I am bothered by these. I have a plan. I think that right up front, A grand Jury should decide if the lawsuit is frivolous. If it is found to be, the party that initiated the lawsuit has two options. sue or not. BUT, this is my favorite part, if they sue and lose, the Plantiff and all Legal council representing their failed lawsuit would go straight to the lethal injection table. If they win, they get their money. Might make people think twice or three times. Not paralegals and whatnot, because they dont get to choose which cases they are required for. Just the lawyers and the Plantiffs. Think Gore woulda sued last election when he didnt get elected if that was the penalty for wasting the courts time? Would you really add your name to a class action lawsuit that McDonalds is at fault because you are 300 lbs. and 4 foot 2.......
while there are always some that are unambiguously frivilous even in the eyes of thier litigents by far the greatest overwhelming majority by orders of magnitude are those who'se "frivolusness" are very much "in the eye of the beholder" abridging the right to an orderly redress of grievances can only lead to violent lawlessness. granted there is an exploitiveness on the part of the legal profession built into a system of confrontational advocacy. so while i object to someone sueing because their hot coffee was hot or stubbing their toe on someone else's land that they were on without the knowledge or invitation of anyone other then themselves. i'm am sceptical of being too hasty to bemoan this bussiness of frivolousness. there is certainly an inappropriateness to attemting to 'recouver' 'damages' from the unabiguously direct resaults of the negligence of the person bringing the suit. but i also strongly feel this is a direct and inevitable resault of everything having to be about little green pieces of paper. =^^= .../\...
i'm going to start a class-action lawsuit for damages for mental anguish and infringement of my rights against all those people who started big frivolous lawsuits, like the coffee burned lady, the fat bastard mcdonalds man, and shit like that.
you can pretty much sue anyone for anything that isn't specificly exempted by statute, which an alarminly large number and alarminly absurdness of sorts of thing, real nonfrivolous things, are, AND you can out document your claims of legitimacy against those who you name as having to defend against your doing so AND all you give a dam about is money. really it's just a contest of who can out document whome and who can cover their assess better with more nearly redundant clauses to covver each and every little minute detail. that's all it is. whoever can outdocument whome 'wins'. which is why we have monsanto sueing farmers contamitaded by their geneticly modified seed stocks. and indipendent daries who mention in their promotions that they don't keep their milk cows all drugged up. =^^= .../\...
You must have forgotten that there is no real justice and this would lead to the deaths of millions of innocents ....
not to mention the tobacco industry lobying group that sued the state of california for running anti-smoking and anti-second hand smoke ads i notice governor kiss the ass of bussiness aaahney seems to have stopped running them =^^= .../\...
I'm sueing you all for even talking about this crap. Thats why it happens because people listen to it. Ignore these idiots and they will go away and if they don't, then I'll pull down my trousers and shit on'em.
they don't give a shit about reputation, or they'd be in hiding. they want easy money. therefore, as long as there's no cap on what they can be awarded, they will continue to offload their own problems on someone else and get money for it in the bargain. some fat fuck thinking McD's is fucking healthy needs fucking pscyhological counseling, not more money! sorry, i'm kinda passionate about this shit.
I am going to file a class action lawsuit agianst dickydoo on behalf of all of that were tramatized by his spurious scorn. who's in!!!!!!
