Thousands of "Victim David"s in RIAA's lawsuits of intimidation and other harrassment lawsuits would applaud this legislation. Lack of "loser pays" allows the plaintiff to incur substantial costs to the defendant, only to then dismiss the lawsuit before a trial.

Ward Welchels "

First, Ward is my X's uncle and second before he had his stroke he was both a wonderful father, great church leader and a fine golfer!

You should know WHO you are talking about before make fun of them.

The bill is bogus and everyone knows it.

When this country was founded, the Founding Fathers specifically rejected the "loser pays" system that existed in England because only the wealthy had access to the courts there. Our Founding Fathers wanted to open the courthouse doors to all, whether rich or poor, so they adopted what is known as the "American system" where each party bears his or her own costs except in certain circumstances (where a contract or particular statute says otherwise). Our system was designed to make justice available to everyone, even the poor.

All of which begs the question: why does Stacey X hate America?

(link...)

In general I think it's better to leave it up to the discretion of the judge overseeing a particular case to dismiss it if he believes the case to be frivolous. Likewise to make one side pay for the other's legal bills.

It isn't a perfect system, but it's less consistently flawed than "loser pays."

www.lesjones.com

Les, there is already a mechanism for that to occur with "frivolous" cases in both federal and state courts.

(link...)

That's pretty much what I was saying, though I may not have made that clear.

www.lesjones.com