For the most part the words sound OK, but without more detail I'm not entirly sure what they are promoting here.

1. What do they mean by "Whole"? I'm guessing they are talking some form of accuser pays defendents costs. I am for a very limited and specific form of that, but only if it works both ways.

What I would like to see is to let the judge force the losing side to pay part or all of the winning sides expenses when he finds that the suit should never have been brought or that the defendent is so overwhelmingly guilty that he shouldn't have defended himself. But there needs to be some cap to keep large corporations from bankrupting small parties.

2. Very bad idea. This should always be an option, but in to many cases the defendent is simply trying to make the case take as long as possible. This gives them another 6 months to a year of drag out time right off the bat.

3a. I could see a specfic form of protection that prohibts those that are intoxicated from sueing for self-inflicted damage. But that is it.

3b. Again, a very limited form of protection here might make sense. I shouldn't have to make sure my house is burglery safe, but if I leave a live wire running across my living room floor that is another matter.

3c. I would like to see this sort of thing streamlined, say a three judge panel that meets once a month to review all applications by prisoners. If all three say the case is without merit it gets tossed out of hand. Something simple and fast to stop the pure drivel filed by some criminals. But a total ban is absurd, for reasons that Box points out.

4. Here I would just like to see some guidlines, as juries are often all over the place. Awards that are both too high and too low are common. But there shouldn't be a fixed cap.

5. I support no-fault but only up to a point.

Jay