{"id":494,"date":"2007-01-27T23:38:03","date_gmt":"2007-01-28T03:38:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2007\/01\/27\/pro-se-crusade-against-crosses-could-pr"},"modified":"2007-01-27T23:45:36","modified_gmt":"2007-01-28T03:45:36","slug":"pro-se-crusade-against-crosses-could-prove-costly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2007\/01\/27\/pro-se-crusade-against-crosses-could-prove-costly\/","title":{"rendered":"pro se crusade against crosses could prove costly"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Paul Weinbaum lives in Las Cruces, New Mexico.\u00a0\u00a0Although “las cruces” means “the crosses” in Spanish, Weinbaum believed the City and its public school district were violating the U. S. Constitution by depicting Christian crosses on their logos, buildings and vehicles.\u00a0 He therefore filed pro se<\/em> lawsuits against the City and the Schools of Las Cruces.\u00a0\u00a0Last November, Weinbaum lost his case against the City (see Religion Clause<\/em><\/a>\u00a0weblog, Nov. 10, 2006) and, in\u00a0December, 2006, he lost his case against the\u00a0school district\u00a0(see Religion Clause<\/em><\/a>, Dec. 9, 2006).\u00a0\u00a0 His appeal of the school case is pending before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\"shipCrusade\"\u00a0 The Las Cruces school district is not waiting for the appeal to be finalized to make its next move.\u00a0 It has filed a motion asking for about $16,000 in legal fees from Weinbaum, claiming that the suit against the schools was clearly “frivolous,” once the City won its case.\u00a0 Las Cruces Sun-News<\/em>,\u00a0“Crosses case may prove to be pricey<\/a>,”\u00a0Jan. 27, 2007\u00a0(click for LCPS motion to recover attorney’s fees<\/a>\u00a0and for\u00a0Plaintiff’s response<\/a>)\u00a0 The District says it actually spent $53,000 on legal fees defending Weinbaum’s charges, but is only asking for fees accrued after the City’s case was decided.<\/p>\n

Without more information and research, I can’t have a clear opinion on whether it was frivolous for the plaintiff to continue his lawsuit once he lost\u00a0the case against the\u00a0City.\u00a0 (Remember, in legal terms, “frivolous” means without a colorable claim in fact or law.) It’s possible that different criteria might apply in the context of a school district (with young, impressionable minds) than for the City as a whole.\u00a0 The points mentioned in the Sun-News<\/em> article as Mr. Weinbaum’s defense against the frivolousness claim do not, however, appear to hold much water:<\/p>\n