Well, now that they've settled it out of court it's a terrible accident.

Wonder how much it cost old Alex to get them words changed like that?

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
"Settlement" means you didn't pay what it was actually worth and you just fucked the victim again.

I truly hope he ends himself.

Mars, I have been involved in settling legal claims for more than twenty years. I have settled hundreds of matters over that time. "Settlement" means that both sides bargained over the amount involved and each agreed, in an arm's length transaction how much that one was willing to pay and the other was willing to accept. This bargaining is usually hard-nosed, and both sides are represented by counsel. It is the very definition of coming to the market price to resolve the dispute. Both sides evaluated the claim, the costs to not settle, and the risks involved - it is the very definition of an arm's length market-driven transaction.

Usually both sides are somewhat satisfied and somewhat dissatisfied. One side thinks they paid too much and the other thinks they got too little. It is an old joke between lawyers that you know you got a good settlement when both sides are unhappy.

The victim has, most emphatically, not been fucked again.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
...
The victim has, most emphatically, not been fucked again.

Your as wrong as two boys fucking.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
...
The victim has, most emphatically, not been fucked again.

Your as wrong as two boys fucking.

Tell me how. Explain yourself. And also, tell me the when you last negotiated a settlement in a lawsuit.

You do realize the plaintiff (ie the victim) also has to agree to the settlement. They could refuse and roll the dice in court. They decided they didn't want to do that.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
"Settlement" means you didn't pay what it was actually worth and you just fucked the victim again.

I truly hope he ends himself.

The husband had no involvement with the project, but is now the executive producer? Sounds like his lawyers negotiated a position for him where he will be able to monitor how financially successful the film becomes.

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
The husband had no involvement with the project, but is now the executive producer? Sounds like his lawyers negotiated a position for him where he will be able to monitor how financially successful the film becomes.

I personally can't understand why either side would make a deal that requires them to work together, which is what this seems to be. That is a recipe for disaster, in my view.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:


Your as wrong

Your is wrong.

jhe888 has accurately summed up the settlement process. While some of you don't like the known term, it's not your case, you're not the victim, and you're not the one who would have to live through a trial and the inevitable appeal. You may have not settled for a piece of the action, so to speak and that is a valid position too. But, it wasn't your case so I'd be a little less judgmental of the family and the process. If it brings them closure, it was successful.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
The husband had no involvement with the project, but is now the executive producer? Sounds like his lawyers negotiated a position for him where he will be able to monitor how financially successful the film becomes.

I personally can't understand why either side would make a deal that requires them to work together, which is what this seems to be. That is a recipe for disaster, in my view.

Zackly. Trying to make sense of a move like that leads me to the three basic motives: Profit power or passion. Profit seems like the only reasonable explanation. Somehow, unless the victim's husband gets the job and the movie makes a solid profit, there won't be enough money from Baldwin to compensate hubby. Pure ignorant speculation on my part. Worth what you paid for it.

The real victim is dead. No matter how good your lawyer is, there is no settlement possible that will properly compensate the dead person for their loss. Because, you know, they are dead, and A.B. fucking killed ‘em. I will state this for the record. If some Jack wagon kills me, I don’t want his money, not for my kids, or my old lady, I want his head rotting on my front gate. That is the only settlement I would accept. But, that’s not how the world works, it should be, but it’s not.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
The husband had no involvement with the project, but is now the executive producer? Sounds like his lawyers negotiated a position for him where he will be able to monitor how financially successful the film becomes.

I personally can't understand why either side would make a deal that requires them to work together, which is what this seems to be. That is a recipe for disaster, in my view.

Maybe the husband plans to kill AB on the set. That'd be karma.

Even if the movie turns out to be a 2hs long still of a turd on a stick, ignorant people will want to see what it was all about.

And Balwin is on it. Bonus turd.

0-0

Speculation, but maybe the husband is getting a portion of profits and the position on the film is to monitor the finances.

Keep in mind Alec and the husband are not hated enemies but in fact by all accounts seem to be close friends. The husband has acknowledged the shooting was a tragic accident and not Alecs fault. Alec has stated he went to see him shortly after the shooting to apologize and he grieved with the family. So this was probably for the lawyers benefit and to give the public the perception that Alec is being made to pay.

They both probably think the shooting will make the movie a huge box office draw and they will make their money off of it yet. That’s how self centered these types are.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
You do realize the plaintiff (ie the victim) also has to agree to the settlement. They could refuse and roll the dice in court. They decided they didn't want to do that.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
"Settlement" means you didn't pay what it was actually worth and you just fucked the victim again.

I truly hope he ends himself.

I can assure you the victim agreed to nothing.

I’m with Mars here, the victim is in fact the woman who got shot and died…not the plaintiff

Oh, you boys got to begin thinking like lawyers. The "victim" is the one in a lawsuit who deserves the cash, aka, the plaintiff.

The plaintiff did

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
You do realize the plaintiff (ie the victim) also has to agree to the settlement. They could refuse and roll the dice in court. They decided they didn't want to do that.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
"Settlement" means you didn't pay what it was actually worth and you just fucked the victim again.

I truly hope he ends himself.

I can assure you the victim agreed to nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
The husband had no involvement with the project, but is now the executive producer? Sounds like his lawyers negotiated a position for him where he will be able to monitor how financially successful the film becomes.

I personally can't understand why either side would make a deal that requires them to work together, which is what this seems to be. That is a recipe for disaster, in my view.

I suspect it is so that the husband can participate on the back end in the profits of the film if there are any. Also suspect that he is a passive participant, Exec Producer in name only, for that purpose. But, your right, if he's actively involved in any material way, it has that potential.