Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
SLAPP Silly
I want to write a blog post about H. Walker Royall, the Dallas developer who sues people when they criticize his abuse of eminent domain, but I'm afraid he'll sue me. After all, he sued Wright Gore III over a website that detailed the city of Freeport's attempt to condemn land occupied by the Western Seafood Company, a business owned by Gore's family, so Royall could use it for a luxury marina project. And he sued Carla Main, a journalist who wrote a book about the legal struggle over the Gores' land, along with her publisher, Encounter Books. He sued University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein, one of the country's leading authorities on eminent domain, for writing a blurb that appeared on the cover of Main's book. He even sued two newspapers that published reviews of the book.
So after thinking carefully about my potential legal exposure, I have decided not to say that Royall is an arrogant, thin-skinned cheater who thinks nothing of abusing the legal process and violating other people's rights to advance his business interests and protect his vanity. Although that opinion is completely protected by the First Amendment as criticism of a public figure and speech about an issue of public importance, Royall still could sue me. And as the Institute for Justice, which is representing Main, Epstein, and Encounter Books, points out, even if defamation lawsuits against critics of eminent domain abuse fail in court, "the large expenditure of time and money associated with defending them all too often accomplishes the goal of silencing those who stand up for their rights." With that in mind, I have decided to refrain from calling Royall a corrupt coward, a litigious leech, or a supersensitive censor. I encourage you to refrain from doing so as well.
But first you might want to read a bit more about Royall and his lawsuits. I.J. has some background here. I discussed another I.J.-highlighted effort to silence property rights activists here.
|12.10.08 @ 6:05PM|#
I don't know anything about Royall other than what I've read "not" about him here, but I'm gonna go ahead and not call him an asshole.
|12.10.08 @ 6:07PM|#
Thanks for the warning, Jacob. I was going to call Mr. Royall an idiot and a fool who abuses the courts for his own benefit. But now I'm not going to do it.
Timmy|12.10.08 @ 6:09PM|#
I've always wondered, why don't people who are sued so frivolously automatically countersue for wasted times/wages and their lawyers payments? Can that only be done under special circumstances or is it like karate chopping a gun, something people don't think to do but might be able to do or might not? Can anybody shed light on this?
Orange Line Special|12.10.08 @ 6:09PM|#
And, I'll point out that the way to deal with things like this
is to not go after his lawyers.
Hey, look, Reason beat me to it.
|12.10.08 @ 6:13PM|#
Hey Royall! You're an asshole! And a douchebag! I've been told
you fondle underage livestock! Come and sue me you felcher!
p.s. Donations to the Brandybuck Legal Defense Fund now being
accepted...
|12.10.08 @ 6:14PM|#
I've always wondered, why don't people who are sued so
frivolously automatically countersue for wasted times/wages and
their lawyers payments?
There's actually a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that provides
for making the lawyer who files a civil suit pay. I'm sure all the
states have similar rules.
However, because the courts are stocked for the most part with
gutless pussies (and, often, in state courts, with gutless pussies
who collect campaign contributions from the attorneys who appear
before them), this almost never happens.
|12.10.08 @ 6:15PM|#
Oops. "civil suit" should be "frivolous suit". No Freudian slip to see here. Just move along.
|12.10.08 @ 6:16PM|#
If our legal system weren't such a labyrinthine heap of spaghetti code, it wouldn't be so expensive to defend oneself from frivolous lawsuits in court. There was a time, recall, when illiterate hog farmers could defend themselves in court.
Vanessa|12.10.08 @ 6:17PM|#
Why Jacob, you model of restraint. Or should I be accusing you of cowardice for not speaking your mind because of some bully?
|12.10.08 @ 6:18PM|#
I thought libertarians were supposed to like a
mustache-twirling, villainous rich guy like this. He's one of our
own, right?
Just kidding. He sounds pretty much like the worst person ever.
Well, besides OJ.
</|12.10.08 @ 6:20PM|#
Mr Pound sign fears no one!
