LAWSUIT CLARIFICATION

The assumption by the author of the 18 points you list about the pro stock (truck) lawsuit is fatally flawed because a motion to dismiss a lawsuit because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted does not mean that the plaintiffs are not looking for monetary damages. It means that there is not a legal basis on which the lawsuit could go forward. This motion is filed in almost every civil lawsuit that has been filed in this country. Usually it is filed to make the plaintiff's define the legal basis for their lawsuit with more precision and not in vague and general terms. The pro stock lawsuit is seeking money damages as well as whatever other relief than can get the court to give them.

ADVERTISEMENT

Courts rarely dismiss an action when the first motion to dismiss is heard, usually, as in this case, the court tells the plaintiffs to make a more definite statement so that the defendant(s) can figure out what the legal basis for their lawsuit is. That has apparently happened here and it would appear that since several of the plaintiffs have dropped out of this lawsuit there are problems with outlining a viable cause of action against the Defendant. If the Pro Stock Truck Association was not an entity at the time of the lawsuit but was formed later, this presents a "standing" problem (the ability to be considered a proper party to the lawsuit) and they may not be a proper party to proceed and the case could be dismissed on this ground.

Apparently there are no documents available for review. If there were I would be happy to review them and give you an opinion of what is going on since I have 17 years of experience handling lawsuits.

George Richardson

CORRECTION FROM PICKY PIPPI

My name is Par "PiPPi" Willen out of Stockholm, Sweden. I read DRO on a very regular basis (even won the Whaddayaknow Trivia Quiz once...) and it's with great pleasure I find that you put up a good article on the recent European Finals at Santa Pod in the UK.

Eh, hate to come down with a negative input here but as I do a fair bit of writing myself I do appreciate getting errors corrected and have a feeling the editors of DRO are of the same ilk. So, you have a detail picture of one of the Euro race vehicles depicting the universal "No Bullshit"-symbol on the bottom of the page at URL http://www.dragracingonline.com/agent1320/0401/vi_9-8.html

Fine. The "issue" is that the vehicle it's sitting on is not a car, it's on a bike and it's the Nitro Harley of Hans Olav Olstad who came in 4th in this year's Euro championship.

Regards

PiPPi

CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE

I have noticed that two of my photos have been published on DragRacingOnline without credit. They appear on the page http://www.dragracingonline.com/response/vi_9c-2.html as part of a letter sent to you by Gerda Dijkstra. I assume Gerda did not tell you who the photos were by - hence the missing credit.

If you could add a credit to "Gary Cottingham / DragsterWorld.com" that would be most appreciated.

Finally, it's an honour to be published on such a brilliant website - thanks for using my photos and keep up the good work on such a great site.

Many Thanks,

Gary Cottingham