As Michael Krauss notes, an AP story today rehashes the details of last week’s Flax v. Chrysler case, though it falsely treats Paul Sheridan as a credible witness and doesn’t acknowledge most of Chrysler’s arguments.

It’s worth noting the Jim Butler firm’s description of the case:

The evidence showed the impact was minor. Though Stockell was speeding at the time, the minivan was also moving forward and the change in velocity (Delta V) was only 17 to 20 mph.

To repeat: the plaintiffs’ attorney said that a Delta-V of 17-20 mph is “minor.” I suppose in the astronomical sense that a Delta-V of 17-20 mph wouldn’t escape earth orbit, but it seems fairly major for someone in a heavy minivan. For those of you at home who want to experience what a “minor” Delta-V collision of “only” 17-20 mph feels like, drive into a reinforced brick wall at 17-20 mph with your airbag turned off, but be sure to wear your seat-belt to reduce the chance that you go through your windshield. Another way you can have a Delta-V of 20 mph is if you are dropped about 12-15 feet onto a concrete surface. I sure hope that the trial judge didn’t let Butler lie about physics to the jury like that, but I fear I know the answer.

Perhaps we spoke too soon when we commended the Tennessee appellate court for getting it partially right. As we stated in November 2004:

In 2001, Louis Stockell, driving his pickup at 70 mph, twice the speed limit, rear-ended a Chrysler minivan. Physics being what they are, the front passenger seat in the van collapsed backwards and the passenger’s head struck and fatally injured 8-month old Joshua Flax. The rest of the family walked away from the horrific accident. Plaintiffs’ attorney Jim Butler argued that Chrysler, which already designed its seats above federal standards, should be punished for not making the seats stronger — never mind that a stronger and stiffer seat would result in more injuries from other kinds of crashes because it wouldn’t absorb any energy from the crash. (Rear-end collisions are responsible for only 3% of auto fatalities.) Apparently car companies are expected to anticipate which type of crash a particular vehicle will encounter, and design accordingly. The $105M verdict includes $98M in punitives.

We had more details of trial shenanigans in December 2004 and noted the reduction of the punitives by the trial court to a still unreasonable $20 million in June 2005. In December 2006, the intermediate appellate court threw out the punitive damages and the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, leaving a $5 million compensatory damages verdict to be split between Chrysler and the driver responsible for the accident. An injustice, but at least a smaller injustice.

However, today, a 3-2 vote of the Tennessee Supreme Court made it a larger injustice again, reinstating $13,367,345 of punitive damages over a good-faith dispute over appropriate seatback design, giving no credit to evidence that the design in the Caravan was safer than the plaintiffs’ proposed design, and effectively disregarding Tennessee statutory law that compliance with federal standards creates a presumption against punitive damages. The Court did not mention Exxon Shipping’s suggestion that punitive damages greater than a 1:1 ratio were possibly constitutionally inappropriate where compensatory damages were substantial and the defendant’s actions were not intentional or done for profit. The Court unanimously affirmed the elimination of the NIED claim; one justice would have thrown out the compensatory damages, as well, because of the volume of inadmissible and improperly prejudicial evidence admitted. (Flax v. Daimler Chrysler (Tenn. Jul. 24, 2008); id. (Wade, J., concurring); id. (Clark, J., partially dissenting); id. (Koch, J., partially dissenting); E. Thomas Wood, “High court upholds $18.4M damage award in DaimlerChrysler case”, Nashville Post, Jul. 24; Kristin M. Hall, AP/Chicago Tribune, Jul. 24). The majority decision relied heavily on the expert testimony of Paul Sheridan, an MBA non-engineer and professional anti-Chrysler witness whom a federal court called “wholly unqualified” to testify on seat back design.

“Memphis Police Director Larry Godwin and the city of Memphis have filed a lawsuit to learn who operates a blog harshly critical of Godwin and his department.” (Amos Maki, Memphis Commercial Appeal, Jul. 22, via Folo). More: Instapundit.

