Trash people/public school products.

Mr. Rabin Nabizadeh your type of attitude gets me sick.

This is the reason our Country is so screwed up...it's like you and the other attorney's like you. You actually help breed thugs.

Thank you listening, Julia Pardini from Alamo

Wait...what? This is some lawyer who doesn't represent anyone involved in the case and doesn't know anything more about it than we do, spouting off about what "might" or "could" happen? This isn't a story, it's an ad for Mr. Nabizadeh. Did the Express get paid to print this?

Oh, and Rick? You weren't there, you don't know what happened, and you don't know the people involved. I only see one "trash person" here, and he's posting under the name "Rick."

Glenn,

What do you mean by “high-powered defense team” anyway?

How does one become “high-powered” vs. “low-powered”? Is there a “medium-power”? Ha ha.

According to Martindale-Hubble, Rabin Nabizadeh graduated from UC Hastings Law School in 2005. Web Link

He’s a kid!!!

He’s been out of law school 8 years and suddenly he’s Johnnie Cochran?? Come on. Do your homework.

“high powered” ha ha. That’s funny.

Read a book by Fred Rodell titled, "Woe unto you lawyers." It tells you all you need to know about the "racket" that lawyers call "The Law." Rodell was a law professor at Harvard, I think? Anyway, he taught law, but never practiced it because he saw the scam for what it is. Besides journalism, which is a true profession, the so-called "profession" of practicing the law is based on... Words! Lawyers are nothing more than over paid representatives.

Medicine, engineering and aeronautics are true professions. Hell, the military is a true profession. And all of these "true" professions have evolved over time. Has the practice of law? If this so-called profession, which includes judges too by the way, evolved over time, we wouldn't have so many frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can point their finger at someone in this country and sue them for anything. And who do folks go running too? Why, it's the modern day medicine man we all know as, the lawyer. LOL!

Actually, Bud, we don't have "so many frivolous lawsuits." The myth of frivolous lawsuits overflowing the courts is just more propaganda from big business (who are actually the primary source of litigation in this country, by the way.) And if you hate lawyers so much, try calling an engineer when someone steals your money, accuses you of misdeeds, or tries to keep you from mouthing off in a public place.

Good luck with that.

Hey Huh? You said I hate lawyers. You said that, I didn't. A lie. I don't hate lawyers. In fact, I don't hate anyone. So, there is your first problem. The second problem is your lack of knowledge regarding frivolous lawsuits. Check it out:

According to consulting firm Towers Watson, the direct cost of the U.S. tort system in 2009 was approximately $250 billion, which was roughly 2 percent of the gross domestic product. The amount is double the estimated tort expenses in other countries, including the U.K. and Japan.

Web Link

LOL, and that was in 2009! Oh, and if someone stole my money, I would contact the police.

In closing, sorry to hear that you are afraid to say what you want in public setting.

There goes huh again-- fact is there is more public school trash out there than you care to admit! These cretins need to be put down or away.

See, here's the thing, Bud: Those numbers were fed to you to make you think we have a lot of "frivolous litigation." I get that, that's how they're billed on the innumerable propaganda outlets that parrot claims backed by big money. But in fact, that $250B includes ***all*** tort claims - auto accidents, asbestos cases, corporate in-fighting, etc. It represents actual losses, not "frivolous" claims. Here's a link to a report on the 2011 numbers: Web Link

See anything there that's "frivolous", Bud? Yeah, the BP oil leak in the gulf added a lot to the tab, but that's because it was a real event, which cause very real damage. Should the families of the men who died on that platform be denied any compensation for their loss? The fishermen whose livelihoods were destroyed? Web Link I'm sure BP would be okay with that - are you? Because without lawyers, that's what you'd get. (It's not a coincidence that the "tort reform" movement was initially financed by tobacco companies, with oil companies picking up the slack later on.)

And Bud, I'm free to speak in public because we have a First Amendment Right to do that, and if someone tries to deny me that right - I can call a lawyer to help me defend my rights. Who are you gonna call? A doctor?

@>Huh? LOL! Those numbers were fed to me? Propaganda? LOL, by whom? There you go again telling lies! Man, you are a species! That's ok, I enjoy the banter. The lawsuits involving BP were not frivolous Huh?nster. You must be an attorney. I'm talking frivolous lawsuits. Stay on track, I know it's hard.

