Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
ow that they have triumphed
over the tobacco industry, trial lawyers have found a new target, Gov.
George W. Bush, and they have been
spending huge amounts of money
from the tobacco settlement to keep
him and other Republicans from being elected.
To trial lawyers, especially those involved in the tobacco litigation, Mr. Bush has become their worst nightmare. He has made attacks on lawyers a campaign centerpiece, pointing with pride to his record in Texas of curbing civil litigation, capping legal fees and limiting jury awards.
It has all been under the banner of tort reform, or what Mr. Bush said were efforts to rid the legal system of junk lawsuits.
The lawyers who have specialized in bringing civil lawsuits, however, saw Mr. Bush's statements not only as a threat to their livelihood, but also to their ability to hold corporate America legally accountable for its actions.
To that end, while trial lawyers have long been heavy Democratic Party donors, the prospect of a Bush candidacy, along with the possibility that like-minded Republicans would retain control of Congress, has ratcheted up the stakes, and the donations.
"It would be very, very horrifying to trial lawyers if Bush were elected," said John P. Coale, a Washington lawyer involved in the tobacco litigation, who has given over $70,000 to the Democrats. "To combat that, we want to make sure we have a Democratic president, House and Senate. There is some serious tobacco money being spread around."
Moreover, with the lawyers' fees in the tobacco settlement running into the hundreds of millions, even billions, many of those trial lawyers have had a lot more to donate this election cycle. More than a half-dozen law firms involved in the tobacco settlement have each given the Democratic Party more than $100,000 in the unlimited, unregulated donations known as soft money, some writing checks as large as $400,000.
Three law firms involved in the Texas tobacco case -- Ness Motley Loadholt Richardson & Poole, Williams Bailey, and Nix Patterson & Roach -- accounted for $1.135 million in soft money donations to the Democrats.
One of the biggest Democratic donors has been Peter G. Angelos, the lawyer who represented the state of Maryland in the tobacco litigation and who gave $400,000. "I will do whatever necessary to see that candidates who espouse the position that Bush does are defeated at the polls," said Mr. Angelos, also the owner of the Baltimore Orioles.
Over all, trial lawyers raised $2.7 million in soft money donations for Democrats in 1999, of a total of $49.4 million in soft dollars raised so far by the party, according to a recent report from Common Cause, a Washington nonprofit group. (By contrast, the Republicans got $2,800 in soft money from trial lawyers, Common Cause reported, of $57.8 million in soft dollars over all.)
The Democratic haul was more than double the $1.12 million in soft money donations from trial lawyers in 1995, the year prior to the last presidential race. And, the largest portion of the 1999 money, $1.65 million, went to a Democratic Party committee supporting Congressional candidates, reflecting the view of many trial lawyers that a Democratically controlled House could halt tort reform.
While money from trial lawyers has gone to all kinds of Democratic committees, the lawyers have made it clear that their No. 1 target was Mr. Bush. Last month, Mr. Bush issued a five-point plan to "curb frivolous lawsuits" and said he wanted to expand nationwide efforts that he had pushed in Texas that he said had saved Texas businesses $3 billion by reducing civil litigation.
"For trial lawyers, the stakes are enormous beyond calculation this year because the potential is there for tort reform to move from the extreme back burner right up to the front depending on how a couple of elections go," said Larry Makinson, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington nonprofit group advocating campaign finance reform.
"If you had Bush in the White House and a Republican House, bingo, tort reform would go to the top of the agenda," Mr. Makinson said. "And the tobacco settlement has been the pot of gold that has enabled trial lawyers to suddenly have lots of capital behind them."
For its part, corporate America has generally been behind Mr. Bush. Haunted by the vision of how civil litigation over tobacco, started by a handful of lawyers, brought some of America's largest consumer products companies to their knees, corporate America has concluded that a Bush presidency would be its best defense.
Mr. Bush's $70 million campaign war chest was financed, in large part, with donations from rich individuals and corporate interests, the same interests that trial lawyers have challenged in court. As a result, a financial version of the arms race has broken out. The more the Bush campaign and the Republican Party in general raised from business, the more trial lawyers said they must raise, and vice versa.
