Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
County laws
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="inyati13" data-source="post: 1352723" data-attributes="member: 17767"><p>No. Has nothing to do with DA. I am commenting on the following concept where the county turned the prosecution of Mr. Grady over to a law firm based on a contingency-fee provision. The following quote is from the OP article:</p><p></p><p>"<strong>Grady's Dallas attorney, Michael R. Goldman, blames the "ridiculas and unconscionable" legal action on the county's hiring of a private law firm to prosecute the state lawsuit with a contingency-fee provision. That means the law firm gets to keep a percentage of whatever is collected.</strong></p><p></p><p>My point was the same as yours, that a private enterprise is much more experienced and effective at performing this kind of action.</p><p></p><p>PS: as in the Kentucky property tax example, government is ever searching for ways to avoid the nasty job of performing "collection". Everyone prefers to be a "good" guy. Sometimes that is not possible.</p><p></p><p>Edited to add:</p><p>In both the Grady case and the law in Kentucky allowing a private party to perform the government obligation of collection with the incentive to collect more than a just sum is a miscarriage of the government's obligation. In these examples, being more efficient than the government is resulting in "over collection". Unless you agree that a $2 billion fine is justified for making a wood pile!!!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="inyati13, post: 1352723, member: 17767"] No. Has nothing to do with DA. I am commenting on the following concept where the county turned the prosecution of Mr. Grady over to a law firm based on a contingency-fee provision. The following quote is from the OP article: "[b]Grady's Dallas attorney, Michael R. Goldman, blames the "ridiculas and unconscionable" legal action on the county's hiring of a private law firm to prosecute the state lawsuit with a contingency-fee provision. That means the law firm gets to keep a percentage of whatever is collected.[/b] My point was the same as yours, that a private enterprise is much more experienced and effective at performing this kind of action. PS: as in the Kentucky property tax example, government is ever searching for ways to avoid the nasty job of performing "collection". Everyone prefers to be a "good" guy. Sometimes that is not possible. Edited to add: In both the Grady case and the law in Kentucky allowing a private party to perform the government obligation of collection with the incentive to collect more than a just sum is a miscarriage of the government's obligation. In these examples, being more efficient than the government is resulting in "over collection". Unless you agree that a $2 billion fine is justified for making a wood pile!!! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
County laws
Top