BURN: The Definition Of "Frivolous Law Suit"

Now linked by Doug Ross...THANKS, Doug!
I file and defend against law suits for a living.  I cannot imagine filing a frivolous law suit, and I wonder what people mean when they natter about them being a big societal problem.  This, however, is a great example of one of these rare beasts.

WASHINGTON—A mother of two from Sacramento, Calif., says that McDonald’s uses toys as bait to induce her kids to clamor to go to McDonald’s and to develop a preference for nutritionally poor Happy Meals. With the help of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, today the mom, Monet Parham, is filing a class action lawsuit aimed at stopping McDonald’s use of toys to market directly to young children. The suit will be filed in California Superior Court in San Francisco shortly after the court opens for business Wednesday morning.

It isn't really a serious law suit...on any number of levels.  Note the "forum shopping"...mother in Sacramento filing in San Francisco (where the "City Parents"...over the veto of their mayor...just outlawed Happy Meals).  I have no idea of the venue rules in Kulhlifornia, but that wouldn't fly in Texas.

But the "mother" involved is an amazing example of litigious idiocy by a reproductive unit (not a parent), along with her Center For JUNK Science Against The Public Interest co-idiots.  See, this isn't about winning a lawsuit.  This is all about flogging a Collectivist agenda and imposing litigation costs as a strategy.

Note, for instance, that the content of the CSPI press release shows this not-parent has about a dozen choices she refuses to exercise--

1. turn off the TV
2. allow your children to only watch PBS (which will propagandize them in ways you'll approve)
3. provide your daughters a father (this involves a perhaps unwarranted assumption on my part, but there is certainly no indication this "mother" has a father in the home), since fathers are better equipped (generally) to say "NO", and it provides another source for "NO"
4. learn to say "NO" (this will become increasingly necessary as your children mature)
5. learn to say "If you pester me after I say 'NO', you will be punished"...and mean it (actual parents learn this lesson fairly early)
6. teach your children to resist social pressure (which is all this is about, and WILL get much greater as these girls mature)
7. buy the Happy Meal...and have the gumption to ORDER the meal with the optional "good stuff"..."Even though Happy Meals television advertising shows brief glimpses of healthier products, such as Apple Dippers and low-fat milk, the default options put into Happy Meal by McDonald's employees are usually French fries and sugary sodas."
8. buy the Happy Meal...give the kids their toys...and DISCARD that awful food (that most people in the world would kill to have)
9. buy the Happy Meal...give the kids their toys...and DONATE the food to someone who needs it
10. buy the Happy Meal...and EXERCISE with your doughy progeny
11. find some toy with which to bribe your brats (who you are teaching to be brats) away from the Happy Meal
12. surrender custody of your children, since you clearly cannot deal with the responsibility of parenting

Remember, as you read about this, that the Nazis were anti-smoking, anti-processed foods, pro-vegetarian, pro-organic zealots.  They also relied on the power of the state to undermine families and dictate choice.  The Collective is remarkably consistent.

Is there a REMOTE chance that this lawsuit will result in the relief requested?  I don't think so.  Is there a chance it will cost MacDonalds a lot of money to fight?  That is the point...which in most courts, should get everyone on the plaintiff's side a sanction, which the law MANDATES in such cases as this.