I am often appalled by the craziness and complete inapplicability of a legal complaint to the actual facts. In my case involving my former employee, it is clear that they are seeking damages they have no right to seek by contract or law.
Frivolous litigation may be based on absurd legal theories, may involve a superabundance or repetition of motions or additional suits, may be uncivil or harassing to the court, or may claim extreme remedies. A claim or defense may be frivolous because it had no underlying justification in fact, or because it was not presented with an argument for a reasonable extension or reinterpretation of thelaw. A claim may be deemed frivolous because existing laws unequivocally prohibit such a claim, such as a so-called Good Samaritan law.
In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense. Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because such a defense or claim wastes the court’s and the other parties’ time, resources and legal fees, sanctions may be imposed by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned, or even held in contempt.
See my motion for sanctions as follows. doc-152.
Soon I’ll be filing a motion for sanctions against Joel Christiansen for the new lawsuit filed on Christmas Eve 2015. I wonder if the filing of the lawsuit means Joel is an Atheist. I know my former employee and his attorney financee are atheist. I suppose that makes the immoral decisions they frequestly make so much easier.
And as you my readers know, I have filed numerous ethics complaints against Joel and Linda. The BAR does not care.