A very belated update to our earlier posts of 2004 and 2005. As we stated in November 2004:

In 2001, Louis Stockell, driving his pickup at 70 mph, twice the speed limit, rear-ended a Chrysler minivan. Physics being what they are, the front passenger seat in the van collapsed backwards and the passenger’s head struck and fatally injured 8-month old Joshua Flax. The rest of the family walked away from the horrific accident. Plaintiffs’ attorney Jim Butler argued that Chrysler, which already designed its seats above federal standards, should be punished for not making the seats stronger — never mind that a stronger and stiffer seat would result in more injuries from other kinds of crashes because it wouldn’t absorb any energy from the crash. (Rear-end collisions are responsible for only 3% of auto fatalities.) Apparently car companies are expected to anticipate which type of crash a particular vehicle will encounter, and design accordingly. The $105M verdict includes $98M in punitives.

We had more details of trial shenanigans in December 2004 and noted the reduction of the punitives by the trial court to a still unreasonable $20 million in June 2005. And now the rest of the story:

Continue Reading »

• Speaking of patients who act against medical advice and sue anyway: doctor who advised against home birth is cleared by Ohio jury in $13 million suit [Plain Dealer and earlier via KevinMD]
• UK: “A feud over a 4ft-wide strip of land has seen neighbours rack up £300,000 in lawyers’ bills, and left one family effectively homeless.” [Telegraph]
• Last of the Scruggs judicial bribery defendants without a plea deal, Dickie’s son Zack, takes one [Folo]
• By reader acclaim: securities trader sues over injury from lap dancer’s attentions [AP/NY Sun]
• Amid the talk of FISA and retroactive telecom immunity, it would be nice to hear more about the actual lawsuits [Obbie]
• Australian worker loses suit over firing despite a doctor’s note vouching that stress of worrying about upcoming football game made it medically necessary for him to take day off to go see it [Stumblng Tumblr]
• Megan McArdle and Tyler Cowen toss around the question of federal FDA pre-emption of drug liability suits, as raised by Medtronic;
• Should Coughlin Stoia have bought those stolen Coke documents? For one lawprof, question’s a real head-scratcher [David McGowan (San Diego), Legal Ethics Forum] And WSJ news side is oddly unskeptical of trial lawyers’ line that the affair just proves their power to go on fishing expeditions should never have been curtailed [Jones/Slater]
• Dashboard-cam caught Tennessee cops red-handed planting marijuana on suspect, or so Jonathan Turley suggests — but could it be a little more complicated than that? [WSMV, AP/WATE] (& Greenfield)
• “Heck Baptists don’t even sue you for disagreeing with them,” though no doubt there are exceptions [Instapundit; NYT on Danish cartoons; Ezra Levant with more on those Canadian speech tribunals]
• Bestselling authors who sue their critics [four years ago on Overlawyered]

According to a lawsuit filed by Chase, two Coral Springs attorneys are scamming their clients by promising to eliminate their debts, and then diverting debt payments for legal fees to file meritless lawsuits challenging credit card debts. The attorneys general of Florida, North Carolina, and West Virginia are also involved, and the Florida bar has moved to suspend the license of Laura Hess. “Defendants’ ulterior goals are to extract fees from card members who should be paying the money to Chase to satisfy their debts and to maliciously harass Chase in an improper (albeit unsuccessful) attempt to coerce the elimination of their clients’ legitimate debts.” (Bud Newman, “Chase Bank Accuses Florida Law Firms of Running Debt-Relief Scam”, Daily Business Review, Mar. 6).

Update: See also Mar. 6 Business Week; on-line at the self-reported Rip-Off Report; and WATE (Tennessee), Apr. 2. “‘The programs typically require financially strapped consumers to pay fees up front, so they make money whether or not any useful services are performed,’ says Philip Lehman, an assistant attorney general in North Carolina.”

As a Tennessee appellate court noted in rejecting Joan Frye’s lawsuit against her hospital employer, “[T]he fact that a supervisor is mean, hard to get along with, overbearing, bellig­erent or otherwise hostile and abusive does not violate civil rights statutes.” Some legislators are trying to change that (excited in part by Suffolk Law Professor David Yamada’s theory of making “bullying” actionable). The ABA Journal is the latest to note the trend. (The article unfortunately repeats the false smear against my colleague John Bolton.) As we noted last May,

Enactments of this sort could result in a large new volume of litigation; the ample scope for differences of opinion about what constitutes hurtful sarcasm or a humiliating memo style could turn the courts into ongoing “superpersonnel departments” dispensing financial balm for injured feelings in the workplace.

Employment attorney Richard Block is more blunt in the ABA Journal: “You’re talking about a lifetime annuity of work for employment lawyers.” Bills are pending in thirteen states.

