Reply #318: So yes, you're arguing for a de facto elimination of the right to sue large corporations

[jgraz]

The court costs canard is another corporate talking point. They know how much they are willing to spend on defense, so the threat of a million-dollar reverse judgment is enough to keep ordinary citizens out of court.

We already have ways to recover court costs. You countersue. Or, you get a law passed where a judge can award court costs + punitive damages if s/he decides the lawsuit is completely without merit. Corporations usually come out against such laws because it prevents them from filing frivolous lawsuits against each other and against ordinary citizens (see SLAPP suits).


What I'm expressly against is a mindless winner-take-all approach to civil suits. You should not be penalized simply for bringing a lawsuit and losing.

You still haven't weighed in on whether or not DELIBERATELY trying to bleed an opponent through sheer weight of the cost of litigation is an ethical practice. Or is the answer to that question dependent on your approval or disapproval of who is being sued?

As a general question, of course I'm against that tactic. But I'm also against using it as an excuse to rob citizens of civil liberties in order to preserve corporate profits. The gunmakers should be made to answer in court for their supply of the black market.

She first achieved nationwide notoriety when a weapon registered in her name was linked to the murder of Judge Harold Haley......it's the same Berkley? In 1972, eighteen months after her capture, she was tried and acquitted of all charges; the mere fact that she owned one of the guns used in the crime was not sufficient to establish her responsibility for the plot. But you argue that the company that made Angela Davis' shotgun is complicit?

And again I have to ask: what in hell are you talking about? (And, it's "Berkeley", not "Berkley" -- as in: the city in Northern California. It's on all the maps)