The purpose of the present missive is, in essence, to point out that you did not respond to any of the substantive issues raised by me or others in this thread. So here is your chance. Individuals, through the auspices (and with clear sanction) of the civil courts, on a regular basis, in effect, punish others for a claimed tort which prima facie, or even at law, has no substantive basis – in other words when the defendant is NOT ultimately a tortfeasor (in fact or at law). The lofty notion that “the question must be asked” is fine as long as justice comes at a REASONABLE cost (or, better still, at no cost) to the parties. That, of course, is not our system. So once again, I put to you that it is NOT reasonable to have the “freedom” to attack someone falsely (read that as unreasonably) and not be held accountable for the damages done to them (in financial, emotional and character terms). The multi-million dollar pants suit (pun intended) was one desperately in search of a Learned Hand for guidance. Despite the apologists’ raucous claims, this case is only “atypical” by virtue of its exorbitant damages claims. Other than that it was business as usual, the reasonable person was nowhere to be found – including, until belatedly, on the bench. Unfortunately for the apologists, this case is actually the prototypical example of the endemic gross misuse of the civil system, by self-serving reprobates, that was once a safe haven for truly injured individuals but which, in effect, has been differentiated (perverted is closer to fact) into one that, in truth, has questionable legitimacy in a nation that so stridently professes adherence to principles of democracy, fairness and the rule of law. A long-overdue facial change is in the wind. REASONABLE, the word and deed so badly mutilated, judicially and otherwise, in recent times, appears ready for rehabilitation and enforcement.

Signed, the “Miscreant”

I won’t go so far as to cal you a hypocrite but I have a feeling that you might be someone who bears resemblance to a self-serving miscreant.

The majority of claims in the system have merit and those claims deserve to be heard. The few bad apples do not ruin the whole barrel, although you and your ilk would like things to appear that way.

So how about if a judge files a frivolous suit against you, and then two years later — after dealing with discovery, depositions, document production, etc., and after you’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars — the suit is finally dismissed? Would that be the legal system ‘working’? No, the Pearson case is not an example of the system ‘working.’ The Chungs haven’t seen a dime from Pearson, and he’s still harassing them, filing an appeal which will cost them thousands of additional dollars.

Bogus claims being dismissed — eventually — are not an example of the system ‘working,’ any more than you being cured — eventually — from a doctor’s mistake is an example of the medical system ‘working.’ “Working” would be if the mistakes weren’t made, if the bogus claims weren’t filed, or if they were fixed immediately and cheaply.