"Breakthrough": U.S. Attorney Agrees to Present Evidence of WTC Demolition to Federal Grand Jury.

[NorCal Dave]

If AE911Truth's claims were provable, the obvious path forward for the Lawyers' Committee would be a lawsuit that uses them as the basis to claim significant damages against one of the principal actors whom they allege caused so much harm (e.g., whatever random three letter agency they want to pick out of the hat); they already have sympathetic potential plaintiffs they could enlist in such a suit. But they won't go there because none of their "work" is about actually proving their claims and they know it.

Yes. After following this thread for a while that seems to be the obvious question. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that the burden of proof is lower in civil court than in a criminal one. In civil court it's been "proving" that RoundUp causes cancer and O.J. Simpson did in fact kill his ex-wife.

Even as a non-lawyer, I would find a plaintiff and sue the Port Authority, who ran the WTC, for negligence. All of my evidence for CD could be presented in open court including Husley's paper, cut columns, nan-thermites, high speed ejections and so on. All I would need to show is that if CD is a likely possibility and the Port Authority failed to notice all the conspirators planting all those explosives, they were negligent. I don't even think the idea of someone winning a case like that in civil court is all that farfetched, depending on the jury that gets selected.

Instead, they spent 5+ years trying to create a criminal case out of it. To no end.

 

[Mendel]

I don't even think the idea of someone winning a case like that in civil court is all that farfetched, depending on the jury that gets selected.

but it's a bigger financial risk, isn't it? they could be made to pay the expenses of the defendant if they lose.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I would think there is a lawyer or two here on the forum but until we hear from them, a quick search seems to say it depends. Here's one for Illinois:

Illinois follows the American Rule that requires each party in litigation to bear their own litigation expenses, regardless of who won.1 The United States Supreme Court stated the rationale for the American Rule as follows:

"Since litigation is at best uncertain one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit, and that the poor might be unjustly discouraged from instituting actions to vindicate their rights if the penalty for losing included the fees of their opponents' counsel."2

Thus, in many cases, win or lose, you will be responsible for all your attorney fees and legal expenses. However, a prevailing party may recover attorney fees and legal expenses from a losing party if expressly authorized by statute or by contract between the parties.3

So, usually not but one can try to recover some costs:

Parties to a lawsuit may also be entitled to their legal fees by statute. For example, in Illinois if a plaintiff receives a judgment in thier favor they can "recover costs against the defendant"4 that include subpoena fees, filing fees, and statutory witness fees but not the prevailing party's attorney fees.5 Under the United States Constitution, a plaintiff who successfully brings an equal protection claim may be entitled to attorney fees. Whether attorney fees will be recoverable by statute will depend on the particular facts of the case, the language in the statute, and ultimately the courts.

And all the costs if the suit is deemed frivolous (bold by me):

Attorney fees can also be rewarded as a sanction under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137. This rules do not mean a party in a case will be subject to sanctions because they were unsuccessful. Sanctions are penal in nature. They are meant to deter the filing of frivolous claims in the future and provide compensation for those who must defend against such actions.6 Thus, Rule 137 authorizes a circuit court to award attorney fees as a sanction against a party or its attorney who filed a lawsuit, motion, or document that is "not well grounded in fact, not supported by existing law, or lacks a good-faith basis for modification, reversal, or extension of law, or is interposed for any improper purpose."7 Likewise, if a case is appealed, Rule 375 authorizes the appellate court to sanction a party or its attorney who files a frivolous appeal or an appeal that is not taken in good faith – i.e. where the purpose of the appeal is to delay, harass, or cause needless expense.8

https://spesia-taylor.com/is-the-losing-party-in-a-civil-case-required-to-pay-my-legal-fees/

Here's another one that also says usually not:

In a civil case, a defendant cannot recover attorney's fees from a plaintiff, even if the defendant wins. There are a few exceptions to the "American rule," such as a when there's a statute governing the case or the contract between the parties allows it. But for the most part, the defendant is out of luck.

https://grandjurytarget.com/2017/08/28

So, the risk for LC bringing a civil suit would be having it declared frivolous, though it seems that these are usually rejected before ever getting to trial, they're just thrown out.

Maybe the bigger issue is in a civil trial the LC would have to bring an actual suit and potentially go to a real trial which would be a lot of work with an uncertain outcome. With the Grand Jury ploy, they just stuffed an envelope full of all the "evidence" for nefarious going ons and demanded it be shown to a Grand Jury.

