WHO'S UP FOR A LAWSUIT?

Many have put forth the idea that there is a direct correlation between deaths of American soldiers in Iraq and people like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. I happen to be one who holds to that line of reasoning.

As far as I'm concerned, Moore and Sheehan have become rich by causing the deaths of our men and women overseas. These people and others like them are sitting on money which rightly belongs to the widows and orphans of American soldiers. Ms Sheehan has recently signed a lucrative deal with a firm which promotes public speakers. Moore's wealth has been estimated at forty million dollars.

How to get it?

What could be more American than a lawsuit directed at these leaches and others like them?

Here's how you do it:

Any legal action would be best commenced by parties who have no assets, someone like the impoverished wife and family of a soldier killed by enemy combatants in Iraq. It's important that the parties bringing the law suit have no assets as this will limit if not exclude entirely the possibility of a countersuit. In other words the complainants would be able to strike their opponent without being hit in return. If I'm not mistaken, this is a legal strategy often used to good effect by scheister lawyers. Also, a poor family would present a sympathetic figure which the public would immediatly side with.

Next, you would have to secure the credible, unimpeachable testimony of at least one--more would be better-- Iraqi insurgent who would be willing to state that he has certain knowledge of Iraqis who carried out terrorist acts which resulted in the deaths of Americans. He would have to further state that these acts would not have been commited but for the fact that encouragement to commit them came from the defendent.

Lastly, you would have to pick your target. Cindy Sheehan would be best because she is a weak link in the following respects: One, she is likely to soon have considerable assets, but not so much that she could mount much of a legal defense on her own. Two, her views have been so stridently ridiculous that those who would be willing to help underwrite her defense would be lukewarm in their enthusiasm. In other words, many would keep their distance because of the insane nature of her pronouncements.

Voila! You now have the makings of a legal strategy which has a pretty fair chance of success in my opinion. Of course the weight of my opinion is somewhat lessened by the fact that I'm not a legal professional. Maybe our pal Saije--who is a legal pro--might grace us with her thoughts on this one.

You would have to secure funding through some sort of organization set up to procure donations which would be used to pay for qualified, motivated legal counsel. The witnesses referenced above could likely be obtained through advertisements in Iraqi newspapers. although one possible hold up might be a lack of incentives to testify. I'm sure there are ways to work around that.

If you succeed in steamrolling Sheehan, Michael Moore and the rest--lots of them-- are set up like dominoes. If you lose...well, you can't lose. Any way it cuts, leftism comes out on the short end. The sight and sound of Sheehan and others on Court TV trying to defend their idiocy day after day would be a public relations disaster for the left since, as we know, their views and beliefs don't weather close scrutiny. And just imagine Sheehan's embarrasment over the source of her newly aquired wealth.

Of course, there are those who take the opposite view. They claim to believe that the President and Donald Rumsfeld are to blame for the deaths of American soldiers. Accordingly they have commenced legal actions of their own. They have even attempted to start an "Impeach George Bush" movement. As far as I know, their attempts to sue the President and Secretary of Defense have gone nowhere. The impeachment thing isn't working for them either.

Anyway, that's what I've got. It's really no more than a passing thought that has been rattling around in my brain for some time now, but I believe it's an idea which has some merit. It's a safe bet I'm not the first to think of it.

Let us know what you think.

Addendum September 21, 2005: Any attempt to sue Michael Moore et al might best be attempted in a year or two after the situation in Iraq has quieted down. At that time, the plaintiffs might have better luck procuring the testimony of potential witnesses. Since I'm not an attorney, I don't know if timeliness would then become an issue. Complaints must be filed within a certain time frame. However, if it could be shown that the plaintiffs were unaware that they had been damaged before the later filing date, that might be a mitigating factor. I'm going to repost this one every now and then. I believe that, over time, the idea might come to be seen as viable.

Jack Jones

PS. You know the drill by now. Comments are always one hundred percent open on this blog and so on and so forth...

