Comments on: pro se crusade against crosses could prove costly

By: Tim Kevan

Tim Kevan — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:29:23 +0000

Really like the site. I am a barrister over in England and have added a link on The Barrister Blog at http://timkevan.blogspot.com. There is quite a legal blogging community over here as you will see from my blog roll. Reciprocal link always appreciated, though no worries if not.

Keep in touch. Best wishes, Tim Kevan

By: 127001

127001 — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:46:21 +0000

ROFLMAO!!!

Unfortunately, you forgot one thing that I wouldn’t touch for anything, even trying to promote Civil Gideon…

You don’t challenge the Southern Baptists about the cross.

Made my day just picturing it.

BTW, just now posting commentary on this at my site. I do watch you carefully, and again apologize for the initial brashness of my first post.

I came looking for a trackback link.

By: david giacalone

david giacalone — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:11:03 +0000

Hi, 127001. From the newspaper account, it seems that Mr. Weinbaum had one other person join each lawsuit (one of whom dropped out), and there is no indication of a broader movement. The older Sun-Times articles were no longer available, so I did not see the early coverage nor read the judge’s opinions. One could probably argue that having crosses depicted everwhere actually makes them commonplace and innocuous.

I wonder what the symbol is for Corpus Christi, TX? So much of the southwest and west coast has locations named for saints and christian concepts that there would be an awful lot of potentially frivolous lawsuits out there if “church” symbols were contested everywhere.

By: 127001

127001 — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:14:18 +0000

As I read this I have so many queestions. Was this a “one man crusade” or a small group that found the use offensive because “they” defined the crosses as depicting a religious symbol rather than the name of the community?

There are so many other ways to deal with this type of thing, without the legal system getting involved … particularly the courts! Did lawsuits completely replace political and social activism and protesting? The latter are a lot more fun!

This is one of those rare instances I side with the taxpayers of Las Cruces. If the name means “the crosses” and that was the symbol used, then IMHO if you don’t like them and pursue to expend taxpayer dollars in legal fees, you should be responsible for them if you lose.

Sounds like a level playing field (in a sense) to me, and the judgment should consider the taxpayers who don’t believe as those who pursued the case within the more expensive (albeit probably more comfortable) forum.

Just my two cents. Non-taxable.