Tort reform

Here's a laughable legal theory: Use of a video clip of the plaintiff in a movie with whom he disagrees constitutes defamation. First Amendment? Who cares about that?

Case history: Summary judgement entered before trial, no doubt because of the rank absurdity of the legal theory. Had I been the Federal District Court judge, I would have entertained a motion from the defense for costs. You need an example of a frivolous lawsuit? Look no further.

Now, the appeal - some idiots just don't recognize when they've been slapped hard enough to knock sense into nearly anyone else - the appeal has upheld by the First Circuit Court. And Donald J. Feerick, Jr., the author of this political stunt, says that his client may appeal to the Supreme Court. Even this Court, I think, has the sense to refuse a grant of certiorari to this whining.

What I want to know: Who is paying for all this substandard lawyering? The Rutherford Foundation? Richard Mellon Scaife? The ACLJ? (Can't the ACLU get those guys on trademark infringement?)

Note for trolls: None of my assessment of this ridiculous, anti-freedom lawsuit bears at all on my respect for the service of the plaintiff or my sympathy for the injuries he suffered in Iraq.