|
|
| |
| |
In<170ee625.0402291942.4479971f@posting.google.com>, Mona writes:
"Feisty" <sunny@skytoday.com> wrote in message news
Well, no, the courts can and do decide their procedural rules, altho
Congress has some control there as well. But what I'm talking about is
an amusing situation I read of in case books where a mentally disturbed,
disbarred lawyer began suing every freakin' lawyer and judge he or his
family had anything to do with, and alleging all kinds of insane crap,
like Jewsish conspiracies and the like. (I say it was amusing to read
because the MANY complaints were so ridiculous it made for entertaining
reading over coffee, but prolly was not so funny for the judges accused
of being, among other things, "Zionist pawns" intent on denying this guy
victory against his creditors and the many judges oropposing counsel who
then had to hire THEIR OWN lawyers to defend in preposterous lawsuits.)
There is *already* a mechanism in place that allows courts to deny the
right of a party to sue, when his/her litigation history is so
outrageous, as it was with this wacko. What I'm wondering is whether
there is sufficient documentation of frivolous CoS litigation that this
mechanism could possibly apply to the CoS?
It would be useful for the plaint form to contain a declaration
that the complainant organisation in the state courts and its
federal parent body in the federal courts have
brought X lawsuits, of which Y were lost, and in Z they
suffered sanctions, during the previous five years
(or "the past N years since record-keepind started" in the transition)
with an accuracy of _+_10% (or naming the cases if less than ten).
Large loan companies and the like which frequently sue would not
be burdened by this in the least. Small, odd, litigious groups
regularly sanctioned would soon show up.
Courts should have the power sue sponte to sanction parties and
order costs to opponents over matters such as causing costs
disproportionate to the value litigated, brining or threatening
a mischievous suit which is clearly outside the laws cited
e.g. threatening a COPYRIGHT action over the sale of a
"trade-marked" e-meter.
Not anything I've researched, but worth considereing, it seems to me.
__ .\|/////..
||_.-' '. /\\|// ----
// ; | ----- The only real crime for
--._// .\|/. .==== =====. --- which one can be punish
(( //(####) \d]>||<[d]>\ (~\ -ed by governements of
|| v '--'\\ . | \ | today is lack of money.
|| ; v . {_ \ : \/ In other crimes, if one
// .' : .'___' : ' has the huge sums nec-
// ; '. ~===~ /\ -essary to hire lawyers,
// . .... o : /__\'''' / \ once can often get off.
. \\\\~~~~|~~~~~~~|\\ / /\/,,,L.RON HUBBARD,
. | .\''. |/''''/.|,,\\ //,,,,,,,Phat Dead Phounder of
'.|: O :|[ / ]|,,,,\/,,,,,,,,, the $cientology cult.
----------------| '...' |[__O__]|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[in HCOPL 20/sept/1976]
|_______|_______|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
|
| |
| |
|