Corporations like the Philip Morris Companies, A.T. & T. and United Parcel Service were the biggest contributors to the Republican Party, while Mr. Bush's top donors were drawn from Enron Corporation, SkyTel Communications and the Chemical Manufacturers Association.
Still, while trial lawyers have been focused mainly on one issue, defeating tort reform and Mr. Bush, corporate America has been donating to Republicans to advance any number of business issues. Big business donors like the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and many large corporations gave to Republicans for many reasons, tort reform being only one.
"We don't have the kind of target operation that trial lawyers do," said Victor Schwartz, general counsel of the American Tort Reform Association, a Washington lobbying group. "When business makes donations, they do to those who support a whole multiplicity of issues. Our members are not single issue people."
Nonetheless, the American Tort Reform Foundation, a branch of the lobbying group, has set up a Web site, www.triallawyermoney.org, to follow trial lawyer donations called "Tracking Trial Lawyers." The group has listed the biggest trial lawyer donors as well as the biggest recipients of their largess -- basically a list of Democratic Party committees and candidates.
In addition to soft money donations, which could be given to political parties in unlimited amounts, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America Political Action Committee has already made $658,000 in donations directly to individual Democratic candidates and to party committees. This political action committee, with its own fund-raising now in full swing, has been one of the largest in each campaign cycle -- in the 1996 election it raised $5.1 million.
Moreover, one prominent trial lawyer, Michael V. Ciresi of Minneapolis, who represented the state of Minnesota in the tobacco litigation, was running for the United States Senate in the Democratic primary there. Mr. Ciresi declined to be interviewed.
Of course, the animosity between trial lawyers and Mr. Bush went back further than Mr. Bush's candidacy, extending to his father. Many remembered President George Bush's derision of trial lawyers in their "tasseled loafers" during the 1992 campaign, and the words still smarted.
"The Bushes and lawyers have been at odds for years," said Russ M. Herman, a Louisiana lawyer involved in the tobacco litigation.
This year, though, the ill will has peaked. Trial lawyers have been gearing up for new battles in Congress to pass a patients' bill of rights and in the courts against health maintenance organizations and the gun industry.
"What's different this time around," said Michael Hotra, vice president of the American Tort Reform Foundation, "is that everyone recognizes that the stakes are higher. We have a candidate who is making legal reform a core issue and we certainly applaud Bush for that."
As for the Web site, Mr. Hotra said that the group had set it up "to emphasize that money won in lawsuits is being strategically reinvested by plaintiffs lawyers in the political process and in more litigation."
And money is what it is all about.
"When it comes to political action,
corporate America was the pioneer
in spending money on campaigns,"
said Stanley M. Chesley, a Cincinnati
lawyer whose firm gave the Democrats $122,500. "They make trial lawyers look like Mickey Mouse. So trial
lawyers are attempting not only to
catch up, but to be a copy cat. If Bush
can raise $70 million, the question is,
'How can you compete?' And there is
only one way and that is to raise that
kind of money."
I searched using the actual title for this article and it hasn't been posted before.
...saw Mr. Bush's statements not only as a threat to their livelihood, but also to their ability to hold corporate America legally accountable for its actions.
Bullsh*t.
The former, yes. The latter? Forget about it.
The HUGE majority of the public are harmed indelibly without significant tort reform. The trial lawyers, in their "concern" that those who are harmed by "corporate America" be protected, don't give a D*MN how many lives are hindered, even lost, by products and services that do great good to the many at the expense--arguably--to the few.
"The few" is all they care about, truth to tell, because those few are all they need to get a class action suit going, and thereby reap BILLIONS.
It has been calculated that the "settlement" reached between the tobacco industry and the state of Texas netted the attorneys who "worked" on the case a cool $150,000 an hour!
Let's hear the Democrat liberals calculate THAT "compensation differential" in comparison with the "industry fat-cats" they love (namelessly and facelessly) to deride.
You want a REAL "special interest"? The trial lawyers are it, baby, in spades. And the Democrats are deep, deep in their hip pocket. Algore is the king of hypocrisy.
