Stella Awards

http://www.stellaawards.com/

Cool newsletter that discusses frivolous and ridiculous lawsuits. Sample of the mailing list below. The guy also does http://www.thisistrue.com I suspect that some of his stories would make for some good discussions on this forum during the upcoming cold winter months.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
True Stella Awards #67: 16 November 2005 www.StellaAwards.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

AN EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE
by Randy Cassingham

James and Linda Huegel built a new house in 1993. The house sat
directly on top of the border between Clermont County and Hamilton
County, Ohio. They weren't sure which county their children should go to
school in, so they asked the Ohio Department of Education which one they
should go to. It wasn't an obvious question: because their house
straddled the county line, they got two property tax bills, and both
included school taxes.

"The Ohio Department of Education told us we could attend either
school district, because we were paying taxes in both," James Huegel
said. The Huegels chose the Forest Hills School District, and their two
children attended schools in the district from 1993 to 1999.

But in 2000, the school district sued the Huegels: the district
alleged that they did not actually live within the school district
boundary, and were thus required to pay out-of-district tuition. The
total: $35,485.

Good news quickly followed: the Clermont County Common Pleas Court
said the school district could not sue until the Ohio Department
of Education ruled on the case. But that's fine, right? They had already
told the Huegels they could attend school in either district! But no,
they had to wait for a formal ruling. The school district didn't want to
wait: they appealed the decision to the Ohio Court of Appeals; that court
upheld the trial court's decision: they had to wait. They appealed to the
Ohio Supreme Court; it refused to hear the case.

Everything looked good for the Huegels. At least, until the state
Department of Education finally got around to making their ruling: it
found that the Hugels' house was not in the Forest Hills district
boundary, even though every other house on their street was. The school
reinstated their lawsuit.

"The bottom line is that Forest Hills is required by law to collect
tuition for the unauthorized attendance," says Bronston McCord, the
school district's attorney.

The Huegels did everything right: they asked the state to rule on
exactly which school their kids could go to; they paid taxes to two
different school districts. They relied on the state to tell them what to
do, and now they are being asked to pay for the "free" education their
children were entitled to, what their taxes already helped pay for.

James Huegel says the school district should take more responsibility.
"They have some responsibility in this also to know what property is in
their district or what property they believe is in their district," he
said. "It's not like we gave them a phony address."

The Huegels relied on the Department of Education, which simply
changed its mind after the fact, leaving the family on the hook for a
huge bill that they have already paid through their taxes. That's not the
sort of education any of us should have to expect.


SOURCE:
1) "Forest Hills Pursues Family Whose House Was on Border", Cincinnati
Enquirer, 14 October 2005
http://StellaAwards.com/cgi-bin/redirect5.pl?67a


----------==========**********O**********==========----------
I DON'T CARE IF YOU'RE THE LAZIEST PERSON ALIVE...

If you just can't get yourself to do what you must do, if
your willpower and persistence always seems to fizzle out,
then join people from 54 countries who are now using the
new paradigm in personal growth. Free course available here
http://www.powermeup.com/Think-Right-Now
----------==========**********O**********==========----------


COMMENTS AND LETTERS

I could use your help! If you have a web site, I'd really appreciate
your help in getting word out about the new True Stella Awards book. For
example, check out the jokes at http://www.ForwardedFunnies.com -- EVERY
joke (their clean ones, anyway!) have a little "ad" for the book: it
links to Amazon, bringing the site owner about a buck for each book
ordered through the ad. Very nice! You don't have to go to that extreme,
of course, but you're welcome to. If you're not an Amazon affiliate, you
can link to http://www.StellaAwards.com/book.html (the book's info page).
I'd really appreciate YOUR helping to get the word out to bring the book
to an audience *beyond* my regular readers. Thanks!

There was an unexpectedly large demand for autographed copies, too. I
have caught up with that demand, and we now have plenty of the first
edition copies in stock. The book's info page has a link if you want to
order; one reader got 11 autographed copies, so I guess he has a good
start on his Christmas shopping! Last, if you bought from an online
bookstore, please consider popping back there and writing a review of the
book, or at least (if your bookstore supports it) giving it a nice high
rating. Thanks again.

-v-

TSA #66 brought a lot of letters. It told of a guy suing two well-
known magicians, arguing that their "magical" powers couldn't possibly be
"Earthly" in nature, but rather "Godly" and, if "Godly", they HAD to be
STEALING that power from the plaintiff, since he is, quite simply, God.
Uh huh. Anyway, he wants 10 percent of their lifelong earnings; in the
case of David Copperfield, that'll be oh, about 50 million bucks, please!
http://www.StellaAwards.com/previousissue.html has the case if you missed
it.

First, a few magician newsletters and magazines requested reprint
permission to run the story; it was granted in every case, and I really
appreciate them asking first. (I also spotted the case being posted on
several web sites, news groups, etc. PLEASE TAKE THEM DOWN! The copyright
notice in every issue is VERY clear: reposting online is specifically
prohibited without PRIOR, WRITTEN permission. I give away a LOT for free;
I would really appreciate your not taking more than I offer, which is
called "stealing". That goes for ALL of my stuff right back to the start;
if you've posted it without permission, please take it down. Thanks.)

