The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:01 AM
Romeo and Whatsherface Romeo and Whatsherface is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 234
Follow the Money: Westboro Baptist Church Income?

Curious as to where this hate group (classified as such by the SPLC) gets its income, I did an Internet search. I know that some members are attorneys, and some apparently work for the state of Kansas. The WBC claims it spends $200,000 on travel to the various protests it conducts, which ain't chump change. It also claims members tithe 30% of their income, but I've read this may well be a dodge: they "tithe," but the money goes right back to them. Whatever. My question is, how many attorneys are there in the family, and most important, do they really have enough clients to generate that kind of income for the WBC? I can't imagine who would sign up for their legal services--not saying they're inept, as they obviously just won the Supreme Court case--just can't figure out who their client base is or how large it could be.

Also, what kind of work do WBC members do for the State of Kansas? Is it highly remunerative?

I know they get some of their money from litigation, but from what I've read, this doesn't fully account for their source of income, either. And in addition to travel expenses, one assumes they have standard living expenses. Also, it sounds like there's enough legal work just defending members and filing lawsuits to keep at least a couple of the family attorneys busy full-time, which would mean less income, right?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 03-03-2011, 10:23 AM
Cluricaun Cluricaun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
It's my understanding that much of the income generated by the Phelps folk is actually from suing people who annoy or attack them. I don't have a cite on that, but I've read it so many times on so many forums that I accept it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-03-2011, 10:30 AM
Shoeless Shoeless is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Sunflower State
Posts: 3,751
Yeah, they were saying on the news last night that the guy who lost the Supreme Court case will now have to pay WBC's court costs, and there was some talk of setting up a fund to take donations to help pay his bill. I was thinking that on the one hand I'd like to help him out, but on the other hand that money would be going directly into WBC's pockets.

One rumor that I have never been able to confirm is that craft retailer Hobby Lobby is a big donor to WBC. I know that they are run by a fairly conservative Christian group but I've never actually been able to find proof that they donate to the Phelpses.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-03-2011, 10:38 AM
Ca3799 Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
I assume they pool their money from jobs and lawsuits and live frugally otherwise. They seem to live in a large collective type situation and run their own print shop. They don't seem to own too much flashy, bling-bling type stuff, like most charlatan religions tend to do.

I'm curious about the recent WBC and 'Anonymous' flap.

Anon said that the threat to shut down WBC's website was a WBC hoax designed to garner media attention.

Then the sites were shut down.

I wonder if Anon or some pseudo-anon did it, or if WBC did it themselves because they are out of money.

I'm guessing that since the WBC website completely disappeared, that it was because WBC shut it down. I also think that because Anon usually releases internal emails and none were released in this case, that this is further proof that this was a WBC hoax.

Sorry for the hijack.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:10 AM
dhkendall dhkendall is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
I'm wondering why it is OK for the losers in a case against a hate group to give money to the hate group? Isn't funding a hate group a crime in the US? If I gave money to the KKK I'm sure I'd be subjected to a nice friendly chat by federal authorities (assume, for the purposes of this post that I'm American (which I'm not)). But if I was on the losing end of a case against the KKK, I'd be ordered to give money to them??

How in blazes does this work???
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:14 AM
Buck Godot Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhkendall View Post
I'm wondering why it is OK for the losers in a case against a hate group to give money to the hate group? Isn't funding a hate group a crime in the US? If I gave money to the KKK I'm sure I'd be subjected to a nice friendly chat by federal authorities (assume, for the purposes of this post that I'm American (which I'm not)). But if I was on the losing end of a case against the KKK, I'd be ordered to give money to them??

How in blazes does this work???
I don't think its illegal to give money to a hate group, just a terrorist one. Banning all contributions to hate groups would seem to be a big violation of the first amendment.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:16 AM
Munch Munch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhkendall View Post
I'm wondering why it is OK for the losers in a case against a hate group to give money to the hate group? Isn't funding a hate group a crime in the US? If I gave money to the KKK I'm sure I'd be subjected to a nice friendly chat by federal authorities (assume, for the purposes of this post that I'm American (which I'm not)). But if I was on the losing end of a case against the KKK, I'd be ordered to give money to them??