You are correct that trial lawyers are a pernicious special interest. And as a recovering Esq. I appreciate the need for tort reform. Too many of my friends profit at the expense of other's misery. That said, how do you propose to protect the rights of plaintiffs, not the lawyers but the plaintiffs ? Also, don't you think that product liability and workplace safety litigation are far more powerful tools in correcting deficient situations than the Code of Federal Regulations ? It is more market based, with potential defendants assessing their own risk rather than cramdown mandates that may or may not be applicable.
The headline to this post is reason enough to vote for Bush.
You've got to love any candidate who can piss off so many different liberal constituencies.
Knowing that the trial lawyers are against Bush is probably one of the best recommendations for him I have heard so far.
Knowing that the lawyers support Gore is another reason to loathe and detest him.
Shakespere had the right idea. KILL THE LAWYERS!!!
bttt
"It would be very, very horrifying to trial lawyers if Bush were elected,"
So a lawyer tells you what you want to hear so you believe him.
The states are for limiting citizen suits of the tobacco industry because the states are lining up to take the money .... Wow. Tort reform on an issue no individual has ever gotten a dime in.
Who holds trial lawyers accountable? The Justice Department? The Ford Pinto lawsuit should have resulted in fair compensation for the victims and criminal prosecution of those responsible. If a CEO orders toxic waste to be dumped in the storm drain, the company should pay to clean it and he should go to jail. Why screw the shareholders with huge, unwarranted judgments against the company?
"It would be very, very horrifying to trial lawyers if Bush were elected," said John P. Coale, a Washington lawyer involved in the tobacco litigation, who has given over $70,000 to the Democrats.
John P. Coale, the husband of Greta Van Sustran, CNN legal analyst and co-conspirator of Hugh Rodham, Hillary! Clinton's brother.
A little more info on the impact of Trial Lawyers and their contributions:
Bush's Trial with the Trial Lawyers
* Tobacco Five refers to Walter Umphrey, John O’Quinn, John Eddie Williams, Wayne Reaud,
Harold Nix,
their spouses and partners.
** Transfers from National Democratic Sources consist of contributions to the Texas Democratic
Party from the DNC (Democratic National Committee), the DLCC (Democratic Legislative
Campaign Committee), the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee), and the DSCC
(Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee). In the 1998 election cycle, the Tobacco Five and
other Texas Plaintiff Lawyers contributed in excess of $1.8 million to national democratic sources.
Tracking the Trial Lawyers--Current contribution listings by American Tort Reform Foundation
There may have been more resistance to the fedgov tobacco extortion from the gopers, but the gopers are in debt to the lawyers as well, and generally vote that way. Out of the 535 of them, there may be a dozen at max who are Constitutional purists. The rest are whores. Payment received, for services rendered.
Regards
J.R.
Peter Angelos was one of the illegal hard money donors to 'No Controlling Legal Authority' Bore's dialing for dollars campaign from the WH, so any position he'd take on the matter is compromised, by definition.
It's good that GWB is willing to take on these parasites. IMO, the US legal profession is in need of tort reform.
I meant to post that link as well and forgot to do it! I found this article at overlawyered.com, there's a link to Tracking the Trial Lawyers there as well.
It's an interesting site...overlawyered.com
You are correct that trial lawyers are a pernicious special interest. And as a recovering Esq. I appreciate the need for tort reform. Too many of my friends profit at the expense of other's misery. That said, how do you propose to protect the rights of plaintiffs, not the lawyers but the plaintiffs ? Also, don't you think that product liability and workplace safety litigation are far more powerful tools in correcting deficient situations than the Code of Federal Regulations ? It is more market based, with potential defendants assessing their own risk rather than cramdown mandates that may or may not be applicable.
When the trial lawyers go against LEGAL PRODUCTS, SUCH AS TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, it is just a bunch of bogus BULLSH*T??? These are legal products, why would any court rule against it??? Make it ILLEGAL, then bring in the law suits from that day on.
I know that the demoncrapts are short on common sense, and trial lawyers are as well?? Wake up JUDGES!!!!!!!!
Civil lawsuits are the weapons of the moment to destroy any industry, group, or individual that someone disagrees with. If allowed to go unchecked, we will have every free choice taken from us, simply because all that will survive are the choices that whatever government we have at the moment approve of.
