The Cookie Monster will get you

**j2k4** · 02-06-2005, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by vidcc

Hobbes I addressed J2 point about Edwards track record compared to the policy.

J2 suggested they had no plan... in fact they did but he didn't believe they would implement it...which is not the same thing as having no plan.

Which is, from the purely practical standpoint I favor, exactly the same thing as having no plan.

**hobbes** · 02-06-2005, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quite possibly.

As an aside, Bush's efforts at tort reform would address frivolous/trivial suits such as this, but you all wanted Kerry/Edwards (a pair of lawyers), so nevermind.

Vidcc,

J2 gives us his cynical outlook on two lawyers, one who made millions on frivilous lawsuits, being the right men to chose for tort reform.

It was like the UN placing Syria as head of the "Humanitarian rights" committee (I forget the details).

He would doubt the veracity of any words that might fall from their mouths.

I never saw him state that they had "no plan".

But again this proves to me that the words each of us type, echo differently in the brains of the reader. We apply a context to attempt to construct the true meaning, but it is always a bit different than what the original poster wanted to convey.

See kids, vocabulary is important. The bigger your vocabulary the more razer sharp your ability to convey precisely what you mean.

He never said that they didn't have a plan

**hobbes** · 02-06-2005, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

That determination would be made by the judge, on the request of the respondent. In the same way as the defence can submit that there is no case to answer in a criminal trial.

So what you would have would be the respondent, having won, would then ask the Judge to consider the strength of the evidence on which the action was brought. The judge would then consider that and make a ruling on whether the action had reasonable grounds, or whether (s)he agreed it was frivolous.

If (s)he agreed that it was, then the respondent would be entitled to not only costs, but some form of compensation, determined by the Judge. Thus discouraging the practice.

I submit this for your amelioration.

Oh man, you would love this job wouldn't you.

When I typed, who would decide, I thought, "Oh that JP, he would love that job".

"I would like to say that your case was specious and complete phish."

Back seriously, I was wondering if it is a good idea to have the judge decide. The reason being that it would give local judges a tremendous power over the attorneys. Since the jury makes the decision, it matters not if a judge does not like you. If a judge can make the determination of "frivilous or not", this could lead to some very dirty local politics.

That was my thinking behind not just giving it to the judge. I was thinking of some more detached government authority a "frivilous" complaint could be submitted to.

The truth is that the legal system is a very small community at the local level and these people all know each other. They may try cases at day and drink together at night. That is the reality.

I don't want local politics and influence using this loophole to strip a person of his bar or effecting the outcome of a case. and the other way where a judge may allow someone to keep trying specious cases because he likes the chap.

Am I making sense here?

**vidcc** · 02-06-2005, 08:26 PM

@hobbes

oh hum

**hobbes** · 02-06-2005, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

You are making perfect sense. However there would be all the usual safeguards built in, including an appeal system, open to all parties.

The Judge is best placed to do it because they are actually there when the evidence is presented. Including but not limited to the histrionics for the benefit of the jury. They are aware which cases are based on evidence and which are based on theatre.

I am sure they currently form an opinion on the frivolity of certain actions. This would merely allow them to voice that.

I would not, as you suggest allow someone to be removed from the bar for this type of thing. For me the penalties should be financial.

Which bar are you talking about?

Looks like it's time to get me coat.