Periodically I hear a case that should be the turning point against frivolous lawsuits -- but so far, no. It's an article of faith that to any trial lawyer there is no such thing as a frivolous suit; they all generate billable hours. The U.S. needs to introduce the concept common in other countries where the loser pays all legal expenses for both parties, by court order. Similarly the party who launches a frivolous lawsuit is ordered to pay all expenses. The current U.S. system is wide open to abuse and exploitation. Peace.
And they say ... And they say cat owners are strange .... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Goofyfish Well, thbpbppbpbt! on you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Actually, something struck me. I'm well-accustomed to seeing cats in secondhand book stores around Seattle, but what in the world were these animals doing inside a public library? Is this a seeing-eye dog? I find it interesting that the dog is an assistance dog for a hidden disability, but ... oh, well ... I'll just wait until this one gets thrown out of court. So, okay, the dog I understand, but most communities don't let arbitrary animals (e.g. mascots) inside public buildings. Or, at least, so it seems. Maybe I'm wrong on that point, too. But the whole thing, frankly, is hilarious. What I'm starting to think is that this suit is filed by a guy who dislikes hate-crime legislation, and thus wants to make a farce out of it in order to discredit the idea. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Or is the plaintiff using the suit as an attempt to get his self-described disability classified as a protected class. He claims quite a few disabilities. Oh, and about my slap at trial lawyers – perhaps there is hope. Apparently he had to file the case himself, after 4 lawyers refused to touch it. His 40 page claim complains of: Peace.
What! ... No remuneration for loss of conjugal priviledges? Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wow .... I'm almost afraid to ask what the dog is for. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I suppose it is a hate crime, if it can be proven that the cat attacked the dog solely because it was a dog. Obviously, the cat's lawyers will claim some provocation. Cats get away with this sort of thing all the time, and it's got to stop. Only an all-dog jury can deliver justice. Peace.
You gotta have a least one cat loving dong (er, dog) in the jury. How can you have a balanced jury without a token dog?