There are two changes that would protect everyone's rights: (1) loser pays the winner's expenses (2)limiting attorney's fees to a fixed dollar amount, especially in class action suits.
Hit the demos HARD on this. If repubs are in the pocket of big tobacco and the NRA, why not do a side by side comparison of the money given by trial lawyers versus these two groups? Ask the American people why NONE of the states are using the tobacco sttlement money to reimburse medicare? Every state is using it for general funding. The ONLY people to profit have been the lawyers. Spell out EXACTLY how much each of these people got, then tell the American public that this was nothing more than a shakedown for dollars to be given to EXCLUSIVELY democrats.
how do you propose to protect the rights of plaintiffs, not the lawyers but the plaintiffs?
We need to eliminate lottery style jury awards, then justice will fall back into place. Awards should be for tangible damages, the profit motive does not produce justice and has to go.
Also, don't you think that product liability and workplace safety litigation are far more powerful tools in correcting deficient situations than the Code of Federal Regulations? It is more market based, with potential defendants assessing their own risk rather than cramdown mandates that may or may not be applicable.
It's not an efficient method, it's slow and expensive to use trial lawyers and juries to execute enforcement of the laws. Lawsuits should be the exception. Corporations are the producers of wealth, and trial lawyers are increasingly a parasitic drag. We need reform.
There are two changes that would protect everyone's rights: (1) loser pays the winner's expenses (2)limiting attorney's fees to a fixed dollar amount, especially in class action suits.
You got it Gerry, your (1) would be the instant cure for the legalized extortion rackets these states and cities have seized on as a way to finance their socialist schemes, as in the tobacco suits, and to by-pass congress to get concessions they want from companies like the gun makers. If these scumbag mayors and AGs knew they might well end up paying all the legal and court costs they wouldn't be nearly so eager to sue. As it is now, with these lawer whores working on a contingency fee basis, the governments stand to lose nothing if the suits don't go their way, but the victimized industry is ruined and out of business even if they win the suit.
Something has to be done, or all of this countries industries are fair game for these sharks.
A lawyer. QED. Why didn't you just say so? Your support of Buchanan is based on the hope he will throw the House to the Democrats and stop tort reform. Spare us the phony posturing about the rights of the plaintiff. Don't start that crap about how if we cap punitive damages we're taking away an injured persons rights. All we're taking away is a fraction of more money than tort lawyers will ever be able to spend in their life anyway.
Civil lawsuits are the weapons of the moment to destroy any industry, group, or individual that someone disagrees with. If allowed to go unchecked, we will have every free choice taken from us, simply because all that will survive are the choices that whatever government we have at the moment approve of.
Very sad thought!! We have to take control and win the next elections!! Go Bush Go!!!!
All I needed to read was the title---GO BUSH!! America needs you!
Also, don't you think that product liability and workplace safety litigation are far more powerful tools in correcting deficient situations than the Code of Federal Regulations ?
Very good Major. They taught you all about false alternatives in law school, didn't they? Did they teach you not everyone is as stupid as you think they are?
A Buchanan shill outted as a friend of trial lawyers. Wonderful! Demidog and the rest will get a kick out of this. We knew the scam was to throw the House to the Democrats. We just didn't know how any sentinent creature couldn't see that. That the creatures are lawyers makes perfect sense.
There are two changes that would protect everyone's rights: (1) loser pays the winner's expenses (2)limiting attorney's fees to a fixed dollar amount, especially in class action suits.
If in (1) you mean that the loser always pays the winner's expenses I totally disagree. There are many close cases that go to trial, and for most of us we could never risk the loss if we knew that we risked paying the other sides fees. Say the cart guy at Target is too busy listening to his walkman and runs me over with his convoy of carts. I hire a relatively cheap lawyer to help me recover my medical costs. We only can spend around $5000 (my actual life savings at this point.) Target hires Dewey Cheatem and Howe, a large law firm, to defend. They spend 100,000 to defend because they have the bucks, and they know that if they spend it, they will win. Reality of the legal system: if you spend 20-30 times what your opponent spends, you will find a way to win, almost always. See OJ, the various Kennedys, etc. Target has no fear of spending the money because they know I will have to pay it back, with interest (yes, the courts tax interest on judgments) over the rest of my life. Guess what? Knowing that I just quietly go away and pay my own meds.
