Legal filings; Who "actually" Initiated Most?

[skeptic]

I am curious as to how many of the suits filed on the 3 G's were actually directly initiated by the supposedly "harmed" party? It would not surprise me if most were only brought after someone with an "agenda" found someone they could convince to stand in as the "injured" party. Certainly the defendants in the San Diego cases have already been shown to have had no actual injuries, as they never even tried to use the facilities. If most cases have been filed at the urging of outside parties, then that in itself is, or should be a factor in the cases it would seem. Can anyone shed some "truthful" and "accurate" information on this?

[AlFansome]

 

You can find the cases that BSA lists at

http://www.bsalegal.org/litigation-222.asp

 

All the "Morally Straight" ones seem to be filed by folks who had their applications denied either for membership or employment or who had their membership revoked.

 

Likewise with the "Duty to God" and the "Girls seeking membership cases".

 

In most of the access to government forums, it was the BSA/council/CO that was doing the suing.

 

 

Now, that's not to say that there weren't plaintiffs looking for a fight, of course, but there is a person behind all these cases that say they were harmed.

 

 

[Kahuna]

The ACLU is always in there somewhere. I agree there has to be a willing "victim."

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

And Rosa Parks could've just sat at the back of the bus and gotten to her destination, same as the white people who sat right up front.. Some "injury," right?

[Beavah]

Yah, there's no way to really tell that, skeptic.

 

In order to bring a suit, da person has to have standing.

 

Sometimes, in advocacy lawyering, an advocacy firm will spend a fair bit of time and money looking for da best person(s) they can and actually solicit 'em to become the principle parties to da action.

 

At the same time, they'll often at least take a look at a case that comes to them lookin' for help. But they'll only take da cases that they're really interested in, with plaintiffs that make their advocacy compelling to da courts and to their donors.

 

You will also find the occasional person who is really ticked off and brings action themselves, most often because they are an attorney. Like that fellow in California who brought the case to overturn da BSA's trademarks. Yeh can recognize these cases because they're usually dumb and very poorly argued (much like that one was). The whole bit about a lawyer representing himself havin' a fool for a client.

 

When it comes to suits against private parties, I'm really not fond of da advocacy firms. Abuse of da system, IMO. When it comes to cases against the government, da advocacy firms have a role to play, eh? They keep the government honest, and in their own way protect our liberties. Now, not all of 'em do that well or wisely. And often they try to manipulate things through da judicial system which really belong in the legislature as a lobbying issue, or in da executive as a regulatory matter. But as a group, they are important, and serve a real function. When you're gettin' hot and bothered about da ACLU, remember da NRA (and vice versa).

 

Beavah

 

[Kahuna]

"When it comes to suits against private parties, I'm really not fond of da advocacy firms. Abuse of da system, IMO. When it comes to cases against the government, da advocacy firms have a role to play, eh?"

 

I feel the same way, although I would disagree that anything actually keeps the government honest.

[evmori]

And Rosa Parks could've just sat at the back of the bus and gotten to her destination, same as the white people who sat right up front.. Some "injury," right?

 

Completely different, Merlyn. You know that! Rosa Parks was discriminated against because of her race, not what she believed or didn't believe in. Remember freedom of religion?????

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, the whining in this thread is supposed to be about how people with trivial and dismissable "complaints" have the gall to use the courts to make everyone else kowtow to them, like how Rosa Parks just couldn't move a few seats into the back of the bus and had to inconvenience everyone by winning in court over her extremely slight "injury." As you ought to know, any injury that someone else (who would never be subject to that injury) that can be put inside scare quotes isn't a real injury, and shouldn't be given the time of day in our overcrowded courts, because their "rights" are in scare quotes too, and don't matter to anyone. Or at least only matter to a tiny fraction of the population, which means they can be safely ignored, because ignoring people's rights (excuse me, "rights") is always the right thing to do.

 

Addendum: Well, technically, Browder v. Gayle wasn't Parks' lawsuit.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[evmori]

I know what the thread is about and it isn't about what you posted.