Thanks for the reply, woodworker. That fleshes it out enough for me to get a clearer picture of the situation. I still don't quite get why an attempt to protect the poor schmoe must result in more power to Giant Tel, but it's not my field so I defer to your wisdom.woodworker wrote:
And yes, I agree that the system is overly generous to the Giant Telcom and that the poor schmoe is generally screwed. But going the other direction just makes the Giant Telcom more powerful. Also, too, even if poor schmoe loses, he may bring some sunlight to a otherwise little-noticed but abusive practice and others then may join the fight.
For the record, I realize that there is very little likelihood of me ever being the target of a vexatious litigant. My comment about identifying with the sued was more an admission of bias (whereas you sound more objective). I've followed Montgomery v. Risen for a long time. You don't need me to tell you that Montgomery and Klayman are scumbags who have lied to the court in every filing. The defendants know it; the court knows it. Bottom line, it makes no sense to me that the defendants should not receive attorney and court fees. I doubt Klayman will appeal, as he is too busy suing blah folk now for fuck-knows-what elsewhere.