H. Walker Royall can go fuck himself.
I'm surprised (NHRTFA) that the city of Freeport isn't taxing the
seafood company as if it was a luxury marina with a bunch of luxury
condos already.That is the best way to "take" a fish house, pier,
or working dock away from a private landowner who dares waste the
precious tax base of waterfront property by doing something less
productive than real estate development. Eminent domain isn't
really necessary.
|12.10.08 @ 6:24PM|#
Royall sounds like exactly the kind of asshole who should be
widely publicized as a reason to fight government land-grabbing
under the "eminent domain" pretext.
-jcr
Andrew|12.10.08 @ 6:27PM|#
btw, he's suing Professor Epstein? Really? You can't sue Professor Epstein like that!
|12.10.08 @ 6:32PM|#
Emphasize the positive: every dollar you spend defending against these lawsuits is one less dollar the government can take from you to pay for BailoutFever.
|12.10.08 @ 6:33PM|#
Dude's only got one connection on LinkedIn. I wonder if his
litigious nature has made him unpopular?
-jcr
anarch|12.10.08 @ 6:40PM|#
Mr. Sullum, I won't see your apophasis, nor raise you one paraleipsis plus one preterition.
Warty|12.10.08 @ 6:43PM|#
The correct term for this sort of man is "fuck-ass". H. Walker Royall is a fuck-ass. Sue me, fuck-ass.
|12.10.08 @ 6:46PM|#
Yes, the myth of the frivolous suit. In theory, attorneys (and plaintiffs) can get into a world of hurt for abusing the system. In practice, they're punished so rarely that we have, well, a screwed-up, highly litigious society.
|12.10.08 @ 6:54PM|#
Hmmm. This tactic, frivilously suing people who disparage you,
reminds me of somebody...
Oh yeah, completely
different assholes.
Same tactics and smell here though.
|12.10.08 @ 6:58PM|#
Another job for the Censor (the state and federal versions
thereof): Discipline attorneys. Take the disciplinary review
process out of, you know, the freakin' attorneys' hands.
Is there nothing the Censor cannot do?
|12.10.08 @ 6:59PM|#
The location of the Western Seafood Company?
"Freeport"
Irony or not?
It's also right next to Ron Pauls district. Might even be in
it.
Mad Max|12.10.08 @ 7:31PM|#
"Loser pays" might curb this guy's enthusiasm. If he loses a
lawsuit (not that I'm saying he would ever lose a lawsuit - I said
*if*), he would have to pay the reasonable attorney's fees of the
people he wrongly sued.
Lawyers are of two minds about this reform. Some think it would
chill their ability to represent plaintiffs. Others think it's a
way to force the other guy to pay your fees if he loses. Still
others think "loser pays" is in the public interest.
Fluffy|12.10.08 @ 7:31PM|#
I heard a rumor that this Royall guy blows goats, but I don't
know how reliable that rumor is and don't know if I should believe
it. But I think we should be brave enough to ask
questions.
But actually, on the subject of SLAPP suits, I don't like that
designation. Community activists get to file all sorts of
"procedural" law suits against businessmen all the time. Often,
their law suits are openly designed to "slow down" projects or
engage in other tactical maneuvers above and beyond the merits of
the suits themselves. If it's OK for people to file law suits
specifically to cost businessmen money and make their activity more
difficult, why isn't it OK for businessmen to file lawsuits to make
their opponents spend money and to make their activity
more difficult? Because the grassroots is sacred and should have
the right to have access to the courts, but businessmen are evil
nasty orcses who should not have access to the courts? No
thanks.
|12.10.08 @ 7:37PM|#
I heard a rumor that this Royall guy blows goats,
Fluffy, what did any goat ever do to deserve such a scandalous
accusation? I think you owe goats everywhere an apology.
-jcr
|12.10.08 @ 8:26PM|#
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|12.10.08 @ 8:32PM|#
Mad Max,
You know what would have happened to Kelo, Raich, and all our other
favorite libertarian heroes if "loser pays" had been in effect?
They would have been ruined, paying the government's years worth of
legal bills.
Loser pays would also wreck the whole contingency lawyer system
(not to mention the pro bono system). As it stands now, poor people
with legit grievances can file suit without much risk if they can
convince a contingency lawyer (or one working pro bono) that they
have a case. If "loser pays" is instituted, the poor won't have
that option.
I'm all for getting rid of frivolous lawsuits, but let's not quash
legitimate ones in the process.
ed, if he were left-titti|12.10.08 @ 8:39PM|#
Nobody comes to this libertard joint anyway, so you're safe, Jake.
