|
Post by stagetec on Aug 16, 2003 18:39:14 GMT -5
VENTURA, Calif. (AP) - An heir of cosmetics legend Max Factor was ordered to pay $19 million to a California woman he was convicted of drugging and raping six years ago in a videotaped attack.
Andrew Luster must pay $9 million in compensatory and $10 million in punitive damages to the 23-year-old Oxnard woman. Authorities said he gave her the date-rape drug GHB and then videotaped himself having sex with the unconscious woman in 1997.
"Because the facts of this case are so perverse, so unconscionable and so despicable, the court is impelled to award a very significant sum in punitive damages," Ventura County Superior Court Judge Frederick Bysshe wrote in Friday's ruling.
The judge said he wanted to send a message to deter anyone who might be contemplating similar assaults.
Luster, 39, is the great-grandson of Max Factor. He jumped his $1 million bail in January, shortly before a jury convicted him in absentia of drugging and raping three women in his seaside Mussels Shoal home northwest of Los Angeles.
A bounty hunter captured him five months later in Mexico and he was returned to California, where he is serving a 124-year sentence in state prison.
Luster was sued by his three victims. Friday's judgment was for a woman identified in court only as Shawna Doe, who testified she has undergone therapy for depression and anxiety.
The woman testified she didn't remember being raped but became aware of the violation when authorities showed her the videotape, which later was played at Luster's criminal and civil trials.
"I don't remember the last time I was genuinely happy," she testified. "There is not a day that goes by that I don't remember what's on that video."
It was unclear whether she would receive any money from the judgment. During the civil trial, her lawyer estimated Luster's financial worth at $20 million.
But "it may be that he has depleted everything on his criminal defense and there is nothing left," attorney Barry Novack said.
Novack said he intends to go after Luster's home and trust funds.
However, "no amount of money in the world can get rid of the scarring, the emotional scarring, left on my client," Novack said.
Roger Diamond, Luster's criminal lawyer, said the only money his victims may see could come from the $1 million cash bond he forfeited when he fled.
2003-08-16 09:16:27 GMT
Copyright 2003
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Aug 16, 2003 18:48:40 GMT -5
Maybe not. He can still appeal that, can he not? A judgement and collecting anything are two different things. If he has a Trust a judge can't touch it depending on how it's structured.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 16, 2003 18:55:28 GMT -5
sherry yes he can appel,and the trut fund probley can't be touch.But the judge had to review the tape,and look what he had to say.Plus when luster appel hearing comes up all 7 judges will have to look at the tape.
|
|
|
Post by Impacticon on Aug 18, 2003 2:42:14 GMT -5
*Andrew Luster must pay $9 million in compensatory and $10 million in punitive damages to the 23-year-old Oxnard woman. Authorities said he gave her the date-rape drug GHB and then videotaped himself having sex with the unconscious woman in 1997.*
A certain boxer physically raped, with force, and got 3 years. How much was he ordered to pay?
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 18, 2003 3:01:25 GMT -5
thank you for that one,how many counts did the boxer have,and in what state? Luster had 86 counts the jury found him guilty of,and yes here they are again. 12020(a) PC F Posess Deadly Weapon N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 12020(a) PC F Posess Deadly Weapon N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 496(a) PC F Receiving Stolen Property N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 1320.5 PC F Failure To Appear While On Bai N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG DISM 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(3) PC F Rape By Use Of Drugs N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 261(a)(4) PC F Rape Of Unconscious Person N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 286(f) PC F Sodomy Of An Unconscious Victi N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 286(i) PC F Sodomy By Anesthesia Or Contro N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 288a(f) PC F Oral Copulation Of An Unconsci N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 288a(f) PC F Oral Copulation Of An Unconsci N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 288a(i) PC F Oral Copulation By Anesthesia N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 288a(i) PC F Oral Copulation By Anesthesia N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(e) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration By N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 11350(a) HS F Possession Of A Controlled Sub N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 11350(b) HS F Possession Of A Controlled Sub N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 11377(a) HS F Possession Of A Controlled Sub N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 11377(a) HS F Possession Of A Controlled Sub N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 347(a) PC F Poisoning N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 347(a) PC F Poisoning N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 347(a) PC F Poisoning N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG DISM 243.4 PC F Sexual Battery N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 243.4 PC F Sexual Battery N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 243.4 PC F Sexual Battery N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 243.4 PC F Sexual Battery N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FNDGJRY 289(d)(1) PC F Anal & Genital Penetration by N $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NG FN
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 18, 2003 3:49:31 GMT -5
is this what your talking about? Indianapolis, IN (CNN)- Mike Tyson walked into the courthouse in Indianapolis, hoping he would be able to get out of the most serious legal trouble he's ever been in. He walked out of the courthouse a convicted felon. Prosecutor Greg Garrison, the man who helped convict him, said, "I'm not sorry for him, because he did what he did, and to that extent he asked for it, but I have compassion on him, and I hope there's a better day out there for him."
