Emma wrote:
Stupid questions ...
For cases like this, where you have idiots filing this garbage pro se, is the Court allowed to award damages to the defendants? This fool seems well-versed in birther talking points, so I have to believe he is well aware of the outcomes of all the other cases. Yet here he is, attempting to use the exact same arguments that have been shot down time and again. Could he be ordered to pay the defendants' attorney fees, fined or otherwise punished for wasting the Court's time? Does someone have to file multiple frivolous complaints to be considered 'vexatious'?
Generally, defendants are not awarded "damages." Those are a claim made by a plaintiff.
Unlike European countries, the United States also has a general rule, reasonably called "the American rule," that litigants pay their own attorney fees. The prevailing party is often awarded "costs," which are usually things like photocopying and service of process other costs directly related to court activities.
The most usual sanction, when one party has acted frivolously, is to shift attorney's fees. Some causes of action, like civil rights claims and trademark lawsuits, have some statutory provision for shifting attorney's fees to the losing defendant (though these occasionally work the other way). Since fees are usually much higher than costs, fee-shifting provisions are usually limited to statutes where public policy is to encourage such litigation, such as civil rights cases, where the threat of litigation and having to pay fees restrains potential malefactors, and rewards the successful litigant.
Unfortunately, at least for us in this birther context, the law generally disfavors shifting attorney's fees against litigants just for being kooks. For one thing, the usual purpose is not served by such sanctions. Most of these nutjobs are penniless and couldn't pay attorney fees anyway. For another, they're insane and wouldn't be deterred in any event, because they're too nutso even to know what they're doing.
That's why some jurisdictions have "vexatious litigant" status to prevent harassment by litigants like this. It doesn't seek to deter. Such people are quite resistant to deterrence, since they're insane. It just keeps them out of the courts.
There are serious due process concerns with such statutes, and they can easily be abused to deprive unpopular people from seeking redress in the courts. I share those concerns. Even though I do think there needs to be a way to prevent public resources from being wasted on nonsense, I think it should (usually) be on a case by case basis.
Edit: And as to the final question, yes, generally to be considered a vexatious litigant, and to be deprived of the right to seek redress in a court of law forever, one must do more than merely make a single frivolous filing in one's lifetime. The "vexatious" element of the offense generally requires that the misbehavior be habitual.
Login
Register
FAQ
