[Editor's note: Reggie Whitten is a strong Democratic supporter who currently serves as the president of the Oklahoma Association for Justice.  We are grateful for his submission of this piece.]

As you might have heard by now, Gary Jones, the Chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party, has filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Logan County against 12 different individuals and entities alleging a number of causes of action. [1] Chairman Jones’ lawsuit stems from his failed 2002 and 2006 campaigns for the post of State Auditor. Even though he did not receive enough votes to win these elections (and it’s unclear whether he would have), Chairman Jones alleges these 12 defendants committed fraud and caused him damages, including mental anguish, emotional distress and punitive damages.

Some have called Chairman Jones' lawsuit "frivolous." The Oklahoman even editorialized that both the Chairman of the Republican Party and the Oklahoma courts have "better things to do." [2]

It seems to me somewhat ironic that the Oklahoman would throw stones at Chairman Jones for filing a lawsuit. The Oklahoma Publishing Company, or "OPUBCO," the entity which operates and distributes the Oklahoman, certainly has no problem seeking relief in the court system when it feels it has been wronged, which is precisely what Chairman Jones did. For example, OPUBCO filed a federal lawsuit last year, alleging punitive damages, against James Conradt, a Nebraska football fan, for publishing a fake internet article. [3] OPUBCO also filed a bad faith lawsuit in 2003 seeking punitive damages against an insurance company over a disputed claim. [4] Would OPUBCO like Chairman Jones or anyone else to label their lawsuits as frivolous before even hearing the facts?

I believe that both OPUBCO and Chairman Jones have the right to seek relief in the courts. No one should have the right to prejudge a lawsuit as frivolous. Indeed, in the trial of every case, the court will ask potential jurors whether they have made up their minds already or if they will allow both sides to present all the evidence before they make a decision. What tort reformers do is routinely label everyone else's lawsuit as frivolous when they couldn't possibly know all of the facts.

No matter what your personal beliefs are regarding the merits of his case, Chairman Jones has just as much of a right to have his day in court as any other citizen in this state, including OPUBCO. Chairman Jones has rights under the U.S. and Oklahoma Constitutions that he should be allowed to exercise. If his lawsuit is eventually deemed by the court to be frivolous, he will pay dearly, just as any other litigant would, due to the laws already in place to deal with frivolous suits. [5] However, he should be given the opportunity to allow his case to play out.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party, of which Chairman Jones is the leader, does not agree. The Republican Party is still talking about tort reform even though they passed comprehensive tort reform last session. Staunch tort reformers, those who cry about caps and limits on damage awards, would deny the rights of litigants before they are even harmed. There is a little girl or boy out there right now who will be killed or severely injured through no fault of their own. His or her rights will be limited by tort reform measures and the Republican Party is working every day to further limit those rights. ALL citizens of this State deserve their day in Court and Chairman Jones is no different.

The hypocrisy is evident: the mantra of the Republican Party is that frivolous lawsuits abound. Indeed, when the Chairman of the Republican Party or OPUBCO speak out in favor of tort reform, it appears that everyone’s lawsuits are frivolous. However, when they are wronged and when they seek to have their wrongs addressed, they have no problem seeking relief at the courthouse, implying that at least their lawsuits are meritorious and warrant the imposition of punitive damages.

This situation reminds me of a cautionary tale I read in a book recently by Stephanie Mencimer. In the Introduction to Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies are Taking Away Your Right to Sue, Mencimer tells the story of Frank Cornelius, one of the leading lobbyists in the mid-1970s who helped push through significant changes to Indiana's medical malpractice laws. Among these changes was a hard cap on all damages, including medical bills and lost wages, at $500,000.00. Pain and suffering awards were completely abolished.

Later on in his life, in a great twist of irony, Cornelius was the victim of medical malpractice. He was also a victim of the very laws he pushed through. He injured his knee in 1988, and through a series of subsequent negligent medical treatments, was left wheelchair-bound with a stack of $5 million in medical bills. After Cornelius filed a lawsuit against his doctors, he realized exactly what he had done. Cornelius ultimately was forced to settle his lawsuit for $500,000 because this was the most he was entitled to. Cornelius subsequently became a consumer rights activist and fought against tort reform. In 1994, he wrote a piece in the New York Times, admitting that the law he helped pass was not worth it and that it was a sham. Cornelius eventually committed suicide in 1995 and his suicide note consisted of a letter to the Indiana legislature, who was considering further limitations on lawsuits.

The story of Frank Cornelius is one that all tort reformers, including Chairman Jones, should think about very carefully. Most tort reformers do not have a clue about the impact their actions will cause in the future to innocent victims and hopefully they will avoid the karmic effects that Cornelius suffered.

[1] See Petition in Jones v. Phipps, et al., CJ-2009-353, Logan County District Court, State of Oklahoma.

[2] See “Jones’ stew: State GOP chairman can’t let elections go”, The Oklahoman, November 26, 2009.

[3] See Complaint in The Oklahoma Publishing Company v. Conradt, CIV-2008-713-C, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

4] See Petition in The Oklahoma Publishing Company v. AIG Life Insurance Company, Inc., et al., CJ-2003-2180, Oklahoma County District Court, State of Oklahoma.

[5] See 12 O.S. 2011(E) (frivolous lawsuit defined as "the action or pleading was knowingly asserted in bad faith or without any rational argument based in law or facts to support the position of the litigant or to change existing law.") and 12 O.S. 2011.1 (filer of frivolous claim or defense pays attorneys’ fees and costs).