Why People Tell Lawyer Jokes: September 11 and Judicial Terrorism

BreakPoint ^ | 18 Sept 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

The day before the second anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, a federal judge in New York ruled against dismissing a lawsuit brought against Boeing and the Port Authority by victims of the attack. His actions remind us how far we've gone in becoming a nation ruled by lawyers and judges, and not by the people and their elected representatives.

Federal judge Alvin Hellerstein began his opinion by saying that "the injured, and the representatives of the thousands who died from the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, are entitled to seek compensation."

Well, that's true, but the question is: from whom? In the aftermath of the attacks, Congress created the Victim Compensation Fund. The goal of the Fund is to compensate victims while discouraging potentially ruinous litigation.

Not surprisingly, the trial bar didn't like what Congress did. So it brought a suit against Boeing and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the World Trade Center. It claimed that the defendants had failed to adequately protect against the risk that someone might hijack an airliner and crash it into a tall building causing physical injury and death. Could you imagine a judge buying that?

Hellerstein did, ruling that such a risk was "foreseeable," and has now allowed this lawsuit to proceed. This ruling paves the way for thousands of September 11-related lawsuits. Not only will this delay the ultimate resolution of the cases but, in most instances, it will leave the plaintiffs with less than they would have received from the Fund -- though the lawyers will get a lot more.

If Hellerstein's ruling is allowed to stand, and the plaintiffs prevail, the measures that aircraft manufacturers and developers might have to take to protect themselves from liability are the stuff of black comedy: self-destruct buttons in the cockpit, a limit on building height, or go out of business.

This is precisely what Congress sought to prevent. Following the unprecedented events of September 11, Congress and the president looked for a response that balanced the competing interests affected by the attacks. They sought a way to compensate victims without setting precedents that would make it nearly impossible for airlines and other businesses to operate. Nobody got everything they wanted, but that is how representative government works.

Or at least is supposed to work. For nearly three decades now, the courts, both federal and state, have been disregarding the democratic process.

Most Christians are aware of how judicial activism has worked in areas like abortion, homosexuality, and other social issues. But these areas are only part of a larger story: that is, how what the founders considered the "least dangerous branch" of government has come to set the agenda for American life. Allowing these lawsuits in New York is just the latest in a long line of examples of judicial overreaching. And this is one good additional reason why many of us are supporting the marriage amendment to the Constitution. It will begin a very important, necessary process in American life -- rolling back the courts and reestablishing the ability of Americans to govern themselves through their elected representatives.

[Mr. Silverback]

What in the bleedin' world could Boeing have done to prevent this attack? Freakin' leeches!

Tort and judicial reform is about as interesting to me as watching paint dry, and I'm sure that it's the same for many of you. Still, we must tame this tiger now, or it will eat our children and children's children.

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." --John Adams

It is time for us to study, and prosecute, the war within our culture, to overcome the tyranny of the courts and the unbridled avarice of our neighbors.

[Mr. Silverback]

One additional note: I think the word "terrorism" is used too loosely her. As bad as these judges and lawyers are, we must not lose the language, especially when we are engaged in a world war against terrorist forces.

[Mr. Silverback]

her=here, as in "by Colson here."

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[bigeasy_70118]

It is amazing how some of you "small government" conservatives believe that the United States should be an insurer of last resort for the people who died in these attacks. Come the end of the day, I doubt any jury will find that the Port Authority or the Airlines have any liability and further if it is true, then the true beneficiary will be the Worker's Comp insurance carrier as they have already paid out billions to the victims' families and are entitled to seek re-imbursement from any third parties.

I am not a fan of the tort suit. But I am less a fan of the victims' compensation fund.

[Lexington Green]

A flock of geese - A murder of crows - A tyranny of lawyers

[martin_fierro]

Why People Tell Lawyer Jokes

[Mr. Silverback]

Interesting point, however, I believe that too many of we "small governement conservatives," like yourself, have stopped seeing the trees for the forest when it comes to government expenditures. We spend federal dollars on so many things we shouldn't that when something legitimate comes along, it is often bashed.

James Madison wrote the following in Federalist 45. The emphasis is mine: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.

