"The Deed of Gift, as amended in 2032, is clear. This court would have had little difficulty finding for the defendant in this frivolous suit, but as the plaintiff has come to his senses, the precedent S-Class ruling stands."

"Yes!" said Bob Stevens, head of the America's Response Syndicate, as he faced reporters outside the courthouse. "I think the court has spoken for us. I look forward to an exciting America's Cup defense and intend to keep the cup at home. I find it amusing that the French suit aimed at overturning their own rule that lead to S-class sailing ships."

Bob took his lawyer to the side after the interview. "I thought this suit would take a month longer, at least. I need more time."

"Uh...you won, Bob. The French ended their suit early,"

[This message has been edited by First Assistant (edited December 15, 2007).]

quote:

---

"The Gift of Deed, as amended in 2032, is clear. This court would have had little difficulty finding for the defendant in this frivolous suit, but as the plaintiff has come to his senses, the precedent S-Class ruling stands."

---

I can't tell who is saying this. At first I assumed it was some judge or magistrate but it doesn't sound very authoritative. Usually they don't say things like "frivolous suit" or "come to his senses". More-often they would simply quote from the amended document, something like this.

quote:

---

http://www.a3.org/ac2000_Resolutions.html
WHEREAS by Resolution adopted March 27, 1958 (the "1958 Resolution") this Board interpreted the word "constructed" as used in the Deed of Gift of the America’s Cup (the Deed of Gift") to mean "designed and built";

---

Halogen, thanks for the comment. I could probably put in a "said the Judge" tag, but judges tend to refer to themselves as "the court." I haven't had much exposure to the courts, but I've heard judges rake attorneys over the coals. I was in a court as a potential witness in a civil case (federal district court) in which the judge said, as best as I can remember: the attorneys on both sides want to make this a complicated case, but it isn't. Put away your 100 boxes of records and let's get to the real matters in this case. This can and will be decided in one or two days.

quote:

---

I'm sure you've seen in many public trials where the judge complains bitterly about attorney behavior...the OJ trial comes to mind.

---

Oh yeah totally, it really depends on if the judge is supposed to be the decision maker. In a jury trial judge would never say "frivolous suit" because that would imply a decision, the entire trial could be thrown out.

Another thought is saying something is frivolous is pretty big deal, if the judge really felt the lawsuit was frivolous he could impose a fine and throw the case out.

I did a bit of research, remember that news article where a Judge sues drycleaner for 65-mil in pants case? This is the judges response to the trial (not the judge suing, the judge determining the lawsuit:

quote:

---

"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands or to accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute," Bartnoff wrote in a 23-page ruling, adding that Pearson "is not entitled to any relief whatsoever."

---

Even in that crazy suit he didn't call it frivolous. He gave a very serious, legal-speak response to the lawsuit (23 pages? Nuts).

In the example you have it appears one side stopped litigation. In that sort of example I would assume the judge/legal system would be very quiet. They probably wouldn't even comment, they have no reason to. They wouldn't want to make any pre-decisions on the outcome because it could always come back to trial. Much more likely would be the attorney making that comment, or a news agency.

Anyways, just some food for thought.