Thursday, April 22, 2010

Suing Mullahs and other Pointless Courtroom Antics

There's been a big push in certain Jewish quarters for a bill that would enable victims of terrorism to sue those responsible. The Ceeb has the details here. While such a measure would enable terror victims and their relatives to feel a bit more empowered, realistically speaking, isn't it all mostly for show? As lawyer James Morton, quoted in the Ceeb piece, says, the idea that you could, say, sue Iran, in a Canadian court and actually collect on a judgement "would be tricky if not impossible."

There are those who believe litigation is the answer to everything. I am not among them.

5 comments:

paul said...

I'm just curious. Why would you say litigation is not an answer? If you're going to rely on some attention starved loser the CBC (?) has filed in its Rolodex under "surrender monkey lawyer" well I can see why you would think that.

On the other hand, Edgar Bronfman sued the Swiss government successfully and you rarely hear from the KKK which was litigated to smithereens fifteen years ago.

As I've previously mentioned, ONE answer to cleaning up Brain-Rot of Islam (at least in Canada), is put the whole bloody Muslim religion on trial for promoting and perpetuating "hate & violence" (as is profusely evident in the turgid satanic verses of the Koran.)

It just might work and in that vein why not sue Iran? (important to remember that even if yo fail, you only lose if you don't try)

scaramouche said...

Try suing and collecting from Saudi Arabia, Iran, al Qaeda etc.--all's I'm saying.

paul said...

Contrary to what many people believe that you can't fight city hall, you can and you can INDEED collect from the likes of Saudi Arabia etc.

Lawyers are able to get asset seizures from the court and in a centralized global banking system, it's not impossible to locate bank accounts.

Jim R said...

"important to remember that even if you fail, you only lose if you don't try"

Actually Paul, there is always a loser in litigation. Someone has to pay for expensive lawyers; you, the loser, or the lawyers expensive time if they litigate for an award percentage.

paul said...

Jum, There's a huge difference between "fail" and "lose". if you don't try, you totally fail. If you try and lose, at least it isn't a failure. (in other words something was gained as in something being learned.)

A "failure" would be if Edgar Bronfoman didn't sue the thieving two-faced Swiss about their complicity in the Nazi murder machine. It would have also been a failure if the KKK wasn't sued out of existence.

As far as losing money because good lawyers are expensive, my take on the matter would be that with the likes of an Alan Derkowitz, (to name one good lawyer) he is worth every red cent because he fights to win.

And for your reference, money isn't the problem as there are billions being held by various Jewish organizations that were intended to be applied specifically to hire lawyers to fight issues. Unfortunately, they seem to have all gotten into the money management business.

And for your reference, to me, the great failure we are all living with at the moment, is most definataly a problem related to the failure of the CJC and to a lesser degree, Bnai Brith.