CNN-Dead Marine's Father Ordered to Pay Westboro Church Court Costs

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Not sure I agree with your assertion that this wasn't a frivolous lawsuit.

The issue of whether the case was frivolous was never an issue.

This was for court costs, not attorney's fees. The loser always is ordered to pay costs, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 39(a)(3).

So...stop talking about this being frivolous, because you are talking about something that is not an issue.

The fact that a lower court ruled in his favor showed that his suit was not clearly frivolous.

Thank God that no one determined that the case was frivolous. No one hear knows what they are talking about.

I live to give.

[Larry]

No one understands the order.

The father (who was the one who brought the suit initially) was charged for court costs' date=' 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.[/quote']

Thank you for that observation.

(I think I understand the difference.)

[Ellis]

Maybe people should picket them, At their church, their homes, their funerals.

You sir, might have a great a idea. :evilg:

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Thank you for that observation.

(I think I understand the difference.)

The difference is that one is basically for filing and copying. You have to make ten copies of everything you provide on appeal. And you have to provide the initial court transcript. You can easily be talking tens of thousands of pages.

Attorney's fees would be what you are billed by the attorney himself.

[Larry]

Question, though:

1) Don't "court costs" go to the court? Why is Westboro talking about what they're going to do with the money?

2) Didn't Westboro file the appeal? I thought the Father won at the lower level.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Question, though:

1) Don't "court costs" go to the court? Why is Westboro talking about what they're going to do with the money?

2) Didn't Westboro file the appeal? I thought the Father won at the lower level.

1. No. Court costs are what you spend to make the court happy. They go to the winner on appeal. (Keep in mind that the Phelps clan is filled with attorneys and they do this stuff all the time. So, the attorneys fees were probably minimal).

2. Yes. And it does not matter. Loser pays court costs on appeal.

[Titaw]

Nevermind. LKB answered it better.

[No Excuses]

Well if they ever show up in my area, me and my buddies have decided we will do something like this:

iT7xQJrqUQ8

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Rule 39. Costs

(a) Against Whom Assessed.

The following rules apply unless the law provides or the court orders otherwise:

(1) if an appeal is dismissed, costs are taxed against the appellant, unless the parties agree otherwise;

(2) if a judgment is affirmed, costs are taxed against the appellant;

(3) if a judgment is reversed, costs are taxed against the appellee;

(4) if a judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, modified, or vacated, costs are taxed only as the court orders.

( Costs For and Against the United States.

Costs for or against the United States, its agency, or officer will be assessed under Rule 39(a) only if authorized by law.

© Costs of Copies.

Each court of appeals must, by local rule, fix the maximum rate for taxing the cost of producing necessary copies of a brief or appendix, or copies of records authorized by Rule 30(f). The rate must not exceed that generally charged for such work in the area where the clerk’s office is located and should encourage economical methods of copying.

(d) Bill of Costs: Objections; Insertion in Mandate.

(1) A party who wants costs taxed must—within 14 days after entry of judgment—file with the circuit clerk, with proof of service, an itemized and verified bill of costs.

(2) Objections must be filed within 10 days after service of the bill of costs, unless the court extends the time.

(3) The clerk must prepare and certify an itemized statement of costs for insertion in the mandate, but issuance of the mandate must not be delayed for taxing costs. If the mandate issues before costs are finally determined, the district clerk must—upon the circuit clerk’s request—add the statement of costs, or any amendment of it, to the mandate.

(e) Costs on Appeal Taxable in the District Court.

The following costs on appeal are taxable in the district court for the benefit of the party entitled to costs under this rule:

(1) the preparation and transmission of the record;

(2) the reporter’s transcript, if needed to determine the appeal;

(3) premiums paid for a supersedes bond or other bond to preserve rights pending appeal; and

(4) the fee for filing the notice of appeal.

[grhqofb5]

This particular tort may carry a high burden, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't plead in good faith.

The necessary showing for bad faith is actually higher. There are ways to use the system against these people.

[btfoom]

No one understands the order.

The father (who was the one who brought the suit initially) was charged for court costs' date=' 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.[/quote']

Then maybe you need to contact CNN and the The No Spin Zone. From the first line in the article:

"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.""...

Now, if you have another source to back up what you posted, please let me know. The above, in red letters, is exactly what Bill O'Reilly talked about last night, when he discussed it with attorneys on his show. They said the same thing.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The necessary showing for bad faith is actually higher. There are ways to use the system against these people.

I'm not sure what that would be.

The Phelps are disgusting, but they know what they are doing. They know what the law is, they know what they can say or do, and they know how to sue people who try to stop them.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Then maybe you need to contact CNN and the The No Spin Zone. From the first line in the article:

"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.""