How in blazes does this work???
Huh? I'm guessing you're in the UK, where hate speech is very tightly regulated. The court case they just won basically said what they're doing ISN'T hate speech (or at least, it's protected hate speech). It's not a hate group if they're not out there committing hate crimes - those groups tend to not win very many cases.

Also, losing plaintiffs are routinely required to pay the court costs for the other party.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:16 AM
Si Amigo Si Amigo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 8 Mile
Posts: 3,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhkendall View Post
I'm wondering why it is OK for the losers in a case against a hate group to give money to the hate group? Isn't funding a hate group a crime in the US? If I gave money to the KKK I'm sure I'd be subjected to a nice friendly chat by federal authorities (assume, for the purposes of this post that I'm American (which I'm not)). But if I was on the losing end of a case against the KKK, I'd be ordered to give money to them??

How in blazes does this work???

It's called due process; you were found in violation of their rights. We all have rights; even the hate groups. The KKK and this nut job church group are not illegal organizations. Like it or not they have the same rights as everyone else. Aint America grand.

Last edited by Si Amigo; 03-03-2011 at 11:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:20 AM
Romeo and Whatsherface Romeo and Whatsherface is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cluricaun View Post
It's my understanding that much of the income generated by the Phelps folk is actually from suing people who annoy or attack them. I don't have a cite on that, but I've read it so many times on so many forums that I accept it.
I've run into that information, too, but if you look at the amounts they've won and compare them with estimated expenses, there's still quite a large gap. The amount Mr. Snyder is going to have to pay them, for instance, is something like $16,000; it's justsupposed to cover court costs. I can't find anything about punitive damages in that case.

They do seem to live frugally, but there are quite a few kids. They wouldn't be contributing to the income (I don't think--never know with these folks.) but would be draining it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:23 AM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhkendall View Post
Isn't funding a hate group a crime in the US?
No. Hate groups and hate speech are protected under the 1st Amendment in the US. You can fund them all you want.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:41 AM
Shmendrik Shmendrik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si Amigo View Post
It's called due process; you were found in violation of their rights. We all have rights; even the hate groups. The KKK and this nut job church group are not illegal organizations. Like it or not they have the same rights as everyone else. Aint America grand.
Yes, it is.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:44 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhkendall View Post
Isn't funding a hate group a crime in the US?
The Southern Poverty Law Center says the WBC is a hate group. The SPLC is a nonprofit civil rights group, not a government agency. They're right about the WBC, but when they say the WBC is a hate group, it's not a legal determination and it does come with some kind of sanctions.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:47 AM
Tastes of Chocolate Tastes of Chocolate is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: slightly north of center
Posts: 4,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Romeo and Whatsherface View Post
I've run into that information, too, but if you look at the amounts they've won and compare them with estimated expenses, there's still quite a large gap. The amount Mr. Snyder is going to have to pay them, for instance, is something like $16,000; it's justsupposed to cover court costs. I can't find anything about punitive damages in that case.
From the York Dispatch, about the decision against Mr. Snyder

Quote:
Westboro is pursuing another $100,000 in fees through the district court, Summers said. Snyder may pursue additional donations if needed, Summers said.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:49 AM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
The Southern Poverty Law Center says the WBC is a hate group. The SPLC is a nonprofit civil rights group, not a government agency. They're right about the WBC, but when they say the WBC is a hate group, it's not a legal determination and it does come with some kind of sanctions.
It's not illegal to fund a hate group anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:02 PM
FatBaldGuy FatBaldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: SLC, USA
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeless View Post
One rumor that I have never been able to confirm is that craft retailer Hobby Lobby is a big donor to WBC. I know that they are run by a fairly conservative Christian group but I've never actually been able to find proof that they donate to the Phelpses.
Does anyone have a cite to confirm or refute this?

After reading this post I searched on Google, and found lots of places where people are saying things like "I understand that Hobby Lobby contributes to WBC", but can't find any authoritative sources.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:05 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
It's not illegal to fund a hate group anyway.
Right. But I thought it should also be pointed out that it's not like a government agency has determined they're a hate group. It's the SPLC's opinion, but it's not binding on anyone.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:10 PM
thelabdude thelabdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Just because something is posted to 1,000 places on the net doesn't mean it is true, only that it sounds good to many people. I was hoping that SD would be different from the rest of the net.

