FEDERAL COURT IN LOS ANGELES GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT

The legislature does not have the legitimate authority to put price-caps on a lawyers' fees or to put price caps on the amount of punitive damages a civilly wronged plaintiff may receive.

First of all, it is the constitutional and legitimate duty for a judge to decide of the plaintiff has a legitimate case and if it is decided that the suit may procede, it is up to the jury to decide if the defendent(s) are truly guilty of the allegations levied against them. If the plaintiff wins the suit, it is up to either the judge or jury to decide what monetary awards the plaintiff is entitled to receive--not any legislature's.

Would you admit that tort reform may include reforms to other things besides punitive damage awards?

Okie dokie!

"And here I thought that the state & federal legislatures made the laws and the judge & jury were there to interpret and rule on the merits of a case."

Yes, you are correct, but even the legislature should not pass laws that overstep their Constitutional authority. If they do, they will most likely be overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. With the vast majority of cases making their way quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court via the writ of certiori, it has become easier for parties to take their case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Many people besides me, and various organizations, would have a major problem philosophically and ideologically with tort reform, including the American Trial Lawyers Assocation and even the American Bar Association.

"Face it, the only way that people with legitimate cases are ever going to get through the courts in a fair and timely way is through tort reform. Loser pays."

Lawyers should not be held liable for a decision that is ulimately up to a judge and jury. Lawyers are in business, and their business is negotiating conflict. Generating business means negotiating conflict and lawyers for the most part should not be held liable for doing their jobs and representing the rights of people often wronged by big corporations, municipalities, hospitals, insurance companies, or anyone who may have civilly wronged them.

Just as businesses search for new products, lawyers search for new legal principles upon which to draw legitimate cases and lawsuits. In fact, lawyers have been very successful over the past few years in expanding tort liability.

I would like to see you say to someone whose relative was killed by a hospital infection, or someone whose life was greatly altered because of someone else's negligance, that there should be price caps on their loss, pain, and suffering.

"The trial lawyers of America have decided our courts are their own personal playground and have made a mockery of our judicial system with their frivilous suits."

Trial lawyers are just doing their jobs by representing the interests of wronged citizens. You forgot to mention that somewhere along the line, a presiding judge gives the okay for a suit to go forward and a jury decides if the defendent is guilty of the allegations levied against them.

"I suppose you think suing McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King & KFC is a GOOD thing? Trial lawyers trying to line their pockets."

In a free society where American citizens have the Constitutional right to file suit for civil wrongs, that is just how the system works. I would not support taking away a citizens' right to file civil suits against big corporations, businesses, hospitals, municipalities, and insurance companies. American citizens should always have the fundamental right to file suit against those who have wronged them, including 3rd parties.

If the presiding judge believes the case to be frivilous and without merit, they will simply throw the case out of court.

The American citizen must be in possession of a tool by which they can use to fight back for civil wrongs committed against them by oftentimes, wasteful and abuse corporations and big businesses. Tort reform would greatly hinder this ability and lessen the need for accountability.

For those of you who may have come into this thread late, and are wondering... this was the article that so many people have offered their thoughtful and objective opinions on. It's not really supposed to be a beat-the-bejeebers-out-of-Larry Klayman thread, although it may look like it is. FR is the premier news forum for conservatives to intelligently discuss issues of importance to others of similar political beliefs. But Larry Klayman committed the unpardonable sin of holding all politicians of all parties to the same standards of honesty and integrity.

So, because of this egregious sin, Larry Klayman must now be trashed on this forum (by the goon squad), as have other good and honest conservatives on past threads. Larry Klayman has good company in this purgatory though... Bob Barr, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Alan Keyes have also been subjected to the same level of hatred, insults, personal attacks, and all-around boorish comments...

After reading the article which was the original posting that started this thread, does anyone want to comment on the subject of the article (the civil rights lawsuit brought against the Anaheim PD and others who stood by and did nothing, allowing citizens' who were protesting against illegal immigration to be beaten by a mob of angry America-hating counter protesters)?

Thank you.

We now return you to the barroom brawl... please remember to don your flame retardant suits before re entering the forum

FEDERAL COURT IN LOS ANGELES GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT

Judicial Watch | July 30, 2002
Posted on 07/30/2002 3:17 PM Eastern by FreedominJesusChrist

For Immediate Release
Jul 30, 2002 Contact: Press Office 202-646-5172

JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: FEDERAL COURT IN LOS ANGELES GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY THE CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM

(Los Angeles, CA) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, announced today that a federal court has ruled that a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of immigration activists who were beaten while Anaheim police and other city officials did nothing can proceed. On May 8, 2002, Judicial Watch filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleged to arise from the intentional, wilful, and unconstitutional refusal of Anaheim city officials to extend police protection to law-abiding American citizens in an attempt to “teach them a lesson” and silence them in retaliation for the lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights to speak, peaceably assemble, and petition the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim police department for a redress of grievances relating to illegal immigration.

The case was filed on behalf of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform and several individuals, including senior citizens, who were violently attacked during a peaceful rally on the steps of Anaheim City Hall on December 8, 2001, by pro-Iranian anarchists, communists, advocates of rejoining the southwestern states to Mexico, and other counter-demonstrators, as uniformed and other Anaheim police officers watched, refused to intervene, refused numerous pleas for help, refused to assist in making citizens’ arrests, refused to respond to emergency 911 calls, and showed contempt for the rule of law. The First Amended Complaint filed on June 10, 2002, named the City of Anaheim, the mayor, the city council members, the Anaheim police department, the police chief, the deputy police chief, and two high-ranking police officers as defendants. The lawsuit seeks general damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief for the future, and other remedies, pursuant to federal civil rights laws.