Comments

[wally banners]

The greif crazed Mother doesn't bother me. Roger Moore that fat horrible pig is just that.

[Jack Jones]

I personally have nothing against Roger Moore, although I still think Sean Connery was a better 007. MICHAEL MOORE is another matter.

[patd95]

Explain your position on the link to Sheehan and Moore = deaths in Iraq

[Jack Jones]

patd95, If we deleted comments here at The Daily Banana, yours would be one of the first to be kicked to the curb. We don't cotton to deceitful or disengenuous input. But we're exceptionally nice, so you get what amounts to a Daily Banana form letter. "Dear Mr. Pat. If you're smart enough to type, you're smart enough to understand the relationship between speech which implicitly encourages our enemies, and the deaths of American soldiers. Thank you so much for your comment. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance."

[Tad Babbert]

Very well done. When and how do we start? I'd love to see Michael Moore put his money where his mouth is, even if we have to gut him to do it!

[Kris]

As parody, this works. Legally, I don't think so. The lawsuits against the gun manufacturers are the closest thing. Here there is no product, only speech. Supposedly free speech. http://gopliberty.blogspot.com/

[Jack Jones]

Kris, on the other hand I believe there is some precedent for this sort of thing. If we look to World Wars one and two, as well as the American Civil War--and others I'm sure--we can find examples of criminal punishment for seditious speech. Also, keep in mind, we're not proposing any sort of criminal prosecution. We are proposing, a civil action in which it would be up to twelve lay persons to decide whether or not the claims were valid....if you could get as far as a courtroom. A few decades ago, you would have been laughed out of school if you tried to sue a cigarette manufacturer. Now, it's common practice. I'm really only proposing use of well worn legal strategies pioneered by the left. Go after the weak link and steamroll them. The ACLU does it all the time. Again--and I can't stress this enough--I'm not an attorney. But I'm also not stupid. The only thing really lacking is motivation. I'd be interested to see if the idea takes root.

[Paul]

Well before you sue Cindy Shaheen or Michael Moore, you might want to take a crack at Bush. After all, isn't he the one that dared the insurgents to "Bring it on"?

[Jack Jones]

Paul, if you're going to comment on a particular post, it would be nice if you would READ IT FIRST!!! Near the end of the post I mention that legal action against the President and Secretary of Defense has been tried to no avail. Incidently, I may have accidently deleted one or two comments. If I did I'm terribly sorry.

[Daedalus]

You know, Germans in the 1930s blindly supported their leader, too. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. You are an irrational fool. Moore and Shehan weren't the ones who failed to provide the proper equipment and number of troops. That was this administration. Moore and Shehan weren't the ones who failed to draft an exit plan. That, too, goes to the administration. Moore and Shehan did not fail to listen to top military brass in strategic planning. Again, administration. Give it up! America sees the truth now, and you are in the ever shrinking minority of Americans who are too blind to see the mistake.

[Jack Jones]

Daedalus, you've been flying to close to the sun again. Remember what happened last time? All of the hackneyed talking points you raise have been addressed and forgotten by everyone but the left. Someone else whose name I've forgotten left a similar, if more concise comment in another forum. I liked my reply so much, I think I'll use it again. "Comments like yours are fingers in dikes. They represent your fear that ideas like mine will begin to resonate with Americans and take root. We'll see if your dike holds." You guys put way too much stock in opinion polls Daedalus-- I assume you're refering to certain opinion polls when you reference "shrinking minority...." and so on. You do it because it bolsters your blind faith in a discredited belief system. You forget the myriad occasions on which the polls were inaccurate. Consequently, you end up being blind-sided election after election. The only polls that count are taken in November. We'll see if your dike holds. Also, I don't live my life according to trite sayings like "Dissent is the highest for of patriotism." I understand--as you apparently don't--that dissent may or may not be a patriotic act. It depends on the circumstance. Our country is at war, you and Ms. Sheehan want the other side to win. I'm sorry but that makes you unpatriotic. Sometimes, dissent against dissent is the highest form of patriotism.