Yeah, I would like to know where their money comes from and if there is any way to cut them off. It is pathetic how mislead they are.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:11 PM
Markxxx Markxxx is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago,IL
Posts: 14,962
The next thing against the church will be the IRS or somene will try to prove racketeering which would allow additional ways to stop them.

Not that I'm supporting them, but that is usually the next steps. I know that is how they got some of the people involved with the disapearence of Helen Brach, the candy heiress. They managed to prove raceteering and got a few people sent up when they couldn't find a solid murder charge.

As for money, it's not hard to raise money. Look at Michael Savage. As soon as his ratings decline, he says something way out there and boom, the ratings go up and he makes money.

It wouldn't surprise me if after this ruling dontaions to the church go way up.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:27 PM
Shmendrik Shmendrik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markxxx View Post
It wouldn't surprise me if after this ruling dontaions to the church go way up.
It would shock me if they receive any significant amount of donations at all. The people who agree with their message that God hates homosexuals tend to think that God loves America and the US military. They've really worked themselves into a very small niche. Maybe they can raise money from Islamic fundamentalists who agree with them on both of those points.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:45 PM
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Three of the Phelp's children work as staff lawyers for the State of Kansas, one with the Juvenile Justice Department and two for the Department of Corrections. They seem to have been there a long time so they are probably pretty well paid.
Phelps has said he made a lot of money when he was a civil rights lawyer, so he may still have some of that.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:51 PM
Munch Munch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmendrik View Post
It would shock me if they receive any significant amount of donations at all.
Really? A local organization I volunteer for had a 60-second spotlight the news one night, and people came out of the woodwork with cash. Granted, it's a good organization with a good cause - but a national spotlighted Supreme Court case will find supporters for even the most loathsome of causes. Look again at the other end of the spectrum - the night Joe Miller shouted "Liar!" during the State of the Union address, his opponent gained tens of thousands of dollars in donations. Miller himself saw a big spike. Hopefully the silver lining to this is that organizations that run counter to WBC will receive donations as well.

Last edited by Munch; 03-03-2011 at 12:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-03-2011, 01:02 PM
Shmendrik Shmendrik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munch View Post
Really? A local organization I volunteer for had a 60-second spotlight the news one night, and people came out of the woodwork with cash. Granted, it's a good organization with a good cause - but a national spotlighted Supreme Court case will find supporters for even the most loathsome of causes. Look again at the other end of the spectrum - the night Joe Miller shouted "Liar!" during the State of the Union address, his opponent gained tens of thousands of dollars in donations. Miller himself saw a big spike. Hopefully the silver lining to this is that organizations that run counter to WBC will receive donations as well.
Huh? That's because both Miller and his opponent represented views held by millions of Americans; Obama is a liar/Miller is an asshat. I'm sure there are some crazies out there who agree with WBC, but more likely plenty of people believe that God hates gays, and plenty believe that God hates America, but very few believe both.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-03-2011, 01:07 PM
Skammer Skammer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Music City USA
Posts: 12,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBaldGuy View Post
Does anyone have a cite to confirm or refute this?

After reading this post I searched on Google, and found lots of places where people are saying things like "I understand that Hobby Lobby contributes to WBC", but can't find any authoritative sources.
About a year ago I looked into this, and found some kind of statement from Hobby Lobby saying that they did not. But I can't seem to locate it now... I'll keep digging.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-03-2011, 01:28 PM
Romeo and Whatsherface Romeo and Whatsherface is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Three of the Phelp's children work as staff lawyers for the State of Kansas, one with the Juvenile Justice Department and two for the Department of Corrections. They seem to have been there a long time so they are probably pretty well paid.
Phelps has said he made a lot of money when he was a civil rights lawyer, so he may still have some of that.
Specific info, and very much appreciated. Thanks! Phelps must have made millions and millions. As far as I know, the WBC has been on the national scene since the Matthew Shepard case 13 years ago. (I recall a photo in either Newsweek or Life magazine of one of them--IIRC, it was Fred Phelps--holding a sign that said, "Freedom of speech is the right to hate." I put it on my classroom wall as a way of provoking discussion in my social studies classes.) Of course, the Phelps family has grown since then, so expenses wouldn't have been as great in the early years, but you'd think they'd have to spend a fortune on security. Or do they? Is it just luck that they haven't been shot at by some irate mourner?