And as far as free speech goes homey, if you have to cry to a lawyer that will gladly take your money when he files an anti-SLAPP suit on your behalf, go for it. Me, I'll take ya to small claims court where it's you, me and the judge.

WOW, I wish I was as smart as Huh? thinks he is......... Such an amazing ability to correct all of OUR inadequate thinking on any topic listed in Danville express. Surely a genius at work here. Definitely a legend in his/her own mind !

Let's get back on topic. The four suspects of the beating of the Pleasanton man are the subject. What I said in past postings still applies though. We live in a violent society and the young are being shown this violence through media, movies and inner city and gang lifestyles that are portrayed. They think it is ok to beat up someone and leave them in a coma. Where are the parents? Or have they abrogated their responsibility? It starts at home.

Bud, I know you're "talking frivolous lawsuits," but that's all you're doing - talking. You cited as support for your claims a study of the cost of ***all*** tort lawsuits - the overwhelming majority of which are entirely non-frivolous. Which means you don't have a clue about what litigation is "frivolous" and what isn't.

You're not alone. Most people are pretty ignorant about what actually goes on in court, just like you. But try to keep up, Bud (I know it's hard): the number and economic impact of actual "frivolous" lawsuits is miniscule. It's not $250B. It's not $250M. It's not even a tiny fraction of the number and dollar value of absolutely legitimate claims - like the claims of the men killed on the BP oil rig, and the Gulf fishermen. In short, you're just "talking" - repeating soundbites you've heard over and over, without questioning or investigating to see if there's any truth to them or not.

Louise, I'll repeat what I said before: we don't know what actually happened that night. You may be right, or you may be wrong. There's only five people who actually know what happened and none of them have spoken publicly. So your rush to judge the kids (and their parents) is premature.

Louise is correct though that the posts are getting a bit off-topic. At least on the D.E., there has not been any update on Mr. Lamont's condition. Let's hope he recovers from the coma fully functional, and let's also hope that this last suspect is nabbed soon. It's hard to comprehend the horror the Lamont family is enduring right now.

Hey Huh? The problem with you is that you don't cite sources. Look, I know it's close to Halloween, but don't be scared about telling this reader where you get your facts from; you haven't proved your point yet. And what sound bites are you referring to? Making things up again. Why do you lie? Why?

You remind me of someone telling someone else that robbery is a crime. But when somebody asks you to actually explain the elements that make robbery a crime, you can't. Next time you bump your gums, cite some facts; or at the very least, make it a theory.

Is there any update on the victim? Sorry to interrupt the muscle flexing here, but it would be nice to know how this man is doing. My best to him and his family.

Bud, ***you*** are the guy who claimed there were "so many frivolous lawsuits" and when challenged cited a study (generated by a consulting firm financed by insurance companies) of the ***total*** amount of ***all*** tort damages in America, without any suggestion that "many" or even ***any*** of those cases were frivolous. Here's one website you can consult to educate yourself: Web Link

And you can take your lazy name calling back to wherever you get your non-reality based beliefs about what is going on in America. I haven't "lied" about anything, I've just pulled the cover off of your baseless claims and exposed them as the nonsense they are.

Huh?

You are absolutely correct - on all counts. My husband, an attorney, and I had this very conversation after viewing a documentary about this subject, called "Hot Coffee." My husband didn't agree with all assertions contained within the documentary, but it is indeed a myth that our court system is saturated with baseless, frivolous lawsuits (for many reasons too numerous to explain within this scope).

Hey Huh? I guess this case wasn't frivolous, HUH?

Wendy's Finger Chili Case
In 2005, Anna Ayala claimed she found a severed finger in her Wendy's chili and the nation made one giant vomiting noise. As a result, Wendy's lost millions in sales from patrons who had images of severed fingers dancing in their heads. But it turned out to be a giant hoax: the cold fingertip was planted in the chili by Ayala and her husband, Jaime Plascencia, who acquired the fingertip from a friend who lost it in a workplace accident. In 2006, the couple pled guilty to conspiracy to file a false insurance claim and attempted grand theft. Ayala told ABC news that she hoped her example "served as a warning" to kids. Perhaps she meant that when you make fraudulent severed body parts claims, use a precooked finger.

I got plenty more where that came from. LOL.

