Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Back in the early 90s, Time magazine featured an article on Scientology. Scientology responded in their favorite way: lawsuits. Hundreds of them against Time. This was the result:
"In the years since its inception, the Church of Scientology's lawsuits filed against newspapers, magazines, government agencies (including the United States tax collecting unit, the IRS), and individuals have numbered in the thousands. In 1991, Time magazine estimated that the Church spends an average of about $20 million per year on various legal actions, and it is the exclusive client of several law firms. According to a U.S. District Court Memorandum of Decision in 1993, Scientologists "have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter. This constitutes 'extraordinary, malicious, wanton, and oppressive conduct.' ... It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs sought to harass the individual defendants and destroy the church defendants through massive over-litigation and other highly questionable litigation tactics. The Special Master has never seen a more glaring example of bad faith litigation than this." Rulings such as this have classified the Church of Scientology as a chronically vexatious litigant."
And the end result was that lawsuits brought against Time Magazine by the Church of Scientology would not be heard in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXNGL
Yep. Anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean they will get far, and certainly does not mean they have any chance of winning.
I read the decision, and others sanctioning attorneys. The problem is the requirement of a separate, expensive proceeding for awarding sanctions. See in particular Martens v. Thomann, 273 F.3d 159 (2nd Cir., 2000):
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2d Circuit Court of Appeals
If a party wishes to move for Rule 11 sanctions, the Rule 11 motion must "be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate" the rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added). The rule also contains a "safe harbor" provision under which the movant must wait twenty-one days after service of the motion on the party against whom it seeks sanctions and may file the motion only if the respondent has not withdrawn or corrected the allegedly offending materials by that time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(A). The court may also initiate the sanctions process sua sponte. In order to do so, the court must "enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate [the rule] and directing an attorney... to show cause why it has not violated" Rule 11. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(B).13
As I posted earlier,some real barriers to frivilous litigation need to be erected.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves. Period. When someone breaks into your house, how is it that you figure that the home owner is looking for trouble? Any cop will tell you that if someone breaks into to your home, that you should shoot them dead. Why? Because they will sue you if you just wound them. There are hundreds of stories of people braking into someone's house & getting hurt by their own accord & sewing the home owners & winning the lawsuit. Nor will I let anyone hurt my wife or those I love who are under my roof.
Sorry that you disagree.
Even if the person you shoot is dead, his relatives can still sue you for wrongful death. So, please, don't finish him off for that reason.
On the other hand, if the burglar sews you, you are totally within your rights to shoot him and take his sewing kit.
Some states have laws where the loser of the lawsuit is responsible for the winner's attorney's fees. Amazing as it sounds the actual cost of losing a small claims case could skyrocket into the thousands for the loser.
I think a lot of lawsuits actually help to redress an awful lot of bad behavior. A lot don't.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves. Period. When someone breaks into your house, how is it that you figure that the home owner is looking for trouble? Any cop will tell you that if someone breaks into to your home, that you should shoot them dead. Why? Because they will sue you if you just wound them. There are hundreds of stories of people braking into someone's house & getting hurt by their own accord & sewing the home owners & winning the lawsuit. Nor will I let anyone hurt my wife or those I love who are under my roof.
I don't know what "any cop" might tell you, but a forensics expert will tell you that if the bad guy dropped on the first shot and you shot him again while he was on the floor, they will know it and if the prosecutor is anti-gun, he will charge you with murder.
And, btw, homeowners insurance will cover the liability of all those circumstances, if they happen (and it's certainly not in the "hundreds" nor is it anywhere near certain that such a lawsuit would go to trial).
I don't know what "any cop" might tell you, but a forensics expert will tell you that if the bad guy dropped on the first shot and you shot him again while he was on the floor, they will know it and if the prosecutor is anti-gun, he will charge you with murder.
And, btw, homeowners insurance will cover the liability of all those circumstances, if they happen (and it's certainly not in the "hundreds" nor is it anywhere near certain that such a lawsuit would go to trial).
Which is why you shoot them dead in the first shot I would guess that those who are breaking into peoples houses are likely to be carrying. Even more so knowing that the home owner has a gun as well.
Like several cops have told me shoot to kill.
Which is why you shoot them dead in the first shot I would guess that those who are breaking into peoples houses are likely to be carrying. Even more so knowing that the home owner has a gun as well.
Like several cops have told me shoot to kill.
Those cops were not you friends, or they'd never have put the phrase "shoot to kill" in your head. That phrase can get you put into prison unnecessarily. If you slip and say "I shot to kill" to an investigating officer, he's going to arrest you for murder.
Put this phrase into your head: "Officer, I was afraid for my life." Forget "shoot to kill," because you might say it or imply it at the wrong time.
Some states have laws where the loser of the lawsuit is responsible for the winner's attorney's fees. Amazing as it sounds the actual cost of losing a small claims case could skyrocket into the thousands for the loser.
I think a lot of lawsuits actually help to redress an awful lot of bad behavior. A lot don't.
Those cops were not you friends, or they'd never have put the phrase "shoot to kill" in your head. That phrase can get you put into prison unnecessarily. If you slip and say "I shot to kill" to an investigating officer, he's going to arrest you for murder.
Put this phrase into your head: "Officer, I was afraid for my life." Forget "shoot to kill," because you might say it or imply it at the wrong time.
This was a good ole boy cop. He understands that if you only wound said person breaking into your home they can sue if they want too. Yes, wording is everything & I've told my wife that very same thing Tell the office you were afraid for your life & say you had no where to run.
I'm not sure if you are saying that you think a "loser-pay" rule in lawsuits is a "damn good idea" or not. It seems to me like you are. I personally think its a terrible idea and I will explain why.
A "loser pay" rule would make the prevailing party in a lawsuit responsible for both the costs and attorneys fees of the other party. The problem is that not only would it discourage people from bringing the small percentage of cases that are frivolous, it would also discourage vast numbers of people with meritorious cases from filing an action as well. As a lawyer, I would have to advise even people with meritorious cases that they simply couldn't afford to take the risk that they might lose.
Let's take the case of John Jones. John injures his back in a motor vehicle accident and his doctors want to operate on his back. The accident, itself, is cut and dried. The other driver ran through a stop sign and demolished John's car. The problem is that the lawyer for the insurance company is claiming that John had problems with his back before the accident. In truth, he did. However, the accident aggravated these problems and he never would have required surgery if it had not happened. However, its a touchy situation and there is room to argue this matter both ways. Let's say the insurance company offers John next to nothing and he goes to trial. Let's say by a split verdict (6-2) the jury finds that John cannot prove the accident injured his back. Should John really be expected to pay the attorney fees for the insurance company? If your answer is "yes", you have little comprehension how this world really works.
Juries don't always get their verdicts right and its a big reason we have an appeals process.
I generally oppose what some people call "Tort Reform" because I think its loaded in favor of insurance companies and industry. It works against the little guy. However, out of all tort reform ideas I have heard, the one I oppose the very most is a "loser pay rule".
I do believe a "loser pay rule" would stop most frivolous litigation. The problem is that it would also stop most meritorious litigation as well. The courts would no longer be a place where people could come to peacefully resolve disputes and grievances. Its really that simple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
