I live in the world where you should have all of the available facts before making a judgement. The public records we have access to almost certiantly do not have all of the available facts. In fact many of the things you’re bringing up are unproven allegations. Due dilligence would dictate that some attempt be made to verify all of the allegations, or discard those that can’t be verified, prior to making a judgement.
I would assume that the investigators are trying to do just that.
You only have to measure three angles and geometry will determine the angle of the fourth. Two angles if you measure diagonally instead of following the square.
iThink Blizzard is in some really hot water, also.
You honestly think the state took up a costly lawsuit against a major employer without vetting any of the accusers or any of the allegations. Come on man… You’re just trying too hard, and its revealing.
So you aren’t aware of any States that took up lawsuits against corporations and lost 
Look if Blizzard solely or partly to blame then I hope they are found guilty. I’m just not prepared to jump to that conclusion on what information I have in hand. Heck, I thought OJ was guilty 
I assume that the investigators already did that. And then they decided to file suit.
I’m also assuming that this will never go to trial. Blizzard will settle out of court because it’s cheaper and better PR. But those are just my assumptions. You can form your own opinions.
I’m sure they think they have enough evidence, and maybe they do, but that is what will be decided in court. Or as you stated, and I did before, they may just decide it is cheaper to settle.
Thats not the conversation we’re currently having so stop trying to digress.
You said “some attempt should be made to verify the allegations prior to making a judgement.” Clearly before launching a major lawsuit they made some attempt to verify the allegations listed in the 30 page filing. Whether some other company in some other state lost a lawsuit at some point in history is beyond immaterial.
Which would suggest that some attempt was made to verify the allegations…
If the state is going in, it means they at least believe it will be a slam dunk case. They will not go in until that point where they believe this will be a slam dunk.
So in California’s case, they legit believe this will be a slam dunk, or else they would not proceed.
The investigators being convinced and convincing a judge or jury are not the same thing. So stop trying to imply the allegations have been proved, they haven’t. The investigators believe the allegations are credible which is a completely different thing than being factual.
Stop trying to attack strawmen arguments no one is making because your actual case is so weak.
You say 30 page filing as if that lends weight to it. I’m guessing the first 15 pages are probably naming the parties and going over jurisdiction/venue/statute.
I regularly pewp out 30+ page filings that mean next to nothing
OMG A 30 PAGE FILING THESE GUYS ARE SERIOUS LOL
Once again, I’m sure the investigators think at least some of the allegations are credible and yes, that was part of their investigation. But they are still unproven allegations and there is no telling what additional information will come out in court.
You’re like a little kid, who only knows how to attack as defense. Other than that, you really aren’t good for anything except a good joke when I want to see someone throw a fit.
Not necessarily. States often engage in costly lawsuits to try and change behavior, and not necessarily to win. Corporations can often settle lawsuits cheaper than the cost of litigating. I don’t know what the California folks are thinking, and I don’t think anyone else here does either.
However, I’ve had my daily forum entertainment and typing practice. So have a good day all, maybe I’ll be back tomorrow (for a different topic I hope 
)
Judging by the way you talk you’re a GS-5 at best so no one is impressed. Yea of course a couple pages are dedicated to establishing venue etc. Certainly less than half and even if it was 15 pages of accusations… Is that better? Whats your metric exactly.
<20 Pages of complaints - Totally Acceptable
Over 20 - We might have a problem?
One last comment. I have no case and neither do you. California has a case whose merits we can only guess at by the public court fillings. Anything we on the forums decide is pure conjecture on both sides of the issue.
you have no idea what you’re talking about lol
I don’t think anyone ever implied we were professionally involved with this case. At least I didnt but… thanks for clearing that up? 
Cant argue with the guy who never learned punctuation and regularly “pewps” out filings.