Man, how would you like to work with these people in the State of Kansas? *shudder*
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-03-2011, 01:31 PM
Shmendrik Shmendrik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Romeo and Whatsherface View Post
Man, how would you like to work with these people in the State of Kansas? *shudder*
I bet their coworkers put their staplers in jello ALL THE TIME.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-03-2011, 01:33 PM
Skammer Skammer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Music City USA
Posts: 12,746
Regarding the alleged WBC-Hobby Lobby link, here and here are the (second-hand) refutations I posted once before, from people who claimed to have contacted HL headquarters and received a strong denial.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-03-2011, 02:01 PM
dhkendall dhkendall is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Romeo and Whatsherface View Post
you'd think they'd have to spend a fortune on security. Or do they? Is it just luck that they haven't been shot at by some irate mourner?
Because, while I didn't understand that sending money to a hate group is OK (if not morally reprehensible), even i understand that murder is wrong. I don't care if they are ginormous douchebags, murder is wrong, and makes you about as bad as they are. Plus, it isn't the mature way to deal with the WBC. I've seen some very creative counter-protests (my favourite was one where LGBT students were making out in front of the WBC protesters. I was hoping one would die of shock!) - true they don't listen, but I don't think martyrdom would make them go away either.

strange, a few words were automatically flagged by FF spell check, but "ginormous" wasn't one of them??


And, FYI, Munch, I'm Canadian, not British. I think it was the extra "u"s that threw you off (Canadians use British spelling for most (but not all) words.)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-03-2011, 02:06 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 27,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munch View Post
Also, losing plaintiffs are routinely required to pay the court costs for the other party.
No, actually it's very rare. The general rule in American law is that each party pays its own costs and fees. It's only in very particular circumstances that a court will order a party to pay the other party's legal costs.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-03-2011, 02:12 PM
Shmendrik Shmendrik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhkendall View Post
Plus, it isn't the mature way to deal with the WBC. I've seen some very creative counter-protests (my favourite was one where LGBT students were making out in front of the WBC protesters. I was hoping one would die of shock!) - true they don't listen, but I don't think martyrdom would make them go away either.
I think most counter-protests only encourage them. They have antisemitic protests occasionally, and while some zealots want to confront them cooler heads usually prevail. I believe they protested in front of a synagogue in Brooklyn recently, and the Jewish counter-protesters just stood in line with their backs to the WBCers, ignoring them. Even that seems too much for me; actually ignoring them might be more effective than symbolically ignoring them. It would also be helpful if the media gave them less attention, but that's a rather complicated issue.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-03-2011, 02:17 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,199
Quote:
Specific info, and very much appreciated. Thanks! Phelps must have made millions and millions. As far as I know, the WBC has been on the national scene since the Matthew Shepard case 13 years ago.
And, of course, in the early days, they weren't quite as universal with their hate, and so would still be getting donations from the faction who believes that God hates faggots but loves the USA.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-03-2011, 02:41 PM
mhendo mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Three of the Phelp's children work as staff lawyers for the State of Kansas, one with the Juvenile Justice Department and two for the Department of Corrections. They seem to have been there a long time so they are probably pretty well paid.
According to the State of Kansas Salary Database, there are 4 Kansas state employees whose names are consistent with those of particular Phelps children.

Code:
Margie Phelps		Corrections		Executive III	$65,972.00
Elizabeth Phelps	Social/Rehab Svcs	Executive III	$65,522.00
Fred Phelps Jr		Corrections		Attorney A	$55,239.00
Abigail Phelps		Juvenile Correct.	Special I	$42,536.00
In a city where median household income is about $39,000, and where median family income is about $49,000, those are perfectly decent salaries, but they're certainly not high enough to allow for massive surpluses.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-03-2011, 03:40 PM
t-bonham@scc.net t-bonham@scc.net is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Well, our US government funds them, it seems.
At least the right-wingers at the FBI do.

