Yeepin' yimminy. Somebody should put a bark-shock-collar on DT that goes off whenever he writes a ridiculous headline about OWS.
She went to trial, and lost. City is entitled to recovering legal fees. She wants to appeal, aka get a do-over, why should the city be generous to her? It's her right to an appeal, and it's the city's right to recover legal costs.
Pressuring? Preying? Nice verbiage. This kind of hyperbole and blatant bias puts Denis' reporting right on par with Fox's Tea Party felatio.
"taken the unusual step of demanding more than $7,000 in court costs from an Occupy protester who lost a lawsuit seeking damages"
A private individual sued the city in a civil matter and lost. Prevailing parties in civil matters almost always get awarded their costs of suit (with well defined types of costs that can be awarded) and the court enters a money judgment against the losing party accordingly.
If it can save the equivalent of tens of thousand of dollars from an appeal in exchange for satisfying the judgment, it seems like a great financial benefit to do so. If there was no appeal, its unlikely the city would have pressed the matter.
Does the city have a policy on enforcing the money judgments it is awarded in civil matters that a losing party won't voluntarily pay? Is it different in this case?
Here, it looks like the city took an additional step of importing the federal district court judgment into the state circuit court. This provides certain advantages (creates a lien on real property, arguably makes garnishments or executions on the judgment easier) and the deputy attorney probably thought it could be additional leverage.
Preying on a college student? As opposed to what, preying on our tax dollars, dollars she was already spending in her head the moment she caught a mouthful of hot shit?
You can't get blood out of a turnip. The City would never pay if they were to lose, either. PSU Safety Patrollers repeatedly beat my knee with a baton, slammed me on my back and pepper maced me, directly in the eyes at point blank range, while sitting on my chest, simply because I wouldn't let those security guards handcuff me in order to write me a ticket and let me go, and they won't even acknowledge the substance of my complaint.
She went to trial, and lost. City is entitled to recovering legal fees. She wants to appeal, aka get a do-over, why should the city be generous to her? It's her right to an appeal, and it's the city's right to recover legal costs.
Pressuring? Preying? Nice verbiage. This kind of hyperbole and blatant bias puts Denis' reporting right on par with Fox's Tea Party felatio.
A private individual sued the city in a civil matter and lost. Prevailing parties in civil matters almost always get awarded their costs of suit (with well defined types of costs that can be awarded) and the court enters a money judgment against the losing party accordingly.
If it can save the equivalent of tens of thousand of dollars from an appeal in exchange for satisfying the judgment, it seems like a great financial benefit to do so. If there was no appeal, its unlikely the city would have pressed the matter.
Does the city have a policy on enforcing the money judgments it is awarded in civil matters that a losing party won't voluntarily pay? Is it different in this case?
Here, it looks like the city took an additional step of importing the federal district court judgment into the state circuit court. This provides certain advantages (creates a lien on real property, arguably makes garnishments or executions on the judgment easier) and the deputy attorney probably thought it could be additional leverage.
No hurry to pay, in any event. Those court costs charged to Liz, by the City, will be reversed on appeal.