Okay, it seems obvious to me that many of you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the civil justice systems works.
First of all, you can't appeal to some third party to intervene and stop a lawsuit that's been filed against you just because you claim it is frivolous. I don't know why so many people think it works that way, but the fact is it doesn't. Perhaps people want to reassure themselves that there is some extra-judicial safeguard against being wrongfully sued. Would be nice if there was. But there is not.
Second of all, you can't get a case dismissed by just saying, "oh, hey, Judge ... this case is bogus. None of what he's saying is true. Here's what really happened." You can't get a case dismissed that way regardless of how persuasive or brilliant your answer is, how many people rush to your defense, or how many exclamation points you put after your version of events. You could file affidavits from a dozen nuns, the Attorney General, and the Plaintiff's own mother. It doesn't matter. If the other side can produce any evidence--any at all, even if it is just the first-hand testimony of the plaintiff himself, as long as that testimony, if true, would establish the material elements of the claim, then it is virtually impossible to avoid going to trial. This means that if you are walking down the street and Joe Litigant, local troublemaker, bumps into you (or not), he can file suit, claim you punched him in the face, and as long as he is willing to say it under oath, it is up to a jury to decide. Of course, he is not SUPPOSED to be able to make stuff up, and he won't necessarily persuade the jury to side with him, but you can't stop a lawsuit merely by saying, "Judge, he's just making this up. Please dismiss because here's how it really happened." Different jurisdictions have different standards, but the general rule is that if there is a dispute of material fact as to what occurred (or even if anything occurred), it is up to the ultimate finder of fact to decide what happened. That's usually a jury. That's the scary thing about our system. You better believe the other side's lawyer is going to be trying to get the kind of people most likely to hate your guts on that jury.
I just thought I'd post this because poor RaceBannon must be sick of people saying things like, "hey, I'm sure you can just get this dismissed if you talk to the D.A." [or the Judge, or the State's Attorney's Office, or the Police, or the F.E.C., or the Rotary Club]. It just doesn't work that way. If this guy is willing to state under oath that Race grabbed him by the throat, then a jury will likely be the ones who decide if that's true and if it is, whether he should be compensated for it. The picture probably hurts Race more than it helps. It shows Race had his hands on him. It doesn't matter how innocuous it actually was. The guy'll just say Race grabbed his throat right after that photo was shot. My point is, he needs money to pay his lawyer, not advice.
And I'm sending him something myself, in case you're wondering.
good points. the fradulent plantiff has no fear in our system, that's why it is so broken and why so many fradulent cases enter the system.
And I'm sending him something myself, in case you're wondering.
---
Thanks for telling us.
But the fact that Kimber jumped up onto Race's truck in the first place...shouldn't that help to neutralize the whole thing?
It just seems hard for me to believe that someone who is agressively tresspassing would have any real standing when it comes to "assault," especially considering there was no bodily injury.