[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It never got to that point Maturin. He never got a response, which didn't surprise him. They probably threw the letter out.

Of course it got to that point. By Lessans' own description the document wasn't a "letter" but a complaint. The word "complaint" is a term of art used to describe the document used to initiate a civil lawsuit. Lessans said that he filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They assigned it a case number and everything!

Was Lessans telling the truth when he described the document as a complaint? Was he telling the truth when he wrote that it was filed in a federal court and assigned a case number? If so, then it mos def got to that point, "that point" being the point at which formal dismissal was required. At taxpayer expense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what frivolous means, sir. It means a lawsuit that has no real basis.

You know now, after having looked it up. You didn't know before, else you wouldn't have written that frivolousness is tied to motives or "desperate positions."

The term "frivolous" describes Lessans' lawsuit perfectly. It was utterly bereft of legal merit. Here's a description of frivolousness that I've always found kinda amusing:

If you don’t read a lot of judicial opinions, you may not understand the full weight of what it means when a judge calls an argument “frivolous” or “ridiculous.” Perhaps an analogy will help explain the attitude of judges.

Imagine a group of professional scientists who have met to discuss important issues of physics and chemistry, and then someone comes into their meeting and challenges them to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. At first, they might be unable to believe that the challenger is serious. Eventually, they might be polite enough to explain the observations and calculations which lead inevitably to the conclusion that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Suppose the challenger is not convinced, but insists that there is actually no evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and that all of the calculations of the scientists are deliberately misleading. At that point, they will be jaw-droppingly astounded, and will no longer be polite, but will evict the challenger/lunatic from their meeting because he is wasting their time.

That is the way judges view tax protesters. At first, they try to be civil and treat the claims as seriously as they can. However, after dismissing case after case with the same insane claims, sometimes by the same litigant, judges start pulling out the dictionary to see how many synonyms they can find for “absurd.”

. . .

So, when a judge calls an argument “ridiculous” or “frivolous,” it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the case has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone’s time. It doesn’t mean that the case wasn’t well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you that you were “wrong.” The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My question is why are you here?

Train wrecks, literal and figurative alike, engender morbid curiosity I reckon.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why don't you find something better to do than to use this thread as a joke and waste my time and yours?

I don't know! Why are you always holding forth on subjects about which you know little or nothing, only to have your ass handed to you over and over? These are mysteries!