Lefiti|12.10.08 @ 8:44PM|#
"Royall still could sue me..."
Given the right balance of forces--say, a great dimunition the the
ability of the state to monopolize violence--Royall have a private
police force hunt you down and kill you.
Jeff P|12.10.08 @ 8:48PM|#
Spreading untruth about the benefits and pleasures of sweet
caprine love is an actionable offense.
As is use of the word "goathole" in anything other than a tender,
poetic manner.
Lefiti|12.10.08 @ 8:49PM|#
Rabbi Chanina, an assistant of the high priest said: Pray for the welfare of the government, since but for fear of it men would swallow each other alive. Pirkei Avot 2:3
|12.10.08 @ 8:50PM|#
The state doesn't have a monopoly on violence even now, even if
they've got a huge market share (and they do seem to be trying to
expand it at every opportunity).
Oh, and Lefiti, let's dispense with illusions; if someone knows who
and where you are, and they're willing to pay enough money, they
can have you killed even now.
Lefiti|12.10.08 @ 8:54PM|#
Indeed, Tulpa, let's dispense with illusions. In a world of private armies, life is cheap. Ask the Somalians.
Somalia|12.10.08 @ 8:59PM|#
Like your President elect and Central Bank we are spreading the wealth around.think of the ships as so many aspiring plumbers!
Mad Max|12.10.08 @ 10:07PM|#
'You know what would have happened to Kelo, Raich, and all our
other favorite libertarian heroes if "loser pays" had been in
effect? They would have been ruined, paying the government's years
worth of legal bills.'
I was thinking more in terms of litigation among private parties,
specifically suits for damages. Unsuccessful suits against the govt
- and suits against govt employees in their *official* capacity -
don't really have a chilling effect on the govt - they're used to
being sued, and they don't have to pay their own legal bills
anyway.
There would still be incentives for plaintiff lawyers to take cases
they thought they could win, although some form of insurance might
develop to cover the atty fees if you lose.
In any event, the specific proposal would need to be studied before
being passed - I'm open to further data.
|12.10.08 @ 10:14PM|#
Jesus, people, have you all forgotten how to make a good Denny
Hastert non-smear?
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/106496.html
WALLACE: You think he may be getting money from the drug
cartel?
HASTERT: I'm saying I don't know where groups--could be people who
support this type of thing. I'm saying we don't know. The fact is
we don't know where this money comes from.
cunnivore|12.10.08 @ 10:55PM|#
Well, Max that's the point -- how do you write a law that distinguishes between lawsuits that have a chilling effect and those that don't. Obviously, if a pauper like I sued the local giant supermarket chain over something silly, there's not any chilling effect on them. But if the Church of Scientology sued them, it would be a different story. But how do you write this into law in a clear, non-discriminatory way?
cunnivore|12.10.08 @ 10:59PM|#
And I definitely agree that simplifying our legal codes would go a long way to ameliorating the damage done by these lawsuits. People should be able to defend themselves in civil matters.
Mad Max|12.10.08 @ 11:10PM|#
cunnivore,
Whatever mix we end up with, some people are going to get screwed.
Under the current system, people who are falsely-accused in civil
cases generally are screwed by having to pay their own legal costs
(there are exceptions, of course). If we go over to loser pays,
there will inevitably be folks with meritorious claims who won't be
able to find a lawyer willing to take on their case - the extra
risk of paying the defendant will outweigh the possible windfall in
the case of victory. It may be possible, however, to mitigate this
(eg, insurance). The devil's in the details, naturally.
In principle, the general rule should be that if you impose
(reasonable) expenses on someone you've falsely accused in a
private lawsuit, you should make compensation.
Of course, lawsuits generally end up being settled, and settlement
agreements tend to require each side to bear its own expenses. I
don't see that changing with settlements under a loser-pays system.
The prospect of paying the defendant will be an extra incentive for
plaintiffs to settle, just as the prospect of having to pay damages
induces defendants to settle.
One possibility: Just as civil juries impose damages on the
defendant if it loses, maybe they could impose reasonable atty fees
on the plaintiff if it loses, with the option of reducing the fees
if the jurors think this would be unfair to he plaintiff.