As one of our reader/informants sums up this litigation against a Kentucky surgeon filed by (and backfiring against) a Tennessee attorney: “Plaintiff lawyer (who is a JD/MD) gets sued by both his plaintiff client and the defendant doctor and he loses to both.” (Andrew Wolfson, “Attorney is loser in malpractice lawsuit”, Louisville Courier-Journal, Nov. 28; Childs, Dec. 27). More on countersuits by doctors: Point of Law, Dec. 20.

Yes, it seems there were wiretaps. Defendants will be seeing evidence from the prosecution momentarily which might (or might not) be the trigger for further flipping and early plea deals, if such there will be.

There is enormous curiosity (e.g.) about P.L. Blake, to whom Scruggs says he paid $10 million (and tens of millions more in future payments) for vaguely described intelligence services aimed at swaying political influentials during the tobacco caper. Per a 1997 account posted at Y’All Politics, “Blake pleaded ‘no contest’ in 1988 to a federal charge that he conspired to bribe officials of the now-defunct Mississippi Bank to secure favorable loan terms.” The same article, citing reporting in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, reports that Blake was in close phone contact between 1994 and 1996 with eventually-disgraced state Auditor Steve Patterson, who after leaving office went into partnership with Timothy Balducci and is one of the five indicted in the current Scruggs affair. Per AP, “Patterson was a banker at Mississippi Bank before his 1984-1987 tenure as head of the Mississippi Democratic Party.”

David Rossmiller, as so often, is out front with a report filling in background on two other controversies involving Blake. One arose from a venture into the grain storage business which landed him in a Texas dispute in which his attorney was none other than Fred Thompson, later a Tennessee senator and presidential candidate. The other arose from his cordial dealings with a former chief of staff to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Mississippi).

Harper’s blogger Scott Horton has now published his take, as is his wont heavily dependent on hush-hush (but no doubt wholly trustworthy) confidential sources who float all sorts of theories about scoundrelly doings by the highly placed. He winds up with a theory that would pull Sen. Lott into it (though with no allegation of criminality) by way of the Acker contempt matter, as distinct from either the Balducci/Lackey bribery attempt or, say, the Paul Minor affair. Of Horton’s many anonymously sourced speculations, the one that caught my eye was tucked into a footnote: “A law enforcement official I interviewed, who for professional reasons asked to remain anonymous, told me that Scruggs’s junior partner Sidney Backstrom might take the same road as Balducci.” Now that is news a rumor (more). (Update Tues. evening: Backstrom’s attorney Frank Trapp flatly denies that anything of the sort is in the works: Patsy R. Brumfield, “Backstrom firm on innocence, his attorney says”, Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, Dec. 12.)

This is probably a good place to apprise readers who aren’t aware of it that 25-odd years ago, while first gaining a footing in the policy world, I worked briefly on Capitol Hill drafting research papers for a committee then headed by Mr. Lott. We only talked a couple of times, I had never set foot in the state of Mississippi at the time, and I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t recognize me on the street, but if you’re a conspiracy theorist about such matters, there you have it.

At Y’All Politics, commenter “lawdoctor1960″ has some speculation as to why the remarkable deposition of Scruggs in the Luckey case didn’t get more media or political attention at the time.

Welcome Andrew Sullivan, David Rossmiller, Y’All Politics readers.

Attorney Tim Balducci’s role as deputized lawyer for the state of Mississippi in the MCI and Zyprexa cases is drawing public scrutiny, and may result in pressure for reform of AG outside contracting.

We’ve started a new “Scandals” category for readers who want quick access to coverage of the Mississippi mess, also stocked with some earlier links to coverage of such earlier blow-ups as Milberg Weiss/Lerach, Kentucky fen-phen, the Paul Minor affair, etc. For those who are following Scruggs posts in sequence, be aware that yesterday’s first and second posts fell outside the numbering scheme.