Did these people die in a war action against the United States?
Yes. That alone is enough to justify federal compensation.
Is it the United States government's fault that these attacks happened?
Most likely, yes. We will never know for sure because we would need a crystal ball to see if a non-Clintonized intelligence apparatus could have prevented it, but it is my firm belief that 9/11 is the result of the negligence of the previous administration. Due to security concerns, the chances this would be proven in court are slim.

I suppose there is some room for debate on whether the victims of this war action need to be compensated (and certainly, the amount is extreme in most cases) but there is no doubt that it is within the federal purview. Also, characterizing it as insurance only counts if it is insurance; insurance doesn't pay for war damages, so only the government could make good.

Let's not quibble about federal war expenditures. Save your ammo for pork and income redistibution schemes.

[paul51]

Judges are just another cog in the wheel of the rotten and corrupt legal system that has been hijacked by those that feed off it. Can anyone ever imagine a judge ruling that a 'legal representative' doesn't have the right to seek compensation in any situation? They are all like maggots propagating each other.

[newgeezer]

What in the bleedin' world could Boeing have done to prevent this attack?

Well, just look at what's been done to prevent another attack.

Improve the cockpit door.

[Rummyfan]

Yet another example of judicial idiocy. How long before the court houses are stormed and some of these legal eagles are tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail?

Not that I'm advocating that!

[Big Mack]

99.6% of all lawyers give the rest a bad name.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

"Come the end of the day, I doubt any jury will find that the Port Authority or the Airlines have any liability"

Then you've obviously never in your life picked up a newspaper. They are full of juries awarding ridiculous amounts of money in frivolous lawsuits.

[bc2]

if I hear the US referred to as a "democracy" one more time this week I am going to freak out! Between supporters of smoking bans, to gun control freaks and War On Drugs nazis, it seems that individual liberty, natural rights and our Constitution are not safe from anyone.

[Hegemony Cricket]

The blood of the innocent victims of 9/11 STILL cries out from the ground for justice, and justice does NOT mean scoring a huge, legal-system-enabled robbery of Boeing, the Port Authority, the airlines, etc. who were every bit as much victims as any individual. As much sympathy/empathy as I have for the friends & families of the victims, some of them need to really examine their priorities, and consider carefully the ramifications of their actions. In other words, they need to think for themselves instead of letting a money-grubbing lawyer lead them around by the nose.

[Gritty]

Forget giving to the Red Cross or Congress voting largesse for the victims after the next terrorist attack. Just let the victims sue and make lawyers filthy rich, judges important and eat out what substance is left after the attack instead!

Whatever happened to 'comforting the afflicted' rather than turning it into just another moneygrubbing scheme for the lawyer class and a way for judges to demonstrate their power?

[TopQuark]

Tort and judicial reform is about as interesting to me as watching paint dry, and I'm sure that it's the same for many of you.

This is probably true but very unfortunate. One of the reasons we lose jobs to foreign countries is the sky-high insurance premia, which are high, in turn, because of the ridiculous litigation and huge awards. We all are paying these awards, and most people do not know that.

I do not blame Bush for the loss of jobs as many do here on FR --- it's the function of the rest of the economy --- but I do blame him for the lack of two immediate reforms: immigration and tort.

[ChewedGum]

Absolutely - it is getting to the point where it will no longer be possible to manufacture anything because the liability will be too high.

Gum

[Mr. Silverback]

Come again?

Was the activity going on inside the Trade Center not capitalistic? Were those hundreds of companies all secretly organs of the government?

[Mr. Silverback]

As much sympathy/empathy as I have for the friends & families of the victims, some of them need to really examine their priorities, and consider carefully the ramifications of their actions. In other words, they need to think for themselves instead of letting a money-grubbing lawyer lead them around by the nose.

Concur absolutely.

[Mr. Silverback]

Well, just look at what's been done to prevent another attack. Improve the cockpit door.

Good point. However, let's imagine this. Let's say that the terrorists had blown up those four planes in midair with smuggled bombs, a la Pan Am 103. In today's litigious environment, I'm sure somebody would still be suing Boeing, because they have big pockets.

[Sloth]

Arguably, the US is responsible for not taking reasonable precautions against terrorism (i.e., minimal response to the first WTC attack, USS Cole, embassy bombings, etc.). After all, national defense is pretty much what small-government conservatives think IS the proper function of the federal gov't. Sort of like, you could sue your local police department if they were basically ignoring a string of home-invasion robberies, and then you became a victim.

