Lawsuits And So On...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99-01-03 00:07:24 EST, you write:

<< >Hmmmmm..... I think you can you can file a claim on behafe of of the

people

>when there is evidence of negligent acts. I might be wrong. I have a

>meeting on Mon.

>W/mouthpiece and I will ask.

>Larry >>

Dear Larry,

In order to file a claim " on behalf " of another person or persons, you must

(a) be a guardian or caretaker, within the legal definition(s) of the words,

( be able to assert a credible reason for filing a claim without having a

loco parentis-type relationship with the person(s) for whom you are filing the

action, or © have *at least* one willing plaintiff who will be the " lead

plantiff " in any class action suit you wish to file. In most cases, the

burden of filing a class action civil action is difficult to meet, and the

Supreme Court has set specific guidelines as to when representing a class is

appropriate. One disadvantage (that courts have recognized) to filing a class

action suits is that res judicata may bar future plaintiffs from bringing the

same claim on (often) even different grounds. Representing the rights of

many, as opposed to representing one's self, has the potential to vitiate

subsequent claims of those who you are attempting to assist. And taking risks

that may adversely affect parties similarly situated but with different

grounds for filing suit is a moral grey area, given the presumptious nature of

doing so. Of course, class action suit very often cannot proceed without

public and/or personal notices (as the circumstances permit) allowing affected

parties to withdraw personally from the outcome of the suit, but communicating

with the entire body of affected persons is not an easy task. (Can you

imagine trying to serve notice to all drug-abusers?)

While I dislike 12-step malpractice more (I dare say) than many of you, issues

of qualified ( " good faith " ) immunity moot bland and unsupported " negligence "

claims. See: Harlow v. Fitzgerald. (Citations are omitted throughout this

post.)

Establishment clause violations are the best targets for attacking coercive

12-step inculcation programs, as more precedent exists supporting the

contention that 12-step groups are religious. Though there are a few cases

(See: Stanford v. on) that lean the opposite way (though that's an old

case).

The " law, " per se, is often not the pivotal issue. Often, cities, counties,

state agencies and publicly-funded rehabs will " settle " (make available

alternative, secular programs) to avert the possibility of losing, which can

be very expensive. The law is a weapon, not the alpha and omega of this

issue. At it's best in this context, it should be used with the intent of

effecting social change (in the form of stopping 12-step domination of the

treatment industry.) Because throwing people in a room with a $5.00 Big Book

and 40 plastic chairs is EXTREMELY cost-effective, many 12-step-oriented

agencies are quick to settle, so as to not lose their ineffective " golden

egg. "

Yriondo

Panama City Beach, FL

------------------------------------------------------------------------