Sep 102010
http://www.ajc.com/news/lawsuit-fox-theatre-denied-609771.html
Short form: one “Nardin Jihad” wanted to book a concert at the Fox Theater on September 11. Oddly enough, since the Fox Theater was already booked for that date, they decided not to have a Jihad in the theater on September 11. Even more shockingly, Jihad (with partner Basheer Jones… I guess making the duo “Jihad-Jones”) has decided to sue.
8 Responses to “Jihad sues Fox over Sept. 11”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“… Atlanta, the mecca of the civil rights movement…” Does that mean that Mecca is now a mere word that means something like nexus, or does it mean that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has no literate editors?
In any case Jones and Jihad sound like all-American victims: the ones who feel that, if they can’t get what they want when they want it, it’s because of some characteristic of theirs that can be used in a civil rights suit.
Yes, because we all know that a private individual denying you the use of his forum for your speech is a violation of first amendment rights… oh, wait, that’s only if the GOVERNMENT blocks your speech. Too bad libs have yet to learn the difference.
They ought to have guillotines set up for idiots like this. “Frivolous lawsuit? Meet “Mr. Guillotine”.” If not that at least fine them within an inch of their lives- after they’ve paid everybody’s court fees.
I believe I have expounded before on My Answer To The problem Posed By Lawsuits: adopt one bit of British law, but knock it up a notch (Bam!)
The Brits have a “loser pays” system in place for lawsuits. You sue someone and don’t win, then you get to pay *their* lawyers fees. That’s good. But here’s how to take it up a notch: losing *lawyer* pays. The lawyer for the losing side is legally obligated to pay at least 1/2 of the other sides legal fees.
Witha “loser pays” system, any crackpot with no sense of their own worthlessness can in principle file a lawsuit. While the crackpots lawyer might recognize that the case is a loser, he’ll still get paid. And thus the system will still be clogged up with nonsensical suits, because the one guy who knows it’s a firvolous, losing case is still gonna get paid. But if the lawyer knows that he is goign to *lose* money on frivolous lawsuits… there’d be a lot less interest in the legal comm unity to file ’em in the first place.
Another idea: any trial lawyer with a failure rate of more than (handwave) 65% gets disbarred. Any trial lawyer who has more than five losing cases in a row gets disbarred.
Make it 60%, admin. That’s all it takes to pass a class in high school these days. Every time I’ve seen a real court in action, it sounded like a high school lunchroom fight.
Michael Holt wrote:
“… Atlanta, the mecca of the civil rights movement…” Does that mean that Mecca is now a mere word that means something like nexus, or does it mean that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has no literate editors?”
Actually “mecca” (note small “m”) has been used for several decades to mean a “nexus” or a “gathering-place” so the AJ-C is following form in this case. I’ve no doubt though it was probably intentional though :o)
Brianna? It’s NOT just the ‘government’ as you can legally take private individuals (owners, renters, etc) to court over “rights” violations. It’s very rare to WIN however against anyone but the government or the rare individual who takes “discrimination” to extremes. In the cited case the claiments really have no legal chance since the theater was already prior booked.
As a note on the idea of “frivioulous” lawsuits and this one in particular: A trend for the past couple of years, (actually going back almost a decade from what I’ve seen) is that judges who get these cases ARE actually assigning damages to loosers of the court case and that often include the filing attorney! It seems there are BAR regulations that can be invoked for clear efforts to (AIR) “..bring frivoulus and wasteful legal suits that clog and choke the legal system despite it being obvious that the claiment case lacks backing of law, or of legal justification..”
Which leaves the lawyer who files the case open for fines and loss-of-privilage status since it can be shown they didn’t apply the required “due-dilligance” on the claim before filing.
THIS case specifically though I’m pretty sure the entire reason FOR the filing wasn’t to have the case actually make it to court, (the theater being pre-booked makes the claims pretty much dead, legally) but to get the case on the media blotter so that someone would come along and give these guys free press.
Randy
As a note on the concept of “loser-pays” and disbarring “loosing” lawyers:
In most cases the newly-minted lawyer just out of law school and just having passed the BAR are the ones that get the majority of “obviously-lost” cases or frivioulous, and/or “nut-bar” cases assigned to them by those in charge of the firms, or the legal service whatever. The idea is “supposed” to be that it gives them “experiance” with filing, briefs, court procedure, and various and sundry ways the local legal maze is navigated. Pretty much in ‘reality’ its used so that the “higher-ups” don’t have to take an obvious “lost” case or something marginal that might not “look-good” to the customers.
So in the suggested system the majority of those who’d get “canned” in the system are the ones with the least control over their choosen cases in the first place rather than the ones who actually DO the “choosing” of what gets accepted and what doesn’t.
The “other” downside of course is rather obvious in the way the various legal systems of Europe, etc avoid “lost” cases and causes such as questioning the legality of various laws and regulations restricting citizens rights. There is no incentive for bringing legal challenge on issues like confiscation of weapons, search-and-siezure, etc because the likely hood of “winning” a case against the government in court are slim-to-none. Hence it reinforces the idea that you can’t “win” against the government so no one is willing to try.
(Look how often lower courts rule against counter-weapons-laws cases, but higher courts will often overturn the laws or declare portions to be illegal. Now imagine that everyone including the lawyers who bring those cases before the legal system has to pay everytime they lose AND the lawyers are going to be ‘dis-barred” if they keep loosing?)
Randy
No idea is perfect right out the gate. So, some revisions:
1) When the lawyer works for a firm, the firm and/or higher-up decision makers gat the penalties.
2) “Losing-lawyer-pays” does not apply to cases against the government.