Now, if you have another source to back up what you posted, please let me know. The above, in red letters, is exactly what Bill O'Reilly talked about last night, when he discussed it with attorney's.

They were ordered to pay legal costs.

Not attorney's fees.

There is a big difference - though to the public it really doesn't matter.

Read the rules I posted above.

I'm only pointing this out, because everyone is saying it was dismissed as "frivolous" which is patently untrue.

[grhqofb5]

I'm not sure what that would be.

The Phelps are disgusting' date=' but they know what they are doing. They know what the law is, they know what they can say or do, and they know how to sue people who try to stop them.[/quote']

I gave this some thought last night after seeing the report on Fox News. PM me for details.

[Hazel-Ra]

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.

Probably a lot to ask from a grieving family member, though I see the wisdom in what you're saying.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

By the way, I read the appeal.

Did you know that the father did not know about the protests until he watched the news that night?

Does that change your opinion in any way?

[Destino]

Well if they ever show up in my area, me and my buddies have decided we will do something like this:

hahaha Rick Roll'd

[btfoom]

They were ordered to pay legal costs.

Not attorney's fees.

There is a big difference - though to the public it really doesn't matter.

Read the rules I posted above.

I'm only pointing this out' date=' because everyone is saying it was dismissed as "frivolous" which is patently untrue.[/quote']

Where did you see that? There are several articles that refer to him paying the Westboro Church, even a part in an article where he says he's not going to pay them a dime.

So, you are saying that the news articles are wrong?

[grhqofb5]

Then maybe you need to contact CNN and the The No Spin Zone. From the first line in the article:

"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.""...

Now, if you have another source to back up what you posted, please let me know. The above, in red letters, is exactly what Bill O'Reilly talked about last night, when he discussed it with attorneys on his show. They said the same thing.

Lombardi is correct. You'd be surprised how quickly "costs" can accrue, so it's logical to think this includes attorney's fees. I can assure you it doesn't.

Of course, I'm sure their "costs" figure is inflated.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Where did you see that? There are several articles that refer to him paying the Westboro Church, even a part in an article where he says he's not going to pay them a dime.

So, you are saying that the news articles are wrong?

What are you talking about?

He does need to pay Westboro. He pays them their court costs.

He does not pay their attorneys' fees.

What are you missing here?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

By the way, the court never addressed the issue of whether the conduct actually rose to the level of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, because the Phelps did not make that argument in their appeal. (One of the judges did want to raise the issue based on an amicus brief, but appeals courts are loathe to rule based solely on an amicus brief).

The issue was that the lower court left the matter of whether the speech was protected up to the jury. This is not a jury question.

[Bang]

Maybe when a soldier dies and these ****s show up, the military ought to send a platoon out to completely surround them... peacefully. Just stand shoulder to shoulder and encircle them completely and stand there at Parade Rest.. If they move, move the living wall of silence with them. If they splt up, split the formation so that each protester is surrounded.

I would not mind a bit if the Army designated a platoon just for this purpose,, follow them around the country.

i know,, expensive and probably unconstitutional to use the Army this way, but other than USS Redskin's suggestion of ignoring them, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable non-violent method of disrupting them.

~Bang

[TheGoodBits]

kudos to Bill O'Reilly. Never thought I would say that. Ever.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Maybe when a soldier dies and these ****s show up, the military ought to send a platoon out to completely surround them... peacefully. Just stand shoulder to shoulder and encircle them completely and stand there at Parade Rest.. If they move, move the living wall of silence with them. If they splt up, split the formation so that each protester is surrounded.

I would not mind a bit if the Army designated a platoon just for this purpose,, follow them around the country.

i know,, expensive,, but other than USS Redskin's suggestion of ignoring them, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable non-violent method of disrupting them.

~Bang

My guess is that the Phelps would sue for false imprisonment and would likely have a strong case. It would also become a civil rights issue because the government (in this case the army) would be interfering with someon's right to protest.

It would be better if that plan was implemented by private citizens, except they would still probably be liable for false imprisonment.

Think about it. If you were about to enter the mall. And 25 gang members decided to surround you, never touched you, but never left the circle...does that sound like something that would be legal?

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Maybe when a soldier dies and these ****s show up, the military ought to send a platoon out to completely surround them... peacefully. Just stand shoulder to shoulder and encircle them completely and stand there at Parade Rest.. If they move, move the living wall of silence with them. If they splt up, split the formation so that each protester is surrounded.

I would not mind a bit if the Army designated a platoon just for this purpose,, follow them around the country.

i know,, expensive and probably unconstitutional to use the Army this way, but other than USS Redskin's suggestion of ignoring them, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable non-violent method of disrupting them.

Thats what the Patriot Guard does...just a bunch of ex-military bikers that surround the idiots and drown them out.