There figure to be a lot worse days ahead for Mike Tyson before there are any better ones. Almost emotionless as the verdict was read, Tyson was convicted of one count of rape, and two counts of deviate sexual conduct. Each of the three felony charges carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. As to what Tyson will get, "The presumptive sentence for a class B felony is 10 years, down to six for mitigating circumstances, up to 20 for aggravation," said Prosecutor Greg Garrison, "It's too soon to say."
Too soon to say also, perhaps, what effect this case will have on the crime of date rape. Coming on the heels of the William Kennedy Smith acquittal, this conviction could send a message to victims of date rape that if they come forward with credible stories, they can win. "It doesn't matter whether it's a hired gun from out of town, Washington D.C., or it's competent local counsel, we can still go forward with the evidence," said Prosecutor Barbara Trathen.
The "hired gun" Trathen refers to is Vincent Fuller. He and his team from the prominent Williams and Connelley law firm in Washington, seemed relieved that the trial was over as they left. By most accounts, they were outplayed and outmaneuvered by the homegrown Indiana team of Trathen and Garrison. Said one juror, "I think maybe it might have been the case of where some big Washington lawyers, from maybe the most important law firm, defense law firm in the country, underestimated a Hoosier hick prosecutor."
To the jurors, though, the lawyers' styles were secondary to the evidence. Cameras were allowed into the courtroom to record jurors' post verdict thoughts. It seemed to come down to the credibility of an 18-year-old Sunday school teacher and foster child big sister versus that of a man who his own defense team painted as crude, lewd, and physically threatening to women.
Comments of the jurors... "There were questions about the testimony of both the plaintiff and the defendant, but I think then again after all, it was all weighed, and believe me we weighed it very carefully, that the plaintiff's case was a much stronger case." "There's no celebration here today. I mean, a woman was raped and a hero has been convicted of rape, so that's obviously something that's very sad."
Mike Tyson is now back in the public company of Don King, his flamboyant promoter and advisor who was kept under wraps during the trial. King surrendered Tyson's passport to the court. But Tyson will remain free on $30,000 bond, even though prosecutors asked that the bond be revoked. He is due back in Indianapolis on March 6th to be sentenced.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 18, 2003 4:06:31 GMT -5
and one more to ponder.
Not all assault cases are the same Bryant comes in with a clean image; Tyson had bad image before rape trial.
By Sarah Trotto sarah.trotto@indystar.com July 30, 2003
The sexual assault case against Kobe Bryant has drawn comparisons to the 1992 Mike Tyson rape trial in Indianapolis.
Both cases involve famous, wealthy athletes, which triggered a media frenzy.
But a chief difference, according to Purdue history professor and author Randy Roberts, is the reputation of the men.
Tyson had a deplorable reputation, while Bryant, a husband and a father, is trying to protect a "squeaky-clean" image, said Roberts, who co-wrote "Heavy Justice: The State of Indiana v. Michael G. Tyson."
Roberts wrote the book with Indianapolis attorney J. Gregory Garrison, who successfully prosecuted Tyson.
Though Tyson's negative image did arise during the trial, his reputation did not significantly affect the outcome of the case, said Barbara Trathen, who helped prosecute Tyson while she was Marion County's chief deputy prosecutor.
The defense used Tyson's poor reputation to show the victim knew what she was getting into when she accompanied Tyson to a hotel room where the rape occurred, Trathen said.
