i don't really appreciate you calling her clueless. have you taken law school? until you have i don't think you have a right tell her if she's doing her job right or not.

i think this IS a case for negligence. would you leave a child unattended in a bath water long enough to get BURNED? no. wouldn't you check the temp before you put your child in? YES YOU WOULD. the child had obviously sat in there for a little bit of time to get burned because most people are able to get out and not be too badly burned. which shows the child was probably left unattended. i realize that children probably more sensitive skin than adults but still.

it's not the landlords job to make sure that her child didn't get burned. if it had been tampered with, don't you think this lady would have known herself if she took a shower before this incident? i think so.

She does NOT know if the landlord set the temperature up to high, or not. That is what the landlord is being sued for. So she is CLUELESS about the actual fact concerning this case.


Who cares what you think. For one thing, like I already told you. According to the lawyer, the baby was already in the bath water, and the water was cold. so she turned on the hot water to warm it up a bit. and scolding hot water came out, and it only takes a second for anyone to get burned by scolding hot water, IF (most likely) the landlord had the temperature set higher then what the law says. and the whole reason there is that law, is to prevent things like this from happening in the first place! Our lawyer said it;s not a simple case of checking the water first. because obviously since the baby was already in the bathtub, and teh bathwater was cold. who the hell would think that means a mother put her baby in hot water and ran off somewhere LMAO you got to be kidding me! That dont happen, not at all. but you, and many others can only focus on something that didnt even happen. wow!
No wonder you defend the clueless lawyer, like 2 pees in a pod lol

It IS the landlord's responsibility to make sure his water heaters are not set higher then what the law allows.

well then i have to say, who cares what YOU think?

;)

i stick by what i said and nothing you say can sway my position.

I agree with what you said. absolutely

but unfortunately, that's not what this case is about. This case is about was the water heater set to high.

the slumlord's lawyer's job, is to paint this lady as a bad mother, and to distract attention away from the actual case.

Our slumlord lawyer has come to the right place, bec according to bloop, every mother is a bad mother.

If our slumlord lawyer doesnt do some ground work, and be able to prove the water heater wasn't set to high. our slumlord lawyer will lose this case. You better believe the other side is doing everything it can to prove the water heater was set higher then the law allows. and as I said, if the baby had received medical attention, that alone proves the tempt was set to high.

Our slumlord lawyer only wants people to focus on what a bad mother this lady must be, why she has 3 kids at 21 and gets assistance. so what a bad mother she must be. so of course no landlord should obey the law, not when it comes to welfare mothers.


If you want to make up things that never even happened, and then arguing against what never even happened. yes, who F-ing cares! Stick to the actual case, or go home

She's clueless because she doesn't know if it was set too high?? How on earth is she supposed to know with certainty if he did or didn't?? He's hardly going to admit it if he did, and I doubt that there's any way of knowing from looking at the heater.

I think it's rather unfair to expect her to have supernatural powers to know such things!

As a side note, she has also said that the original statement from the mother was not that she was running extra hot water into a cold bath. She changed her statement later.

And Minda is making no more assumptions (in thinking the baby must have been left there) than you are yourself. You have no evidence that the temp was set too high, but you are assuming that is the case. So you are JUST as likely to be focusing on something that didn't happen. Because no-one knows for sure.

I can only go by what was said. duh

she doesnt know, but like everyone else is quick to condemn a mother on welfare


the burned baby is proof the tempt was set to high, going by what was said.

all she has to do is go over there and start asking questions. snoop around get to the bottom of it. investigate

You're not going by what has been said. You're making your own assumptions way beyond what has been said. I don't really understand why you've chosen to attack her, but I'm starting to wonder if you just have an issue with smart, professional women.

You don't know how badly the baby was burned. A minor scald can easily result if a baby's delicate skin comes into contact with hot water, even if it is within legal limits.

How do you know she ISN'T asking questions?? You DON'T! And since she's doing the job she's been trained to do, I'm quite sure she is asking those questions. Just because she isn't posting the information she finds on a PUBLIC forum (like seriously, what professional lawyer would risk their case and their career by posting their case here??), doesn't mean she isn't doing it.

