Here is a frivolous law suit

Parent Cafe
1

<p>

</p>

<p>[Jaycee</a> Lee Dugard, who was held captive for almost two decades by Phillip and nancy Garrido has filed a lawsuit against the united states government for her abuse. - KTXL](<a href=“http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-dugard-files-suit-against-government-20110922,0,1549898.story]Jaycee”>http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-dugard-files-suit-against-government-20110922,0,1549898.story)</p>

<p>I am very sorry that Jaycee Lee Dugard was harmed by anyone and I am sorry that the government did not do a better job of supervising the guy who harmed her, but the federal government is not an insurance company. The Garridos did not act on behalf of the federal government. He acted contrary to criminal law. Sorry Jaycee but your law suit is frivolous and your lawyers should be sanctioned.</p>

2

<p>She got 20 million from California for her complaints, so I guess she figured the Federal gov’t was good for some too! She is going to give the money she gets to a foundation, however, the attorney’s will still be paid well I am sure.</p>

3

<p>I am not sure I would agree that this is “frivolous.” I found a little more information on the grounds for Dugard’s complaint against the U.S. government in this article from Huffington Post:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[Jaycee</a> Dugard Files Lawsuit Against Federal Government For Failure To Monitor Phillip Garrido](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Jaycee Dugard Files Lawsuit Against Federal Government For Failure To Monitor Phillip Garrido | HuffPost Latest News)</p>

<p>Arguably, if Dugard was able to receive damages from the State of California for its negligence during the period it was responsible for Garrido’s supervision, she should also be able to receive damges for the same negligence during the prior years when the U.S. government had that responsibility. The fact that she has already received a settlement from California (and the amount of that award), has nothing to do whether she should receive anything for the years when the U.S. government was responsible.</p>

4

<p>As much as I hate lawsuits, I agree that this one has some merit. He was under the supervision (on parole) of the government. He failed a drug test and received no punishment. They visited the home. I won’t pretend to understand the legality of it all, but there is something to this IMO.</p>

5

<p>What happened to her is absolutely tragic, and the lack of appropriate supervision of this criminal is … well … criminal. That said, is $20M not enough?</p>

6

<p>

</p>

<p>Possibly I should have used the word “outrageous.” She intends to take my and your tax payer dollars and give them to a charity of her choice. I do not pay tax dollars for this purpose. As a taxpayer, I should not have to pay for the errors of government employees. To the extent the government made an error, that error did not cause Garrido to commit a crime. His individual decision to engage in a crime is what caused the crime.</p>

7

<p>How about all other victims our government failed to protect? Should they all sue?</p>

8

<p>Not frivolous at all. The law gives her the right to sue in this case. A frivolous lawsuit is one where there is not even an arguable basis for lawsuit.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, as taxpayers of Cities, States & the US, we are “on the hook” when a public employee is negligent in the commission of their job (think of police who physically abuse suspects or prison guards who mistreat inmates) This is no different than those cases.</p>

<p>Whether Dugard can win her case against the Feds depends on whether she can prove that their failure to properly do their jobs (for which they are paid taxpayer-funded wages) was one of the proximate causes of her injuries. Although Garrido’s sick & criminal actions were the primary cause of her injuries, it can certainly be argued that he wouldn’t have even been out if the Feds had done their jobs.</p>

9

<p>Fellow lawyers, doesn’t DeShaney v. Winnebago County apply here? In this instance, the government was supposed to be supervising the offender rather than the victim’s guardians, but I would think the same principle holds. </p>

<p>[DeShaney</a> v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County]DeShaney”>DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia)</p>

10

<p>When I first saw this thread title, I assumed it referred to the woman who was suing the makers of Stride gum because it broke apart when she chewed it, stuck to her dentures, and embarrassed her! In comparison, and considering the incredible length of Jaycee’s captivity, I think she does have a case. </p>

<p>[Stuck</a> gum blamed for depression | Canada | News | Toronto Sun](<a href=“http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/22/stuck-gum-blamed-for-depression]Stuck”>http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/22/stuck-gum-blamed-for-depression)</p>

11

<p>LOL on the gum suit. Unfortunately, it might be cheaper for Cadbury’s staff attorneys to negotiate a reduced settlement than for outside counsel to fight it. The old lady might get a buck or two. :rolleyes:</p>

12

<p>Doesn’t sound like a frivolous lawsuit to me, government agencies are like private companies, they can be held accountable for the actions of their employees, and part of the reason for allowing such lawsuits is to force the entity (government or corporate) to police their own, to have a reason to make sure the wrong thing isn’t being done. Police departments for a long time were able to totally ignore complaints about police abuse, it was often part of the culture and if someone did complain it would be ignored most of the time. It wasn’t until such cases started generating monetary damages, especially when it was shown the department as a whole ignored them, that reform started and the cops instituted strict rules against the kinds of abuses that went on…government agencies have similar problems, not doing what they were supposed to or abusing their power (for example, the IRS used as a weapon against political opponents)…likewise, bureaucracies are not known for doing a very good job of self policing…</p>

<p>The California settlement may not mean much, often defendents settle because it is cheaper to do so then go through a court battle and have dirty laundry come out,so we don’t know the basis for the settlement (could also be they f’ed up royally).</p>

<p>The real question in this case is going to be about negligence I suspect, basically should the federal parole authorities have suspected something was going on, or did know, and didn’t act? I am not sure, for example, if the piece of garbage guy who did this horrible thing had been flagged for a drug test, and let’s say was sent back to jail, would that have led to the recovery of the girl, since mrs. scum was involved.? In other words, could that piece of negligence have been tied to the girl not being rescued? Did federal parole officials not bother to check up on him at all, or did they have complaints about the guy who did this and ignore them? If so, they could/would have culpability…it all boils down to is given the nature of the duties of the Parole board could they/should they have discovered about the girl?</p>

<p>I am not even saying this lawsuit in the end has merit, if the plaintiff cannot show a reasonable person that the parole board’s alleged missteps led to the poor kid staying in captivity, then it should be thrown out IMO…but if the parole people totally screwed up, and it can be shown how not doing A and B, or doing C and D, led to the situation being prolonged, then there could be compensation.</p>

<p>What should not happen is arguing that since mr. scum was on parole, that the parole office automatically is responsible for what happened, that would be ridiculous. Again, the plaintiff would have to argue that based on what they did or didn’t do, the parole organization didn’t follow its own standards or rules in ways that allowed this situation to go on.</p>

13

<p>You might not like the way the law works, and you may believe that the lawsuit has no merit, but I don’t think the lawsuit itself is frivolous, nor do I think anything about the case can properly be described as “frivolous.”</p>

14

<p><em>This</em> is a frivolous lawsuit:</p>

<p>[P</a> Diddy’s trillion-dollar problem | Life and style | The Guardian](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2011/feb/03/p-diddy-celebrity-lawsuit]P”>P Diddy's trillion-dollar problem | Celebrity | The Guardian)</p>

<p>

</p>

15

<p>My opinion is tainted by the fact that I’m an incest survivor. There were so many times that the authorities were called in on reports that he had children living on the property and no one ever entered the property to investigate. That woman and her children should have been rescued long before they were. Odds are pretty high that he was sexually abusing Dugard’s daughters as well as her. </p>

<p>I would not necessarily sue for my own abuse, but if my daughters were being held captive from birth raped by their own father and I knew they could have been rescued, I’d do the same thing: sue and give any gains to agencies to treat other rape survivors. Maybe parole officers and police would do what they are paid to do if their superiors were held accountable for negligence leading to that kind of suffering.</p>