Cross case brings mountain of hate mail

San Diego UNION ^ | May 14, 2006 | Alex Roth

[radar101]

Here is another statement by Mr. JIM McELROY:........ http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060104/news_lz1e4letters.html................ McElroy had his partner-in-crime, Judge Cowett award him $340,000 for working on the case.

[radar101]

SAME ATTORNEY, unrelated case.......................... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/19/MNGVD9C5OA1.DTL............................................................... The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from abortion opponents in Southern California who were ordered to pay legal fees to Planned Parenthood after they unsuccessfully sued the family-planning group to require it to declare a link between abortion and breast cancer. The suit was dismissed in 2002 by a San Diego judge who rejected the plaintiffs' claim that a connection between abortion and cancer was scientifically established. The three plaintiffs were ordered to pay the organization $130,000 to cover legal fees under a state law that provides attorneys' fees to targets of merit-less suits that seek to thwart free expression. After unsuccessful appeals in state courts, the plaintiffs sought review in the nation's high court, which turned them down without comment. The appeal contended the fees required by the California law were an unconstitutional penalty against private citizens for exercising their right to sue on matters of public interest. ................................................. "This has resulted in a grave injustice, that three women of modest means who filed a lawsuit on behalf of the general public, to make sure women receive truthful and accurate information about the link between abortion and breast cancer, can be penalized for that effort,'' said attorney Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, which represented the plaintiffs. ............................................... James McElroy, a lawyer for Planned Parenthood,said the lawsuit was "part of an ongoing battle waged by the religious right against Planned Parenthood.'' He said the state law doesn't prohibit the plaintiffs from expressing their opinion or going to court, but requires them to cover the costs of a suit that tried to suppress Planned Parenthood's views on the subject.

[Noumenon]

Using the law to censure those who might criticize you, your lifestyle or etc., is tempting enough; but, to then have the taxpayer fund it! What page of the Anarchist Play Book is that on? Turning the laws of a society against the society itself... Wow, "Classic".

It's the Gramscian method.

[TheDon]

Hatred of the lawyer and his client is misplaced. It is the judge that is abusing his authority, and rather blatantly.

[I still care]

“My view of it is, if they're really getting mad, I must be doing something right.”

So does this mean his goal is to upset people of faith? How evil.

[I still care]

They should print the second picture full page in every newspaper in CA, with a caption underneath, saying, "This cross removed by liberal lawyers. judges, and the ACLU. Remove judges that want to destroy our American traditions -VOTE REPUBLICAN."

The problem is, nobody really holds these people accountable.

[BJungNan]

The problem is, nobody really holds these people accountable.

The problem is the Christian do not act more like Muslims. The Christians should surround this cross, tens of thousands strong, and refuse to leave. When the police show up. Hold their ground.

But they won't. They will instead write letters to their representatives, a few letters to the editor and post their gripes in internet forums.