Like I say, whatever balance we end up with, some people will get
screwed - just as lots of people are screwed today by having to
defend against suits by this Texas guy (I'm referring to *another*
Texas guy, someone who files bad suits - I'm not referring to that
upstanding citizen who files *good* suits to vindicate himself
against evil people who accuse him of exploiting the eminent domain
laws.)
Mad Max|12.10.08 @ 11:11PM|#
by "impose reasonable expenses," I mean "force someone to pay money to defend himself against false charges, assuming he spends only a reasonable amount of money."
,/|12.10.08 @ 11:13PM|#
Cunnivore,
Think of the poor lawyers trying to pay back their student
loans.
cunnivore|12.10.08 @ 11:13PM|#
If we simplify the legal codes and the court system so that
people can defend themselves, nobody gets screwed.
Except the lawyers, of course, which is why it'll never happen.
|12.10.08 @ 11:58PM|#
It's because he's from Dallas. Dallas really, really
sucks.
And it's snowing in Houston. 75 degrees yesterday, snowing
tonight.
|12.11.08 @ 12:16AM|#
My son is a fucking ass-sucker! And, sonny, if you try to sue me I'll tell everybody about your little problem, so bite me. Oh, and would it hurt you to call once in a while.
Nigel Watt|12.11.08 @ 3:28AM|#
It's because he's from Dallas. Dallas really, really
sucks.
And it's snowing in Houston. 75 degrees yesterday, snowing
tonight.
Tell me about it. I had people partying here and my mother called
me...to tell me it was snowing in Houston.
Nigel Watt|12.11.08 @ 3:28AM|#
Uh, FTFM...
It's because he's from Dallas. Dallas really, really sucks.
And it's snowing in Houston. 75 degrees yesterday, snowing tonight.
Tell me about it. I had people partying here and my mother called
me...to tell me it was snowing in Houston.
Fluffy|12.11.08 @ 7:46AM|#
Loser pays is a red herring reform.
There are people who file frivolous lawsuits knowing they'll lose,
with the intent of imposing costs on their opponent - and the costs
to their opponent are the goal of the suit. True. But this
is a tiny problem relative to our legal system's real
problem, which is that suits that should be frivolous guaranteed
losers often win, and because they often win they also often garner
lucrative settlements.
I'd be happy enough to run the risk that some dope would
deliberately lose a lawsuit against me once every 25 years or so.
I'd much rather try to do something to reduce the risk that some
dope with a bullshit case based on an absurd theory of liability
can file a case against me and win. That's the real risk I
face and the real problem with our system.
|12.11.08 @ 8:07AM|#
I heard that H. Walker Royall lures small children into his car
with the promise of running a candy factory on the land he just
siezed, and then violates them in some of the more depraved and
inhuman way known to the kiddie diddler community.
I also heard that he wears women's granny panties, is really a
hermaphrodite with a VERY large vagina behind his bladder and at
the BDSM club he belongs to, he's the bitch to the bitches; he's
the submissive's submissive. He's also very fond of schiesse films
and has personally starred in several.
Or so I heard.
|12.11.08 @ 9:45AM|#
doing something less productive than real estate
development.
What could be less productive than real estate development?
|12.11.08 @ 9:59AM|#
I'll not say Royal (sic), in former days, would have gotten an xtra large can of Texas whupass dumped on his pinhead.
|12.11.08 @ 10:05AM|#
What could be less productive than real estate
development?
Before blasting real estate developers as a group, you might want
to think about the nice places you've lived that were on, y'know,
developed real estate.
Like hookers, retailers, dope dealers, lawyers and turnip farmers,
there are both moral and immoral real estate developers.
H. Walker Royall apparently fits into the latter category.
H. Walker Royall|12.11.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Oh man. I'm suing all of you, and I will get all of your things. Because that's how this works. Do you know how SUED y'all just got? Y'all are SO sued.
|12.11.08 @ 12:46PM|#
What could be less productive than real estate
development?
Posting comments on a website?
F*ck Censorship|12.11.08 @ 4:21PM|#
LA LA LA LA LA! Rubbish and bullshit, that's all that comes out
of that foaming wound H. Walker Royall has, where the rest of us
have a FACE!
If the world were a perfect set of teeth, this guy would be
plaque.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245