OK, first, yowsa - I can respect that y'all who know them don't like them for whatever reason.
Second, I can respect that y'all who know them don't think their case has merit.
But third, and this is pre-eminent for me - It. Doesn't. Matter. That is to say, it doesn't matter if their case has merit. For me, this case has never been about the merits. I've said all along that I don't know them from Adam's housecat and they might be crazy as a bunch of bessie bugs. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that a citizen has a right to redress when he/she feels wronged by the government.
It's my understanding that a judge has the authority to throw out a frivolous lawsuit soon after it's filed. If it's not deemed frivolous, then the plaintiffs have a right to have their case heard by a jury of their peers. If then, a jury of their peers thinks they're idiots and chooses to say well you should have settled you morons, then so be it. But to deny a plaintiff the chance to go before a jury for six years is just not right, IMHO.
The first amendment to the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If the government is allowed to stonewall a plaintiff for six years and half a million of plaintiff's dollars, then who can seek redress? Also, let's assume their case had merit...say it was an egregious example of something the county did or allowed and someone died as a result. Would they not have the right to sue and be compensated? I know the settlement is coming out of our pockets as taxpayers, BUT if the county was in error, then the county was in error. (Also, isn't this what insurance is for?)
I know many will say, well if the county doesn't stop this one, then everybody and his brother will be suing the county for every little thing. A) Really? Everybody and his brother is going to spend $1000 or $2500 or whatever it would cost to hire a lawyer to file a piddly lawsuit? And 2) as I've said before - if it's frivolous, LET THE JUDGE THROW IT OUT. And if it's not frivolous, let it go to trial and let the chips fall where they may. If the county's behavior needs to be changed, then perhaps a judgment against them will spur the change.
And finally, I have seen municipalities before who operated like little fiefdoms re: speed traps and the like. The citizens put up with it for years because "you can't fight city hall" and things are the way they are. Until somebody comes along with a lot of money (or who is a lawyer himself) and sues the municipality and sticks with it and is awarded a multi-million-dollar settlement, and then the municipality really is in pain.
I have said all along - I have no idea of the merits of this case, nor do I care about the merits of the case. Because the merits don't matter. What matters is that a citizen of this country has a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. And that is what I believe has been denied them in this case.
Flame me if you will, and if I stand alone in this matter, so be it. If it's frivolous, let Judge Beavers throw it out. Otherwise, let it go to trial and BE DONE WITH IT.
