Comments on: Texas considers strong measures against lawsuits intimidating speech

By: PointOfLaw Forum

PointOfLaw Forum — Thu, 19 May 2011 13:09:12 +0000

Rakovsky v. the Internet…

Joseph Rakovsky’s murder-defense mistrial received a great deal of Internet attention when bloggers discussed a Washington Post story detailing the judge’s criticism of Rakovsky’s performance. Now Rakovsky has found an attorney, Richard Borzouye, wi…

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:48:28 +0000

A general principle of “loser pays” would often mean that someone with a better case is sucked dry by someone able to pay a better lawyer.

A specialized “loser pays” could, however, be crafted to uphold certain priorities, eg protection of truthful speech about subjects of public interest.

By: Smart Dude

Smart Dude — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:25:23 +0000

Viva Texas!

ABA’s Model Code of Ethics is an unenforced window dressing by a corrupt trade group.

Loser Pays is the only solution.

By: Jack Olson

Jack Olson — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 15:44:18 +0000

The plaintiff in a SLAPP suit is wealthier than the defendant in nearly every case. His object is not to recover damages, since the vast majority of SLAPP suits are dismissed. Instead, his object is to impose damages on the defendant through abuse of process and the cost of legal defense. Any lawyer who files a SLAPP suit and cannot understand why most Americans despise lawyers are as deluded as the teenage girl who doesn’t know how she got pregnant.

The ABA’s Model Code of Ethics and most state codes forbid a lawyer to file a frivolous lawsuit, which is exactly what a SLAPP suit is. Anti-SLAPP laws would be unnecessary if the lawyers were as interested in their own code of ethics as they are in cashing the plaintiff’s checks.

By: Amy Alkon

Amy Alkon — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:17:29 +0000

Important measure. I had a business in my neighborhood take out a restraining order against me — after I complained, on behalf of my neighborhood, that they were sucking up scarce residential parking instead of using the spaces in their lot.

Eugene Volokh helped me defend myself (gave me his book, “The First Amendment”) and ultimately, the restraining order was dismissed. I’m not violent — just hostile to people who try to abuse my neighborhood.

All in all, it was a terrible time suck and made me afraid I could be barred from safe entry to my home. And not because I ever made a single threat (I wouldn’t do such a thing, and I’m a libertarian and don’t believe I have the right to ever touch another person except in self-defense). But, they saw an opportunity to punish me for criticizing them about the parking — knowing that in the People’s Republic of Santa Monica they’ll pretty much grant a restraining order on anybody who isn’t clinically dead.