William K. Mattar, 43, of Buffalo “has built a substantial auto-injury practice through the estimated $2 million he spends each year on ads produced by CJ Advertising in Nashville, Tenn.” Now three lawyers who worked for Mattar have quit in acrimonious circumstances, providing a look inside the firm’s workings. Joseph Bergen said Mattar had admitted never having tried a case and had never taken a client deposition in the nine years Bergen had worked with the firm. As business poured in from TV viewers, the lawyers say, Mattar stopped using his staff lawyers to screen the cases for likely merit, instead devolving that task on a call center in Tennessee. Meanwhile, the staff lawyers’ caseloads swelled to more than 200 cases apiece, along with which came “increased pressure from Mattar to settle a minimum of two to three cases a week each,” whether or not the lawyers felt the cases were in an appropriate posture to settle. The three are setting up their own personal-injury firm, and Mattar depicts them as disgruntled employees who are misleading clients in hopes of taking away business from him. (Michael Beebe, “Mattar’s 3 trial lawyers quit”, Buffalo News, Oct. 25; “Mattar says lawyers conspired to steal clients”, Nov. 1; Martha Neil, “Former PI Colleagues Now Battling in Buffalo”, ABA Journal, Nov. 1). For some reason the Buffalo-Rochester area has generated a steady stream of colorful stories about law firms with saturation TV-ad budgets, sometimes coupled with factory-line methods; see our earlier coverage of Cellino & Barnes/The Barnes Firm and the now-retired Jim (”The Hammer”) Shapiro, of “hand you their severed heads” fame, who conceded in a deposition that he had never tried a case.

Power tools manufacturer Black & Decker Corp. rejected Victor Breehne for a ”highly wrist-sensitive job” at a Tennessee plant after medical tests suggested that Breehne was vulnerable to carpal-tunnel syndrome. Now he’s suing, charging that the rejection violates the Americans with Disabilities Act:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has challenged the use of such tests, which aren’t uncommon in manufacturing settings, on ADA grounds. But it lost a federal lawsuit in 2001 against Rockwell Automation Inc. after that company denied jobs to 72 applicants at an Illinois plant.

(Allison Connolly, “B&D sued after it rescinds job offer”, Baltimore Sun, Oct. 16; “Man sues after job offer rescinded over carpal tunnel test”, Reliable Plant, Oct. 17). For the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Echabazal v. Chevron, in which the Court (over vociferous protests from some disabled-rights advocates) unanimously ruled that an employer was not obliged to hire a disabled applicant who was at greater risk of injury and death than other workers, see Mar. 1-3, 2002 and links from there.

• Louisiana attorney general Foti, under fire over his attempt to prosecute Dr. Anna Pou in Katrina deaths, faces tough re-election challenge [Times-Picayune, Lafayette Advertiser; earlier]
• Classic “Hershey’s liable to obese Americans” print satire now has a short audio version [Onion radio]
• Criticize alternative medicine at your peril? U.K. libel law helps stifle an opponent of homeopathy [Orac]
• Tennessee trial lawyers’ lobbyist comes under harsh public spotlight following lurid crackup of House Judiciary chair Rob Briley [Nashville Scene; earlier]
• Invoking CAFA, judge throws out coupon settlement in Sharper Image air purifier class action [Krauss @ Point of Law]
• In 4-4 split, Supreme Court lets stand a ruling that NYC must pay private school tuition for Hollywood exec’s ADHD son though he wouldn’t give city program a try; issue likely to return soon [NYTimes; earlier]
• Veteran journalists Patrick Dillon and Carl Cannon ink deal for book on rise and fall of Lerach tentatively titled Circle of Greed [WSJ law blog]
• Unforeseen consequences dept.: plan for retirement community catering to gays may be derailed by workings of antidiscrimination law [Miller, Independent Gay Forum]
• HIPAA an impediment to doctor-patient emails? [CareCure Forums via KevinMD]
• Update on fraudulent liens filed by prison inmates to harass court personnel (Mar. 31, 2004): system strikes back with extra 20-year term for one offender [Texas Lawyer]
• EEOC says Massachusetts employer must accommodate eyebrow-ring-wearing employee who claims membership in “Church of Body Modification” [five years ago on Overlawyered]

Gruesome life-changing injuries from tug-of-war matches (e.g., Colorado, Oct. 12; North Carolina, 2003; Taiwan, 1997; Tennessee, 1995) are rare, but not unheard of. Safety measures on tug-of-war ropes are possible. Do everyday ropes, used for a variety of purposes other than tug-of-war, need warning labels? Do previous injuries put the Colorado school district on notice: i.e., does a single publicized injury now make every school district effectively strictly liable if future injuries occur? What happens when tug-warriors disregard safety rules because the obvious risk of wrapping rope around a body part is not clearly spelled out? (Keep in mind in the Stella Liebeck McDonald’s coffee case, the plaintiffs complained that the coffee-cup warning that the beverage was hot wasn’t clear enough about the risk of injury.)