Yet more assumptions. But that's what you do best. :P

I made guesses in sound logic. IF the baby received medical treatment. That can very well be presented as proof the tempt was set to high.

a lawyers job is to argue. Arguing just so happens to be one of my hobbies. I prefer to debate with intelligent professionals more so than the average joe


which is why as a lawyer she should know that (if teh baby receive medical treatment, which could ruin her case) she should also know that she's breaking the law by discuss a case going to trial. So we have limited info. but the slumlord's lawyer was quick to break the law herself, bec this brilliant smart professional lawyer asked for help in coming up with a 100 questions to make the girl out to be a bad mother. which is why I said she came to teh right place, bec according to bloop, all mothers are bad mothers. Notice how the lawyer was all like this is great guy, thanks. I can totally make it seems like it was the mother fault.
You all got suckered. I looked at the larger picture. the reality of what was really going on here. a class war. a lawyer doing her job to paint a mother as a bad mother, without even knowing all the facts


I asked questions to. they went unanswered. it;s okay. no problem
I was not the one crucify the mother.
everyone was already doing that
had everyone attacked the lawyer and not the mother
I'd attack the mother, bec that what I do, try and show other ways of looking at things.
not getting sucked into - group think

our lawyer has admitted that they dont even now if it was or not.
yet, the slumlord's lawyer is ready to crucify this young girl.

I'd say that in fact they DON'T know for sure is it was too high (because they probably can't tell), so why is it OK for the girl to crucify the landlord?? Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'??

I treat others how they want to be treated

they should thank me!

That doesn't make any sense.

yes it does

the lawyer was quick to paint the girl as a bad mother, without the facts


so I painted them as a bad lawyer, without the facts

you're welcome :)

probably some slum lords attorney for the day. lols

actually she's not. she's been doing this for years.

most lawyers aren't allowed to discuss cases as in...give names or exacts of what is going on--for safety and personal reasons.

oh really? the landlord didnt hire her? she works for the state?

either way, the case is about did the landlord have the tempt set to high.
nothing else matters. bec the case is based on that.
medical records, IF there are anything, will prove this case.
witnesses (other tenets) to the hot water can prove this case.
the heater itself might be able to prove the case as well.
IF it's true that the tempt was in fact set to high, it wont be hard to prove.

You don't know if the baby received medical treatment or not. I agree, that would be relevant to the argument of the water being too hot, but since you don't know that the baby received medical treatment, it proves nothing right at this moment. (Although I'm sure it will all come out in court)

How can you possibly know what other cases she's looked at? Assumptions, assumptions, as usual. I'm sure that since she's an experienced lawyer she's done the background work, but she's hardly going to present her ENTIRE case (and the background work) on Bloop, is she? She's also obviously not going to include the specifics because it would be breaking lawyer-client confidentiality. Somehow I doubt she's going to put her career on the line just to satisfy you!

Which is why I asked if the baby recieved medical treatment.
followed by IF the baby did, that alone proves the tempt was set to high.

no dude, she came to bloop to get some information on what makes a bad mother.
and according to bloop, all mothers are bad.
you all gave a slumlord's lawyer plenty of ammo.
only it was shit information that had nothing to do with the actual case.
the slumlord's lawyer's job is to paint the young mother as a bad mother.
and then are brilliant slumlord lawyer likes to say 'well she keeps saying I;'m a good mother'
well no kidding! you keep saying she is a bad mother, it;s your job, we get it, or rather I get it, and some bloopers will defend their friends, even if doing so goes against their better judgement, which is lacking, obviously

I didn't know her before this forum. So I'm not defending her because she's my friend. I'm defending her because as usual you are being unfair, nasty and aggressive and making assumptions about people.

yes we know fraggle.
you tend to go for the personal attacks or approaches.
more than you do the sound logic being used

YAWN

Pot calling kettle.

of course

you are a perfect example of a bitch

I'm a perfect example of an asshole

everyone knows this

I'm perfectly happy with this

are you?

I hope so, bec I love you, you got balls. lets party ;D

I've used perfectly sound logic in all my comments here. I'm not the one making assumptions about a case I know very little about.

You ARE being unfair. You are being nasty and you are making assumptions. My stating that is simply an observation, not a personal attack. Perhaps if YOU tried using sound logic, people may actually take you seriously.

bla bla bla

want to discuss the actual case?

LOL i think a good mother is a mother who checks the bath water before dumping her kid in it rofl what an idiot. "I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that this steaming hot bath water is at just the right temperature jump in, little johnny!"

the bathwater was cold, and the baby was already in the bathtub. she went to warm up the bath, and scolding hot water came out and burned the baby.
she says the landlord had the water heater set higher than what the law allows, a law that prevents these things from happening, so it does appear that she has a very good case against this slumlord