Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Gay' man sues $70 million for emotional distress because homosexuality cast as sin
WND ^ | July 9th, 2008

Posted on 07/09/2008 8:04:41 AM PDT by Raineygoodyear

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: Maceman
If this lawsuit survives a motion dismiss, we are all in in deep kim chi.

It'll be worse than deep kim chi. We'll become Canada.

And I mean no disrespect to all you fine Cannucks.

21 posted on 07/09/2008 8:15:38 AM PDT by Flycatcher (Strong copy for a strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
I agree with you, but go a step further. If there is as lawyer involved on behalf of this clown, HE should be fined, if not disbarred. Garbage in court is a direct result of gargage at the bar.

John / Billybob

22 posted on 07/09/2008 8:17:43 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob ( www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
I agree with you, but go a step further. If there is as lawyer involved on behalf of this clown, HE should be fined, if not disbarred. Garbage in court is a direct result of garbage at the bar.

John / Billybob

23 posted on 07/09/2008 8:17:44 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob ( www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Raineygoodyear
'Gay' man sues $70 million for emotional distress because homosexuality cast as sin

If that works, we could extend it.


24 posted on 07/09/2008 8:18:28 AM PDT by kittycatonline.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raineygoodyear

All the guy has to do is get himself a homosexual judge and he has his 70 million.


25 posted on 07/09/2008 8:18:39 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raineygoodyear

Maybe he should sue the Court of St. James...................


26 posted on 07/09/2008 8:19:59 AM PDT by Red Badger (If we drill deep enough, we can reach the Saudi oil fields from THIS side..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

If you can sue a “Ham Sandwich” you can sue money...............


27 posted on 07/09/2008 8:21:31 AM PDT by Red Badger (If we drill deep enough, we can reach the Saudi oil fields from THIS side..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Raineygoodyear

The real question is if the courts tell him to go bugger himself, will he consider that a defeat or a victory?


28 posted on 07/09/2008 8:21:42 AM PDT by According2RecentPollsAirIsGood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: esquirette
Difficult to get Rule 11 sanctions against a pro se plaintiff. Standard is knowingly filing a pleading not reasonably supported by law (or reasonable expectation of change in law) or facts. Most states have Rule 11 as well.

I was recently involved in a case where a pro se plaintiff (and a lawyer to boot!) was hit for $6500 in Rule 11 sanctions. That was, however, only half of defendant's out of pocket lawyer expense. Nothing awarded for defendant's time and bother. Defendant is contemplated suing the out of control lawyer for malicious prosecution. Oh yeah, out of control lawyer is of course appealing grant of Rule 11 sanctions. Deal could end up costing defendant a bundle, while out of control lawyer pays nothing for his continued frivolous filings.

Grant of Rule 11 sanctions is entirely discretionary on part of judge, both as to whether they are granted and in what amount. So it's not really "loser pays." Unfortunately.

29 posted on 07/09/2008 8:22:15 AM PDT by Martin Tell ("It is the right, good old way you are in: keep in it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Counter sue for attempting to steal the publisher’s first amendment rights. Sue for $450,000,000.97. Might as well, he probably has a negative net worth anyway.


30 posted on 07/09/2008 8:24:26 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: airborne

“This lawsuit probably could have been successful in Great Britain, or possibly Canada, but not in America (YET!).”

I don’t think it has any chance of being successful anywhere, but actually I would think it has more chance of a hearing in the “litigation-happy” US.


31 posted on 07/09/2008 8:25:21 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Raineygoodyear
The Lib's ideal version of the First Amendment:

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech of people we like, or of the our allies in the press; or the right of the people we like peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

32 posted on 07/09/2008 8:26:10 AM PDT by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raineygoodyear

Interesting lawsuit. Totally groundless, but an interesting concept.

Oh, Obama’s comments offended me. Maybe I can sue him.


33 posted on 07/09/2008 8:26:14 AM PDT by Old Mountain man (Official FR PITA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Do murderers who are rebuked by family get to sue, too?


34 posted on 07/09/2008 8:27:42 AM PDT by tbw2 (Freeper sci-fi - "Sirat: Through the Fires of Hell" - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: trisham
Is he proud or emotionally distressed?

Doesn't his book refute the premise of his lawsuit?

I can't imagine his winning anything except his 15 minutes.

35 posted on 07/09/2008 8:28:19 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Seems like a 1st amendment case. But wait, Christians don’t get no steenking 1st amendment.


36 posted on 07/09/2008 8:28:48 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Obamafeld, "A CAMPAIGN ABOUT NOTHING".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
The government does in fact do just that in civil asset forfeiture cases (e.g., United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency).
37 posted on 07/09/2008 8:29:33 AM PDT by Arguendo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy
Agreed....I'd like to see that one. Funny, The Truth has a lot people declaring war on the US and its founding principles.

Sin is sin...homosexual behavior is akin to lying, stealing, murder, and it's basically putting one's self in front of God and His Word.

38 posted on 07/09/2008 8:29:43 AM PDT by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I almost admire the guy for trying this. He’s got vision.

No way do I want his wet dream to become our nightmare.

39 posted on 07/09/2008 8:30:12 AM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: trisham

BINGO.

This is a cheap way to use the legal system as advertising for his book.


40 posted on 07/09/2008 8:30:50 AM PDT by xDGx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson