People v. State

fairly undermining public confidence in the administration of justice
Subscribe

Where I Was on 9-11

September 11, 2012 By: John Kindley Category: Uncategorized

From Wikipedia, regarding what some unnamed contributor calls “[o]ne example of the politicization of science”:

The case was originally scheduled for 11 September 2001, but was delayed as a result of the terrorist attacks.

Wikipedia notes:

In the appeal, Ms. Kjolsrud “concedes she had not read the brochures before filing her action.”

My involvement in this case came about as a result of being contacted by a representative of a pro-life organization in Fargo who had become aware of the brochures. At the time I was living in the Chicago area, but in preparation for the lawsuit went to Fargo, at which time I met, among other people, the eventual plaintiff, who was associated with this organization. The organization originally intended to be the plaintiff in the lawsuit, pursuant to North Dakota’s false advertising statute, which, like a similar statute in California, allowed “any person” to bring suit on behalf of the general public to enjoin false advertising. I did not want the case to be about pro-life vs. pro-choice, and therefore suggested that the pro-life organization would not be the optimal plaintiff for the suit, which “any person” could bring. The eventual plaintiff knew exactly what the complained of paragraph in the brochures said before filing her action, because I told her in a phone conversation when I had returned to Chicago. This was explained to the North Dakota Supreme Court at oral argument. Pursuant to the plain language of North Dakota’s false advertising statute, a blind person could have brought on behalf of the general public a suit to enjoin false advertising. In California, a blind person still could.

Leave a Reply

*