upvote
>deliberately so

I’m not entertained that the court is playing an unrealistic and hyberbolic game.

I know, I’m a weirdo that wants to see realism and pragmatism in the court systems even if the defendant is a real asshole.

reply
> I’m not entertained that the court is playing an unrealistic and hyberbolic game.

They did not. Jones was given years and dozens of opportunities to comply. He defaulted in 2 cases because he failed to comply in both cases. He was also defaulted after being warned he'd be defaulted. The cases literally started in 2018 and resolved in 2022. The reason they dragged out for so long is primarily due to Jones not complying with court orders. Constantly having to retake depositions where the same incomplete and non-compliant answers were given.

And he appealed (and lost) the appeal for the default.

Multiple judges saw his default and concluded "This was a reasonable way to handle an unreasonable litigant".

reply
His lawyers were terrible. Nobody arguing otherwise on that point. Jones wasn't personally directing the legal strategy, he was doing the same thing you'd do.
reply
What do you feel would be an outcome to this situation that aligns to the realism and pragmatism you believe the court system should have?

All of the threads related to this topic have had a pile of folks going "the amount was too much!" but hardly any of them say what they think an appropriate punishment would look like...

reply
The "punishment" keeps appearing in this thread and I think that is what explains the eye popping settlement.
reply