Hey Huh? Here is the fact of all facts. I was waiting for you to spout off long enough to make you eat your words. Whether you agree with this bill or not, just the fact that it has made its way to Congress should tell you something about frivolous lawsuits.

SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
House Committee Approves Bill on 'Frivolous' Lawsuits

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee moved forward Wednesday, over the objection of Democrats, on a bill aimed at reducing "frivolous" lawsuits.

The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013, which the committee passed 17-10, would bring back four key sanctions provisions in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Critics say the legislation would make the judicial system even more litigious and costly.

The bill would require judges to impose monetary sanctions against lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits and require any sanction go to the defendant’s attorney fees and costs. It also would allow judges to impose additional sanctions, and it would eliminate the 21-day period for parties to avoid sanctions by withdrawing claims.

Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), a chief sponsor of the bill, said in a statement today that the bill would eliminate what he described as "legalized extortion."

"Lawsuit abuse is common in America because the lawyers who bring these frivolous cases have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Lawyers can file meritless lawsuits, and defendants are faced with the choice of years of litigation, high court costs and attorneys' fees or a settlement," Smith said. He added: The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act "encourages attorneys to think twice before filing frivolous lawsuits."

Here's another one genius (Huh?) LOL!

Sponsors of the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013 argue that frivolous lawsuits are plaguing the United States judicial system and are damaging the U.S. economy.  In the press release issued upon the introduction of the bill, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member and co-sponsor of the legislation Chuck Grassley stated, “Law-abiding Americans with a legitimate legal grievance are entitled to their day in court.  But unscrupulous attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits stand in the way of valid claims… Putting the brakes on frivolous lawsuits that damage the economy and clog the legal system will go a long way towards balancing the scales of justice, upholding the rule of law, and improving the public good.”  Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas, co-sponsor of the bill and former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, affirms “Lawsuit abuse is all too common in America today partly because the lawyers who bring these cases have everything to gain and nothing to lose… The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act restores accountability to our legal system by reinstating mandatory sanctions for attorneys who file meritless suits.”

Bud, I am shocked - shocked! I say, that the toadies for big business in Congress have repeated the propaganda about "frivolous litigation" so as to further limit the ability of people who have ***legitimate*** claims against corporations to have any effective regress. Who could possibly have anticipated that the waterboys for corporate America would repeat the lies their masters pay to have generated?

Let me repeat: The "tort reform movement" was created and initially funded by tobacco companies, and is funded by big corporations who want to be able to get away - literally - with murder. They have their lackeys in Congress and the media who repeat their propaganda. But in fact, there is absolutely no evidence that a significant amount of claims brought in court are frivolous (in contrast to the flood of frivolous corporate defense claims which are expressly authorized by law.)

The fact that you repeat what those hacks have said just demonstrates what I posted above, which you claimed was "a lie": you're just repeating what you've been told to believe. You want to know who is feeding you propaganda? Just look at the sources you cited. You don't know anything about what actually happens in courts, and you can't cite any objective evidence to support what you've been told to believe because there is none. Just focus group tested soundbites, which you repeat.

Oh, and about the Wendy's case? The con artist was exposed before she ever even got to court. Filing a frivolous lawsuit is a lot harder than you seem to think.

Oh, here we go with the "propaganda" argument. But that's usually what happens when you don't tell the truth. That's ok, peace be with you.

BTW, I think I know a whole lot more than you do in regards to frivolous lawsuits.

I know that Huh? does not pay homage to common sense, but at the very least I can shine some light on a subject he pretends to know about:

The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013 eliminates the 21-day safe harbor that allows lawyers who file frivolous claims to walk away without a judge even considering a victim’s request for reimbursement. This free pass adds insult to injury as the victim’s lawyer is required to give the motion for sanctions to the attorney who filed the frivolous claim 21 days before a judge can see the motion, and allowing the attorney to withdraw the lawsuit without any consequence whatsoever. H.R. 2655 reinstates a requirement that the court must impose a sanction when a judge finds that a claim is frivolous under existing legal principles. The bill also restores the ability of federal judges to use sanctions to compensate an injured party for his or her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs resulting from the frivolous claim.

Peace

Bud, thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about, regardless of what you "think" you know.