 

[Duke]

but it's a bigger financial risk, isn't it? they could be made to pay the expenses of the defendant if they lose.

Probably depends on the court and/or state where the civil case is filed, but they would definitely have to pay for the attorney's representing them.
Considering the long odds of winning such a case, it's doubtful any attorney/firm would take it on a contingency basis. I suppose they could find lawyers (and expert witnesses) within their group to take the case pro bono, but it would be a lot of work with the same limited chance of winning a judgement.

The plaintiffs would have to be someone (of group of someones) who incurred a loss as a result of the alleged negligence. I assume that would be the families of those who died in the building(s).

Keep in mind, a judgement in civil court does not determine guilt or innocence, only financial responsibility as assigned by the court.

 

[Ann K]

Illinois follows the American Rule that requires each party in litigation to bear their own litigation expenses, regardless of who won.1 The United States Supreme Court stated the rationale for the American Rule as follows:

That "pay your own fees" is, of course, the reason that companies with deep pockets can threaten to countersue, with the knowledge that individuals who cannot afford to bring suit with the only lawyers they can afford, judging their likelihood of prevailing against the companies' expensive and extensive legal teams, withdraw into the woodwork.

 

[NorCal Dave]

That "pay your own fees" is, of course, the reason that companies with deep pockets can threaten to countersue, with the knowledge that individuals who cannot afford to bring suit with the only lawyers they can afford, judging their likelihood of prevailing against the companies' expensive and extensive legal teams, withdraw into the woodwork.

I guess, but this sounds a bit like the old "we can't fix politics until we get the money out of it" type saying. One of the Freakanomics books looked into that and found that there were plenty of candidates and propositions that lost despite massive sums of money being spent. Incumbency was a much better predictor of who would win.

It's also one of those CT type ideas. Can someone provide evidence of people that had a legitimate claim against a corporation but were threatened with a costly countersuit and therefor didn't sue? Of course not, the fact that they did not sue because of the threat of a countersuit kept them from filing a suit in the first place and is proof that the threat of a countersuit keeps people with legitimate claims from filing suits. The lack of suits proves the point, or absence of evidence is evidence of the threat of countersuits.

In the context of this thread, are you suggesting that if the LC had filed a civil suit against the Port Authority or any other seemingly wealthy and powerful entity involved in the operations or supposed demolition of the WTC would have filed a costly and lengthy countersuit, thus discouraging the LC from filing one in the first place? And what would the countersuit be? Liable? Very hard to prove in US courts.

 

[FatPhil]

I guess, but this sounds a bit like the old "we can't fix politics until we get the money out of it" type saying. One of the Freakanomics books looked into that and found that there were plenty of candidates and propositions that lost despite massive sums of money being spent.

As presented, that seems to rest upon a logical fallacy, a hasty generalisation - some therefore all: it doesn't work because it sometimes doesn't work.

 

[Oystein]

... they would definitely have to pay for the attorney's representing them.
Considering the long odds of winning such a case, it's doubtful any attorney/firm would take it on a contingency basis. I suppose they could find lawyers (and expert witnesses) within their group to take the case pro bono, but it would be a lot of work with the same limited chance of winning a judgement.
...

But we are here talking about the "Lawyers' Committee" - they ARE attorneys, representing, essentially, themselves, with a few selected familiy members as fig leaves, and AE911T as "experts". Now do they do it "pro bono"? Well, all these years, they've been calling for donations, donations, and then more donations. Earlier in this thread we talked about the sums they say they "need": hundreds of thousands of $$$. What do they need them for? They never clearly say, but the best guess is that all that money is projected to go directly in the pockets of the selfsame "Lawyers' Committee" - Mick Harrison and gang. Essentially, their shtick has been for years on end to fleece the gullible for plenty of money to achieve precisely nothing.

 

[Duke]

But we are here talking about the "Lawyers' Committee" - they ARE attorneys, representing, essentially, themselves, with a few selected familiy members as fig leaves, and AE911T as "experts". Now do they do it "pro bono"? Well, all these years, they've been calling for donations, donations, and then more donations. Earlier in this thread we talked about the sums they say they "need": hundreds of thousands of $$$. What do they need them for? They never clearly say, but the best guess is that all that money is projected to go directly in the pockets of the selfsame "Lawyers' Committee" - Mick Harrison and gang. Essentially, their shtick has been for years on end to fleece the gullible for plenty of money to achieve precisely nothing.

