-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Man Sues Church, Claims Spirit Forced His Fall
- Thread starter JFox1
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Donna, why do you think our country encourages law suits? Who do you think perpetuates this? How do you think the sleazy John Edwards got filthy rich? He did it suing baby doctors. Many baby doctors have been run out of business because of folks like John Edwards. Did you know that there are specialized classes that teach lawyers how to sue churches? Why do you think liability insurance rates are so high? Consider the multi-million dollar law suits. Who has to pay for these? Ultimately, it's not the company nor the insurance. The cost is passed on to you and me in higher prices, higher premiums, ridiculous disclaimers, and binding arbitration.
Why not go to a loser pays system? One can file all the law suits he or she wants. But, if he or she loses then he or she pays the costs on both sides. That would eliminate a lot of the law suits like the example listed on this thread. However, you would be hard pressed to find a trial lawyer who would go along with a loser pays system. They like that idea about as much as they like binding arbitration.
Why not go to a loser pays system? One can file all the law suits he or she wants. But, if he or she loses then he or she pays the costs on both sides. That would eliminate a lot of the law suits like the example listed on this thread. However, you would be hard pressed to find a trial lawyer who would go along with a loser pays system. They like that idea about as much as they like binding arbitration.
Last edited by a moderator:
sag38 said:Donna, why do you think our country encourages law suits? Who do you think perpetuates this? How do you think the sleazy John Edwards got filthy rich? He did it suing baby doctors. Many baby doctors have been run out of business because of folks like John Edwards. Did you know that there are specialized classes that teach lawyers how to sue churches? Why do you think liability insurance rates are so high? Consider the multi-million dollar law suits. Who has to pay for these? Ultimately, it's not the company nor the insurance. The cost is passed on to you and me in higher prices, higher premiums, ridiculous disclaimers, and binding arbitration.
Why not go to a loser pays system? One can file all the law suits he or she wants. But, if he or she loses then he or she pays the costs on both sides. That would eliminate a lot of the law suits like the example listed on this thread. However, you would be hard pressed to find a trial lawyer who would go along with a loser pays system. They like that idea about as much as they like binding arbitration.
And of course the judges that decide cases challenging excessive fees and frivilant law suits are what?
L-A_W_Y-E-R-S
How do you think this country discourages law suits?sag38 said:Donna, why do you think our country encourages law suits? Who do you think perpetuates this? How do you think the sleazy John Edwards got filthy rich? He did it suing baby doctors. Many baby doctors have been run out of business because of folks like John Edwards. Did you know that there are specialized classes that teach lawyers how to sue churches? Why do you think liability insurance rates are so high? Consider the multi-million dollar law suits. Who has to pay for these? Ultimately, it's not the company nor the insurance. The cost is passed on to you and me in higher prices, higher premiums, ridiculous disclaimers, and binding arbitration.
Why not go to a loser pays system? One can file all the law suits he or she wants. But, if he or she loses then he or she pays the costs on both sides. That would eliminate a lot of the law suits like the example listed on this thread. However, you would be hard pressed to find a trial lawyer who would go along with a loser pays system. They like that idea about as much as they like binding arbitration.
What has this become? Why all the trial lawyer hugging? Our country doesn't discourage the law suit happy environment.
I'm all for having law suits. But, if you sue and you lose, you should pay the court costs, lawyer's fees, etc. for both sides. That would discourage a lot of law suits like the man blaming being slain in the Spirit (What a crock! The firm representing him is simply hoping that the church's insurance will settle out of court.) But, find a trial lawyer who would agree. You probably won't.
I'm all for having law suits. But, if you sue and you lose, you should pay the court costs, lawyer's fees, etc. for both sides. That would discourage a lot of law suits like the man blaming being slain in the Spirit (What a crock! The firm representing him is simply hoping that the church's insurance will settle out of court.) But, find a trial lawyer who would agree. You probably won't.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Revmitchell said:And of course the judges that decide cases challenging excessive fees and frivilant law suits are what?
L-A_W_Y-E-R-S
Which cases are the ones that involve "challenging excessive fees?"
Moreover, what does "frivilant" mean?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.