Posted on 12/03/2004 8:29:24 PM PST by SierraWasp
I'd completely forgotten that movie. Haven't seen it in ten years probably. Thanks for the post.
So there needs to be something done about them getting noticed.
Maybe some national talk show discussion?
Still... I think this is bogus and I don't think conservatives should be doing it anymore than liberals have already abused taxpayers and stockholders. The whole scenario is obscene in my view!!!
This court needs to be slapped down!
Mea culpa, I scanned this article too quickly. I incorrectly thought the court was trying to make the taxpayer pay these fees.
This is exactly correct, loser pays. Well done California!
It doesn't have to make sense!!! It's a shakedown!!! Can't you see that???
The taxpayers pay when local governments are sued! You better go back and read it again and for comprehension this time!!!
The Proper Function Of Government
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1294092/posts
In many of these cases, quasi-government advocacy groups have already received tremendous amounts of taxpayer dollars to get their cases started against defendants with far less resource than they have. In addition, on the other side of the bar the plaintiffs are often public or semi-public institutions, and the point of suing them was not to get money, but rather to get a change in behavior, sometimes laudable, sometimes not. Quoting the salient part of the article:
Justice Carlos R. Moreno, who wrote the 4-3 decisions in two related cases, said lawyers need incentives to bring lawsuits that generate beneficial changes but often produce little or no money in damages. The fees should be paid even in cases that never go to court or result in formal settlements, the court ruled.
So now the CA Supreme Court has gone beyond that and said that in addition to the agreed upon settlements, the Courts may impose what amounts to a fine for legal costs. That's not part of the bargain, and it's reckless. When defendants cannot rely on the settlement they've made being the entire deal, they will simply stop doing business in California. And GOOD for them.
Imagine this scenario: The ACLU--with your tax money-- brings a case against Upper Podunk, CA, which also spends your tax money to defend the municipality for having a creche in front of city hall. Upper Podunk settles by agreeing to remove the religious display, and the ever vigilant jurists in CA's legal system decide that the separation of church and state is a "worthy cause" so they award more of your tax money to the ACLU to make even greater mischief elsewhere.
All I can say is, thank God I live in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where there's more common sense than California.
Yes, but meet the shakedown by asking them to prove the claim that the noise was greater than it's use as a dump.
The city/county could play the same game right back and could break them in court. Maybe collect from them for your court cost.
It's not loser pays, it's defendant pays.
They're not the same thing at all.
I was with ya until you said THAT! You're the silly people that keep sending "Scottish Law" Spector back to the Senate, time after time... Six long years after six long years... Judas Priest!!! You went way too far with that grandious statement!!! Ha Ha Ha !!!
Court battles can drag on for a decade or more and you can't always justify that to taxpayers/voters, now can you. Even if you win... you lose resources taken from taxpayers by force!!! It's not conducive to retaining a popular mandate and the suers know this going in. It's become a powerful political tactic by radical leftist EnvironMentalistas!!!
Touche!!!
They're not the same thing at all.
It's actually much worse than that: it's defendant pays if his cause is anointed by the beautiful people. All the folks on this thread arguing how this could somehow be a boon to conservatives if we'd just start litigating are missing the fact that the deck is stacked against defendants of the "wrong kind."
And who might this "truly wise but largely unknown American conservative" be, pray tell???
Interesting essay, jonestown...
But the answer isn't to settle every complaint from professional extortionists.
I would think that one of the things needed is some level of proof be given that justifies a suit even reaching a court. If the level isn't reached and it goes to court, fee the heck out of the frivolous originator of the suit.
The problem you suffered is also driving the cost of health up, making doctors nuts and their insurance fees sky high. No insurance companies want to fight in court. So, they settle almost everything despite false lawsuits. Problem is the settling also is a mark against the doctor's records.
There needs to be major tort and lawsuit reform.
This deal in California with the lawsuits will kill us and all business.
You mean if the plaintiff's cause is anointed by the beautiful people
The taxpayers also pay when the fed gov is sued. Take a group like Trout Unlimited. They decide they don't like the way the Forest Service is conducting timber sales or managing grazing allotments. So they sue. Result is often severe restrictions in timber cutting practices, severe restrictions in grazing management or elimination of it altogether. Courts award attorneys fees to the plaintiff. Taxpayers pay.
This also helps feed the NGO's through infusions of taxpayer dollars. They're always looking for a reason to sue an agency and collect nice fat fees.
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.