[gondramB]

He makes a good point legally - that there is a good faith provision in the new law. He says they can then cross examine the complainant to see if it was good faith.

It sounds like the new law may not be strong enough.

[pacelvi]

I think his legal point is quite chilling... indeed, the law only protects against Liability.. not Suit.

How is Liablity determined? By a jury.

The John Does need protection from SUIT not just Liability.

I hope someone can contact Rep King and get the language amended.

[pacelvi]

oh.. btw. i’m not a lawyer.. so hopefully my reading of all this is wrong and protection from liablity does actually mean protection from suit.

[CaptRon]

As I posted on an earlier thread, this is a false argument. they can be called as witnesses to determine their motives. There is no need to name them as parties to the suit.

The only reason they are being sued is to discourage others by having them worry about having to go through the expense of defending themselves in a lawsuit.

[Peelod]

He makes a good point legally - that there is a good faith provision in the new law. He says they can then cross examine the complainant to see if it was good faith.

Can a muzzie be examined to determine if his profession is "a good faith". /p

[Peelod]

He makes a good point legally - that there is a good faith provision in the new law. He says they can then cross examine the complainant to see if it was good faith.

Can a muzzie be examined to determine if his profession is "a good faith". /p