In their latest protest outside the high school in Hyattsville Maryland, they were on their way to the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA, where they were to be featured speakers about First Amendment rights to a group of law enforcement officers.

I don't know how much the FBI paid them to be speakers, but I doubt they did so for free. At the very least, they probably got their travel expenses from Kansas paid. Which allowed them to hold various protests along the way.

Last edited by t-bonham@scc.net; 03-03-2011 at 03:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:10 PM
Shmendrik Shmendrik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net View Post
Well, our US government funds them, it seems.
At least the right-wingers at the FBI do.

In their latest protest outside the high school in Hyattsville Maryland, they were on their way to the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA, where they were to be featured speakers about First Amendment rights to a group of law enforcement officers.

I don't know how much the FBI paid them to be speakers, but I doubt they did so for free. At the very least, they probably got their travel expenses from Kansas paid. Which allowed them to hold various protests along the way.


Cite that the FBI gave them a cent, travel expenses or otherwise? Cite that "right-wingers" at the FBI had anything to do with it?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-04-2011, 10:02 AM
Romeo and Whatsherface Romeo and Whatsherface is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 234
[QUOTE=dhkendall;13529841]Because, while I didn't understand that sending money to a hate group is OK (if not morally reprehensible), even i understand that murder is wrong. I don't care if they are ginormous douchebags, murder is wrong, and makes you about as bad as they are. Plus, it isn't the mature way to deal with the WBC. I've seen some very creative counter-protests (my favourite was one where LGBT students were making out in front of the WBC protesters. I was hoping one would die of shock!) - true they don't listen, but I don't think martyrdom would make them go away either.

Maybe you misunderstood my question. I was not suggesting someone should shoot them, or that attempted murder would in any way be morally acceptable. The fact is, though, that not everyone has such scruples, and people under the severe stress of losing a loved one and then facing malevolent haters at the loved one's funeral may be especially likely to snap. I also don't think violence would make the WBC go away. Again, not everyone uses that reasoning. The WBC seems to enrage a broad cross-section of the American populace, making them, it seems to me, at increased risk for someone trying to off them. Hence, my question about what their security costs might be.

I'd still like to know, actually.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-04-2011, 10:26 AM
thelabdude thelabdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Yes, they are an embarrassment to real Christians. God hates sin, but neither homosexuals or other sinners. Fortunately most, thinking themselves as Christians, remember Christ never lifted his hand up against another man. Real Christians will pray for them, but will not physically attack them. However, those living a Christian life are a minority. I find it ironic that Westboro targets an institution that over all is negative toward homosexuality. I think there are many in our society capable of violence toward Westboro.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-04-2011, 10:31 AM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeless View Post
One rumor that I have never been able to confirm is that craft retailer Hobby Lobby is a big donor to WBC. I know that they are run by a fairly conservative Christian group but I've never actually been able to find proof that they donate to the Phelpses.
I very much doubt that this retailer donates to Phelps' organization. FYI, here's the ministry page from that retailer's website, listing the organizations which it supports. (All are Christian, of course, but none are that organization.) It sounds like various other urban legends about retailers or manufacturers giving money to distasteful groups.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-04-2011, 11:15 AM
Kimmy_Gibbler Kimmy_Gibbler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray View Post
No, actually it's very rare. The general rule in American law is that each party pays its own costs and fees. It's only in very particular circumstances that a court will order a party to pay the other party's legal costs.
CHECK YOU FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54

In the American system, each party is normally responsible for paying its own attorneys' fees, regardless of whether they prevail in the suit.

However, in federal court, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), "[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney's fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party" (emphasis added). Costs are defined at 28 U.S.C. 1920, and include "fees of the clerk and marshal; fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; docket fees under section 1923 of this title; compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title."

These costs need to be substantiated in the bill of costs and, since these should represent actual outlays already made by the Phelpses/WBC, it's hard to see how the award of costs can enrich them. (Yes, they are better off than if they had to eat these costs, but the OP wants to know how the Phelpses/WBC make their ham and eggs, not merely keep their heads above water.)