The legislation you're referring to is a proposed amendment to Federal Rule 11, which already gives judges the authority to assess sanctions against people who file frivolous pleadings - both frivolous claims and frivolous defenses. That law has been on the books for ***30 years*** and has resulted in innumerable awards of attorneys fees against litigants who have filed bad faith claims - on both sides. The blather about amending it being necessary because of "frivolous litigation" is just baseless noise. The fact that actual instances of frivolous litigation are infrequent and typically disposed of quickly and at little expense to anyone is well documented. There is no objective evidence that there is an unwarranted amount of frivolous claims being filed in America.

The problem with the proposed amendment is not that it will strike at frivolous litigation, but that it will ***encourage frivolous claims*** of frivolous litigation - as well-heeled litigants try to terrorize their opponents into giving up. The ABA (which includes both plaintiff and defense lawyers) had this to say about it: Web Link

I understand that you're on the side of big corporations, who want to be able to do whatever they want without ever having to answer to anyone. But those of us who would like to see a level playing field - and fairness in our courts and in our society - don't want to tilt the scales of justice any more than they already are.

What kind of crap do you feed yourself? Seriously? You have got to be an attorney because you're attempting to worm your way out of this with your made up garbage. Let me just say this, Mr. Know It All... Oh, and I love how you deflect what I'm saying without addressing the issue. Having said that...

True story. Plantiff files 4 complaints against defendant. 2 of the complaints get thrown out due to defendant filing an anti-SLAPP suit. The last two complaints are not thrown out due to the fact they don't fall under constitutionally protective activity. With me so far, Mr. Righteous? Good.

The plantiff's eventually settled... AFTER 2 YEARS; THEREBY DRIVING COURT COSTS UP ON THE DEFENDANTS. The plantiff's never had evidence to produce during that entire time, but kept filing for motions of discovery. The remaining two complaints should have been thrown out, but the judge's hands were tied because of what the plantiff continued to file. Now, tell me Mr. Huh? how that is fair? Or are you going to argue your point with more made up propaganda? If you can't see the unfairness in the above listed case, well...

The truth is a beautiful thing, Huh? Try embracing it. Oh, just in case you're not a lawyer, SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. An anti-SLAPP suit is filed in defense of free speech, which of course falls under the 1st amendment.

The very thing that I first addressed in my posting would put a stop the this kind of abuse. And please, please do not come back at me and say that the defendants could then sue for abuse of process or malicious prosecution. Sorry, that silly little "safe harbor" rule protects the plantiffs from ever having to pay back the entire amount of court costs to the defendants. You think that's fair?

The real world is harsh, Mr. Huh? Embrace the suck.

You believe what the ABA says???? LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I missed that part in your comment section before mine. Now I know why you attempt to defend your baseless b.s. You just said it. LOL. I should have seen this coming. Educate yourself bro.

You stated that this bill, if passed, would encourage frivolous lawsuits. Really, did you not read the bill sir? LOL. OF COURSE THE ABA DOESN'T LIKE THIS BILL... THEY ARE LAWYERS!!! Man, what point are you trying to make? Hmm, come to think of it, you just made my point. Thank you!!! LOL.

So let's summarize your anecdote, Bud. (We don't know the actual facts, just what you've elected to describe in terms you selected.)

1. A claim was stated in four parts. Two claims were denied, not because they were factually false, but because the activities complained about were immune from suit.
2. The defendant elected to pay the plaintiff on the remaining two claims instead of going to trial.
3. According to you, all the lawyers for the plaintiffs had to do was "keep filing motions for discovery" and thus "the judge's hand were tied."

Only the terminally ignorant would believe that nonsense. If that was true, all you would need to do to get money is file a lawsuit and "keep filing motions for discovery." Except, it doesn't really work that way. My guess is that you or someone you know did something harmful to somebody else, was insulated from the consequences of much of that malicious conduct by the Constitutional right to free speech, and were offended by the fact that not **every** malicious thing that was done was consequence-free. Your lawyers advised you (or your "friend") that if you went to trial you'd lose because your conduct was in fact harmful and wrongful even though in your infinite wisdom, you were absolutely sure you were in the right. And you've been complaining about it ever since.

Is that about right, Bud?

Despite the fact that (the defendant) voluntarily agreed to settle, you assert that the claims were frivolous. Right. And OJ was framed. Are you heading out to find the "real killer"? Guess what: if you're sued you always have the right to go to trial and let a jury decide who wins or loses. Happens every day. At least one side is always "surprised" and outraged by the complete injustice of the outcome. Guess what? At least one side is always wrong.