[Sloth]

Improve the cockpit door.

OK, but you still have operational issues. In the Sept 10th world, the cockpit door could be titanium but does no good if the airline doesn't have a strict policy on when it's to be closed & locked. Has there been any serious allegation that the hijackings were successful due to physical cockpit door weaknesses?

[King Prout]

a haze of Hippies, a curdle of Communists, a lobotomy of liberals?

[newgeezer]

Sure, that's possible but not relevant to your question. Now more than ever before, an ounce of after-the-fact prevention is worth a pound of "A-HA! So, you ADMIT you're partially to blame!" The real question is, is it reasonable to think Boeing should have had the foresight to build their planes with fortified cockpit doors, as they are doing now? It could be an ambulance-chaser's dream come true.

This is why few or no judges would dismiss a lawsuit against Boeing as "frivilous."

[newgeezer]

OK, but you still have operational issues.

Agreed. The question was, "What in the bleedin' world could Boeing have done to prevent this attack?" Now, you've moved into the airlines' sphere of control.

Has there been any serious allegation that the hijackings were successful due to physical cockpit door weaknesses?

Obviously I'm not an attorney but, I could see where one could make the case that, by taking the very action of redesigning and retrofitting airplanes with fortified cockpit doors, with the expectation that the measures will aid in preventing future unauthorized entry, the airlines and/or Boeing virtually admitted that the pre-9/11 cockpit doors constituted a glaring weakness in the security process.

After all, they found O.J. not guilty, didn't they? ;O)

[bigeasy_70118]

Arguably, the US is responsible for not taking reasonable precautions against terrorism (i.e., minimal response to the first WTC attack, USS Cole, embassy bombings, etc.)

The government is immune from suit for its policy decisions. No victim will be able to pursue a civil suit based on this theory.

My problem is that these are the richest disaster victims in history. They have received millions in worker's comp and life insurance. There's no basis to comepensate them b on need; nor is there a legal theory that permits the government to compensate these people. Too many folks on this board believe tort suit is automatically bad but I think in this instance, it is the perfect remedy for the victims.

Any jury will find majority of the responsibility for these actions with the terrorists. The liability of the domestic parties is minimal. As such, I believe a civil suit is the perfect vehicle for vetting these claims.

[Mr. Silverback]

if I hear the US referred to as a "democracy" one more time this week I am going to freak out!

Sorry that my wrath will fall upon you, but jeez-o-bleeding pete, if I hear one more Freeper whining about the use of the word "democracy," I'm going to freak out! This isn't an article by some brain-dead liberal who thought we should keep a felon in the White House because 60% of the people liked him, this is Chuck freakin' Colson! For pete's sake, he was the White House Counsel, do you think that maybe he knows we're a republic? Heck, he refers to us having representative government in the sentence right before he refers to the democratic process! He's defending the Republic against judicial oligarchy, and you think he doesn't even know we're a Republic!

YEEESH!!!

[Mr. K]

...it's funny because it's true.

[Mr. Silverback]

Yeah, but you've blown of my point. My point was not that the Trade Centers were not government-built, it was that they were finance and business centers with the vast, vast majority of their 50,000 workers engaged in private sector, capitalistic enterprises. Just because they were built by the Port Authority doesn't mean that they weren't centers of free enterprise.

In my town we have a community policing substation that used to be a private home before the city renovated it. Now, since it was built as a private home, is it not really a police station, even if police work in the thing for the next thirty years?

[Mr. Silverback]

There's no basis to comepensate them b on need; nor is there a legal theory that permits the government to compensate these people.

I have laid out the legal theory; these people were grievously harmed by a war action and war is the primary purview of the federal government. It's not like the government put them on the welfare rolls; this relates to one of the four things Madison said the feds should be doing.

Any jury will find majority of the responsibility for these actions with the terrorists.

If so, where do the plaintiffs go for their reparations? Osama's cave?

[PeterPrinciple]

Not that I'm advocating that!


Uprising, rebellions, revolutions and other words that start with r.