Last edited by Kimmy_Gibbler; 03-04-2011 at 11:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-04-2011, 09:56 PM
Rachellelogram Rachellelogram is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
What I'm wondering is why these people remain employed in a governmental capacity. If Joe Q. Schmoe was a lawyer for the department of corrections, but it came to be known that he was a vocal KKK member, wouldn't he lose his job?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-04-2011, 10:03 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,937
Why would he be fired? Do you think it should be a requirement of public service that one should hold certain beliefs or not hold other ones?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-04-2011, 10:35 PM
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelellogram View Post
What I'm wondering is why these people remain employed in a governmental capacity.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits the state of Kansas from firing them because of their religious affiliation.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 03-04-2011 at 10:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-05-2011, 12:04 AM
Romeo and Whatsherface Romeo and Whatsherface is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits the state of Kansas from firing them because of their religious affiliation.
And you know if they got canned for any reason, they'd file a wrongful discharge suit.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-05-2011, 09:39 AM
thelabdude thelabdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
State employees do get fired for offensive speech, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ox-fired_N.htm

In Indiana recently as assistant attorney general was fired for saying the police should use live ammunition to clear the Wisconsin capital. You hear of such from time to time.

Civil service employees may be different. With all their success in their personal cases, is there a chance they are using state resources for personal needs?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-06-2011, 09:56 PM
Rachellelogram Rachellelogram is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits the state of Kansas from firing them because of their religious affiliation.
So an open KKK member can be a state employee in Kansas?

Curious.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-06-2011, 10:05 PM
Shmendrik Shmendrik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelellogram View Post
So an open KKK member can be a state employee in Kansas?

Curious.
KKK is not a religious affiliation, and the issue is not unique to Kansas.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-06-2011, 10:26 PM
Princhester Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 11,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
I'm guessing that since the WBC website completely disappeared, that it was because WBC shut it down. I also think that because Anon usually releases internal emails and none were released in this case, that this is further proof that this was a WBC hoax.
Anon may release emails if it obtains access to them but it wouldn't necessarily do so just as part of an attack on a website.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-04-2011, 04:54 PM
sweintz sweintz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhkendall View Post
I'm wondering why it is OK for the losers in a case against a hate group to give money to the hate group? Isn't funding a hate group a crime in the US? If I gave money to the KKK I'm sure I'd be subjected to a nice friendly chat by federal authorities (assume, for the purposes of this post that I'm American (which I'm not)). But if I was on the losing end of a case against the KKK, I'd be ordered to give money to them??

How in blazes does this work???
No, of course funding a hate group is not illegal in the US!!! In fact, hate groups are somewhat protected under the constitution, free speech clause of first amendment.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-04-2011, 04:59 PM
sweintz sweintz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler View Post
CHECK YOU FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54

In the American system, each party is normally responsible for paying its own attorneys' fees, regardless of whether they prevail in the suit.

However, in federal court, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), "[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs other than attorney's fees should be allowed to the prevailing party" (emphasis added). Costs are defined at 28 U.S.C. 1920, and include "fees of the clerk and marshal; fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; docket fees under section 1923 of this title; compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title."
The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 makes it so that the attorneys fees ARE paid if the side bringing the suit prevails. Figure they can probably get away with billing that at 300 an hour. Now imagine how much time they can claim preparing to be heard before the SCOTUS.... could be quite a tidy sum.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-05-2011, 01:50 PM
handsomeharry handsomeharry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelellogram View Post
So an open KKK member can be a state employee in Kansas?

Curious.
I imagine that any US citizen who chooses to affiliate with a group that does not appeal to you may have the same rights to employment as you would, were you to be a member of a group that has no appeal to that citizen.

hh
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-05-2011, 08:45 PM
digs digs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cluricaun View Post
... I don't have a cite on that, but I've read it so many times on so many forums that I accept it.
And what exactly have we been doing here since 1973?

[glances at page header]
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-05-2011, 11:31 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Clearly the WBC is supported by donations from zombies.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.