Subj : ACLU SUPPORTERS
To   : JOHN FITZGERALD
From : PETER BRADIE
Date : Sun Jun 26 2005 05:29 pm

JF> JF>   That the ACLU is never hard pressed for cash and resources to
JF>       file their many many frivolous lawsuits, most of which involve
JF>       no constitutional violations or where no one's rights are
JF>       being denied to them.

JF> PB>   John, would you mind listing one or two cases
JF>       where the ACLU was  sanctioned for filing
JF>       a frivolous lawsuit?

JF>   I never claimed they were sanctioned.

No, but you claimed the lawsuits were frivolous.  Attorneys that file 
frivolous lawsuits frequently get sanctioned (Fed. R. Civ. P. 11)  Name 
one case where the ACLU was sanctioned.  

JF> PB>   You may not like the lawsuits the ACLU files,
JF>       but calling them frivolous requires something
JF>       to back up that statement.

JF>    Since 'frivolous' isn't defined by law, I thought it was understood
JF> that the term was based on an opinion.

Nope.  Frivolous is defined at law as having no basis in fact or law.  
A frivolous lawsuit is a lawsuit that has no basis in fact or law for 
the lawsuit or one that is brought for the sole purpose of harassment.  
Attorneys get sanctioned for bringing frivolous lawsuits.

JF>    In my 'opinion', a frivolous law suit involves a case where no one
JF> is getting hurt and no one is being denied any freedoms or rights,
JF> just as I have enumerated several times before in my exchanges with Bob.

And an action that violates the constitution is frivolous if you agree
with the violation?

---
 þ MM 1.1 þ It took a lot of work to become this warped, but it was worth it.
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)

.