Cat Commits Hate Crime in California

goofyfish

goofyfish

Analog By Birth, Digital By Design
Valued Senior Member
Periodically I hear a case that should be the turning point against frivolous lawsuits -- but so far, no.
ESCONDIDO, Calif., 12:13 p.m. PST April 5, 2002 - A North County man who is suing the city of Escondido because his dog was attacked by a cat inside a city library, now says the attack was a hate crime.

Richard Espinosa added the new allegation Thursday to a $1.5 million lawsuit he originally filed against the city in November. Espinosa went to court after the city refused to pay a claim he submitted after the incident.

According to court documents, Espinosa claims that the attack happened on Nov. 16, 2000, when he went to the South Kalima Street library. A black and white cat that was sitting on the counter jumped down and attacked Espinosa's dog, the complaint stated.

Cat Attack Now Described As 'Hate Crime'
Click to expand...
It's an article of faith that to any trial lawyer there is no such thing as a frivolous suit; they all generate billable hours. The U.S. needs to introduce the concept common in other countries where the loser pays all legal expenses for both parties, by court order. Similarly the party who launches a frivolous lawsuit is ordered to pay all expenses.

The current U.S. system is wide open to abuse and exploitation.

Peace.
 
And they say ...

And they say cat owners are strange ....

:D,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Goofyfish

Well, thbpbppbpbt! on you ;)

Actually, something struck me. I'm well-accustomed to seeing cats in secondhand book stores around Seattle, but what in the world were these animals doing inside a public library? Is this a seeing-eye dog? I find it interesting that the dog is an assistance dog for a hidden disability, but ... oh, well ... I'll just wait until this one gets thrown out of court. So, okay, the dog I understand, but most communities don't let arbitrary animals (e.g. mascots) inside public buildings. Or, at least, so it seems. Maybe I'm wrong on that point, too. But the whole thing, frankly, is hilarious.

What I'm starting to think is that this suit is filed by a guy who dislikes hate-crime legislation, and thus wants to make a farce out of it in order to discredit the idea.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Or is the plaintiff using the suit as an attempt to get his self-described disability classified as a protected class. He claims quite a few disabilities.
In the suit, Espinosa, says he has been diagnosed with many disorders, including bilateral pulmonary emboli, asthma, diabetes, gout and, more recently, with chronic pain syndrome, borderline personality disorder, major depressive disorder, panic disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. " (Full text here)
Click to expand...
Oh, and about my slap at trial lawyers – perhaps there is hope. Apparently he had to file the case himself, after 4 lawyers refused to touch it. His 40 page claim complains of:
"significant lasting, extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress including, but not limited to, terror, humiliation, shame, embarrassment, mortification, chagrin, depression, panic, anxiety, flashbacks, nightmares, loss of sleep (and) loss of full enjoyment of life as well as other physical and mental afflictions and pain, suffering..." (Full text here)
Click to expand...
Peace.
 
What! ...

No remuneration for loss of conjugal priviledges?

Take care ;)
 
Last edited:
Wow ....

I'm almost afraid to ask what the dog is for.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
I suppose it is a hate crime, if it can be proven that the cat attacked the dog solely because it was a dog. Obviously, the cat's lawyers will claim some provocation. Cats get away with this sort of thing all the time, and it's got to stop.

Only an all-dog jury can deliver justice.

Peace.
 
You gotta have a least one cat loving dong (er, dog) in the jury. How can you have a balanced jury without a token dog?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top