It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: F4guy
Nothing stops them but at least they have to pay their own lawyers now.
And if they lost they would have to pay for their own and the defendant's for bringing a frivolous case.
originally posted by: F4guy
Monsanto doesn't file "frivolous" suits. They are oppresive and overbearing but, unfortunately they win most of the cases they file. Their suits are based on bad law but they do have some law on which to base the suits
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: F4guy
Monsanto doesn't file "frivolous" suits. They are oppresive and overbearing but, unfortunately they win most of the cases they file. Their suits are based on bad law but they do have some law on which to base the suits
So again, since they are doing this anyway in your opinion what is the harm? Loser pays is for when the plaintiff loses, not the defendant.
originally posted by: F4guy
Wrong! "Loser pays" describes the situation in almost every Western democracy except the US where the loser, plaintiff or defendant, pays the winner's fees.
originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: gladtobehere
Geez - there should be something in place - universally throughout the US, which requires abusive litigants to cover all legal fees plus damages for the person they tried to sue. Mr. Costello should get a minimum of $100,000, plus every dollar he spent on these cases, plus every dollar of missed earnings (or used paid time off) replaced by the slimeball Zavodnik. If he cannot pay immediately, he should be forced to sell all of his posessions, give up his shelter, and work at least 2 jobs until he pays the full amount, with interest. If he does not, his organs should be sold.
originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: gladtobehere
Geez - there should be something in place - universally throughout the US, which requires abusive litigants to cover all legal fees plus damages for the person they tried to sue. Mr. Costello should get a minimum of $100,000, plus every dollar he spent on these cases, plus every dollar of missed earnings (or used paid time off) replaced by the slimeball Zavodnik. If he cannot pay immediately, he should be forced to sell all of his posessions, give up his shelter, and work at least 2 jobs until he pays the full amount, with interest. If he does not, his organs should be sold.
I'm not being hyperbolic, I think this should be the law. I would much rather have someone steal $30k from me, than to cost me that much money PLUS stress and time. This is far worse than robbery and torture combined, and should be treated as such (if it's even allowed in the first place.)
originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: gladtobehere
I could think of several situations in which one could sue over a printer...including the fact that printers have a system that collects everything ever printed.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: F4guy
Wrong! "Loser pays" describes the situation in almost every Western democracy except the US where the loser, plaintiff or defendant, pays the winner's fees.
Actually, not wrong. There is already a state where the plaintiff and only the plaintiff is required to pay if the lawsuit is deemed frivolous.
AUSTIN, Texas—Texas Gov. Rick Perry has signed into law a tort reform measure that institutes a “loser-pays” provision in lawsuits deemed to be frivolous.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: gladtobehere
At this stage, the man should sue the courts for allowing such a ridiculous procedure to be carried out. Thirty grand for a used printer, that he claims didn't work?? Insane!