Legislative Effort to Halt ACLU Extortion

I like the sound of this!

 

ACLU told me that they would not WORK PRO BONO for me as a Christian suing for violations of my religious liberty.

I always get asked: It is none of your stinking business - the ACLU lawyer told me that and it was painful enough then.

They asked me for $10,000 (US) up front before we could talk.

 

Different treatment based on who you are? The heck with equal justice, eh?

The ACLU and such groups are only awarded fees if they actually win the case, meaning the plaintiff's civil rights were violated. Should citizens be required to pay to have the government not violate their rights? I think if that is the case, then the individual must be buy his civil rights from the government - that doesn't seem right to me.

If they were organizations that work pro bono that would mean that they don't charge not that they don't incur expenses.

If they are not working pro bono, then they get paid either way - it is the client who would be reimbursed his expenses.

 

It's not about winning, it's about bullying into submission, or having things so tied up in the courts that they can no longer move. A tactic of the ACLU is to bankrupt the other person into submission by having big coffers while the other party is rather limited financially, regardless of winning or not. Maybe if they had a limited income stream, the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union would have to be more selective in who the want to shut up, or down, whatever the case may be.

If they only used money donated to them in their fights, instead of money plundered and pillaged in their conquests, they wouldn't be such a big bully on the playground.

 

Other person? When have they sued another person? Seriously, aren't their cases against government institutions?

A bully enforcing civil liberties? Man, I only wish the bullies fought for the little kids' rights back in the days when I was young.

Say, isn't that be the opposite of bullying?

 

Daisy,

The bottom line is that our representatives (i.e., we) still have the power to determine how our money is spent. There is no constitutional requirement or protection that attorneys be provided or paid for from public coffers for civil cases.

 

Besides, it greatly reduces the chance of a large corproration being sued for harming a small business, or a person of modest means.

The people running the American Legion have been interested in that, from the beginning of the organization. Particularly with regard to small businesses, but also against individuals. They want mom and pop to stop terrorizing General Motors.

 

Yeah, but I don't think you can exclude reimbursements based on whether you like the plaintiffs' attorneys or not. As long as judges are allowed to determine awards and punishments in any civil case, they should be allowed to in all civil cases. If there is no penalty attached, why would a government not violate the rights of citizens if it wants to? I think it (costs awards) helps mitigate the tyranny of the majority.

What an inane remark. Where has the ACLU said it would take any and all cases pro bono?

 

Daisy, as representatives and voters, they and we get to decide how our money is spent--for whatever reason. And carpro has a point, if they're truly a public interest law firm, maybe they could demonstrate that interest by not profiting off serving the public. That also goes for, BTW, the ACLJ and the Alliance Defense Fund and any other conservative groups doing such work on the other side, but I don't know if they have been making money off the taxpayers as the ACLU has.

 

Amen! Having the attorney fees paid by the loser is a normal part of the process. Why should it be different for the ACLU? As far as bully tactics, they are working within the limits of the legal system. Perhaps the entire system should receive a make over. I certianly believe it should be simplified but then we wouldn't need lawyers, would we?

 

Then it should be a 100% rule. You can't just stop the practise for the ACLU, it must either be stopped completely as a practise or it should apply to all. This is why the ACLU exist, they wouldn't be in business if everyone was treated fairly.

 

Whether you like it or not, they can be stopped. If a law is deemed unconstitutional, our Forefathers wrote in the method of constitutional ammendment.

They should be stopped - IMHO.

Sure sounds like you don't need an ACLU! You are blessed that you have never called them only to find out that they do not fight for the rights of the oppressed, but only for those cases where they can make money and social change away from what our forefathers envisioned for this land.
IMHO.

 

I agree and respect your position. What they did to you does not appear fir. I wonder what their side of this story is?

 

Are you serious?

 

Pretty much what I wrote - the conversations totaled less than 5 minutes. They were quick and to the point. "You are a Christian and we take the side of the underdog IIRC." That is almost a direct quote. "Call this lawyer, he is a Jew and will help you IIRC." Their lawyer, said: "I won't represent you, but I will represent your parents for $10,000 IIRC."

I know that I won't call them again. Champions of freedom? No! Just a bunch of rich lawyers getting rich at the expense of freedom IMHO.

Now, I don't want to negate the fact that they have championed causes of freedom that make me proud of them. But, the weight of the freedoms that they refuse to support are beginning to outweigh the freedoms that they championed. IMHO.

 

The ACLU is a non-profit organization. Having their expenses reimburses is hardly profiting - it's more like breaking even.

 

In this case, yes. Do you have evidence that I am mistaken? I did look, but found nothing to indicate that they do sue persons. I considered they might sue individuals in their capacity as government agents, such as school board members, but I found nothing to support that idea.

It sounds as though you are bitter that they are not a charity. How much do ACLU lawyers make - the ones who work for them, not the ones simply referred?

Perhaps the sheer volume of violated rights makes them pick and choose the ones which will have the highest impact.

As for taking the part of the underdog, I thought that was so. Does this mean that in your case, you were not the underdog? I had assumed you were...

 

I would never voluntarily give my money to the ACLU.
Faithgirl