There is something very wrong about the institutionalized plundering made possible by this country's legal system.
This guy, Allen Heckard, is suing Michael Jordan and Nike because he (Mr. Heckard) is tired of being mistaken as the basketball star. The lawsuit is for over 800 Million Dollars (try saying it as Dr. Evil in the first Austin Powers
It's Nike's fault because they have promoted Jordan, and it's Jordan's fault because when his mother's and father's DNA mixed together, it called for his physical features. Maybe he should sue Jordan's parents as well.
Maybe Heckard should also sue anyone who mistakes him for Jordan. Maybe I should sue Tom Cruise. Maybe my friend, Bryan, should sue Chris Burke ("Corky" from the late '80s TV show Life Goes On)?
What, now, constitutes a tort? Anything that I find annoying is a tort? Hell, if that's the case, then I'm prepared to sue Mr. Heckard if he wins. However, I'm far more reasonable. I'll only sue for 100 million.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/5766288?FSO1&ATT=HMA
You may have a case against a horse's ass. Preferably the one that Kremer gave chili to on that one episode of Seinfeld. When ever I see that I have to do a double-take to make sure it's not you doing a guest appearance.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in your call for tort reform but everybody should have the right to sue for any reason. The reform should come in the form of such frivolous suits as Heckard’s being thrown out of the courts immediately. On top of that, if you lose you should pay all the court costs plus a penalty if the suit is indeed deemed frivolous. Two simply reforms such as these would quickly put a halt to Heckards of this world.
ReplyDeleteGolf Guy:
ReplyDeleteWhat you've recommended is, I think, called "Loser Pays" (i.e. whomever loses a civil case must compensate the other for his or her legal fees).
I agree. Also, I would like to see it taken a step further to involve criminal cases as well. I should be compensated for having to hire an attorney if I am not guilty of a crime.
On the other hand, it is still wrong for me (even as a defendent wrongfully prosecuted)to demand compensation which can only be afforded via the immoral institution of involuntary taxation.
Perhaps another discussion is in order here, one that questions the government's interest in such a case. A dispute between two free individuals can be settled differently, and in ways not burdensome to the people--for the people pay for the judges who preside over these cases.
Oh, how I miss Joseph A. Wapner!