[lkblair]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/29/nichols.ap/index.html


It looks like Mike Moore is still a baiter.

In the film, Moore asks Nichols for an interview and steers the subject from the Oklahoma City bombing to gun ownership. Nichols tells Moore he has a gun under his pillow, and Moore asks Nichols to show him.

Nichols accuses Moore of libel, defamation of character, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In the lawsuit, Nichols, who lives in Decker, said Moore misled him about the purpose of the interview.

Hopefully, Nichols will take all of this mans "movie" money.

 

[EdGCNM]

IMO, just another example of a frivolous lawsuit. The lawyers will do just fine as always. Moore did not force Nichols to say or do anything, he obviously had permission to be there and to film the interview, Nichols was not obligated to answer any questions or show Moore his .44 magnum (or point it at his own head while loaded). Gimme a break. I may not agree with Moore on everything, but Nichols knew he was being filmed and recorded and what he did, he did of his own volition. As I recall, the commentary in the documentary was not libelous, but just stated facts as reported and I do not believe was inaccurate or unfair.

 

[Forstr]

I saw this yesterday. As much as I hate MM, I tend to agree with the "hoser". (no offense, just kidding)

 

[scubie02]

It looks like Mike Moore is still a baiter.

Judging from his personality, I think its safe to say that he's probably a master baiter...

 

[lkblair]

Re: Re: James Nichols sues Michael Moore over 'Bowling'

I think its safe to say that he's probably a master baiter... [/B]

ahhaahah nice setup, good delivery


Yea, I know, junk lawsuits are wercking this country, BUT any discomfort that Mike Moore goes makes me happy.

 

[Forstr]

We need a "loser pays" system in this country. That's the only way to cut down on frivalous lawsuits. In this case, you'd win either way (IMO).

 

[EdGCNM]

Forstr: No offense taken, eh. Greetings from the Great White North.

 

[Emily W Trott]

We need a "loser pays" system in this country.

Dear Forstr,

I think that is one of the worst things which could happen for us as middle class individuals, and probably the best for large wealthy companies/individuals and the government. All it would accomplish is to further restrict our rights listed in the Constitution and make it impossible for many just lawsuits to be brought forward. A person would have to be able to pay the other sides legal fees before ever bringing suit as there is no assurance that even a just suit will be successful. I'm not willing to give up any of my rights, including this one. Stay safe, Gary

 

[Forstr]

I believe, if you have a valid case, you would have nothing to worry about. Sure, there are injustices either way (O.J, tobacco), but that will be the case whether you have a loser pays system or not. Plus, I can't tell you off the top of my head, but there are organizations (who are proponents of the system) that would "insure" plaintiffs against losses, if their case is reviewed and determined to have merit.

These parasite trial lawyers are the biggest reason why so many industries are in jeopardy (Gun manufacturers), and why we pay such high prices for a lot of things (prescription drugs). If a company wants to bring a product to market, they have to hedge against things such as costly (frivalous) lawsuits. This either gives them the incentive to (a) raise prices (making it harder for middle class folks to afford things), or (b) Decide not to enter (which translates into less competition, which then translates into higer prices).

Of course, the original topic was in the context of personal lawsuits (libel,defamation). If someone wants to sue you for this, even if the court says you are innocent, you're still screwed because you have a mountain of legal bills,from defending the bogus suit.

 

[Mus]

There are many just lawsuits brought that fail and many unjust lawsuits that succeed. Merit has very little to do with justice anymore. Its all about ideology of the oligarch you have to take your case before. My uncle had a lawsuit a few years back where he showed the law to a judge where his land was being incorrectly auctioned to pay off his tax debt and the Judge told him, "I dont care what the law says, I am the law."

Rather than change it to a user pay system we should concentrate on turning it back to an actual JUSTice system. Start impeaching these judges that cant read plain english and dont possess common sense. Start impeaching judges that dont throw out obviously frivolous lawsuits at the very beginning.

 

[Forstr]

Either way will work. I just happen to believe that there is a higher probability of a loser pays system being instituted, than getting judges on the bench who actually see their mission as one to uphold the constitution. But I advocate both...

 

[Mus]

When the system doesnt work properly making it a loser pays system means the person who was in the right will be paying often enough to discourage rightful lawsuits. Thats the point. Gotta make the system work first. Start impeaching these judges.

 

[Forstr]

More often than not, it is the defendant who is "in the right" and being screwed, rather than somebody with a valid case not being able to bring that case to trial.

 

[angus macfuff]

Nichols is just a dumbass. I live very close to Decker and know of his type, and he has no moral ground to stand on. What you saw in Bowlong for Columbine is a true reflection of Mr. Nichols.

 

[lkblair]

What you saw in Bowlong for Columbine is a true reflection of Mr. Nichols.

OK, you said something good about Moore, you need to say something bad about him to even this out

 

[angus macfuff]

On the other side Moore's Documentary seems like neophyte attempt of revisionist fiction.

However, Roger and me is a worthy doumentary film and worthyt of an oscar.

Bowling was a ridiculous fictional piece of highly opinionated satire.