You don't like lawyers? Who do you think got the first 2 SLAPP claims thrown out? Elves? Lawyers are what we use to operate the process to decide who wins, instead of trial by combat or having the King choose. I'm not seeing any wise words coming from you to indicate that you have a better plan for settling people's disagreements.

The real world **is** harsh, Bud. Sometimes self-righteous people feel that their #$%& doesn't stink, and when others disagree, the self-righteous whine and moan piteously about the injustice of having to address that issue. But as long as there are jerks, we'll need lawyers to sort out their BS. Sounds to me like you're a guy who's likely to need more than your share.

You don't listen or read very well, do you? Go back and read it again. The defendants did not pay the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs settled with the defendants. Once again, you got it wrong. The problem was that the plaintiffs used every stalling tactic they could to drive up costs to the defendants on the remaining complaints that were not thrown out. The plaintiffs then decided to settle because they knew if the case went to trial, they would lose. The plaintiffs were pissed off because they were hoping to win on the first two complaints that were thrown out in the anti-SLAPP suit filed by the defendants. The plaintiffs abused the process.

Now, you already got one part of what I posted wrong. Very wrong. The rest of your dribble is so far out there that I really can't decide if you choose to be ignorant or are just plain stupid. You have pointed the finger at me without knowing what you are actually talking about. Let's break it down... Bully.

1. You said, "Your lawyers advised you..." Are you telling me what the lawyers advised the defendants? How do you know?

2. You said, "My guess is that you or someone did something harmful." LOL! What lead you to believe the defendants did something harmful without knowing the facts of the case? The person that brought the suit was voted out of office in part because he used his position to get back at the defendants. Sad but true.

3. You said, "Despite the fact that the defendants agreed to settle..." The plaintiffs settled, sir. Again you got it wrong. LOL!!!! Go back and read what I said, sir.

Sir, you are a prize, a special, very special person. And even though I wasn't trying to expose your lack of understanding, you guided yourself right down that path of ignorance and stupidity by misquoting what I had said.

Have a great week, sir.

Aw, c'mon Bud. Now you're just making stuff up. "Settling" isn't a one sided thing - it's a mutual agreement. One side can't "settle" by itself. That's basic. And the fact that c case settles doesn't mean it's frivolous - on either side. So all we have is your opinion of the merits of this "case." And I have no way of knowing what actually happened in your "scenario" because you made it up and so can change it around as you like.

But one thing comes through loud and clear: You're belligerent, arrogant and insulting. If this story is about you it's not surprising; you paint a picture of someone who made false statements about somebody else which harmed them; got away with it because his lawyers were able to use an entirely legal - but not necessarily admirable - loophole which let you do harmful and unjustifiable things without having to take responsibility for your actions. That's the essence of a First Amendment SLAPP defense: "I said it, it wasn't true, and it harmed people, but because of the First Amendment I can't be sued for doing that."

So after having your lawyers successfully defeat a morally just effort to make you take responsibility for your ethical misconduct, you complain vociferously about lawyers and "frivolous" litigation tactics. Pot: meet kettle.

And by the way, the word you're looking for is "drivel", not "dribble." There are free dictionaries online, you don't even have to buy one.

Sir, It's dribble. Like the way you run your mouth (up and down with nothing but saliva coming out). Hey look, it's been fun. But unfortunately you do not have the capacity for reason. You lie, get things mixed up and determine what has happened without knowing the facts.

Your use of sophism to deceive and deflect is, well, terrible. But then again, sophist argue for the very sake of arguing without ever developing anything concrete.

Hopefully, the poison from your pen will dry in time for you to write your next rant.

Until then, just calm down sir.

Like I said, Bud: you are belligerent, arrogant and insulting. I find it interesting that you hide behind name-calling instead of stating things forthrightly. When I exposed your "factual sources" as things which did not actually support your claims you responded with schoolyard-level taunts. You accused me of lying when I exposed the fundamental lack of rationality behind your claims, and hurled insults when I didn't just politely nod and turn the subject to other matters when you prattled on with your drivel. You don't like being forthrightly challenged, do you?

And yes: the word is "drivel" - that's the fundamental nature of your glossolalia: childish babbling.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Poor Bud. He's trying so hard to be lucid. He really is. But, those darn voices in his head just won't shut up.

