Love this one. Inventor Maloney takes no responsibility for how his harmful invention has been used. Wants the public to acknowledge his genious without criticism.
These are always fun, GC, even if the truth of the matter is not. Maloney's feelings got hurt and now someone will pay. Never trust someone who made living as a Beltway Bandit.
One of the first people to jump on the anti-bandwagon, but took it himself. I guess we do as he says, not as he does like all good little psychopaths. Did he say he took it for all of us, or some martyr bullshit like that?
He is literally the poster child for a guy who needs a special lot code booster.
All you needed was common sense, nothing more, to avoid listening to him and also avoid his state sponsored bio weapon.
I am not familiar enough with Dr Malone or Dr McCullough (and I have never heard of the Breggins before) to have an opinion on this lawsuit. But there is a simple way to virtually eliminate frivolous lawsuits, and to reduce the astronomical amount of damages sought in many (justified) lawsuits. Even when a lawsuit is justified, the amount of damages sought is often an absurd amount (like the several billion dollars sought in the recent suit against Alex Jones). Even if the defamation lawsuit by Dr Malone against the Breggins is justified, 25 million dollars is almost certainly way too much.
The solution is that when anyone files a lawsuit and then loses that lawsuit, he has to pay the amount of damages he was seeking (in this case 25 million dollars), not just the court costs which is sometimes required now. This would eliminate frivolous lawsuits yesterday. The reason frivolous lawsuits are profitable now is because an unscrupulous lawyer can file numerous lawsuits (on behalf of his clients) and even if he only wins 2 or 3 percent of them he will come out ahead as long as he can get a big settlement in the few cases that he wins. But if he has to pay the amount of damages he was seeking every time he loses then that business model obviously wouldn’t work anymore. And even if a lawsuit is justified, the plaintiff will be more likely to request reasonable damages instead of billions of dollars, in case he loses.
Of course, the obvious reaction by most people to this proposal is: What about someone who has a justified lawsuit, but then loses the lawsuit anyway for some reason (corrupt judge, idiotic jury, etc)? That is what insurance is for (real insurance like auto or homeowners insurance, not the wannabe third-party payer system that most people erroneously refer to as medical insurance.) At first it would be existing insurance companies that would offer insurance for reasonable lawsuits which would pay out if the plaintiff loses, but eventually there would be insurance companies that specialize in lawsuits. In fact eventually most cases would actually end up being settled by negotiations between the insurance companies, which would immensely streamline the judicial process, and make it a lot fairer at the same time.
But my proposal will obviously never be implemented. There are far too many corrupt and unethical lawyers, judges, politicians, etc who profit greatly from the existing system. They aren’t about to allow the current system to be reformed. But maybe after the NWO kills about seven billion people, which they are going to do soon, the survivors will be smart enough that when they rebuild from the ashes they will implement my suggestion when they design the new system.
Good points David. They could also just put a cap on damages like Europe does. 10x the average salary plus legal fees as the maximum award. The best solution would be setting the burden of proof on defamation and libel so high that no lawyer would bother wasting their time with any cases unless there was definitive proof of damages. This protects everyone's speech, and limits legal warfare. Saying something false, unknowingly isn't defamation or libel. And if it's true, then it also can't be either. Malone filed suit without any proof of any damages, on the contrary he's made out like a bandit financially, and has only offered further evidence that the Breggins' claims about him might be true by filing the suit, and the things he's admitted on podcasts about his connections to the intel community and work for DoD. An innocent man would have laughed at and mocked them, or invited them for a chat. But his fifthgenerometer (controlling people's perceptions of him) is working well, even on good citizens. Proof is in this piece alone, the least popular of anything I've published in 18 months.
Love this one. Inventor Maloney takes no responsibility for how his harmful invention has been used. Wants the public to acknowledge his genious without criticism.
These are always fun, GC, even if the truth of the matter is not. Maloney's feelings got hurt and now someone will pay. Never trust someone who made living as a Beltway Bandit.
One of the first people to jump on the anti-bandwagon, but took it himself. I guess we do as he says, not as he does like all good little psychopaths. Did he say he took it for all of us, or some martyr bullshit like that?
He is literally the poster child for a guy who needs a special lot code booster.
All you needed was common sense, nothing more, to avoid listening to him and also avoid his state sponsored bio weapon.
I am not familiar enough with Dr Malone or Dr McCullough (and I have never heard of the Breggins before) to have an opinion on this lawsuit. But there is a simple way to virtually eliminate frivolous lawsuits, and to reduce the astronomical amount of damages sought in many (justified) lawsuits. Even when a lawsuit is justified, the amount of damages sought is often an absurd amount (like the several billion dollars sought in the recent suit against Alex Jones). Even if the defamation lawsuit by Dr Malone against the Breggins is justified, 25 million dollars is almost certainly way too much.
The solution is that when anyone files a lawsuit and then loses that lawsuit, he has to pay the amount of damages he was seeking (in this case 25 million dollars), not just the court costs which is sometimes required now. This would eliminate frivolous lawsuits yesterday. The reason frivolous lawsuits are profitable now is because an unscrupulous lawyer can file numerous lawsuits (on behalf of his clients) and even if he only wins 2 or 3 percent of them he will come out ahead as long as he can get a big settlement in the few cases that he wins. But if he has to pay the amount of damages he was seeking every time he loses then that business model obviously wouldn’t work anymore. And even if a lawsuit is justified, the plaintiff will be more likely to request reasonable damages instead of billions of dollars, in case he loses.
Of course, the obvious reaction by most people to this proposal is: What about someone who has a justified lawsuit, but then loses the lawsuit anyway for some reason (corrupt judge, idiotic jury, etc)? That is what insurance is for (real insurance like auto or homeowners insurance, not the wannabe third-party payer system that most people erroneously refer to as medical insurance.) At first it would be existing insurance companies that would offer insurance for reasonable lawsuits which would pay out if the plaintiff loses, but eventually there would be insurance companies that specialize in lawsuits. In fact eventually most cases would actually end up being settled by negotiations between the insurance companies, which would immensely streamline the judicial process, and make it a lot fairer at the same time.
But my proposal will obviously never be implemented. There are far too many corrupt and unethical lawyers, judges, politicians, etc who profit greatly from the existing system. They aren’t about to allow the current system to be reformed. But maybe after the NWO kills about seven billion people, which they are going to do soon, the survivors will be smart enough that when they rebuild from the ashes they will implement my suggestion when they design the new system.
Good points David. They could also just put a cap on damages like Europe does. 10x the average salary plus legal fees as the maximum award. The best solution would be setting the burden of proof on defamation and libel so high that no lawyer would bother wasting their time with any cases unless there was definitive proof of damages. This protects everyone's speech, and limits legal warfare. Saying something false, unknowingly isn't defamation or libel. And if it's true, then it also can't be either. Malone filed suit without any proof of any damages, on the contrary he's made out like a bandit financially, and has only offered further evidence that the Breggins' claims about him might be true by filing the suit, and the things he's admitted on podcasts about his connections to the intel community and work for DoD. An innocent man would have laughed at and mocked them, or invited them for a chat. But his fifthgenerometer (controlling people's perceptions of him) is working well, even on good citizens. Proof is in this piece alone, the least popular of anything I've published in 18 months.
FUCK YOU, BALONEY,
Control THAT!