Reply #277: "...they should pay the penalties just like any other plaintiff...

[one-eyed fat man]

I will assume you are tired and it is late. I believe you meant "defendant" if found liable.

Plaintiff is the one BRINGING the suit, and the system might work a lot better if the Plaintiff did have to pay for a losing suit. Lawyers are hired guns, for every altruistic lawyer defending the little guy against corporate greed there are a dozen dispossessing widows from their homes for back taxes.

All it takes to bring a suit is some "boilerplate" and a filing fee. When you are sued you have to hire an attorney and respond. To ignore it simply because it is too stupid for words risks a court awarding a default judgment. Your neighbor sues you because your house on your lot blocks the sun to his solar panel. You may think that because you are on your lot and meet city codes that he has no squawk, especially if you were there first. But you are in California, where people have been sued, and kept from building homes because it would "spoil the view."

It makes one just about wish formalized dueling were still a legal way to resolve personal disputes. At least, you would either be eminently satisfied by the result, or not in a position to bitch. Of course it might allow those with no prowess with pistol or sword to be bullied by those who are proficient. It would certainly cause a lot of ambulance chasing shysters to be out of work.

When is the last time you have heard of a plaintiff in a lawsuit being required to pay a defendant for his successful defense, barring a counter-suit? As it is now, anyone with sufficient means can hire attorneys to overwhelm an opponent with the cost of litigation. A practice you have yet to disavow when employed against targets you don't like.