Hello StanTheMan,
I agree with you I just find very odd, reputation is not easy to get back and we have two guys putting it on the line via youtube. This includes all that are ringing alarms which I believe based on evidence have good reason for it. Myself also but in a much smaller way via the my own posts asking questions to SC Supporters. I only have one desire to see the financials and hope that it moves forward with great expediency.
Sure but this is why you need lawyers.
For reasonably intelligent people, it is easy to look at the law and try to interpret it. It is easy to look at case law and say, hey that bit applies to this case and its a slam dunk.
What actually happens is much more uncertain when you get to areas where opposing sets of lawyers disagree. Thats why they settle more often than not (the cost of losing is too great and their estimation of the probability of winning is too low to take the risk)
Lawyers rarely get it so wrong that cases get thrown out in the early stages (although it does happen).
These Youtubers are not putting it on the line.
Lawyers are slippery bastards and it is bread and butter being able to deflect a decision that goes against you (or more likely what Joe Public may claim went against you).
They are not party to all the documents, and although we could reasonably assume that these lawyer commentators have taken that into account before making their predictions, they still have hey have very little to lose.
They also dont represent all lawyers and may easily be appearing to take a position other lawyers would not, by virtue of the fact that most lawyers dont do youtubes making predictions like this.
It is all confusing ....one reason it is so frustrating if you get involved in the law as a layperson with some brains.
The law often seems superfluous to all the horse trading that goes on and I swear most lawyers dont understand the law but understand enough to hedge their bets or keep their mouths shut or deflect when the shit hits the fan (it is the same in many professions)
I sat in front of a Barrister here in the UK discussing a case he was representing me on. My Lawyer also in the room.
I was being advised to settle at £X. The reason being that the judge might think I was lying. This Barrister was about to be appointed judge himself. He didnt reel off any case law as to why my case might not be as strong as I thought (although there was plenty he could have done) and most of my case didnt hinge on my telling the truth as the facts were established and they led to damages for me.
My experience in other cases led me to believe despite all the months of analysis by me of the law and settlement values etc, knowledge of my opponents... there was simple truth .. this guy was near as dammit a judge telling me to settle...it was that simple. I had bee nself representing through several related cases and this one (so I knew a lot and was willing to self represent at trial)
My younger self would have argued with them more, asked for their analysis asked for case law, pointed out a shit load of things I thought were relevant to my case.
At the end of that meeting i agreed to settle if they gave me 20% more. They agreed, we all got paid. I won, my opponent lost.
I could have gone back and said to my Barrister .. look I got 20% on top of what you told me to settle at ..he would possibly have replied ..it was a risk i wouldn't have taken / yes if you'd agreed to settle we would have pushed for a bit more anyway etc etc or more likely , yes well done - aren't you a clever boy !! Truth is we would never know because the outcome was that uncertain and ina sense we were all right - including my opponents who coughed up without going to trial.
So TLDR
S
o when all is said and done ... Skadden are here (being paid sure) but they are probably not here because this case is getting chucked out before it has started (they get a lot more $$$$$ as this progresses through the process, settlement or not)) The other side are throwing mud because they have little to lose at this stage.
The commentators have almost nothing to lose and if they are right they can claim to have called it. Fail and they will have the benefit of the judges decision/reasoning to defend their position (because the judge will be using something else they will claim not to have had or will leave the door open somewhere for them to use in their defence of their prediction)
