At 12:52 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote:

On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote:

...

You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to control a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself.

What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person?

To quiet him from political dissent, presumably. I think the term coined a few years ago was "SLAPP", something akin to "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Policy," or similar. For example, "Company A" wants to build a mine or factory or something similar at a location. Citizens object, causing political problems. Company sues the individuals for damages, which costs the individuals a great deal of money to defend against even if they never lose the suit. The real problem is actually a series of mistakes: 1. Individual should not be able to cause political problems for company. 2. "Government" should not be able to impact company activities short of actual harm. 3. Company should not be able to impact individual by suing except for actual harm done by that individual. Naturally, the source of these problems is that by each of their existence, lawyers make more money. As usual, I have a solution to that problem. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com