Dan T. Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Something to get your blood boiling this morning: (CNN) -- The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church says an order to pay the protesters' legal costs in a civil claim is nothing less than a "slap in the face." "By the court making this decision, they're not only telling me that they're taking their side, but I have to pay them money to do this to more soldiers and their families," said Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in action in Iraq in 2006. Members of the fundamentalist church based in Topeka, Kansas, appeared outside Snyder's funeral in 2006 in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading "You're going to hell," "God hates you" and "Thank God for dead soldiers." Among the teachings of the church, which was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps, is the belief that God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events such as soldiers' deaths. Margie Phelps, the daughter of Fred Phelps and the attorney representing the church in its appeals, also said the money that the church receives from Snyder will be used to finance demonstrations. But she also said that the order was a consequence of his decision to sue the church over the demonstration. "Mr. Snyder and his attorneys have engaged the legal system; there are some rules to that legal engagement," said Phelps, a member of Westboro who says she has participated in more than 150 protests of military funerals. "They wanted to shut down the picketing so now they're going to finance it," she said. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ordered that Snyder pay more than $16,000 in costs requested by Westboro for copies of motions, briefs and appendices, according to court documents. Rest of article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/30/westboro.baptist.snyder/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsandCanes Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 The military should post snipers around all military funerals. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 O'reily paid it, but feel free to donate to the SCOTUS appeal if ya wish. Already been accepted for review Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterPinstripe Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Something to get your blood boiling this morning:(CNN) -- The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church says an order to pay the protesters' legal costs in a civil claim is nothing less than a "slap in the face." "By the court making this decision, they're not only telling me that they're taking their side, but I have to pay them money to do this to more soldiers and their families," said Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in action in Iraq in 2006. Members of the fundamentalist church based in Topeka, Kansas, appeared outside Snyder's funeral in 2006 in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading "You're going to hell," "God hates you" and "Thank God for dead soldiers." Among the teachings of the church, which was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps, is the belief that God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events such as soldiers' deaths. Margie Phelps, the daughter of Fred Phelps and the attorney representing the church in its appeals, also said the money that the church receives from Snyder will be used to finance demonstrations. But she also said that the order was a consequence of his decision to sue the church over the demonstration. "Mr. Snyder and his attorneys have engaged the legal system; there are some rules to that legal engagement," said Phelps, a member of Westboro who says she has participated in more than 150 protests of military funerals. "They wanted to shut down the picketing so now they're going to finance it," she said. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ordered that Snyder pay more than $16,000 in costs requested by Westboro for copies of motions, briefs and appendices, according to court documents. Rest of article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/30/westboro.baptist.snyder/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn As sad as it is and frustrating, the law is the law. The Judge isnt saying he supports them, but he cant ignore the law just because he doesnt like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterPinstripe Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 O'reily paid it, but feel free to donate to the SCOTUS appeal if ya wish.Already been accepted for review He covered the cost? Good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 The only way to get rid of these people is to ignore them. They live for attention and if you give it to them, they will just keep coming back. Dont sue them, dont look at them, dont engage them in any way. Pretend they dont exist... treat them like the tree branch in the woods. But good for this guy for Not paying their court costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 What sicko protests a soldier's funeral? Those people are scumbags, and if I said the rest of what I thought, I'd get banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Just found this on Mr. Snyder's facebook page: "GREAT NEWS! Bill O'Reilly has just announced that he will pay the entire amount that AL SNYDER owes to those people!!!! PLEASE keep in mind that any donations in excess will be used to begin the Matt Snyder Fund!" ..... GOOD ON YOU, BILL O'REILLY! GOOD...ON...YOU!!!!! :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obibyn23 Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Maybe people should picket them, At their church, their homes, their funerals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 As sad as it is and frustrating, the law is the law. The Judge isnt saying he supports them, but he cant ignore the law just because he doesnt like them. That may or may not be true, another court ruled against them. We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say. The issue, as far as I'm concerned, is the ridiculous judgment that he has to pay $60,000 in legal bills for them. That type of ruling is only supposed to be used when the suit is deemed frivolous. In this case, he already had won at a lower level and the 'church' had appealed that decision. This is not a frivolous lawsuit by any means and the judges way overstepped their bounds here. And yes, good for Bill O'Reilly for saying he'd pay their fee for them and leave the extra - or all of it if the ruling is overturned - for the fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lydon Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I now have the utmost respect for Bill O'Reilly. It's good to see someone in a position of influence stand up and do the right thing instead of flip flop until the issue goes away. Kudos to you Mr. O'Reilly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterPinstripe Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Maybe people should picket them, At their church, their homes, their funerals. Thats a good idea. Wonder what they would do if people starting picketing their funerals with the same types of signs. It would be in their legal right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Maybe people should picket them, At their church, their homes, their funerals. Or soak'em in gasoline