An example of the US legal system being in the crapper

[Ed]

From slashdot, today
chongo writes "Orbital Development has filed legal action against the United States by filing a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in Federal Court. After NASA's NEAR probe landed on the asteroid 433 Eros, Gregory W. Nemitz, who claims to have owned the asteroid since the 3rd of March 2000, sent NASA an $20 invoice for the first 100 years of parking and storage fees. NASA told him to "pound sand". OrbDev's Eros Project seeks to promote their ludicrous ideas about property rights in space." "

Now, I would like a good reason, not a legal one, a good one, why this guy was not taken out to the back and throughly beaten.

He is paying lawyers, we, you and me, are paying government lawyers to handle this crap. We are paying for the court time and the Judge.

[Tmy]

The calim can be dismissed at the first hearing, and theres the possibility of getting legal fees or sanctions for frivorlous claims.

I dont see what else you would want. Do you want some office clerk at the courthouse to rule on the merits of a case when you hand over your complaint to be filed???

[Agammamon]

Now I'm all for property rights in space but correct me if I'm wrong, in order to claim a bit of land don't you traditionally have to step foot on it? To somehow take physical possesion? I'd be willing to bet ( a large sum of money) that this guy hasn't. As a matter of fact NASA, by virtue of landing a probe on it, has a better claim to possession.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tmy
The calim can be dismissed at the first hearing, and theres the possibility of getting legal fees or sanctions for frivorlous claims.

I dont see what else you would want. Do you want some office clerk at the courthouse to rule on the merits of a case when you hand over your complaint to be filed???

That's basically it. At some point there has to be someone denying a legal claim for it to be denied. I'm all for sanctions for silly claims, but barring access to the courts just raises more issues than it solves.

So I guess rather than "taking him out back and beating him" we should make him pay for the costs of his action if it is deemed frivolous. If he persists then stronger action can be taken; some federal courts will goso far to bar a person from filing claims in a particular district.

[Michael Redman]

I doubt any lawyer is working on his behalf in this matter. It soulds like the the typical pro se nutjob.

[Scoobmaster]

I am still of the opinion that they only solution to end the tide of endless lawsuits is some type of "loser pays" system. Until there is *SOME* penalty/responsibilty placed on those who take cases without merit into the legal system for the express purpose of "digging for gold" they will continue to take resources away from cases that ARE warranted.

(Don't even get me STARTED on some of these idiot jurors that award people millions for damages caused by their own stupidity!!!!!)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Suddenly


That's basically it. At some point there has to be someone denying a legal claim for it to be denied. I'm all for sanctions for silly claims, but barring access to the courts just raises more issues than it solves.



Have you ever heard of anyone being sanctioned for a silly claim? I know that the mechanism exists but, is it ever used? This is sort of like doctors policing themselves, it just does not happen.

[Skeptic]

I dunno...

If he was REALLY a nutjob, he would send NASA a "bill" for $20,000,000 for the next 100 years, not for $20. His goal seems to be different: either it's a tongue-in-cheek private joke, or he hoped that NASA would just pay him the lousy $20 instead of bothering with the courts at all, which he could then use to convince others that his asteroid-selling scam is "legtimiate" and "approved by NASA".

As for "loser pays" system, that has significant risks. It means that farmer Bob will be VERY scared to sue GE (say) for selling him a defective toaster which electrocuted him, because GM will use tons of high-power, expensive lawyers... and if he loses, he'll go bankrupt because he'd have to pay GE's fees. This would make many people very reluctant to sue even when they DO have very good cause.

What the system really needs is a "loser who files FRIVOLOUS lawsuits pays", which already exists, but is not enforced nearly enough. Judges can sanction the plaintff (and lawyer who represents him) with damages, make them pay court costs, etc., and they often do. For example, the idiot "tax protestor" movement keep filing lawsuits asking the government to "prove" the income tax is legal... and keep get it dismissed as frivolous where they have to pay punitive damages. Of course, that's all part of the "evil conspiracy to hide the truth"...

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Scoobmaster
I am still of the opinion that they only solution to end the tide of endless lawsuits is some type of "loser pays" system.

Then you get a "Open for rich and poor alike, just like the Ritz" judical system where only people who are rich enough to afford to pay in case they lose the case will be able to risk taking a case to court.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Scoobmaster
I am still of the opinion that they only solution to end the tide of endless lawsuits is some type of "loser pays" system. Until there is *SOME* penalty/responsibilty placed on those who take cases without merit into the legal system for the express purpose of "digging for gold" they will continue to take resources away from cases that ARE warranted.

