Rov_Scam
12hr ago
I haven't seen the video so I'll take you're word on what's in it. That being said, the SAFE Act would only seem to apply if he is doing something to threaten people or restrict egress from the building. He's certainly guilty of whatever the Minnesota equivalent of what would be Defiant Trespass in Pennsylvania, but that's a state level charge, and as far as I can tell there aren't any Federal trespass laws that don't involve Federal property or otherwise apply in very specific situations.
Rov_Scam
13hr ago
I think it comes more down to whether he was engaging in activity that is objectively illegal, since an observer would presumably be less likely to actively obstruct or threaten someone. If he were simply standing there quietly it could even be argued that any requests to vacate the premises were not directed to him, insofar as he was not acting any more disruptive than any member of the congregation. It all depends on the specifics of what they can prove that he actually did, not that he was just present while other people were breaking the law.
Rov_Scam
13hr ago
Not really since it isn't some general law that's being applied in a novel way; there are specific provisions for houses of worship, presumably added to attract support from Republicans and conservative Democrats.
Rov_Scam
21hr ago
At first I thought you were being sarcastic, because by your logic ICE should just get M-16s and spray crowds of protestors. Or for that matter anyone who does anything to openly oppose or disagree with any government policy you personally agree with deserves to be shot. You may wholeheartedly agree with me, in which case, to paraphrase Lincoln, you should consider moving to a place like Russia or Iran, where they don't even pretend that the citizens have any rights.
Both Europeans and Americans who favor tort reform like to point this out all the time, but I honestly don't think it would have too much of an effect on the current system. Yes, defending litigation is expensive. But so is suing people. You have a frivolous lawsuit you want to file? Good luck finding an attorney to take it on contingency. Even if the attorney can minimize the amount of time spent on the case and only file necessary motions, you're going to need at least one deposition and at least one expert if you expect to win through anything other than early settlement (which is usually at enough of a discount that most plaintiff's attorneys aren't interested), you're already looking at close to ten grand just in costs. Since the attorney has to recoup the costs from somewhere, and doesn't like to work on cases and not get paid, the standard 1/3 contingency isn't going to apply unless the lawyer is reasonably confident that the case will settle for more than it costs to pursue. That means that if you want to file a questionable suit you'd better be prepared to pay your attorney by the hour and front the costs of all the expenses.
When people talk about frivolous lawsuits, they're often talking about lawsuits where they didn't like how much the plaintiff was awarded, like the McDonald's coffee suit. But these aren't frivolous by definition; the plaintiff won, so there wouldn't be any compensation for attorney's fees in any event. Cases like these would actually be more expensive for the defendants, as the plaintiffs could then go to the court with their hours and rates and bills from all the experts and depositions and such and tacked on a few tens of thousands to the verdict that wouldn't go away on appeal.
Further complicating this is that most normal people who get sued will be sued in situations where either auto or homeowner's liability insurance will cover the costs of both the attorney and the settlement, so they aren't directly impacted by any reforms. The same is true of most businesses; if you slip and fall in the Wal-Mart parking lot, the settlement isn't coming out of the corporate checking account except to the extent that it might have an effect on their premiums. The primary beneficiaries of such a system are insurance companies, who absolutely despise having to pay settlements and legal fees. But general liability insurance is already cheap enough that most companies wouldn't see their premiums appreciably lowered by that kind of reform (medical malpractice is the exception, though plaintiff-side claims are expensive enough that there's very little frivolity to be found here). The tradeoff is that normal people will find it even harder to get compensation than it already is, as it just raises the already high bar for how much a case needs to be worth for an attorney to take it. And I say all this as someone who does civil defense work.
The only instance I see where the process can seriously be abused is when wealthy people like Trump use their ability to pay to bully normal people into settling rather than fighting. But this doesn't happen very often, and when it does happen it's usually in a few select areas that can be addressed through more targeted legislation, like anti-SLAPP statutes. I wouldn't even be opposed to a wider procedural change that required you to show evidence that a case wasn't frivolous, or gave defendants a mechanism to require such a showing, and to award attorney's fees if evidence is lacking. But it's probably better to leave this for specific situations, since it most cases it would simply be a waste of time.
More options
Context Copy link