Skip to comments.$100 million legal claim in Newtown school shooting is withdrawn by lawyer.
Posted on 01/01/2013 1:54:19 PM PST by carriage_hill
A $100 million legal claim filed against the state of Connecticut in the wake of the deadly Newtown elementary school shooting has been withdrawn for now, local media reported Tuesday.
New Haven, Connecticut-based attorney Irving Pinsky said he dropped the claim because he was evaluating new evidence, according to a report on CTPost.com.
Pinsky said he did not rule out further legal action, the report said. He did not respond immediately to Reuters requests to comment on the report.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.nbcnews.com ...
(His clients are the parents of a 6-year-old girl who survived the attacks, but was traumatized by the shooting, gunfire and the screaming she heard over the school's loudspeaker that day.)
Do we need more proof that Shakespear was right.
Connecticut must have a frivolous litigation statute, analogous to Rule 11 of the FRCP on the Federal side.
Such statutes generally require that the defendant's lawyers send a "notice letter", warning the plaintiff's lawyer that they believe the suit to be without merit and putting him on notice that if the suit fails they will seek penalties and attorney fees for filing a pleading "that the pleader knows to be without merit".
I only did this once in my checkered legal career, but it was sure a whole lot of fun, and my client got all his legal fees back from the plaintiff's attorney and his client, which pleased him greatly. And of course it made the front page of the local paper and shamed the plaintiff's attorney (to the extent that such creatures are capable of feeling shame).
Looks to me like a letter sent certified mail, return receipt requested, had just enough time to reach this lawyer's mailbox.
Nothing like compounding tragedy with greed and idiocy.
“Evaluating new evidence” is lawyer-speak for “I have been told I will be sanctioned for abuse of process if I pursue this insanity.”
Just another POS slip-and-fall, ambulance-chasing lawyer.
Wilford Brimley has taken up ambulance chasing?
From the article:
“By law, any claim against the state must be approved by the state claims commissioner before it can move forward. The state attorney general serves as the state’s defense attorney.
“The Office of the Claims Commissioner is not the appropriate venue for that important and complex discussion,” Jepsen said in his statement.
“Although the investigation is still under way, we are aware of no facts or legal theory under which the state of Connecticut should be liable for causing the harms inflicted at Sandy Hook Elementary School,” he said.”
...The TLA (Trial Lawyers Association) or CBS (Crooked Bloodsucking Shysters) being top Democrat hacks ordered the plaintiff attorney to say, “never mind.”
"Pinsky said he may re-submit the paperwork to J. Paul Vance Jr., who as the state's claims commissioner has the authority to determine if a claim is justified and requires hearings. Vance must approve any claim before a state agency can be sued.
Vance is the son of Connecticut State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance, the state police spokesman assigned to the Dec. 14 Sandy Hook school massacre investigation.
FWIU Newtown spent 10 times what was initially budgetted this year for school security.
His lawsuit was going nowhere.
I agree. That would be the only way to win this is to argue that they should have had armed Security Resource Officers or armed teachers.
Indeed, the inescapable fact in every one of these massacre's is that to stop it you must, gasp, call a man with a gun.
Simple logic really does not inhabit the liberal mindset, but hey, there is an agenda to be advanced.
Check out the first photo at link..
New Haven, Connecticut-based attorney Irving Pinsky said he dropped the claim because he was evaluating new evidence
I say BS! Since when has a scum bag attorney ever decided to withdraw a lawsuit under the excuse he needed to "evaluate new evidence"?
Pressure was put on him by who knows who because the obvious cause of this tragedy was the lack of armed security and the NRA has come forward to point that out.
By successfully defending this lawsuit, it would not only validate the NRA's claim but severely diminish the government's claim that "assault weapons" are ultimately to blame and need to be banned.........
This was only one family he was representing, who know what offers are being made by the government to all the other families who lost their children in exchange for their silence and to not pursue this in a court of law.
If we don't hear of any other families involved in this tragedy filing lawsuits, then you can bet your butt that what I posted above is true.......Only time will tell.......
Yeah, he got *The Memo* real quick, didn’t he?
Moron lawyer was finally told that he’s fishing in an empty barrel; no fish in there.
I suspect sane people (are there many left) shamed these parents by saying “you got more than a million already,, You go to keep your daughter, you greedy pig.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.