Tennessee state representative Rob Briley chaired the Judiciary Committee in the state House, and also held a seat on a study committee “assigned to recommend changes in the state’s DUI laws.” So you might regard it as unseemly of him, after having smashed his vehicle into a pickup truck on the afternoon of Sept. 8, to have led police on a 100-mph chase in Wilson and DeKalb counties. The chase culminated in his being apprehended and charged with offenses that included drunken driving, evading arrest, and vandalism. The vandalism consisted of doing “about $1,000 worth of damage to the patrol car by kicking and punching the back door and window”, according to police, who say they found an empty bottle of bourbon and several bottles of prescription meds in Briley’s SUV.

What raised some eyebrows around the state is that when officers at the Wilson County Jail had him fill out a form listing a “next of kin” or other person he wanted contacted, Briley, who is going through a divorce, named Mary Littleton, lead lobbyist for the Tennessee Association for Justice, formerly known as the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association. His explanation later was that Ms. Littleton was a logical person to name since she knew a lot of lawyers and he was going to need a lawyer. Briley has now resigned his Judiciary chairmanship as well as the seat on the DUI commission, and says he’s in rehab. Indeed, he claims he was headed for a rehab center on the afternoon in question — so eager to get there, perhaps, that 100 mph seemed only reasonable. He has now retained Ms. Littleton, who describes herself as a long-term friend, and two other attorneys to represent him. (Eric Schelzig, “Video shows Rep. Briley berating police, sobbing”, AP/Ashland City Times, Sept. 12; Kleinheider blog, WKRN, Sept. 13; Sheila Wissner, “Briley listed lobbyist as contact after DUI arrest; has no memory of chase”, The Tennessean, Sept. 13; Michael Silence, Sept. 13; Tom Humphrey, “Rep. Briley steps down from chairman position”, Knoxville News-Sentinel, Sept. 15; Sheila Wissner and Sheila Burke, “Arrest report says Briley had been committed”, Ashland City Times, Sept. 15).

The Tennessee Supreme Court confirms that lawyers in that state may publish potentially defamatory material outside the courtroom provided they are acting in quest of an “identifiable prospective client”. The case was filed by a screw maker against a law firm whose client-trolling website had asserted that the company’s deck screws were “defectively manufactured”. Without determining whether the phrase was defamatory, the court ruled that even if it was, the manufacturer would be afforded no legal remedy. (Day on Torts, Aug. 21; Simpson Strong-Tie Company v. Stewart, Estes, & Donnell, Aug. 20 (PDF)).

We often talk about lawyers manufacturing clients in the class action context, but how about creating an entirely new class of clients? Some European activists are embarking on that path, taking their case through the European courts:

In some ways, Hiasl is like any other Viennese: He indulges a weakness for pastry, likes to paint and enjoys chilling out watching TV. But he doesn’t care for coffee, and he isn’t actually a person — at least not yet.

In a case that could set a global legal precedent for granting basic rights to apes, animal rights advocates are seeking to get the 26-year-old male chimpanzee legally declared a “person.”

Hiasl’s supporters argue he needs that status to become a legal entity that can receive donations and get a guardian to look out for his interests.

“Our main argument is that Hiasl is a person and has basic legal rights,” said Eberhart Theuer, a lawyer leading the challenge on behalf of the Association Against Animal Factories, a Vienna animal rights group.

So far, they haven’t had any luck, but they plan to appeal to higher courts, including “the European Court of Human [sic] Rights, if necessary.” The article notes that not all animal rights activists are supportive, including one “who worries that chimpanzees could gain broader rights, such as copyright protections on their photographs.”

But, surprisingly, Americans may already be ahead of them. It’s not unusual for a family fighting over an estate to fight over the family pets as vehemently as they fight over any other piece of property. But what is unusual is giving the pet a say in the matter, as in a Tennessee case decided this week:

A dogfight over Alex the Golden Retriever was resolved by agreement Monday in Probate Court.

[...]

The agreement, which was approved by Judge Karen Webster, adopted the recommendations of attorney Paul Royal, who was appointed by the court as guardian ad litem to represent Alex’s interests.

Guardians ad litem commonly are appointed to represent minor children or incapacitated adults in court proceedings, but legal observers cannot recall another local case in which one was appointed to represent a dog.

See? Lawyers will never exhaust the supply of clients, because we can always creatively come up with new sources. (And if we run out of pets, we can always adopt the idea first proposed by environmentalists in the 1970s, to allow lawyers to represent trees.)

Under Tennessee v. Lane, the ADA does not apply to states unless the states waive their sovereign immunity and permit the federal cases to proceed in state court. Attorney General Greg Abbott of Texas (coincidentally enough wheelchair-bound himself), has exercised that sovereign immunity in ADA suits, and there is a movement for the legislature to repeal the immunity. I think the voters of a state can rationally decide whether they want to allow the disabled residents of the state to be able to sue the state and its agencies for alleged discrimination against the disabled; it’s a conscious decision whether the value of that access is worth the expense to taxpayers. (Of course, the ADA is poorly drafted enough that the consequences can be silly from time to time, but that’s a different issue.)

But it doesn’t seem sporting in arguing for the change to claim that such a waiver will have “no fiscal impact” on the state, as Dennis Borel and Bruce Todd argue in an Austin American-Statesman op-ed seeking a waiver in Texas. Even one suit would cost the state money that it could spend on disciplining lawyers or speeding up the licensing of doctors wishing to practice in Texas. If there’s no money to be had from state coffers by making suits available, why the need to make suits available? One would have more respect for proponents if they were forthright in telling voters how much in taxpayer dollars they want to spend annually to achieve their goals. And since Texas does have sovereign immunity from the ADA, it is under no obligation to make a full waiver: it could choose to create some rights to suit, but not others, and thus avoid the worst abuses of the Act, a possibility that does not even seem to be under consideration.

Separately in the implausible claims department: a page on the DOJ site, much repeated elsewhere, claims that there have been only 650 ADA suits in five years. Given that there are filing mills that come close to hitting that total by themselves, this seems extraordinarily unlikely.

A frolic and detour over at Bizarro-Overlawyered led me to this post over at The Tortellini, which parrots the common trial lawyer argument that there’s no need for tort reform because courts currently have the power to sanction frivolous lawsuits. But the example cited actually demonstrates exactly the opposite: current procedures are insufficient for preventing frivolous litigation.

In 2004, an Ohio resident named Thomas Starks arrived at an Econo Lodge in Tennessee at 4:40 AM. He spent a few hours relaxing, and then went to sleep at 7:30 AM. A few hours later the hotel called to wake him up, saying that he had missed the 11:00 AM checkout time. I guess he was cranky from lack of sleep, because he insisted that he hadn’t stayed for a full day and therefore shouldn’t have to pay the full day’s room rental rate of $46. Eventually, he paid up and left.

The horrible treatment by the hotel in forcing him to actually pay for his room led, as you can probably guess, to a lawsuit (filed pro se) against Econo Lodge and Choice Hotels — but, for some reason, not the operators of the Econo Lodge franchise in question. Starks demanded a $46 refund, $750,000 in damages, and a lifetime pass to stay free at Econo Lodge (I’m not making this up. If you can figure out why someone with $750,000 would stay at an Econo Lodge, let me know.)

The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed; for the many reasons explained by the court (PDF of opinion):

But Starks proceeded to sue the wrong people, in the wrong place, for a wrong wrong: (1) it wasn’t a wrong, (2) Hamilton County, Ohio, was not the right place, and (3) and even if there were a wrong, it wasn’t committed by these defendants.

Indeed, the court found this suit so flagrantly frivolous that it assessed sanctions of $2,500 against Mr. Starks. So what’s the problem? Well, perhaps it might be clearer if I point out that the above quote is actually from the appellate court. That’s right: Mr. Starks filed this suit, had it dismissed, and then had the nerve to appeal the trial court’s ruling. Only at that latter stage of the case were these sanctions — which almost certainly do not come close to compensating the defendants for their legal fees — imposed. (The court left the door open to possibly increasing the sanctions if the attorneys filed additional paperwork, but did not guarantee it; in any case, the judges were skeptical that the defendants would ever be able to collect.) And even so, one of the judges felt the need to apologize for the sanctions: “While the court system must remain open for the redress of a citizen’s perceived injustices, there is a point at which even the most liberal interpretation of personal rights fails in the light of common sense. This is one such case.”

Continue Reading »