On the other hand if you are in favor of fee shifting for frivolous lawsuits, I agree. The courts can do this now, and unfortunately seldom do. Re (2), I agree with this. The lawyers take these things on contingency fees and the states are too stupid to put caps on it.
Don't you just love when the little guy takes on "the man"? Power to the people!
Peace, man.
You bet! McDonald's defintely owed $6.5 million for improperly fitting that cup lid on the cup that caused the spilling of that coffee on the little man. No doubt about it.
I never give it a thought when my insurance rates go up.
I'll forgive the insults on my background. You know nothing about what I've done, what I think or whom I've voted for. I worked in the law for just one year, back in the 80's. I am in private business, successful at it and have paid a price for over regulation of the US economy, i.e. The Code of Federal Regulations. Just so you know, in the '98 elections, I didn't even read the names on the ballot. I pulled the lever for every single R, even on library supervisor, and that was with a close personal friend running for Governor's Council. So save it and get off it. I think it is felony stupid to vote for democrats for anything. You see me as a vessel to pour hatred of everything you don't like into. But it simply isn't true. My conservative bona fides are just fine, thank you. That I support an America First candidate for President does not render me a creature, any more than your support for Junior who is in completely agreement with Gore on the issues I care about makes you a traitor.
But you don't address the points of my argument at all. The libertarian position is that one of government's true functions is to provide for the courts. Courts that run on the English/American system of stare decisis, equity and common law. On that I agree with the libertarians. It is like providing for a common defense and regulation of foreign commerce. It is enumerated Constitutional power.
You said this: "Spare us the phony posturing about the rights of the plaintiff". It is not phony posturing, it is real. To assume a posture that neglects the righteousness of potential plaintiffs is to ignore the basis for the common law. Then you said this, "They taught you all about false alternatives in law school, didn't they? " Where is the false alternative ? I asked about regulation vs. litigation. If there is another way I'd happy to hear it. I don't support regulation. I asked Illbay how he would protect the rights of plaintiffs while punishing or reigning in the trial lawyers. I AGREE that the trial lawyers should be reigned in.
What I am saying is that I believe that litigation may be preferable to regulation. You must have learned by now that the people diametrically opposed to conservatives politically will get their way via the ballot box and legislation and then through regulation when it comes to certain issues. I dislike a law such as the Occupational Health and Safety Act which provides for a run amok bureaucracy to then write bazillions of pages of regulation that are crammed down every business' throat. They must comply or be fined regardless of their own susceptibility to a particular pratfall. The system we have will be attacked by those that see harm. If one limits redress via the courts, I believe we will see remediation of what others view as potential harm via more regulation. If we cease regulation of what these same folks view as potential harm we may see more litigation. The regulation method extracts even greater costs from business through over compliance. The litigation method creates costs only in specific instances and lets a defendant prove that a certain harm was not foreseeable, etc. It also lets a defendant manage his costs.
We can agree that the gun and tobacco cases reflect a piling on by lawyers with no true plaintiffs. Who has been unknowingly harmed by tobacco ? No one I know. I smoke cigars and a lot of them. I think tobacco lawsuits are stupid, and that is why the tobacco companies always win. They caved to the govt. in trying to settle all their cases at once. They shouldn't have but that is their own assessment of what their business risk is. In the gun cases, where is the plaintiff ? There isn't a legitimate one and it is clear in that so many cases have been dismissed. If you don't have a cause of action, or you haven't been harmed by the defendant, your case should be dismissed. Despite your attacks, I don't think we disagre. Now I ask you, as I did Illbay, can you provide tort reform that doesn't take away individual plaintiffs rights ?
"It would be very, very horrifying to trial lawyers if Bush were elected," said John P. Coale, a Washington lawyer involved in the tobacco litigation, who has given over $70,000 to the Democrats. "To combat that, we want to make sure we have a Democratic president, House and Senate."
This should become an RNC billboard. With no comment added. All over America.
Too many of my friends profit at the expense of other's misery.
