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.
I keep hearing arguments denouncing "frivolous" lawsuits, which makes me wonder; how do you determine that a case is frivolous without hearing the evidence? In every case there are procedural hearing before a judge whereby the opposing attorney's present an outline of their evidence, if the case is indeed frivolous it will end with a dismissal, if there is sufficient evidence of a wrong it will proceed. So outside of the court room, how does one limit "frivolous" lawsuits?
PS - most folks idea of what is frivolous and what isn't is usually based upon what is reported in the media, hardly a venue for determining merit, so besides the problem of establishing frivolousness outside of a court room, on what basis do you personally use for determining whether a case has merit or not without having heard the evidence?
If a person seeks more compensation than that which was actually lost it is frivolous. Attempting to "earn" money through misfortune is frivolous. Allowing lawyers to "earn" percentages of the awards is frivolous. The only reason that this type of litigation even exists is because of the trial lawyers lobby and all of their former lawyer friends in Congress.
If the post was made as a lead-in to some type of tort reform type discussion, well that is basically how I would view it as well. I don't believe lawyers should be able to cash in on these types of cases either. Their, the lawyers that is, whole existence simply proves that our legal system is ridiculous. That ordinary people cannot go into a courtroom and present their case in plain language is proof that the system is designed to support a false economy of lawyers who really serve no useful purpose. They only exist through their own knowledge of "secret handshakes" and archaic rituals designed to obscure common sense that could be applied by the "common" people to resolve disputes. But that is a whole other topic. Lawyers are like bankers, evil manipulators and oppressors of the common man.
"Frivilous lawsuits" is fat-cat code for "keep the bootheel on the weak." Always has been. So they don't like it when so-called "trial lawyers" (as opposed to the ARMIES OF ATTORNEYS that the fat-cats hire) lobby to keep the status quo. But what is a fat-cat guaranteed to pay attention to? The threat of monetary damages.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 09-02-2009 at 07:49 PM..
I keep hearing arguments denouncing "frivolous" lawsuits, which makes me wonder; how do you determine that a case is frivolous without hearing the evidence? In every case there are procedural hearing before a judge whereby the opposing attorney's present an outline of their evidence, if the case is indeed frivolous it will end with a dismissal, if there is sufficient evidence of a wrong it will proceed. So outside of the court room, how does one limit "frivolous" lawsuits?
PS - most folks idea of what is frivolous and what isn't is usually based upon what is reported in the media, hardly a venue for determining merit, so besides the problem of establishing frivolousness outside of a court room, on what basis do you personally use for determining whether a case has merit or not without having heard the evidence?
Could be that the "birfer" lawsuits are frivolous.
Could be that the "birfer" lawsuits are frivolous.
But as we have noted, and as I have pointed out, none of the birther lawsuits have made it to trial which in my mind demonstrates that judges are best suited for determining what is and what isn't a frivolous lawsuit, not some statute. And in even in the case of the birthers they are afforded to present their claims to a competent court, that is their right, as it should be.
I have an incredible hatred of corporations and immense disdain for Republicans. Republicans want tort reform so that large companies can get away with all the evil crap they do while little guy continues to get screwed by these legal institutions of organized crime. I do not see anything morally wrong with taking as much as one possibly can from these corporations.
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.
But that is a whole other topic. Lawyers are like bankers, evil manipulators and oppressors of the common man.