(Don't even get me STARTED on some of these idiot jurors that award people millions for damages caused by their own stupidity!!!!!)

As far as I know, here in Germany the system is "loser pays court costs", not the costs for the oppositions´ lawyers. That seems to be fair to me.

Oh, and around here, damages are only the actual material and financial damages incurred, plus five-digit sums, at most, for injuries.
I worked for a liability insurance company, and my co-workers´ unanimous opinion was that punitive damages are an abomination before common sense.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ed


Have you ever heard of anyone being sanctioned for a silly claim? I know that the mechanism exists but, is it ever used? This is sort of like doctors policing themselves, it just does not happen.

Yes.

It happens all the time, just not in cases that get hyped in the press. For a case to deserve sanction it has to be pretty clearly frivoulous.

In this case it all depends on what evidence the plaintiff has that he "owns" the asteroid and the circumstances surrounding the suit.

In the same vein, the rule allowing for sanction of frivolous civil claims also (usually - depends on jurisdiction) allows for sanctions for a frivolous defense. Situations like a car crash, where liability is very clear, but damages are not, an insurance company should be sanctioned for not conceeding liability, but that never happens. (Some states have "bad faith laws" that punish an insurance company for frivolously refusing settle a clear claim, but that's a different type of analysis.)

The reason why it seems the rule is never used is because most reporting of items in civil law is to put it simply, completely misleading. The "McDonalds Coffee Case" is a very good example. The press goes on and on about a million dollars for a little burn, but when the actual facts of the case are examined a different story emerges, one of painful disfiguring third-degree burns, and a corporation despite similar awful injuries in the past that kept acting in a way certain continue causing these injuries. Maybe the damages award was a bit high for some tastes, but it was hardly a frivolous claim.

Real frivolous claims are the prisoner that files a suit every day for 10 million dollars because his breakfast wasn't warm enough. These get sanctioned. However, for whatever reasons, cases generally get shown by the media in the most rediculous light possible, often leaving out some key facts and distorting others. A court must struggle with the real world problems of weighing the need to sanction the jerks but not refusing consideration to a suit that may seen somehow silly but when considered closely has merit.

Chain e-mails of made up "lists of most frivolous lawsuits" don't help a whole lot either.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Chaos



Oh, and around here, damages are only the actual material and financial damages incurred, plus five-digit sums, at most, for injuries.
I worked for a liability insurance company, and my co-workers´ unanimous opinion was that punitive damages are an abomination before common sense.

Hmmm how do you stop profitable wrongdoing wh/o punative damages. Why would a company recall its explodinbg toasters if its just cheaper to pay outthe fire damage claims that occasionally drop by.

[bozothedeathmachine]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I dunno...
What the system really needs is a "loser who files FRIVOLOUS lawsuits pays", which already exists, but is not enforced nearly enough.

Agreed. There should be some third party to vote on the frivolity of a claim. It would be nice if could be the extention of a jury's scope to deem a case frivilous or not. There would have to be checks put in, but I believe it would get around the fallibility that having a full time Frivolity Council could possibly cause.

[Michael Redman]

If you are really worried about the costs of the justice system, don't fixate on the anecdotal frivolous claims like this, which cost almost nothing to dismiss, but look a the frivolous and abusive actions of parties in real, legitimate cases. As with frivolous claims, there are sanctions that can be imposed for things like discovery abuse (which is almost universal, and dramatically increases the costs of litigation), but judges almost never impose them. Much of the costs incurred in our legal system could be eliminated if the judges would impose the rules strictly against parties. This would also make it easier for small parties to get justice, as they would be able to afford to litigate meritous claims.

It is considered a valid strategy to overwhelm your opponent with the volume of litigation (usually by the money side, obviously), but it is unethical, expensive, and ultimately self defeating. I don't know how to get the judges to do their jobs and punish the wrongdoers, but that's the only way it's going to change.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tmy


Hmmm how do you stop profitable wrongdoing wh/o punative damages. Why would a company recall its explodinbg toasters if its just cheaper to pay outthe fire damage claims that occasionally drop by.

Three things:

First, the company might be made to pay a (big) fine to the state.

Second, the company might be made (by threat of even bigger fines) to stop selling these toasters or to sell safe toasters instead.

Third (though I don´t know if this happens often) the company might eventually be closed down.


And aside from the legal stuff, there is always bad press, especially as long as there are other companies who sell safe toasters.