and set'em on fire. :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterPinstripe Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 That may or may not be true, another court ruled against them. We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say.The issue, as far as I'm concerned, is the ridiculous judgment that he has to pay $60,000 in legal bills for them. That type of ruling is only supposed to be used when the suit is deemed frivolous. In this case, he already had won at a lower level and the 'church' had appealed that decision. This is not a frivolous lawsuit by any means and the judges way overstepped their bounds here. And yes, good for Bill O'Reilly for saying he'd pay their fee for them and leave the extra - or all of it if the ruling is overturned - for the fund. Missed that part. Thats even more ridiculous then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 the phelps clan are lawyers and i've read that their primary source of income is from lawsuits against people infringing on their right to protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 the phelps clan are lawyers and i've read that their primary source of income is from lawsuits against people infringing on their right to protest. Sounds like a few other groups I could mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Patriot- Bill O'Reilly Pinheads- Westboro Church, you are not being Christ-like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 That may or may not be true, another court ruled against them. We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say.The issue, as far as I'm concerned, is the ridiculous judgment that he has to pay $60,000 in legal bills for them. That type of ruling is only supposed to be used when the suit is deemed frivolous. In this case, he already had won at a lower level and the 'church' had appealed that decision. This is not a frivolous lawsuit by any means and the judges way overstepped their bounds here. And yes, good for Bill O'Reilly for saying he'd pay their fee for them and leave the extra - or all of it if the ruling is overturned - for the fund. Not sure I agree with your assertion that this wasn't a frivolous lawsuit. From the article: "The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law." In short, the Father (who I can certainly sympathize with), claimed that a legal protest, non disruptive, on public property, hurt his feelings. Can I sue the Tea Partiers for the same thing? (That said, though, I think that finding the Father liable for court costs stretches the "loser pays" rules too far, too. IMO, this suit wasn't as clearly frivolous as the law should require.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 This isn't a frivolous lawsuit. The father was claiming "intentional infliction of emotional distress" which is apparently against the law in Maryland. That is exactly the intent of these protests. Now other rights may trump this, but it's clear Westboro are there to attack people when they are most emotionally vulnerable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 They were supposedly at my father's funeral, but the Patriot Guard blocked them out...I dont even remember much except people having tons of american flags all along the highway. It doesnt really bother me though because I know that nobody in their right mind believes that stuff...they just do it for attention and money because they are horrible people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 ...In short, the Father (who I can certainly sympathize with), claimed that a legal protest, non disruptive, on public property, hurt his feelings. Can I sue the Tea Partiers for the same thing? (That said, though, I think that finding the Father liable for court costs stretches the "loser pays" rules too far, too. IMO, this suit wasn't as clearly frivolous as the law should require.) No, he sued them under the premise of "Intentionally Inflicting Emotional Damages", not 'hurt feelings'. Your 'Tea Partiers' reference is as absurd as these rulings - take your politics to any of the other 100 or so threads about them. Lastly, and here is the important part (you missed it the first time, I think), is that he WON judgment the first time. This was a Appeals court ruling. The fact that a lower court ruled in his favor showed that his suit was not clearly frivolous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 The only way to get rid of these people is to ignore them. They live for attention and if you give it to them, they will just keep coming back. Dont sue them, dont look at them, dont engage them in any way. Pretend they dont exist... treat them like the tree branch in the woods.But good for this guy for Not paying their court costs. Actually, they show up to try to incite something and then sue the pants off of people. They all are lawyers and it is basically a business to the Phelps family. (It is probably why they go to so many funerals. They can egg on people who are in an emotional state.) The best way to fight them it with a peaceful counter protest that drowns them out. Some of the ones I've seen on YouTube are pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 No, he sued them under the premise of "Intentionally Inflicting Emotional Damages", not 'hurt feelings'. 1) And the difference is? 2) And all protests are intentionally designed to invoke emotions. Are all protests now illegal? Your 'Tea Partiers' reference is as absurd as these rulings - take your politics to any of the other 100 or so threads about them. Pick a different group. Lastly, and here is the important part (you missed it the first time, I think), is that he WON judgment the first time. This was a Appeals court ruling. The fact that a lower court ruled in his favor showed that his suit was not clearly frivolous. Or it shows that juries are notorious for handing out verdicts based on who they like or dislike. Which is why judges are supposed to rule on whether something violates the law or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Actually, they show up to try to incite something and then sue the pants off of people. They all are lawyers and it is basically a business to the Phelps family. (It is probably why they go to so many funerals. They can egg on people who are in an emotional state.) Agreed, it's a business for them. A stunt for generating lawsuits. They're there because they're looking for an excuse for a lawsuit. Which certainly does make the concept of them claiming that somebody else is targeting them with a frivolous lawsuit at least ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 That may or may not be true, another court ruled against them. We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say.The issue, as far as I'm concerned, is the ridiculous judgment that he has to pay $60,000 in legal bills for them. That type of ruling is only supposed to be used when the suit is deemed frivolous. In this case, he already had won at a lower level and the 'church' had appealed that decision. This is not a frivolous lawsuit by any means and the judges way overstepped their bounds here. No one understands the order. The father (who was the one who brought the suit initially) was charged for court costs, not attorney's fees. This is what happens when you lose on appeal. If he had been charged attorney's fees, the bill may have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.