Comments on: Insulting Halloween tombstone display

By: LisaMarie

LisaMarie — Sat, 17 May 2008 23:58:33 +0000

Maybe I’m missing something here. The original dispute may have been trivial. It does not, however, seem trivial that you can settle petty disputes with your neighbors by having the cops threaten to arrest them for conduct which is not actually illegal. If there shouldn’t be any legal recourse for this couple, does that suggest that I can get back at any of my neighbors who piss me off by finding a cop who will tell them their actions are breaking the law and they’ll be arrested if they don’t stop, regardless of whether that is in fact true? Doesn’t that raise some serious legal questions?

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Sat, 17 May 2008 14:08:31 +0000

Just so, BladeDoc. That's why I distrust the term "frivolous"; we often see anti-reformers use the word dishonestly, sometimes shifting meaning in the same paragraph. I discuss this June 17.

By: BladeDoc

BladeDoc — Sat, 17 May 2008 13:54:44 +0000

Unfortunately for the argument above the first definition of frivolous in my online dictionary is “Unworthy of serious attention; trivial: a frivolous novel.”

The publicity problem with lawyers in this matter is that by common understanding and “clear English” the lawsuits such as this are in fact frivolous but the legal definition thereof flies in the face of basic understanding. I am cognizant of the legal definition but I (like many non-lawyers) think it’s BS.

By: MF

MF — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:17:51 +0000

Note to David W.: “Sykes” is a ‘she’ – Diane Sykes, one of the names who is so highly respected that her name popped up when we were all discussing who would get the SCOTUS spot that ultimately went to Alito. That’s not to say that her opinions will always be spot-on, but I do believe it lends even that more weight to her position.

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:32:15 +0000

Trivial means trivial, and is orthogonal to the dimension of “frivolous/not-frivolous” in the technical legal sense of “frivolous.” If you want to criticize Judge Sykes because you have private meanings for common English words and legal terminology and she’s not honoring your secret definitions, that’s a different issue. (Among other matters, you seem to have a secret definition for the technical legal term “ripe.”) That you don’t begin to see the societal problems with this sort of lawsuit demonstrates that you’re precisely the type of lawyer that Sykes is criticizing for good reason.

By: David Wisniewski

David Wisniewski — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:28:42 +0000

Ted Frank,

While you are correct, Sykes’ opinion did say that it was a “trivial lawsuit” which some read as a code-word for meritless or frivolous. I don’t understand what Sykes is complaining about. It is not for a Judge to say that a lawsuit was “trivial” – either the complaint is frivolous or it isn’t – there is no in-between. What Sykes might think is “trivial”, someone else, such as the Plaintiffs here, think is ripe for adjudication. It seems to me that Sykes is complaining that he had to do the job that he is paid for – to decide the merits of a case. If Sykes thinks that he can’t do that, then perhaps he should find a new line of work.

By: Anonymous Attorney

Anonymous Attorney — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:29:04 +0000

We might all agree with Judge Sykes’ comment at the end of the opinion, but it stands in sharp contrast with the message the legal community (the bar, the bench and the academy) constantly drums into our heads: everyone gets their day in court, lawsuits can solve all problems, justice delayed is justice denied, we can’t close the courthouse doors when people are in need, etc. If the legal community finds itself exasperated by endless litigation over small matters, it might look to itself for reasons why. The bench in particular can be faulted: judges through the years have been quicker to take on more and more causes that would have in an earlier time been kicked, usually on “social justice” grounds.

By: trivial tom

trivial tom — Fri, 16 May 2008 07:09:40 +0000

Trivial does not equal frivolous.

If you steal 5 bucks from me it is trivial, suing you for conversion would not be frivolous.

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Fri, 16 May 2008 05:51:19 +0000

David, reread the opinion: Sykes says that the suit isn't "frivolous" in the narrow technical sense of the word.

By: David Wisniewski

David Wisniewski — Fri, 16 May 2008 03:33:00 +0000

Sykes got this one wrong. If this case really was “frivolous”, why wasn’t it disposed of on a summary judgment motion at the trial court? Why didn’t the defendants seek sanctions against the plaintiffs for filing a “frivolous” complaint?

I think this is a classic case of an out-of-control cop trying to impose his will upon others by threatening them with arrest. To quote Cartman, “Respect My Authority!” There was no immediate danger here to anyone. If anything, the neighbor assaulted the person who put up the halloween decorations (who conveniently, wasn’t arrested or charged with assault). Why couldn’t the cop go to the local D.A. and get an legal opinion on the halloween decorations before making up the law himself? I don’t understand why the courts give so much deference to the police and let them get away with things like this.