Posted on 04/12/2004 8:30:19 AM PDT by JOAT
In a socialist society increasingly suffering from the politics of envy, filing “Hail Mary” lawsuits for outrageous awards is becoming as popular as playing the lottery and voting for a living.
The theory seems to be that if something bad happens to me, somebody should pay me for my suffering, even if they had nothing to do with the loss I suffered. People who live in flood plains and on beachfronts rely on the government sticking its hands in the pockets of taxpayers to bail them out from weather-related losses. This is called insurance, but it confuses real insurance, which is a voluntary pooling of assets to cover individual losses, with government subsidy of reckless behavior.
People who have experienced criminal attacks now seek to have the courts stick their hands in the pockets of somebody - anybody - so that they can be compensated financially. This has been dubbed “deeper pocket jurisprudence.”
This logic is now spreading to the families of practicing criminals. If a criminal’s victim manages to defend himself from a perpetrator’s attack, leaving the assailant dead or wounded, family members are increasingly suing the victim. And the courts are letting the suits proceed! After all, the victim has “deprived” the family of their “breadwinner.”
Lisa Pelland is a case in point.
Pelland was living in the home of a friend in Santa Fe, New Mexico in April of 2002. Late at night, she heard a noise in back of the house. Pelland went outside, armed with a handgun, and challenged the intruder who she found stacking bricks underneath her window. Rather than leave, the man advanced toward her. Pelland told the police that she shouted three times for him to stay away, but he kept coming.
Even when warned by Pelland that she had a gun, the intruder kept coming. At that point, Pelland, fearing for her life, shot the intruder, Jay Medina. Medina died shortly thereafter.
Medina had allegedly threatened to kill his estranged wife, Dena, and their children. Dena Medina had filed a protective order against her husband just days before his trespass on the property where Pelland was staying.
In his investigation of the case, Santa Fe police officer T. Trujillo stated that Mrs. Medina had also said her husband was an alcoholic who was addicted to pornography, and she suspected him of being a peeping tom - he often left the house at night with a set of binoculars.
The District Attorney in Santa Fe ruled that Pelland had acted in self-defense and that the shooting was a justifiable homicide. No charges were ever filed against Lisa Pelland.
Apparently, Mrs. Medina decided that her sad excuse for a husband was worth more dead than alive, and so has filed a suit for wrongful death against Lisa Pelland and incredibly, against the homeowner, Barbara Lux. Gratitude to the hindmost! Forget that Pelland kept Medina’s husband from carrying out his death threat against his own family- - something the police would have been unable to do.
Lisa Pelland is a recent widow without any assets. That did not keep the attorney representing Medina from filing against her anyway. There is nothing but the possibility of the homeowner’s insurance policy to squeeze out by winning the suit. Resources are being expended by the insurance company to defend both the homeowner and Lisa Pelland. At the same time, the insurance company is seeking to deny a defense to both these women in some legalese loophole. If successful, the insurance company could set dangerous precedent. Gun owners could conceivably be sued just for defending themselves with a gun!
Lisa Pelland has had to hire a private attorney, paying him out of her meager resources in an attempt to keep herself defended against this outrageous lawsuit. Since there is no money to be gained from Pelland, she could be dropped from the suit
Amazingly, even if Pelland is removed from the suit by the court, Barbara Lux could remain a target of the greedy grab for easy money since the insurance policy is in her name. Forget that she had nothing at all to do with the shooting. Talk about deeper pocket jurisprudence!
You can do something to say “no” to this kind of malicious litigation by sending a contribution to the Gun Owners Foundation and writing in the memo line: Pelland Defense Fund. Checks can be sent to Gun Owners Foundation (or GOF), 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151. You can also contribute on line at www.gunowners.com/ldfpelland.htm.
We have a friend, who after months of agonizing over a lump in her breast, finally went to the doctor. She was diagnosed with Stage 4 breast cancer. A scan found cancer in her lungs, brain and elsewhere in her body. Two doctors gave her 6 months to live.
It's now 2 years later, the cancer is in remission. She's lived to see her daughter graduate from college.
All of her hair fell out after the chemo. Now she wants to sue her radiologist because some of her hair has not grown back after the treatments he gave her to rid her brain of cancer.
ANNAPOLIS - Matthew and Dominic Geckle were just defending the family cement business in Owings Mill when they fatally shot an intruder in March 2001, the third night in a row that someone had broken in.
But the family of the victim, Jonathan Steinbach, is arguing in court that the man's 4-year-old child was traumatized by his father's death, caused when the businessmen entrapped him in violation of police warnings. The business owners, they argue, should pay $13 million in compensation.
Amedori: Violently Defending Business Should Exempt Businessmen From Liability
Fair compensation? The defendents would produce a rock of crack the size of tennis ball, then burn it in front of the family, while simultaneously destroying the 'victims' home and all of its contents.
Advertisement--a lawyer group claims that a certain anti-psychotic drug is responsible for all these awful and dreadful side effects. The TV ad is well-produced, and looks a lot like an ad for a horror movie--this drug kills people! --they insist--
Part of the ad... "Don't stop taking any medication without first consulting your doctor"
Do you think that some people will stop taking this med immediately, and have some psychotic incident--like killing themselves or somebody else? Of course this will happen
In which case, you could sure go after those very lawyers who created the ad that caused the tort...not only that, but it could go class action...
I'm sure they'll jawbone about it once again, just before the election, in a desperate grab for money and votes. Then it'll be forgotten once again.
Amazing. Just amazing.
It damages a sense of justice, responsibility, and logic. Those lacking ethics who blames innocent people or enterprises for their own failing are provided with lucrative rewards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.