[KLUG Advocacy] I love this kind of stuff ...

[Bert Bbbink]

>>
>>
>>From: Adam Tauno Williams <adam at morrison-ind.com>
>>
>>
>>>> I applaud this fellow.  If only there were an army of people like
>>>> this,
>>>> m$ would not go after these frivolous lawsuits.
>>>
>>>
> Amen to that.  It's particularly encouraging that he won a legal battle
> against a giant company without hiring his own lawyer!  Proof that it is
> possible (albeit barely) for an intelligent non-lawyer to understand law.
>
>>Nah, they'd just be more selective.  They'd sue the elderly or
>>single-parents who don't have the time or energy to mount a defense, or
>>the less educated (this guy could read and understand legal briefs).
>>
>>I'd like a simple law: If a publicly traded corporation wants to file a
>>suit against an individual it has to pay the courts a $1,000,000 service
>>fee which is not to be counted in any recoverable court/legal fees.
>>
> I rather like England's system.  If you file a suit and lose, YOU pay
> the legal fees for the defense!  That might be a bit harsh on the other
> side and scaring away lawsuits that are valid, but they don't have
> problems with frivolous ones.  Maybe a middle ground where the plaintiff
> only pays if the judge rules that the suit was stupid.
>
> Canada has similar civil laws to ours, as far as I know, but they don't
> have the same problems with silly lawsuits.  I have no idea how they
> manage it.
>
Most European countries have a similar system as England. Most lawsuits
ends with the phrase that they hold the other party accountable for the
costs. But a judge *only* rules about this if you ask for it. Leave it out
and you have to pay yourself. Nothing atomatically. This also holds if you
want to sue somebody (or a company that does not fulfill to an agreement).
If the judge rules in your favor, the sued party has to pay your legal
costs.

Bert.