If anyone profits at the expense of other's misery --- It is the lawyers themselves. If people only realized that when a lawsuit is won the real winner is the LAWYER - (s)he gets the lion share of any settlement to any suit. They make the rules unilaterally, and those rules are unfairly meant to profit the lawyer. How do you know when a lawyer is lying? HIS LIPS ARE MOVING.
I AGREE that the trial lawyers should be reigned in.What I am saying is that I believe that litigation may be preferable to regulation.
Are you suggesting that the answer is to litigate the litigators? I mean, those are the two options- reforming the system via some sort of regulation, and what you just said which is that litigation is preferable to regulation.
Frankly, I do not agree that litigation is preferable to regulation. I think that litigation is only the result of poorly worded legislation in one case, and the result of legislating from the bench in the other. Rights and protections should be based on the rule of law, not granted from the bench.
As for your challenge to come up with tort reform that does not take away from plaitiff's rights- I think that caps on damages are a perfect example. No one has a right to 6 Million for a spilled cup of coffee. Even if it lands in their lap.
"It would be very, very horrifying to trial lawyers if Bush were elected,"
Just imagine: No more Whitewater; Travelgate; Filegate; campaign scandals; sexual harrassment suits; etc., etc. Yes, this is a horrifying prospect indeed. Without the Clinton gang, half the trial lawyers in Washington won't be needed. To keep their jobs, they will have to follow the Clintons back to Arkanasas. Hey, at least the cost of living is lower there.
Knowing that I just quietly go away and pay my own meds.
Knowing that...just quietly go away and pay your own meds. And pay attention to what's around you next time so you don't get run over.
I take Synthroid and received a letter in the mail (how DID they find me?) asking me to join litigation to sue the maker of Synthroid for suppressing information that generic synthetic thyroid medication is just as effective as their "brand-name".
I went to their web site and read the fine print (and BOY HOWDY, was it "fine print"). It stated the award depended on the number of people in the suit, but they estimated the average litigant would get about $300. The attorneys involved would $2500 - $3000 per litigant!
Tort reform IS needed!
You see me as a vessel to pour hatred of everything you don't like into.
No counselor. I see you as a lawyer and Pat Buchanan supporter. One who hopes Pat's run will toss the House to Democrats where they can bottle up GW's tort reform. I see you as a lawyer who wants to muddy the waters by debating anything but what is really going on with the Buchanan candidacy. Ralph Nader isn't playing footsies with Pat for nothing. And neither are you.
"It would be very, very horrifying to trial lawyers if Bush were elected," said John P. Coale, a Washington lawyer involved in the tobacco litigation,
If true, that's another reason for me to vote for Bush.
Hope he doesn't screw it up by taking on Dole or McCain for veep.
That said, how do you propose to protect the rights of plaintiffs, not the lawyers but the plaintiffs ?
Note that there are FEW of these kinds of trials in Britain, for example.
As I understand it, under British laws, the LOSER of a civil lawsuit is required to pay all court costs, etc. In other words, they don't HAVE the contingency system that here in the states is the stock-in-trade of the trial lawyers guild.
If you are really, truly damaged by a tort, then by all means SUE, confident that you will have your day in court. But if you are bringing forth a spurious claim, you will have to pay for the privilege.
To me, that sounds fair.
This is the same "John O'Quinn" who was essentially disbarred in Florida, IIRC, for flagrant "ambulance chasing".
I know that the demoncrapts are short on common sense, and trial lawyers are as well?? Wake up JUDGES!!!!!!!!
I disagree that either Democrats or trial lawyers are "short on common sense." They simply take advantage of the ignorance of the people who sit on juries. Here in Harris county, Texas, you are almost guaranteed to get called for jury duty once every two years (they have a good system whereby you either get put on a jury panel, or you go home that first day. If you aren't selected from a panel, you go home).
If you've ever sat through voir dire, when the attorneys make their selection, you know the surest way to be picked is to appear intelligent. Gape at them with an open-mouthed, uncomprehending expression, and you WILL be on the jury.
As for the judges, they are part of the system. The ONLY way that true reform will take place is if enough intelligent, thoughtful people vote. An educated, informed citizenry is the ONLY assurance of continued freedom in a Republic.
Civil lawsuits are the weapons of the moment to destroy any industry, group, or individual that someone disagrees with.
