Topic: Unfair Trade Practice Act

Attorney Norm Pattis explains that the appellate court provided some protection for the press by rejecting the misapplication of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. However, he criticizes the court for upholding the discovery default, which he views as a miscarriage of justice. Pattis describes the trial environment as more of a "wake" than a legal proceeding, citing improper conduct by plaintiff lawyers.

Norm Pattis expresses concern over the use of the Unfair Trade Practices Act to target speech, arguing it sets a dangerous precedent for anyone who sells products alongside their commentary. He describes a "vice" where Jones was ordered not to testify about certain beliefs, which would have forced him into either contempt or perjury. Pattis calls the trial a "PC hysteria run amok."

Attorney Norm Pattis explains that the Remington settlement eviscerates the legal notion of "proximate cause" by holding a manufacturer liable for the criminal acts of a third party. He notes that the case relied on the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act regarding "unscrupulous advertising." Pattis argues that the plaintiffs are attempting to legislate through litigation to bypass the Second Amendment.