December 19, 2003

Amen and Amen.

We should remember that it isn't just about the poor defendent getting hosed either. We all suffer through greatly inflated prices on goods to cover the cost of possible litigation. For example, I can't buy a simple Cessna two seater for less than several hundred grand, even though the actual cost of building that little plane is probably just under $50,000. Why? Past litigation. More than half of the wholesale cost of appliances is for liability insurance and legal retainers.

Attorneys suck billions of dollars out of the economy in this way. And when you go to the polls, just remember that the American Trial Lawyers gives most of its campaign contributions to the Democrats.

I believe that in order to serve on a jury, a person should have an IQ above 100, own property, pay taxes, buy insurance ....

I would argue that we should have the same standards for voting.

Y-Sam: it used to be that way...that's the way the Founding Fathers set up voting here, but the courts (lawyers) changed all that.

Commander: You're spot-on, but the best example is the practice of medecine, which is being eliminated in some places because of the prohibitive cost of malpractice insurance.

It's not a stretch to say that the decline of our society is DIRECTLY (as in lock-step) connected to the power of trial lawyers. They are easily the most powerful group within the (D)onk party, and in liberal states like Oregon, they always insure their own hegemony (Governor, largest group of the Legislature, etc).

The reason that this publication dares to point out the obvious and runs the risk of being lambasted as anti-semitic and attempting to pervert the jury system is that the lawyers have already succeeded in that perversion.

We are rapidly approaching the point where only a very naked use of power will be able to restore the values upon which this nation was founded. Our choices will boil down to accepting a new feudalism with the lawyers as lords, or rising up and forcibly removing their influence.

I am convinced that uprising will come in my lifetime, and I am 60 now, so we are talking the next 25 years. I will, unfortunately, be too old to take the field in that cause, but I will certainly cheer for those who do.

I heard some well-meaning dildo on NPR [I listen to keep tabs on those prepossessed of Truth, Correctness, Sensitivity, and even proper Tones of Voice] explaining how people's "fear" of suits is misplaced.

For example, going right into the gore, "only" 30% of "cases where serious medical malpractice had occurred" were won in court, he claimed -- to start things off with everybodys's favorite, the evil doctors who get away with malpractice, thus himself mixing fear with anger, creating more demand for lawyers, whose suits he has also said should not be feared.

But, first, just to note this expert's thought process: "malpractice" having occurred is defined by the fact that it is proven in court. Otherwise, dimwit, it is not malpractice, much less "serious malpractice". If some doctors do get away with substandard practice and bad outcomes from this practice, it does not reassure doctors regarding their "fear" of suits, which are more often related to outcome regardless of practice. Lawyers, smelling the red meat of fate, go for the kill regardless of the cause.

But, second, if you as a lawyer had a 30% chance of winning the lottery, what would you do? Convenient in the motive is that "serious malpractice" is defined by juries, who may think it is "performing a silicone breast implant".

Third, this expert did not mention the fact that most medical malpractice cases are settled without trial, and that this always involves years of costs and disruptions, and anguish for everyone except the lawyers, as "justice" wends its noble course.

Fourth, the hidden costs of suits are more massive than realized in terms of behind the scene generation of paperwork -- especially in the case of hospitals -- paperwork which then becomes the effective patient and goes to settlements and trials itself, regardless of the true patient.

Maybe the fear of suit is misplaced. An M.D., for example, simply has to accept that s/he is going to get sued at sometime and that it really is nothing personal - except during the trial.

But the looming potential of all kinds of suits is a fact of life for virtually anyone who does business, owns a home, or even gets into an auto accident, thus also for the economy and so for everyone very personally, even if they are only on the take. As Communists used to ask, how much wealth should anyone strip from our backs even if our backs are lined with strips from the backs of others?

Politically, suits are a driving factor, legislation being "crafted" by lawyers to make business for lawyers, especially crafted to be intentionally vague.

Criminally, even if one gets found "not guilty" in a criminal suit, s/he can be sued again for the same thing, as the parasites continue their quest for wealth transfer and assignment of blame. Of course this is not "double jeapordy", as determined by lawyers.

In its eternal drive to administer correctness to the public, and defend trial lawyers, NPR missed the fact of the nearly universal impact of suits on our lives, as distinct from "fear" of suits, and the macbre presence of lurking lawyers behind the surface of things. This dovetails nicely with NPR's usual failure to understand economics and politics, too.

[In besmirching NPR, I hope I have not offended the Acidman, who I suspect is a loyal devotee of Terry Gross.]

Rob,
I was a jury foreman in a fed trial where the defendant was GM and the plaintif was a guy that stuck his hand in the turning wheel of an Oldsmobile Aurora, and lost the tips of his fingers. His lawyer contended that it was a bad brake design. The lawyers "technical expert" was a civil engineer who said he'd "keep this simple so the ladies could follow it." (there were more women than men on the jury. I could feel the women on either side of me tense up) GM had a guy with a phd in mechanical engineering from MIT. This was how deliberations went: I said does anybody think this is a legitimate claim? Nobody else did. We had one technical question we sent to the judge, then gave our verdict of no dough. Justice was done.

Full Auto, I'm glad to read that story but it doesn't happen enough. I'm convinced that part of the solution is higher pay for juries. Here in Oregon (Multnomah County, the moonbattiest county) the pay is, after taxes, $27 a day. I was called for jury duty last February. Because such a high percentage of potential jurors are excused, there were, I'm guessing, upwards of 300 people in the room. Pay people more for jury duty, say $15/hr, and fewer will make excuses to leave, and you will have to call far fewer people.

Hi...I´m just surfed in and want to say hello!
Regards George

autoversicherungen
kontaktanzeigen
musik download
ebook download
sexkontakt
private sexkontakte
autodirektversicherung
film downloads
filme download
autokredit