ESA Seeks $1.1M Legal Fees from California

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
How do you teach states that pass unconstitutional violent video game laws a lesson? How about making them pay the defendant's $1.1 million legal bill. Kinda makes you wonder what the whole shebang cost the taxpayers of California. :eek:

"It's unfortunate that some officials continue to believe that unconstitutional laws are the answer, when time and time again courts have thrown out these bills and proven them to be a waste of taxpayers' dollars," the ESA said in a statement... four years ago. Hopefully California's government will listen after this expensive lesson in constitutional law.
Click to expand...
 
The Democrats that run the state of California pass unconstitional laws all the time, at least this time somebody fought back.
As for getting your legal bills paid, good luck.
Does the term getting blood out of a turnip mean anything to you?
 
Why would officials care? They won't pay it from their own money but from taxpayer cash.
 
I hope that both the ESA wins and the incumbent politicians are dragged through the dirt by their competitors for wasting tax payer dollars on frivolous legislation that had no chance of surviving.
 
Michaelius said:
Why would officials care? They won't pay it from their own money but from taxpayer cash.
Click to expand...

Normally they wouldn't care about wasting taxpayer dollars, but California has screwed up their finances so bad, that things like this make them look even stupider than normal.
 
That'll teach the taxpayers of California... err... wait. Shouldn't the lobbiests of the bill be penalized, since they performed their job incorrectly?
 
Lycidas said:
That'll teach the taxpayers of California... err... wait. Shouldn't the lobbiests of the bill be penalized, since they performed their job incorrectly?
Click to expand...

No, why should the lobbiests pay, they did their job. It was the politicians in CA who pushed and voted for the bill that should pay out of their own pockets.
 
nutzo said:
The Democrats that run the state of California pass unconstitional laws all the time, at least this time somebody fought back.
As for getting your legal bills paid, good luck.
Does the term getting blood out of a turnip mean anything to you?
Click to expand...

Does the term "statutory interest on judgments" mean anything to you? I don't know what the rate is in Cali, but in Illinois if you get a judgment against someone it draws 9% interest while it remains unpaid. Pretty decent rate of return on your money.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
No, why should the lobbiests pay, they did their job. It was the politicians in CA who pushed and voted for the bill that should pay out of their own pockets.
Click to expand...

And the politicians did their jobs, they voted on a bill that came before them. Shouldn't the judges be the ones to blame who didn't instantly declare this to be a constitutionality issue? In all seriousness if this was simply a matter of "lesson in constitutional law" shouldn't have been more obvious? And by that I mean they shouldn't have needed to spend over a million bucks to fight it?

They're not going to get shit for their legal bills.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Shouldn't the judges be the ones to blame who didn't instantly declare this to be a constitutionality issue? In all seriousness if this was simply a matter of "lesson in constitutional law" shouldn't have been more obvious? And by that I mean they shouldn't have needed to spend over a million bucks to fight it?
Click to expand...

The politicians and the judges running this state wouldn't know the constitution if it bit them in the foot.
 
this is what happens when idiots run the country.
many politicians don't have the necessary expertise to pass laws.
they vote on shit they know nothing about.
 
sfsuphysics said:
And the politicians did their jobs, they voted on a bill that came before them. Shouldn't the judges be the ones to blame who didn't instantly declare this to be a constitutionality issue? In all seriousness if this was simply a matter of "lesson in constitutional law" shouldn't have been more obvious? And by that I mean they shouldn't have needed to spend over a million bucks to fight it?

They're not going to get shit for their legal bills.
Click to expand...

1) This was constitutionally illegal.
2) The state's employed attorneys are the ones they had to fight to show it was constitutionally illegal. If the state's attorneys hadn't fought that it wasn't illegal it would have gone the way you suggested it should.
3) It's pretty clear you have no idea how these things actually work.
4) The "state" nor the politicians, nor the lawyers will be punished by this, but instead the citizens as they're the ones that actually pay into the coffers.
 
Furthermore, the politicians didn't do their jobs. If CA is like most states, the politicians made an oath to uphold their states constitution. If they're voting for unconstitutional bills they're not doing their jobs. If politicians are instructing the states lawyer's to fight to save an unconstitutional law, they're not doing their jobs either.
 
ESA always does this and gets their money. This is why a judge in Louisiana got pissed that the state passed a law like this since all the other onces got over turned and the states paid the ESA money stating that they should have known that would happen and that all they were doing is wasting tax payers money.
 
BladeVenom said:
Normally they wouldn't care about wasting taxpayer dollars, but California has screwed up their finances so bad, that things like this make them look even stupider than normal.
Click to expand...

Supider than normal? When was there a normal? Sometimes things are so bad that worse isn't even noticeable.
 
This is that lawsuite that charged that lady in Michigan some huge amount of money for pirating several songs.
I think they have a better chance of getting money from her than from the empty coffers of Cali.
 
The politicians could not care less about having to pay $1.1M in legal fees. In fact, most of them love having more expenses, because they get to add that to their list of reasons to implement more taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top