The defendants responded to the First Amended Complaint with a Motion to Dismiss, claiming, among other things, that their alleged intentional and malicious denial and affirmative prevention of police protection in retaliation for the plaintiffs’ exercise of First Amendment rights was well within their legitimate discretion to allocate limited police resources.

On July 29, 2002, Judge Ronald S.W. Lew of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, thereby handing Judicial Watch’s clients a major victory and allowing this important civil rights lawsuit to proceed.

“We allege that the Anaheim defendants prevented and interfered with police protection against the violent attacks perpetrated on our clients, much as southern officials allowed a reign of terror by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction,” stated Judicial Watch Civil Litigation Director James F. Marshall.

“Each of the Anaheim Defendants took an oath to uphold the Constitution. They should be held accountable under the rule of law for the alleged violations of that oath,” added Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.

I honestly am not so worried about the "price caps". Although I find it hard to believe that somebody who is stupid enough to put a cup of hot coffee between their legs and not expect it could burn them should be awarded millions of dollars for being a moron.

That aside, the tort reform I would most like to see happen is the loser pays part. Something needs to be done to stop the flood of frivilous lawsuits that are clogging up our courts.

Big tobacco was first. Next comes big fat food. I'm sure big pop will be next. Where does it stop? Big sun-tan lotion? Big dog treats? After all, there are a lot of fat Fido's running around the world. I'm sure the dog food manufactuerers are making that stuff taste waaaaaay too good. Poor Fido couldn't help himself and it's somebody's fault.

Next thing you know somebody will get sued over big hair.

Avoiding a motion to dismiss is NOT a victory/win. It was a legal procedure.

But Larry Klayman committed the unpardonable sin of holding all politicians of all parties to the same standards of honesty and integrity.

No, he made the mistake of thinking everybody would believe every single word he said as the gospel and not question a word he says.

Honesty and integrity? Where is the 24 million dollars he collected in 2000 and did NOT spend on court cases?

And let me ask you this again: just because Klayman showed up at some rallys for FR all the while using this forum to raise money, does that mean that WE should overlook obvious distortions of the facts that come from Judical Watch?

And while I'm at it......and, of course, in the interest of honesty and integrity, what IS the status of Donato's case?

After reading the article which was the original posting that started this thread, does anyone want to comment on the subject of the article

Yes, I would. This is NOT an article, it is a press release just like all the other ones that JW issues that he tries to pass off as "news."

And it is ONLY a press release concerning the fact that this case did NOT get thrown out. Yet.

Avoiding a motion to dismiss is NOT a victory/win. It was a legal procedure.

Oh yes it was.... just look at the press release and it will tell you in no uncertain terms.......

On July 29, 2002, Judge Ronald S.W. Lew of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, thereby handing Judicial Watch’s clients a major victory and allowing this important civil rights lawsuit to proceed.

Yep denying a standard motion to dismiss is a MAJOR and IMPORTANT victory....... Just keep the money flowing folks... We have cruises to take and corruption to ferret out.

Yes, you are correct

Wrong again, I see.

Stop digging. You look sillier and sillier. I told you you do NOT know what you're talking about.

Well, I'm going to start issuing my own "news" stories.

"Hey, the bank honored all my checks today!!!

That's about as newsworthy as these "talking points."

what IS the status of Donato's case?

I think I read that Donato was still looking for the $100,000.00...

If you read my previous posts on this thread about tort reform, you would have learned that I oppose all tort reform which includes price caps on punitive damages and pain and suffering awards, price caps on fees lawyers may charge their clients, getting rid of Joint and Several Liability, and elminating 3rd party liability.

"Many people besides me, and various organizations, would have a major problem philosophically and ideologically with tort reform, including the American Trial Lawyers Assocation and even the American Bar Association."

Of course they would have a problem with it. It would cut off their gravy train.

"Lawyers should not be held liable for a decision that is ulimately up to a judge and jury."

But a lawyer that brings a suit that he/she knows is frivilous is in violation of the legal code of ethics and the law.

"I would like to see you say to someone whose relative was killed by a hospital infection, or someone whose life was greatly altered because of someone else's negligance, that there should be price caps on their loss, pain, and suffering." Life is dangerous. All the money in the world will not bring back a loved one. Should there be an award for negligence or intentional wrong doing? Sure. Should the lawyers get 20% or even 30% of it. Hardly.

Interestingly, the criminal lawyers I've talked to and listened to all believe that we do need tort reform.

Before you tell me that I don't know what I am talking about, please post somethng of substance to counter my viewpoint.

"Should the lawyers get 20% or even 30% of it. Hardly."

That is your own opinion of course. No one ever forces people to hire the services of a high priced lawyer or firm.

I really think you should have put this in "Breaking News".

I'll be glad to when YOU post some facts and substance.

Now, terilyn and deport have proven you wrong about your statement about legislatures not making the law.

Wanna go for more?

Read 264 again. Apparently she believes that lawyers shouldn't be held responsible for anything. Why, I bet she even approves of those attorneys getting $13,000 AN HOUR in those tobacco cases.

Lawyers MAKE the laws and twist the laws.