A few weeks ago, I blogged about a lawsuit in which Texas developer H. Walker Royall is suing legal journalist Carla Main for alleged defamation. Royall had previously acquired property through the use of eminent domain by the city of Freeport, Texas, so that he could in turn use it to build a luxury marina. Main wrote a compelling book about the case, and now Royall is suing her for defamation because she described his role in the case in an unflattering light. Even more absurdly, Royall is also suing University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein for writing a favorable blurb for the book.
In this recent op ed coauthored with her publisher, Roger Kimball, Main gives her view of the case and the threat it poses to property rights and freedom of speech.
It is highly unlikely that Royall will actually win this case. However, such lawsuits can still serve to stifle criticism of questionable takings by imposing steep litigation costs on critics. Main and Epstein are fortunate to have free representation from the Institute for Justice, the libertarian public interest law firm that has litigated numerous property rights cases, including Kelo v. City of New London. Most other eminent domain critics and threatened property owners are not so fortunate.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST WATCH: Richard Epstein and I have worked together on various eminent domain issues, though not on this case. I also have done a variety of eminent domain-related pro bono work for the Institute for Justice, which is representing Epstein and Main.
UPDATE: I accidentally got Royall's first name wrong in the first version of this post. The mistake has now been corrected.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Prof. Richard Epstein Dismissed from Book-Blurb Libel Case, on Jurisdictional Grounds:
- Journalist Carla Main Responds to Developer Who is Suing Her Claiming that She Defamed Him in Book Chronicling His Effort to Acquire Property Through Eminent Domain:
- Texas Developer Who Used Eminent Domain to Acquire Property for Himself Sues Journalist Carla Main and lawprof Richard Epstein for Libel:
How much of a malpractice case will he have against his counsel after his beautiful name and once stalwart reputation are shot down in flames over this when its over?
Naturally, the plaintiff and the plaintiff lawyer in this case deserve street justice. If the judge allows the case to get beyond a demand for dismissal, the same for the judge.
1) Recognize that filing or even threatening to file a suit can be a tort on the part of the plaintiff.
2) The act of representing someone who files or threatens to file such a suit can be a tort on the part of the attorney.
3) A judge through gross negligence or bias may commit malpractice and should be subject to the same penalties as any other professional.
I suspect that this would reduce the filing of many unfounded and/or frivolous suits.
Most people haven't heard that type of right-thinking rhetoric since the Johnstown Flood.
Much of today's American society likely disheartens SupremacyClause, so here's a trip along memory lane to brighten his spirits: No one -- not those drowned, nor those burned, nor those maimed, nor those orphaned -- recovered a dime for personal injury or death caused by the Johnstown Flood, despite egregious conduct by the South Fork Hunting and Fishing Club (whose members were "productive parties," no doubt) that caused the devastating flood.
The icing: A couple of the club members, incensed by the club's failure to make payments on their membership bonds after it was wiped out (not literally, of course -- it was a few yards upriver from the compromised dam) by the flood, sued the club and collected against the few remaining assets of the club.
The good old days, eh?
If torts had any benefit, the lawyer and judge would end all their self-dealt immunities. Why is the lawyer profession depriving itself of the benefits it claims for all others? No other group has had privity as an obstacle to tort claims for the past 100 years.
Not only do torts knock 3% off economic growth by deterring innovation, it prevents the remedy of dangerous practices. Any investigation of accidents will be used in discovery that may destroy the entity causing the accident. So, the lawyer prevents prevention of future accidents by inducing a cover up for survival. The lawyer is responsible for all preventable accidents.
Seriously, where is the justification for any litigation privilege or any other self-dealt lawyer immunity?
All lawyers and judges should carry professional liability insurance and make the victims of their carelessness whole. Lawyers cannot argue for torts and for self-dealt immunities simultaneously without the force of armed government.
--PtM
Who pays for the Medicaid? Does someone make voluntary donations to cover the costs? Or is the money collected from someone who "pays, at the point of the gun of government, and one gets nothing back, except avoidance of getting shot"?
OK, I'm done feeding the troll. Sorry.
Medicaid does not take seven years to achieve. It does not hand over half or more to the lawyer. It has discounted adequate services, instead of the full price demanded by providers knowing there is a settlement fund to tap.
It is the lawyer that is trolling the American economy. Our growth rate should be 9%, as with the underlawyered economies of our friendly competitors. The lawyer has destroyed at least 3% or more in growth rate. The lawyer has caused the current economic crisis several ways, including the torts bunco operation, and oppressive, gotcha, invalid regulation, combined with incompetent oversight of lenders. The incompetence is best explained by its aim. The aim of the regulatory lawyer is not to control the bad guys, it is just to get theirs in rent seeking.
If this case is not dismissed on request, the judge must be removed under pressure on the administrative judge. It is high time that judges face some consequence for the promotion of this bunco operation. If I become a defendant (an absolute certainty, as a productive party, not a lawyer), I demand total e-discovery on the plaintiff, on the plaintiff lawyer for improper motive, and on the judge for pro-litigation bias. No judge should feel safe or relaxed while allowing the plunder of a productive party.
The victim may get Medicaid. A regulatory body should insure that the injury does not recur by insuring an investigation has taken place of the cluster of factors that causes most catastrophes. There is not a Medieval style chain of causation. That is anti-scientific, Scholasticist ideology indoctrinated into 1L's. Even people with IQ's of 300, such as the bloggers here, believe that Medieval garbage.
There is a cluster of factors. The good news is that even if only one of the twelve factors is prevented, the entire accident is prevented. Transferring money to lawyers does not help anyone, except the lawyer and the lawyer hierarchy.
There is no evidence that torts has ever enhanced safety. They induce a cover up of investigations, and prevent prevention. All safety enhancement has come from advances in technology and procedures. Not a single accident has ever been prevented by a lawyer. The evidence supports the reverse.
(Mention was made above of Holocaust Denier David Irving's lawsuit against Deborah Libpstadt. But do they have American-style discovery in the UK, or does in their system one just go straight to court and try to bring it all out there?
No need to apologize, the impulse to respond is understandable. You do understand though, don't you, that the effort is doomed to certain failure. But at least we can be certain, can't we, that no matter how severely and egregiously the troll or someone dear to him might be injured by the negligence, or even gross negligence, of others, he will seek no legal redress against the tortfeasor. (Is the troll equally accepting of intentional torts?)