in the suit and the case will go on for those claims.

 

 

 

 

In a deposition, the attorney can object to the question, but the witness still has to answer it (unless the opposing attorney withdraws the question). The objection is noted and the deposition goes on. This case contains race discrimination claims and allegations that the word was used so it makes perfect sense that she would be asked if she had ever used the word. As for her attorneys coaching her, the only coaching the witness should receive is to remind her to tell the truth.

 

You mean like the meaning of "it"?

 

PD should have just said "well of course not" and all of this would be over and she would still have everything. A good lawyer will protect his client.

 

The ridiculousness of the whole thing is that one silly, over-hyped word has been allowed to get the attention it is getting.

 

I have to wonder if the Obamas have ever used the word. If they have maybe they should be removed from office.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like the meaning of "it"?

 

PD should have just said "well of course not" and all of this would be over and she would still have everything. A good lawyer will protect his client.

 

The ridiculousness of the whole thing is that one silly, over-hyped word has been allowed to get the attention it is getting.

 

I have to wonder if the Obamas have ever used the word. If they have maybe they should be removed from office.

 

 

A lawyer should never encourage his client to lie and especially not under oath. She admitted it, has stood behind her story, and is facing the consequences. That is a lot more admirable than being caught in a lie.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lawyer should never encourage his client to lie and especially not under oath. She admitted it, has stood behind her story, and is facing the consequences. That is a lot more admirable than being caught in a lie.

 

Oh horse crap! Lies are told under oath every day about MUCH more important things than calling someone with a gun to your head a n. A good lawyer would have prepped her for this question and would have had a way for her to tap dance her way around it. That's all I'm saying. Lie? Not necessarily, but don't dare let them make you admit it. Not in today's bleeding heart society.

 

BTW, lawyers are a dime a dozen. Good lawyers are priceless. Well, $450 to $500 an hour anyway. :huh:

Edited by feelip
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...