youre kidding right?

junkernaut · 07-29-2007, 06:11 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070729/.../gang_lawsuits

this is the second of its kind that ive seen. about 2 weeks ago i read about a woman who was suing al qaeda over the death of her son. they dont actually expect to accompish anything do they? even if they win, how would they collect damages? this is the epitome of frivolous law suits. al qaeda isnt even an american institution.

so...thoughts? opinions?

wilthrill · 07-29-2007, 10:04 PM

Yeah it's almost as frivolous as suing the manufacturer of an inanimate object for the INTENTIONAL acts of criminals.

junkernaut · 07-30-2007, 12:26 AM

were in total agreement there will.....

wilthrill · 07-30-2007, 11:14 AM

Well the BASIS of the suit (wrongful death etc) is most certainly NOT frivolous. You know if I murder or cause the death of one of your loved one's you CAN sue me (although criminal punishment is more appropriate).

However your point about the COLLECTIBILITY of a judgment is correct and does make one wonder what lawyer would file the suit?

And also it DOES seem to be saying "let's handle this in the legal arena" when in fact we should be saying, "let the military kill these bastards."

I don't particularly mind the relatives suing if it makes them feel better but let's not kid ourselves that the legal system offers and real solution to this problem.

Mikael · 07-30-2007, 01:27 PM

Can't they be awarded some of Al Qaeda's seized assets?

junkernaut · 07-30-2007, 02:22 PM

thats not a bad idea mikael....problem is that the govt would have to let go of those assets, and it never been easy to get the govt to let go of anything.

as for wills points, i would look at any lawsuit that is a known lost cause as frivolous and wasteful. in al qaedas case, in their eyes theyve done the right thing, and getting any actual damamges would be impossible. the street gangs on the other hand, police cant get these people to stop killing each other and selling drugs, what makes them think that they can collect lawsuit damages.....its a total waster of time and energy and money. now if they were to be sued after they were caught or stopped or defeated, in al qaeda case, than that might a different story. maybe its more an issue of timing

wilthrill · 07-30-2007, 07:28 PM

Well if they could get at the assets it wouldn't be frivolous or wasteful.

Their main bar would be the jurisdictional issue. However if these were 911 victims you might get jurisdiction because the minimum contact Al Quaeda had with the US just happened to be the reason for the injury (i.e. they intentionally flew three jet planes into buildings in the US and the fourth into the ground in the US while attempting to fly it into the building). Where a state seeks jurisdiction against a non-resident of that state the US Supremes look at the "contacts" the defendant had with the state. If there are enough contacts OR the contact was the basis of the action then the Supremes have held the exercise of jurisdiction to be constitutional.

Who knows? It may be feasible.

07-29-2007, 06:11 PM	#1 (permalink)
junkernaut Screamo for Emo Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 143 Rep Power: 46	youre kidding right? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070729/.../gang_lawsuits this is the second of its kind that ive seen. about 2 weeks ago i read about a woman who was suing al qaeda over the death of her son. they dont actually expect to accompish anything do they? even if they win, how would they collect damages? this is the epitome of frivolous law suits. al qaeda isnt even an american institution. so...thoughts? opinions? __________________ jesus had a great publicist

07-30-2007, 12:26 AM	#3 (permalink)
junkernaut Screamo for Emo Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 143 Rep Power: 46	were in total agreement there will..... __________________ jesus had a great publicist

07-30-2007, 01:27 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mikael Band Member Band Whore Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Down In a Hole Posts: 905 Rep Power: 45	Can't they be awarded some of Al Qaeda's seized assets? __________________ I just saved a ton of money on car insurance by switching to no car insurance!!! www.myspace.com/13468360

07-30-2007, 02:22 PM	#6 (permalink)
junkernaut Screamo for Emo Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 143 Rep Power: 46	thats not a bad idea mikael....problem is that the govt would have to let go of those assets, and it never been easy to get the govt to let go of anything. as for wills points, i would look at any lawsuit that is a known lost cause as frivolous and wasteful. in al qaedas case, in their eyes theyve done the right thing, and getting any actual damamges would be impossible. the street gangs on the other hand, police cant get these people to stop killing each other and selling drugs, what makes them think that they can collect lawsuit damages.....its a total waster of time and energy and money. now if they were to be sued after they were caught or stopped or defeated, in al qaeda case, than that might a different story. maybe its more an issue of timing __________________ jesus had a great publicist

07-29-2007, 10:04 PM	#2 (permalink)
wilthrill Band Whore Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 825 Rep Power: 46	Yeah it's almost as frivolous as suing the manufacturer of an inanimate object for the INTENTIONAL acts of criminals.

07-30-2007, 11:14 AM	#4 (permalink)
wilthrill Band Whore Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 825 Rep Power: 46	Well the BASIS of the suit (wrongful death etc) is most certainly NOT frivolous. You know if I murder or cause the death of one of your loved one's you CAN sue me (although criminal punishment is more appropriate). However your point about the COLLECTIBILITY of a judgment is correct and does make one wonder what lawyer would file the suit? And also it DOES seem to be saying "let's handle this in the legal arena" when in fact we should be saying, "let the military kill these bastards." I don't particularly mind the relatives suing if it makes them feel better but let's not kid ourselves that the legal system offers and real solution to this problem.

07-30-2007, 07:28 PM	#7 (permalink)
wilthrill Band Whore Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 825 Rep Power: 46	Well if they could get at the assets it wouldn't be frivolous or wasteful. Their main bar would be the jurisdictional issue. However if these were 911 victims you might get jurisdiction because the minimum contact Al Quaeda had with the US just happened to be the reason for the injury (i.e. they intentionally flew three jet planes into buildings in the US and the fourth into the ground in the US while attempting to fly it into the building). Where a state seeks jurisdiction against a non-resident of that state the US Supremes look at the "contacts" the defendant had with the state. If there are enough contacts OR the contact was the basis of the action then the Supremes have held the exercise of jurisdiction to be constitutional. Who knows? It may be feasible.