With all due respect, certain types of "frivolous" lawsuits, as Carl
Starrett points out, are indicative of a larger, more serious
ethical problem in the legal profession, whereby any individual or
group, with large resources, can procure the services of a law firm
based on the amount of the retainer, rather than the merits or lack
of merits in the case. For those subject to this type of litigation,
and who have limited resources, the legal system unfortunately
fails, in most cases, to provide justice, as money becomes the
decisive determinant of the outcome.

In GWP v. Bergin, Garvey et al, we are fortunate to have the
resources and the determination to defend our freedom of speech as
it pertains to our personal stories spanning seventeen years.
Unfortunately, reform within the legal profession is a much larger
issue, for which I see little relief to society, save for those
individual law firms and attorneys who practice based on the rules
of civil society and not their bottom lines.

Jim

--- In gentlewindvictims@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Starrett" <chs@c...>
wrote:
> I would it is both humorous and tragic. I am still amazed that
they
> convinced an attorney to take on the case. I am sure by now that
the
> legal fees must be well into the six figure range. The tragic
part
is
> that know matter how frivolous a lawsuit might be, you still must
> defend against it in order to avoid have a judgment taken against
> you. In some cases, even a complete win across the board might
not
> result in compensation for the monetary loss suffered in defending
a
> lawsuit.
>
> --- In gentlewindvictims@yahoogroups.com, "mhillman35"
> <mhillman35@y...> wrote:
> > Here's one that's humorous, tragic, or both, depending on one's
> > perspective and situation. It's from "The High Weirdness
Project"
> > about "The Gentle Wind Project." No joke!