I guess that sword cuts two ways, though. I am thankful that the system has allowed Judical Watch to go forward with its agenda. If the Clinton regime is ever held to any level of accountability, it will be through the work of JW and their civil lawsuits.
FWIW, it was an elderly woman.
Knowing that the trial lawyers are against Bush is probably one of the best recommendations for him I have heard so far.
As a Pat Buchanan supporter, I would have to agree with you.
enough reason to elect him
Uh-Huh --- That sure puts a different light on it.
But in Britain you have the Euro's regulating everything from the size of the bolts used to construct a ladder to the number of oranges that must be sold in a single mesh sack. Back to what I saying above. I agree with you that we need to reform, I just haven't figured it out.
The truly despicable acts work like venture capital. Guns and tobacco are a prime example. The suit settled by the Feds the other day for $ 580 million is another one. An unlikely sample follows: Lawyers find a plaintiff that had a baby with three feet but they did it at a small Catholic hospital with no money. So they invest time and legal research figuring out a theory that can make the HOSPITAL INDUSTRY liable for the three footed baby. The plaintiff has no money so they sign a contingency fee agreement. It is well settled in the common law that this legal. They used to call it Champerty or Maintenance. It is in fact illegal for a non-lawyer to fund others litigation. But even taht is cloudy now, look at Mark Levin or Larry Klayman. The industry should have tested and warned parents of three foot syndrome. They build it like a business, investing more and more time in investigations and research. Reaching the jury is like the IPO Red Herring. Does the hospital industry trust the jury ? Do they settle ? Do they risk a very large award ?
It seems that the obvious answer is to eliminate punitive damages. But if you do that the defendants have reduced the problem to a mere question of acturial mathematics. How many Chevy Trucks will we blow up. Well even if we blow up a Doctor, our damages will be X. If we blow up 10 Doctors ii's 10X. We make 15X if don't redesign this line of trucks. Okay...we won't redesign. It is not a simple issue.
I believe that all who have seen me post at FreeRepublic will attest to my honesty. I do not try to hide anything. I fight the Buchanan fight every day becasue I believe in it. Frankly, I have already communicated with you far too much. I tried to contribute to this thread and you harass me with perjorative nonsense. Think what you want. I do not care one jot or tittle what you think. I am done with you. You no longer exist as far as I am concerned. You are a prime example of what's lousy about FR. B.I.O.Y.A.
And pay attention to what's around you next time so you don't get run over.
Sometimes there is nothing you can do to prevent someone else from hitting you. Or is that not true in your world? Are you able to somehow perfectly protect yourself and your family? If so let me know your secret. I am sure I will be suitably impressed.
Note that there are FEW of these kinds of trials in Britain, for
example.
Guess who pays for the attorney and the legal fees for most personal litigants in Britain. The unions. They are the only groups that can collectively absorb the risk of the loss and the legal fee award. So that’s a great idea, lets give the unions more control over here, they are clearly not powerful enough yet.
If you are really, truly damaged by a tort, then by all means SUE,
confident that you will have your day in court. But if you are bringing
forth a spurious claim, you will have to pay for the privilege.
To me, that sounds fair.
As I noted above, "justice" can be purchased. Unless you have the deep pockets your opponent has, he has a tremendous advantage. This is true even with our current system, but add the automatic cost shifting provision and it will get exponentially worse. Spend the money, beat on your opponent until they can’t keep up with you, and then collect your legal fees from them. Its not a great system. The only people who can get to court are business, the rich, and those completely dependent on their union to represent them. This gives the union complete control over who sues and when.
All that said, we do need reform. jallen’s story about the letter he received is typical for class action lawsuits. They are exactly like the old strike suits where an attorney would have someone buy a couple shares of stock in some company and then sue the board of directors for negligence (for whatever, it didn’t matter). The corporation would generally settle for a couple thousand to just make the guy go away. Eventually the states and courts passed legislation to allow shareholder suits but only under much more strict circumstances. The same is true here. Legislation was passed to allow class actions, and legislation can be passed that tightens things up. The same is true for contingency fee relationships. Intelligent tort reform is entirely possible, but it does not require automatic fee shifting. That is just one option, and in my opinion a destructive option.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |