Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 11/12/2002 6:25:14 AM EST
I need an authentic legal expert to review the concept I've outlined in this topic: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=112&t=154000&page=1[/url] In brief, the idea here is to drag the Brady Campaign (and possibly other anti-gun groups) into bankruptcy by getting Second Amendment rights supporters to file suit against Brady, et al. for the specific purpose of forcing them to reckon with hundreds, maybe THOUSANDS, of individual lawsuits, and pay an attorney's fee to their attorneys to deal with each one. The idea is simply to bankrupt them with their own lawyers! It isn't even necessary for the plaintiffs to win their suits, though it would of course be icing on the cake. Just so long as Brady has to shell out a few hundred bucks per response. What do you think? Is this a viable tactic? If so, can you provide a template for us that will enable individuals to file a legally acceptable suit ourselves? Thanks, CJ
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 7:16:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/12/2002 7:30:27 AM EST by Aimless]
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 9:50:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/12/2002 9:53:01 AM EST by JonnieGTyler]
But that didn't stop the cities from sueing the makers, did it? [i]Don't you just hate it when you type one simple sentence, and still can't get it right the first time? Okay, that's THREE times, I give up.[BD][/i]
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 10:13:04 AM EST
Originally Posted By Aimless: It is unethical for an attorney to file a lawsuit that had no merit, just to run up the other side's attorney's fees. Before you sue people you are supposed to have some kind of potentially meritorious cause of action. If you did it obviously just to bust chops and run up the other sides attorney's fees the judge could force you to pay their attorney's fees, costs and the Court could fine and sanction you.
View Quote
Well, THAT is most certainly the most common breach of ethics I've ever heard of, then! We well know that frivoluous and unnecessary lawsuits are a SPECIALTY of many lawyers, and of course those are the lawyers that given the honorable profession a bad name. What I propose is that the suits we (I assume I would not be alone) would be filing would actually have some merit to them, and would be fought with genuine intent of winning. But any such suit would be beneficial to our cause as each case would cause a drain on the enemy's funds. Sort of a dual purpose deal, or a no-lose situation. The suit should have some validity, but the fees paid by the other side will hurt them no matter which way it goes. As JonnieGTyler stated, it would be very much like the gun industry lawsuits in some regards. "Bring your enemy to his knees by any means at your disposal. And when he has fallen to his knees, take his head." ---quote attributed to....me.
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 10:26:33 AM EST
Just sue Brady AND the ACLU in a class-action suit. Together, Brady and the ACLU conspired to have your civil liberties weakened. Brady by trying to infringe on your rights, and the ACLU for doing nothing about it. Nuff said? BTW...No matter what you do, GET PUBLICITY FOR THE LAWSUIT.
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 11:34:26 AM EST
If you are serious about this you probably should stop broadcasting your intent to drain funds in this public forum. Your posts would be pretty damning in court.
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 3:20:30 PM EST
Not if the suit is valid in and of itself, it wouldn't be. I would make every effort to put together a suit that has merit in the eyes of the law, should I pursue this. There is no ethical problem in filing a suit that has the dual purpose of damaging the defendant and benefitting the plaintiff. Technically, this is what every suit does, anyway. I would agree that there would be an ethics issue if the purpose was only to cause the defendant to spend money on legal fees, but I make no such claim, as I would have real intent to pursue a valid claim of damages as a consequence of Brady's actions. The fact that even an unsuccessful suit would in and of itself have a desired effect on the defendant is of secondary importance. This is precisely how the lawsuits against the gun industry have usually been constructed, and they were prohibited not because of the intent to cause financial hardship, but because it is not legally acceptable to allow a suit to proceed if it is in regard to the function of a non-defective product that functions as the designer and manufacturer intended. CJ
Top Top