Class Action Conspiracy Theory
I had anticipated making my first post this morning about the terrorist plot which was foiled this weekend at JFK airport. As a New York City resident this particular plot truly hit home for me, specifically because my girlfriends apartment is very close to the fuel lines which were targeted. I have decided against writing about the subject however because I do not wish to politicize the event, thereby taking credit away from the men and women of the FBI and NYPD who worked diligently for over a year to foil a plot which had the potential to kill or injure tens of thousands of people.
I have decided instead to write about something a little more light hearted, and in my opinion, downright amusing. Granted my sense of humor is considered a little dry to most, so many of you might not find this story as amusing as I did, and unfortunately some of you will actually agree with this man. In a nutshell, here is the story.
An attorney filed a class action lawsuit in Roscommon Michigan seeking to lower gasoline prices, and legalize marijuana. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of “all citizens of Roscommon County,” against the United States of America and George Walker Bush, “purported president of the U.S.” I wonder if he intends to challenge the authority of George W. Bush as President of the United States considering his lawsuit refers to him as the “purported” President.
This truly is one of the most amusing lawsuits I have seen, ranking right up there with the idiot who sued McDonalds because she spilled coffee on herself and got burned. In detailing his reasoning for suing for the legalization of marijuana, Stephen P. Fitzgerald states he is looking for compensation because he is “desirous of entering into the marijuana distribution business. However, marijuana is still classified as a controlled substance under the laws of the Federal Government. Those laws are flagrantly unconstitutional.” He further states “marijuana is a cash crop which will earn billions of dollars for plaintiffs once it is relegalized.”
Anyone else wondering how this man managed to pass the bar exam? First it is ludicrous to believe he would have earned even more than a few thousand dollars since June of 2006 had marijuana been legalized. (Does he really think he would be the only one looking to sell marijuana if it were legal?). Second I find it hard to believe he can call a law which classifies marijuana as a controlled substance “flagrantly unconstitutional”. I cannot wait to read the lawsuit in full to find out exactly which section of the Constitution he feels was violated.
The most amusing part of this lawsuit however, and the reason I will be waiting patiently to read the entire lawsuit in full is his claim with regards to the rising gasoline prices. He claims that President Bush has “violated the oath of his office continually and flagrantly, as detailed…Bush conspired to orchestrate the attacks upon the U.S.A. which occurred on Sept. 11, 2001…to further tighten Big Oil’s monopolistic grip upon the petroleum industry in the U.S.A.”
I wonder how many times the name Rosie O’Donnell is quoted in this lawsuit?
As much as I find this lawsuit to be amusing, in that I do not believe Stephen Fitzgerald has any legal standing to file these claims, I also find this very disturbing. It is disturbing because this man is a practicing lawyer who is now filing what is tantamount to a frivolous lawsuit, thereby wasting the Courts time, and costing taxpayers money.
Like they say though, 99 percent of the lawyers make the other one percent look bad.
Sphere: Related ContentIf you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Actually, the drug war is unconstitutional. There are 18 subjects listed in article 1, section (8 or 9, sorry, can’t recall), upon which Congress is authorized to legislate. They are extremely narrow and specific. The issue of what substances we may possess or put into our bodies is not included. That is why Prohibition I (which was less destructive than Prohibition II, a.k.a the drug war) required a constitutional amendment.
I can only say one good thing about Prohibition I: It was constitutional. That is more than I can say for Prohibition II.
That is a very good point Rich, and a main reason conservatives fight for a smaller government. The federal government currently has many policies and procedures which go against the powers vested in it by the Constitution, such as the department of education. It is unfortunate the Supreme Court no longer recognizes the 10th Amendment which states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
The Constitution did not set up government to be run at the federal level, it was set up to be run at the State level. That being said, I believe each individual State has laws regarding controlled subtances as well.