"jmcquown" > wrote in message
. ..
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ps.com...
>>>> Just makes me shake my head in amazement and despair. Why exercise
>>>> some personal responsibility and self-control when you can sue
>>>> somebody instead?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The issue as I understand it is that Mc Donald's made misleading
>>> claims about their food, and the advertising that delivered the
>>> claims was targeted
>>> to teenagers. They will have to prove this.
>>>
>>
>> Good points. Remember, a decision that a suit can procede is not a
>> decision that the case is "right" - it simply states that the papers
>> were filed properly and that the case is not blatantly frivolous.
>> Also, in the US this sort of case is supposed to be decided by a jury
>> of citizens and not by a judge. Access to the courts, which is an
>> important part of our rights, means that frivolous and silly suits
>> will be filed. WOuld you rather have the alternative - a system where
>> access to the courts is restricted by a judicial elite?
>
> Technically, once you start filing appeals with the various appellate,
> state
> and finally the federal "supreme" courts (if you lose in your lower
> court),
> the decision to allow the appeal to be heard is decided by the "judicial
> elite".
>
> Jill
>
>

That's appeals and is irrelevent to this case.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.