But the defense backfired, Roberts said, making Tyson unattractive and unsympathetic to the jury.
"You can't use that strategy with Kobe," Roberts said. "His reputation, as far as I know, is not like that. If he's in commercials, his reputation is good."
In the end, the credibility of the accuser outweighs that of the accused, said Trathen, now Hamilton County's chief deputy prosecutor. Even if they lack a celebrity, rape trials, like other trials involving violent crimes against people, focus on the alleged victim's credibility.
In trials involving high-profile clients, the defense often explores the victim's reliability, questioning whether he or she is after money, Trathen said. As for the allegations against Bryant, media reports have already delved into and evaluated the alleged victim's background.
"When you remove all the celebrity, it still comes down to this kind of rape case," Trathen said. "That accusation is as good as their word. You can show with other proof that word is good."
In the Tyson case, physical evidence and eyewitness accounts outweighed the presentation of Tyson's reputation, Trathen said. A doctor's testimony that consensual sex could not have caused the victim's injuries, for example, significantly supported the victim's testimony.
Trathen said if the Bryant case goes to trial, the prosecution will also rely on physical evidence and eyewitness testimony to support the alleged victim's testimony.
Cameras will be allowed at Bryant's Aug. 6 hearing. That will increase already intense media coverage, Roberts said.
"We look for what is the latest dramatic story," said Roberts.
The allegations against Bryant show the media's growing obsession with athletes' personal lives, Roberts said.
"I said when I wrote the Tyson book that a professional athlete going to prison for rape or a big crime virtually hadn't happened," he said. "Then we had O.J."
Simpson was found not guilty of killing two people, one his former wife, in 1995.
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Aug 18, 2003 11:19:30 GMT -5
What are we pondering here, the gullibility of juries, the corruption of greed?!!! It is now commonly known that Desiree lied. I'm not a fan of Tyson's, but even your bud Abrahms admits that. Tyson was an easy target for any leech that happened along. Look at the two who tried to provoke a fight with him in that hotel the other day. They thought they'd get a big paycheck. Not this time.
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Aug 18, 2003 11:27:52 GMT -5
Imact, the writing was pretty much on the wall. We expected the judge to do that. I remember hearing the story of the person who sued Ted Kennedy and won. They couldn't get anything because the Trust left it all to his cat. I'm not making that up. They might have a "judgement", but they still have to collect and that judge can't violate the Trust, neither can any court. If I'm wrong on this, please explain. That money rightfully belongs to his kids anyway. It doesn't hurt Andrew Luster, what's HE gonna spend it on where he is? What are they gonna do, put him in jail if he doesn't pay? ;D
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 18, 2003 13:34:09 GMT -5
truth their you go again ,that case did harm luster,its just one more loss luster has.And one more judge had to look at the tape,bet ya he just love that EH?
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Aug 18, 2003 13:45:15 GMT -5
ST, it aint over til your mama sings. ;D They still haven't got any money. When the court denies the appeal and they get all his kids money, then you can gloat and your mama can hit the high notes in her big flowery moo moo, not until.
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Aug 18, 2003 13:56:28 GMT -5
Asset Protection, Total Privacy, avoid ALL Probate
If you would like to have total PRIVACY, protect all of your ASSETS, avoid all PROBATE and be LAWSUIT PROOF for FREE, you can get your Free Trust and all your questions answered. You work your whole life for your money then ask a stranger how to protect it. That stranger feeds his family by probating your estate. WHY DO WE DO THIS??? Find out about Pure Trusts which consist of a Holding, Business, Banking, Family and an Off Shore Trust. You may print any one of the five Trusts for FREE. Learn how you can protect YOURSELF and YOUR loved ones from the Strangers and even the IRS Legally!!! The Kennedy's and the Rockefeller's have Pure Trusts and now YOU can too for FREE. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PURE TRUST AND A LIVING TRUST? A living Trust can be operated by the same person who benefits from the Trust Structure. In a PURE TRUST, you can't do that. There has to be a minimum of three entities. The Settlor, the First Trustee and the Beneficiary. The TRUST is set-up by the Settlor and the First Trustee for the benefit of the Beneficiary. If it was found that you actually still owned the assets that you were still controlling, anyone could pierce that veil. The whole scenario is as follows: The Settlor passes property to the Trust organization by way of an "exchange" for Shares of Beneficial Interest called Trust Certificate Units. This allows the newly created Trust to escape having to pay a "gift" tax on receiving the initial assets. After that, anyone can donate, gift, will or sell assets to the TRUST. It is at that time, that you, the Trustee (or General Trust Manager), decide to transfer your possessions into the Trust organization. LIVING TRUSTS do not provide protection against lawsuit or government asset seizures, neither does it have any tax saving benefits, since it is revocable and deemed a Grantor Trust under the Internal Revenue Code; thus, the Grantor is taxed personally on all the Trust's income. The Pure Trust is irrevocable. In a Pure Trust the Grantor completely relinquishes ownership; thus the Trust offers full liability protection and tax savings. Living Trusts are governed by statute law in the state where they are set up. The Pure Trust is a contract and, as such, is governed by Common Law, and protected under the Constitution for the united states of America.