Understood. If it was prosecuted as a federal crime, it costs them nothing. That's why they've long sought that process as opposed to civil litigation despite the lower level of burden of proof.

 

[NorCal Dave]

As presented, that seems to rest upon a logical fallacy, a hasty generalisation - some therefore all: it doesn't work because it sometimes doesn't work.

Yes, and I meant it as an analogy to the idea that "individuals don't bring suits against corporations due to the threat of unaffordable counter suits". They are both hasty generalizations that are often perceived as true. In the case of money and politics there are election results and there are records of money being spent so it can actually be researched.

In the case of individuals NOT bringing suits because of the threat of countersuits, one would need to present a sizeable population of individuals with somewhat legit claims against various corporations that choose not to sue because there was a real or perceived plausible countersuit that may have been brought against them. That could then be compared with a group that did file suits against companies, to see it the threat of countersuits in fact played a role in the non-suits.

I think it's problematic when we come up with "whys" for things that are not happening. Saying that there is a large number of unknown suits that were never filed because of the threat of countersuits, is like saying the absence of these suits proves the claim. The claim is deemed true because of the lack of evidence. That sounds like CT thinking to my mind, something I'm certain @Ann K does not engage in.

Obviously, people sue corporations all the time and often win:

Johnson & Johnson Ordered To Pay $417 Million In Lawsuit Linking Baby Powder To Cancer The lawsuit claims that the talc in the company's iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene.

boston.cbslocal.com/tag/baby-powder/

In fact, people win even when their main claim is rejected:

Most lawsuits against Monsanto and, subsequently, Bayer, have been settled. But in 2018, one of the first cases went to trial where a jury found in favor of a California school groundskeeper who used Roundup frequently for many years. The plaintiff's lawyers showed he was exposed to glyphosate repeatedly, and that was the cause of his cancer.

While the jury did not find that the use of Roundup caused the individual's cancer, it found that Monsanto and Bayer didn't do enough to warn the plaintiff that Roundup could cause cancer. Because of that failure, the jury awarded the plaintiff nearly $300 million in damages.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/product-liability/roundup-lawsuit-update

Some corporations, instead of countersuing, simple pay up in an attempt to avoid court:

In 2005 Firestone paid Ford $240 million to settle claims related to the recall. Ford and Firestone worked to settle cases out of court to avoid punitive damages and were paying between $4 million and $8 million to settle cases involving fatalities and between $12 million to $16 million to settle cases of paralysis.

www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/01/09/firestone-ford-settle

Yes, these are just a few examples, but it's already getting OT I'm afraid.

Maybe I missed something.

 

[benthamitemetric]

I'm an attorney in the US. Though not a litigator, I am constantly exposed to high level litigation strategy and have a reasonable understanding of how these things work. Two quick points:

• Can the prevailing party recover attorneys fees and other legal costs from a plaintiff? This depends on (i) the jurisdiction in which the claim is being brought and (ii) the relevant law that is the basis for the claim. Different jurisdictions will have both general rules about fee recovery and statute-specific rules.
• Can small plaintiffs prevail against corporations? Yes. Obviously, suing a large corporation is a massive endeavor, but it can be and often is done. Corporations also do not like drawn out legal fights any more than small plaintiffs, so, where they are actually wrong (and even in many cases where they are not), they have a strong incentive to settle. These days, there are even funds and insurance products that will financially support plaintiffs lawyers in exchange for a cut of any recovery. For meritorious legal claims, where there is a will, there is a way.

AE911Truth was certainly sufficiently funded (at least prior to the Hulsey debacle) to get one of these suits started and, if they have any actual evidence, past a motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgement and into the settlement phase. If they really had any evidence, they could have even started with an easier target than a governmental agency (e.g., Silverstein Properties, which presumably would have had a responsibility to its tenants to not allow its buildings to be rigged with thermite/explosives/magical-unicorn-antimatter-devices). In reality, however, there were multiple, massive litigations, both civil (mostly insurance-related) and criminal (relating to the actual 9/11 perpetrators) that establish without any real doubt what happened on 9/11 and who was responsible (i.e., reality), which creates an insurmountable barrier to AE911Truth presenting an actual lawsuit based on their pet theories. They thus won't ever "put their money where their mouth is" by proceeding with an actual, claims driven lawsuit based on such theories. They are content to grift along quietly because they are merely petty grifters at this point.