Huh? and Dave are the same. LOL!!!!

@bud: the jury of public opinion finds you guilty of making frivolous claims from baseless propaganda. You have been shown to have badly misused evidence, to which you reply that GOP lawmakers do it, too? Not very persuasive. Then you resort to trust-me argument ("I know more than you think") and finally to derisive personal attacks and LOLs, which are clear evidence of desperation -- that you have nothing substantive to add.

The frivolous lawsuit myth is based on political opportunism by those who know that lawyers are unpopular. Here's just a bit of evidence, from the Vanderbilt Law Review: Web Link

"Academics who write about frivolous lawsuits generally concede that
there is no evidence indicating they are a serious problem.
Furthermore, most judges believe that frivolous lawsuits are a minor
problem, according to a recent survey by the Federal Judicial Center.FN46

FN46. DAVID RAUMA & THOMAS E. WILLGING, REPORT OF A SURVEY OF UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGES’ EXPERIENCES AND VIEWS CONCERNING RULE 11, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER 3 (2005) (finding that 85 percent of judges view frivolous
lawsuits as either “no problem,” a “very small problem,” or a “small problem”). "

You may respond "Academics and judges?! What do THEY know? LOL." But most folks would disagree with you. You are sentenced to give it a rest.

@Ghost. You're wrong sir. Frivolous lawsuits are a problem. Of course the Vanderbilt Law Review is going to say frivolous lawsuits are not a problem; they are lawyers sir. Look, I know it's hard for you to accept something you feel uncomfortable with. I get that. Thinking outside the box is very difficult for some folks. Just ask Huh? LOL!

Your problem is that you want to believe only what you want to believe. Law schools turn out over paid representatives (lawyers) who are going to do anything they can to make a buck. Gloria Allred come to mind? Hmm? The whole thing is a racket. Read Fred Rodell's book about "The Law."

Educate yourself sir. For the truth shall set you free! LOL!!!

Oh, btw... Keep in mind that I'm talking about the civil side of law, not criminal justice. For if I was to committ a crime in any part of the world, I would most certainly want to be tried in an American courtroom.

If facts aren't persuasive to you, then I won't further trouble your uninformed preconceptions with them. The law is a racket because you read it in a book.

I would feel better about this whole thread if you added your view that elections are a racket, so you don't bother to vote.

LOL!

Hey so this OG Rick. Haven't chimed in for some time. I just wanna say I like our public school system for the most part in this area. These thugs who did this should've been beaten by all the people living in this area. We gotta keep our eyes out. If I heard noise like they were making I'd take a look. If I saw them beating a man I would round up the posse and break them down. Let them fear suburban dads

@>Ghost of learned nothing. Civil law is a racket because people like you allow it to prosper, sir. Fortunately, people are starting to wake up from this disaster.

Europe has got the civil side of law down pat. You want to sue somebody, fine. But you better be aware that if you lose your case, you will have to pay all of the defendant's attorney fees. And that, my friend, is how law should be practiced in this country.

As it stands now, somebody could sue you and lose, but you most likely would have to pay all of your own attorney fees. How is that fair? I'll say it again, how is that fair? It's not. Why should you have to pay attorney fees to successfully defend yourself from a malicious claim? The only thing that would stop malicious and or frivolous lawsuits is knowing the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant's attorney fees if the plaintiff lost. Why is that so hard to grasp? Seems reasonable to me.

A very bright attorney once told me that if the U.S ever adopted the European way of practicing civil law, most attorneys in this country would be out of business.

Bottom line: Less attorneys = less lawsuits.

Bud's philosophy is pretty straightforward: if a corporation takes your money, poisons your water, damages your health or property, that's your tough luck. You think you have rights you should be able to protect by hiring a lawyer? LOL! Any effort to secure justice by a person with less money or power is, by definition, 'frivolous.'. Ask Bud. He knows. He doesn't need 'facts.'. He isn't interesting in anything that anyone who is actually knowledgeable has to say - he's Bud, the all-knowing.

LOL.

@>Huh? It's kind of hard to present facts when you don't read, bro. You would rather lie and misquote someone to get your point across. Sorry simpleton, things don't work that way in the real world.

Read your leftist garbage and stay happy with your "truth." As for me, no need to make things up. Get a real world experience and then come back and play. Until then, educate yourself and work on your integrity.

Peace.