Decisions, decisions: should get legal payback for the Ellian story, or should we harp on frivilous lawsuits about bogus medical claims? Bet I know which one will win out!
And I have to wonder, if law-and-order conservatives can defend officers shooting a man to death over 40 times for possesing a dangerous wallet as perfectly justified, are they really going to turn around and demand justice for tear gassing a hysterical family that had repeated defied court orders and actually said that they wold resist anyone that came to collect the child?
From the link in the OP, although there were 108 separate plaintiffs in the case, the judge is limiting the class to those who were not members of the Gonzalez family or on their property. The plaintiffs are now reduced to those who were close enough to get gassed, but not part of the raid.
Other than that, I have not read the lawsuit, so I don’t know if it has merit or not. But if the judge restricted the plaintiffs to those I’ve described, I’m thinking it probably does, at least enough to let it go to trial.
Merit? What fucking merit? Merit shouldn’t be in the same galaxy as this case. 5 Years after the fact, and they’re suing now? 100% grade A bullshit. Throw it out and charge them for wasting the court’s time.
Well, no. The case is just starting now. It might take a year or more to assess and ascertain such things as aggrevation of a liver disease, and it might take several years for a case to come to trial due to delays and whatnot — especially a case against the government, which I think requires you to obtain permission from it before you can sue it. No idea how long that process might take.
This is correct, but the Federal Tort Claims Act gives that permission. It is riddled with exceptions though, and as I am not a lawyer, I have no idea whether it is actually useful to the citizenry or just lip service.
How is this Clinton-bashing? I’m aware of Judicial Watch’s antipathy for all things Clinton and that the raid happened on President Clinton’s watch, but at least from the CNN story it looks more like local-agent bashing (using that word without prejudice as to whether such bashing is justified, as I know exactly zip about this case). Am I missing a Clinton angle that wasn’t in the story?
WTF? I already mentioned that President Clinton was in office. President Clinton was in office when any number of things happened, and not all lawsuits against the government for its actions during his terms are examples of “Clinton hating.” I’m asking in good faith because I don’t know and wish to have my ignorance on the subject eradicated.
I’m not sure I’d call it ambulance chasing yet. It looks like tear gas poisoning is very real, but the linked entry doesn’t say anything about long-term effects. I’m not going to dismess these people until I find out a bit more.