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Aug 18, 2003 13:57:58 GMT -5
Asset Protection, Total Privacy, avoid ALL Probate
If you would like to have total PRIVACY, protect all of your ASSETS, avoid all PROBATE and be LAWSUIT PROOF for FREE, you can get your Free Trust and all your questions answered. You work your whole life for your money then ask a stranger how to protect it. That stranger feeds his family by probating your estate. WHY DO WE DO THIS??? Find out about Pure Trusts which consist of a Holding, Business, Banking, Family and an Off Shore Trust. You may print any one of the five Trusts for FREE. Learn how you can protect YOURSELF and YOUR loved ones from the Strangers and even the IRS Legally!!! The Kennedy's and the Rockefeller's have Pure Trusts and now YOU can too for FREE. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PURE TRUST AND A LIVING TRUST? A living Trust can be operated by the same person who benefits from the Trust Structure. In a PURE TRUST, you can't do that. There has to be a minimum of three entities. The Settlor, the First Trustee and the Beneficiary. The TRUST is set-up by the Settlor and the First Trustee for the benefit of the Beneficiary. If it was found that you actually still owned the assets that you were still controlling, anyone could pierce that veil. The whole scenario is as follows: The Settlor passes property to the Trust organization by way of an "exchange" for Shares of Beneficial Interest called Trust Certificate Units. This allows the newly created Trust to escape having to pay a "gift" tax on receiving the initial assets. After that, anyone can donate, gift, will or sell assets to the TRUST. It is at that time, that you, the Trustee (or General Trust Manager), decide to transfer your possessions into the Trust organization. LIVING TRUSTS do not provide protection against lawsuit or government asset seizures, neither does it have any tax saving benefits, since it is revocable and deemed a Grantor Trust under the Internal Revenue Code; thus, the Grantor is taxed personally on all the Trust's income. The Pure Trust is irrevocable. In a Pure Trust the Grantor completely relinquishes ownership; thus the Trust offers full liability protection and tax savings. Living Trusts are governed by statute law in the state where they are set up. The Pure Trust is a contract and, as such, is governed by Common Law, and protected under the Constitution for the united states of America.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 18, 2003 14:01:25 GMT -5
sherry their you go again ,who gets the money.LOL I don't give a dam if they get any money out of this,its all about luster and his crimes.P.S don't you love what the judge said about the tape? In a three-page ruling issued Friday, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Frederick Bysshe described Luster as "a man totally lacking a moral compass, a man, in fact, whose pleasure appears to be enhanced by the very helplessness of his victim. Shawna Doe was a minor in 1998 when Luster took her to his Mussel Shoals beach home and drugged her with a date rape drug that knocked her out. He then videotaped himself as he raped, sodomized, and orally copulated the unconscious woman. Luster can be heard on the tape talking about the assault and his sexual fantasies.
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Aug 18, 2003 14:12:15 GMT -5
All it proves is that the judge is politically motivated and mushroomed just like the jury was. He can only make his decision on the same faulty info the jury had in the first trial. Luster didn't even fight the lawsuit, it was a default judgement. You just keep clinging to whatever little flotsam that floats by ST. Grab another straw. It aint over til it's over ;D
|
|