Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim's Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturer

[phillygirl]

I would like loser pays to apply to the government. If I get audited and I have to defend against a money laundering a tax evasion set of charges I should be compensated for having to pay to mount a defense against those allegations. If it's a simple matter of miscalculation of taxes owed then the case should be presented as such.

But the first thing thrown out by the all-powerful government isn't "we think you owe more than you paid," it's "you are stealing from us and we can put you in jail."

I agree. I also think if you get audited and the government discovers they owe you money (as happened in my case) then the government should pay interest. This happened to me twice. Once by the feds and once by the state. In the state scenario, I had paid the property tax and they sent me my check back. I didn't cash them, I called them because I knew I shouldn't have received the check back. They insisted that I should, so I cashed it, then they sent me a bill for a lesser amount (I had overpaid) and tacked on interest and penalties for failure to pay on time.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Healthcare businesses have reincorporated themselves into GSEs, "non-profits" and "public-private partnerships" and all have sought to get sovereign immunity status. In most cases they have been successful.

If there's an unintended loophole in the law, it should be closed, by the courts if the legislative branch won't act. If it's an intended loophole, it should not only be closed, the people who were paid to put it there should be voted out.

I would like loser pays to apply to the government. If I get audited and I have to defend against a money laundering a tax evasion set of charges I should be compensated for having to pay to mount a defense against those allegations. If it's a simple matter of miscalculation of taxes owed then the case should be presented as such.

But the first thing thrown out by the all-powerful government isn't "we think you owe more than you paid," it's "you are stealing from us and we can put you in jail."

I agree. I also think if you get audited and the government discovers they owe you money (as happened in my case) then the government should pay interest. This happened to me twice. Once by the feds and once by the state. In the state scenario, I had paid the property tax and they sent me my check back. I didn't cash them, I called them because I knew I shouldn't have received the check back. They insisted that I should, so I cashed it, then they sent me a bill for a lesser amount (I had overpaid) and tacked on interest and penalties for failure to pay on time.

Taxing agencies have always had a strong tendency to overreach. As we all know, that's one of the reasons the US came to exist. I heartily agree that our taxing agencies need to be reined in. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should throw the entire concept of sovereign immunity out. If people think there are frivolous lawsuits now, let's do away with constraints on suing government entities and watch what happens.

Lest anyone think that I am an innocent in all this, I have twice been reported to the Bar by shoplifters who resented me representing the client retailer seeking to collect civil damages from the shoplifter (the shoplifters both alleged i tried to "extort" them) and once sued by an employee who stole from his employer (my client) for, among other things, the "emotional distress" it caused him when I sent him a letter requesting he repay the former employer. IOW, I'm well aware that frivolous lawsuits are a hardship. I don't feel the answer is to grant lawyers status as a class protected from lawsuits, because we all know there ARE lawyers who commit malpractice, ethical violations and other acts for which they rightly should be called to account under law.

If we need to add or strengthen penalties for frivolous and/or vexatious litigants (and their attorneys), let's do that. Immunizing a single class of manufacturer or retailer is throwing the baby out with the bath.

[phillygirl]

If there's an unintended loophole in the law, it should be closed, by the courts if the legislative branch won't act. If it's an intended loophole, it should not only be closed, the people who were paid to put it there should be voted out.





Taxing agencies have always had a strong tendency to overreach. As we all know, that's one of the reasons the US came to exist. I heartily agree that our taxing agencies need to be reined in. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should throw the entire concept of sovereign immunity out. If people think there are frivolous lawsuits now, let's do away with constraints on suing government entities and watch what happens.

Lest anyone think that I am an innocent in all this, I have twice been reported to the Bar by shoplifters who resented me representing the client retailer seeking to collect civil damages from the shoplifter (the shoplifters both alleged i tried to "extort" them) and once sued by an employee who stole from his employer (my client) for, among other things, the "emotional distress" it caused him when I sent him a letter requesting he repay the former employer. IOW, I'm well aware that frivolous lawsuits are a hardship. I don't feel the answer is to grant lawyers status as a class protected from lawsuits, because we all know there ARE lawyers who commit malpractice, ethical violations and other acts for which they rightly should be called to account under law.

If we need to add or strengthen penalties for frivolous and/or vexatious litigants (and their attorneys), let's do that. Immunizing a single class of manufacturer or retailer is throwing the baby out with the bath.

I agree that we shouldn't immunize them. However, a loser pays standard certainly limits the frivolous suits.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I agree that we shouldn't immunize them. However, a loser pays standard certainly limits the frivolous suits.

An absolute loser pays system also limits legitimate suits. How would anyone have been able to afford to keep bringing civil rights suits until the Supremes got it right if we had had a loser pays system in place at the time of Plessy?

In CA worker's comp, there's a modified loser pays provision in appellate cases that could be adapted for use in general civil litigation. The usual rule in comp is that the claimant (plaintiff in the civil arena) has his attorney's fees deducted from his disability award, basically a contingent-fee system. However, comp is basically a no-fault benefit delivery system, so there is a need to penalize frivolous defenses (intended merely to delay the payment of benefits) as well as frivolous claims. When a case is appealed by the employer or insurance carrier on frivolous grounds, the court may require the appellant to pay the injured worker's appellate attorneys fees on top of whatever benefits the court awards the worker. There are also statutory penalties for either party AND/OR THE ATTORNEY raising frivolous or spurious issues just to delay litigation.

Every state has some variation of the following:

Rule 3-200 Prohibited Objectives of Employment

A member shall not seek, accept, or continue employment if the member knows or should know that the objective of such employment is:

(A) To bring an action, conduct a defense, assert a position in litigation, or take an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or

(B) To present a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of such existing law.

Where plaintiffs and lawyers bring suits that conform to ethical canons, there should be no penalty for losing. Where they bring frivolous lawsuits, the court should make a finding that the suit or appeal of a lower court decision was frivolous, and have the discretion to award the prevailing party reasonable fees to be paid by the loser.