So on to the letters. Magician James "The Amazing" Randi wrote,
"Please ask Mr. Roller to sue me, too! I can't wait!" Gee, Randi: I'm not
sure *anyone* has ever accused you of being "Godly"! But there you
go: I've passed your request on.

Jim, an attorney in Alabama: "I realize that though no lawyer was
involved in FILING such a ridulous [sic] suit, you still take issue with
the fact that lawyers were used to defend the suit. In an attempt to
justify your anti-lawyer stance, you proffer the 'what ifs' of the
'common man' being sued. Mr. Joe Six Pack doesn't have silly law suits
like this brought against him. In fact, Joe Six Pack, who has little or
nothing in the way of worldly goods, including insurance, can basically
neglegently [sic] or recklessly harm anyone and not fear a suit at all.
[In the magician case,] the lawyers for the 'reasonably rich men' didn't
daudle [sic] needlessly in court with frivilous [sic] motion practice and
responses, and demand money back under Rule 11 just for the sake of
running up the hours and thus the bill on their clients who are obviously
able to pay. Bottom line: Please stop blaming lawyers for all the ills of
the world. When a case is tried...BOTH sides tell their story TO A JURY
OF MEN AND WOMEN THAT HATE LAWYERS AS MUCH AS THE NEXT GUY, AND WHO HATE
FRIVILOUS [sic] LAW SUITS. Now, if you want to pick on lawyers...lets
[sic] start with the bad ones...DIVORCE LAWYERS!"

Now, I don't normally "sic" reader letters, but it gives you a better
flavor of the thinking here. Sure, everyone makes mistakes and typos now
and then, but here we have a lawyer -- a man with a doctorate in law --
who can't spell "frivolous" (or "negligent" or "dawdle" or "ridiculous"),
but wants to expound on what is or isn't frivolous. Fine; I don't think
there's any need to state my side of that again. But I will respond to
two things: 1) TSA is *obviously* not "anti-lawyer", even though he
concludes that HE is! I've OFTEN said (here, and in my book) that MOST
lawyers are honorable people and are working hard toward the pursuit of
justice for their clients. And indeed, many are absolutely ashamed of the
dishonor a small number of their peers have brought to their profession,
and they are well represented in my readership. I have little doubt where
the majority would place Jim from Alabama in that "shame" continuum. I
took no "issue" with using attorneys to defend the magicians; rather, I
made it clear that it was ridiculous that they had to go to the expense
of hiring them for such outrageous suits, which says NOTHING about the
defending attorneys themselves. And 2) Indeed, the "common man" *does*
get sued, as the case in this issue shows, as well as many that have come
before. Working people with kids in public school; that's pretty
ordinary, isn't it? I find it unlikely that the family has $35K sitting
in their vacation fund to fork over to a greedy school district that has
already collected its tax money.

Mike, a personal injury attorney in Maryland: "Of course, as you
recognized, such a frivolous suit is likely to be thrown out by the judge
at an early stage, as soon as the opposing party brings its frivolous
nature to the judge's attention. But then you said, why should such a
Rule 11 motion even be necessary? Why can't the court just read the
complaint and throw it out at the beginning? The reason is one of the
things that makes our court system great and highly admired throughout
the world: the 'open door' policy for initial case filings. There is no
'threshold' requirement that anybody has to meet before walking into the
courthouse, paying the required filing fee, and filing their complaint.
Even in cases where a statute requires some steps to be taken before suit
is filed in order to have a valid claim (e.g. Federal equal opportunity
claims, which have to be taken before the EEOC before filing suit), these
prerequisites do not actually present the suit from being filed."

Mike brings up good points which help to answer a question several
letter writers asked ("Why doesn't the judge just toss it out immediately
without waiting to hear from the defendant when the case is so OBVIOUSLY
loony?") -- but he's defending a charge I didn't make. I didn't suggest
that the judge throw the case out before the defendants responded and
made such a motion, I suggested that the judge should *order sanctions*
even if they are not requested by the defendants when it becomes obvious
that the case is entirely frivolous. That's a big, BIG difference!

Dori, who didn't say where she is, also criticized the story: "My
reaction to the story of Christopher Roller was extreme sadness. I did
indeed look at his website but just didn't have the stomach to read all
the way through it; this man is simply far too ill. I have to commend Mr.
Copperfield and his lawyers for having the mercy to refrain from filing a
Rule 11 motion for now. I don't really see this as being a 'frivolous'
lawsuit in the same sense that many of the other Stella cases you report
are, Randy; rather, it's a case of a very sick man who doesn't understand
reality."

I'm not interested in running cases that all have the same "sense" of
frivolity; the entire point is to look at the problem from a wide variety
of angles. That includes cases filed by the insane, which may or may not
include Mr. Roller; they are, and he is, part of the problem I'm trying
to illustrate from various points of view in my attempt to paint a VERY
big picture.