[bc2]

The point is that the average joe is not as well informed as you, or I, or Chuck freakin' Colson. So when Chuck Colson, the White House Counsel, referrs to us as a democracy and not a republic, I have to wonder why?

George Bush and Al Gore are both smart guys (ahem) and they BOTH referred to us as a democracy several times in the 2000 debates. One guy here, someone else there, and people accept it. Americans are fat, dumb, and lazy, as my economics teacher used to say.

Conspiracy? Well, probably not. But it isn't a good thing that our country is being dumbed down, and not smartened up, at every oppertunity.

Didn't mean to yell at ya! :]

regards...

[Vinnie]

What galls me about the compensation fund is this.

Most of the people killed were execs, financial workers etc.
I'll bet most had large ins. policies or at least should have.
How is being killed in the WTC different for the family than an auto accident or heart attack ? Financially speaking.

While I have sympathy for the victims and families, where does it stop? What about OKC families?
I've seen some of the family members on TV complaining that their 2.8 million dollar compensation wasn't enough. GREED

[Vinnie]

addendum:

If anyone deserves government compensation the families of Waco do.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Well, just look at what's been done to prevent another attack. Improve the cockpit door.

They could have made a door that you would have needed a blowtorch to get through and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference. The best door in the world will not help if it is opened from the inside.

The moment that the hijackers threaten to kill someone or did kill someone the door opened because what came next was unimaginable.

Now it is not. Now they could threaten to kill every passenger on the plane and the door would remain closed. Because now we know. Now the improved door is useful.

[newgeezer]

The moment that the hijackers threaten to kill someone or did kill someone the door opened because what came next was unimaginable.

Well, of course. That's precisely the reasoning one would expect Boeing to pursue in their defense.

The plaintiffs will have to convince the jury otherwise.

The point remains, the court decided the suit is not so patently frivilous that it should be thrown out.

[newgeezer]

Also, with regard to how unimaginable it was, I vaguely recall hearing about a (popular?) novel written well before 9/11 which had a similar scenario, airplanes used as guided missiles in an attack of some sort.

I'm not at all sure; perhaps it was just one of those Internet urban legends that circulated in the aftermath. But, a cursory search at snopes.com turned up nothing.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Also, with regard to how unimaginable it was, I vaguely recall hearing about a (popular?) novel written well before 9/11 which had a similar scenario, airplanes used as guided missiles in an attack of some sort.

Tom Clancy's "Debt of Honor" it was the pilot who crashed the plane into the Capital not hijackers.

Reinforced door would have done no good there either.

I once read a book about an honest lawyer once too. But somethings are too far fetched to be seriously considered.

[newgeezer]

Reinforced door would have done no good there either.

Boeing would be fortunate to have 12 of you on the jury.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

umm Thanks? I think...

[bigeasy_70118]

How is being killed in the WTC different for the family than an auto accident or heart attack ? Financially speaking.

The pain that these people know is tremendous. My heart still aches for my best friend in grade school who died in the attacks. I really don't want to sound crass.

However, I agree with you. These are the richest disaster victims ever. They have recovered a lot of money without much effort through worker's compensation and life insurance. A tort suit takes three years minimum with no guarantee of payment. These people were paid within a month of the attacks.

It is a joke that the government is attempting to indemnify entitites that have little or no liability.

[bigeasy_70118]

Any jury will find majority of the responsibility for these actions with the terrorists. If so, where do the plaintiffs go for their reparations? Osama's cave?

How about the Saudi "Royal" family?

Sometimes, there's no case. And that's that.

[Rebelbase]

More lawyer loving people needing your tender touch.

[StriperSniper]

the lawyers will get a lot more.

Still, we must tame this tiger now, or it will eat our children and children's children.

I can feel the gnawing already.

It is time for us to study, and prosecute, the war within our culture, to overcome the tyranny of the courts and the unbridled avarice of our neighbors.

Hear! Hear!

[Mr. Silverback]

How about the Saudi "Royal" family? Sometimes, there's no case. And that's that.

Ah. So the families can't recover through the courts, but you think they should go there anyway, instead of being compensated by the feds (war is job one) for damage from a war action.

Mighty big of you to allow them their horrific exercise in futility. Last time I checked, horrific exercises in futility were not the point of small government.