-v-

Also in the last issue, I ran a letter from an attorney who defended
TSA #65's case of the woman who sued her rescuers; she was in a car that
plunged into a river, and from the splash to the 911 call to the dispatch
of rescue divers to their arrival to their donning of protective gear to
finding her to bringing her to the surface was just 15 to 20 minutes, so
she survived. Attorney Allan in Michigan argued that "it is not absurd to
hold the rescuers liable" since they "wasted time" by putting on their
gear after they got there when they could have put it on enroute.

That didn't sit well with readers. Plenty of scuba divers wrote to say
it would be *impossible* to correctly don a wetsuit in a moving car, and
nearly impossible even if they had a lot of room, such as in the back of
an ambulance. Others point to legality. Scott in Texas: "Many places have
seat belt laws; I must admit to wondering how one puts on a wetsuit while
buckled in. Some or many rescuers would ignore such and suit up anyway,
[but] it would be improper for someone to suggest that rescuers NOT take
reasonable and legal steps to ensure their own safety, even if the law
specifically provides an exception."

Courtney in Massachusetts: "I myself am a volunteer firefighter/rescue
tech. Sadly, too many good people are hurt by not wearing seatbelts. My
fire department will suspend anyone caught not wearing one while riding.
Many people complain that fire trucks and ambulances drive too fast or
won't move out of the way for them -- yet they are the first to complain
when it takes too long for us to arrive at THEIR emergency."

Several readers sent a suggestion similar to this, from Roberto, a
doctor in Mexico: "I would recommend the honorable judge to grant her
full compensation: those mean, good-for-nothing bums who took her out of
the car should put the plaintiff back precisely where they found her, in
the exact same physical circumstance in which she was found."

Charles in Texas points out that on MANY emergency calls, what the
dispatcher tells rescue squads and what they face when they get there are
often two different things, and they need to get there to determine how
to proceed. He continues, "Allan, maybe you should follow the rescue
squad for at least a week and see what these guys really face on an case
by case basis. Do you truly believe all of your cases can be solved in
advance without a consultation? Does a woman that calls in advance to
make an appointment for your services, saying she wants a divorce due to
irreconcilable differences, always come in looking pristine with no
bruises, cuts or broken bones due to an abusive husband? I believe there
are innumerable cases and rulings based on individual (and many unique)
cases that don't fit a 'mold'. Can you really properly assess, just by a
telephone call and know without a doubt, that you have all the facts
necessary to go to court the second someone arrives in your office? Do
you really grab a briefcase full of papers and books and sprint to the
courtroom without first analyzing their individual situation?"

Bill, an IT executive in Pennsylvania: "It's thinking like Allan's
that is destroying the trust a society like our needs to have to exist.
Our citizenry enjoys an amazing lifestyle, and yet our legal profession
insists that everyone be perfect. These first responders SAVED THIS
WOMAN'S LIFE!!! How dare she then try to destroy them? This country
desperately needs changes in tort law right now. Fines and expenses
should be levied on anyone that brings suit and loses. The defendant
should be paid FIRST before the plaintiff's lawyer gets a penny if the
plaintiff loses. Eliminate contingency fees. Force the attorneys to
charge their clients whatever the result or do the work pro bono. The
lawyers will howl, and maybe, if we're lucky, they will quit the
profession and find some honorable employment -- like being a first
responder."

--Randy Cassingham

TO SUBSCRIBE and receive the TRUE Stella Awards by e-mail for FREE, see
http://www.StellaAwards.com
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, see the last line of this message.

YOUR COMMENTS are welcome -- send them to Comments@StellaAwards.com
Please include your first name, location and profession. Due to volume
we cannot reply to most mail, and NEVER provide legal advice. If you
have legal questions, contact an attorney.
TO SUBMIT A CASE *please* do NOT e-mail us. Instead, please use the form
on our site at http://www.StellaAwards.com/submit.html
SOURCE REFERENCES are kept up-to-date on our server as possible; the URLs
given should work as long as the articles are available online. Some
sites may require registration to view articles.

STELLA AWARDS is a project of "This is True" -- http://www.thisistrue.com
-- and is published by ThisisTrue.Inc, PO Box 666, Ridgway CO 81432
USA.

Copyright 2005 by Randy Cassingham, All Rights Reserved. ALL
broadcast, publication, retransmission to the WWW, e-mail lists, or
paper, or copying or storage, in any medium, online or not, is PROHIBITED
without PRIOR written permission. However, permission is granted to
circulate this publication via MANUAL forwarding by e-mail to friends
PROVIDING THAT the text is forwarded IN ITS ENTIRETY, from the title line
on top through the end of this paragraph, and NO FEE is charged. We
REQUEST that you forward no more than three copies to any one person --
after that, they should get their own subscription. Stella Awards and
"This is True" are trademarks of Freelance Communications, an imprint of
THISisTRUE.Inc.


Distribution sponsored by Lyris Technologies, Inc. <http://www.lyris.com>
This copy sent to: [mhutch@yahoo.com]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: DO NOT reply to this message! Simply send any message
mailto:leave-5088129-1047590O@wood.lyris.net
This method works no matter what address you send from.