How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 You're it!!!...so sue me   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

You're it!!!...so sue me

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


50 posted 10-25-2006 12:35 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Mike, sometimes I wonder if you really read what I type here.  I ended the long rant with this:  

What happened to our society?  We watched the people with power win and the people with no power lose.  We equated money = power.  We related getting ahead involves who you know and not what you know and money buys friends.  I say, if we can't blame it on big business, the justice system, or politicans...let's blame it on television, Mike. (lol)  Ron really does have a point about commercials.

I did not not name names there except for "we."

True, prior to that I got a couple of digs in there on Bush.  But I also got some in on Carter, Regan, Nixon, Clinton, etc.  

I put the problem on us and how we have assimilated to how people get ahead these days -- why there is a mindset of greed among many people -- a mindset of take what you can when you can.  I built up to that by saying I wasn't blaming it on any one person.  I blamed it on a number of things and then Reb added the effect of capitalism.  I believe the author he quoted has a point about the effects it has had.  We have become a society impatient to get want we want.  I'm talking about "we" as a nation, not you and I individually.  When it boils right down to it, it doesn't matter who or what brought this about (heck, maybe it was part of the "duck and cover" syndrome).  What matters is that we babyboomers are responsible for the Now and are responsible for what our children have been taught.  I think this was something else Reb was pointing out in his example of clobbering that kid in school.  

And I am thrilled about the 12000+ market.  If you want to talk about the state of our economy, let's go back to another thread and we'll go over that again.  The stock market does not reflect everything, Mike...only the Haves' version of reality.  

Unbelievable....Mike!  You brought up how Plaintiffs should have to pay for lawsuits (you did not mention the word frivolous at first), and then I talk about federal tort reform which is one of the major platforms of, yes, THIS ADMINISTRATION (sorry, couldn't resist) which was in response to what you had to say about reforming....lol.  And, yet, you still say I started it.  You crack me up, Mike, I'll give you that.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


51 posted 10-25-2006 01:00 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

My problem is that, to some, it seems to have either all began with THIS administration or THIS administration should shoulder the blame. It's every administration in the past half-century, at least, and yet there are those here who are not satisfied unless they can find someway to lay it on Bush's doorstep out of pure personal bias.



I've scoured this thread and can't find a single post for evidence that anyone said "it all began with THIS administration".  But I agree that it is a responsibility of the entirety of government and business and spiritual leaders throughout the past half-century -- which includes the current administration -- just the latest straw on the backs of cynics left and right and in the middle Mike.  

What I find farfetched is that anyone still makes a pretense at defending the guy.

quote:

Even in your final comment injecting the "crocodile tears"and the "poor little G.W. you show you can't help yourself.



That will be far from my final comment -- but the fact that of all the latest woes facing Republicans and the Bush Administration in particular have no threads started (from what I can see by anyone) with my name attached as author indicates that I indeed can and do 'help myself'.

quote:

You have got to be joking, reb. I said nothing about the current government to begin this thread and your inference that I did is about as farfetched as the majority of your replies.
______

To his credit, Ron is about the only one who tried to argue (or present his views) on the actual topic without using it as a tool to make it a "current administration" issue. That was actually what this thread was supposed to be about.



Where on earth did I make it a current administration issue?   What I said was;

quote:

Could the erosion of loyalty from employers to employees be a part of this? defaulting on pension plans, downsizing, defrauding Wall Street, political graft and the lobby culture, religious leaders fleecing the flock to finance lavish lifestyles, manufacturers who are all too willing to withhold safe technologies from the market (like seat belts) and intentionally market harmful products (like cigarettes), aren't these all representative of being willing to elevate easy money above integrity?



To which -- you said no -- and I can't fathom how those aren't representative of elevating easy money above integrity -- perhaps we have different ideas of integrity.  Mine is consistency between action and core values -- not that everyone's core values have to be the same -- but -- if someone's core value is that alcohol and homosexuality is of the devil then to be caught drunk and engaged in homosexual activity is a lapse in integrity.

If someone believes in the rights to personal property and to be secure in it then it is a lapse in integrity to take someone else's property with a gun or a pen.

I don't really find party loyalty to be an act of integrity though -- especially when parties seem to change core values as readily as women's hem lines change.

But, you started this thread talking about local government actions as a trend across the U.S.  -- a trend that is indicative of and a result of our litigious society -- for which -- you blame lawyers -- that's a tort reform complaint Mike -- and a current government issue.

Or did you just mean to talk about Shakespeare?  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


52 posted 10-25-2006 01:27 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Where on earth did I make it a current administration issue?

Well, let's see....


Doesn't the guy who gave his 25 years to the steel mill only see it default on its pension fund and wind up getting paid only pennies from the Federal insurance have a right to be disheartened?  With leaders like Welch, Lay, Delay, Bush, Rumsfeld from whence cometh that enterprising spirit?

..and yes, reb, I was quoting Shakespeare and you know the line

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


53 posted 10-25-2006 06:07 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well I think you're right Mike.  Since my thesis was about leadership it was clearly a mistake to use the current administration as an example.  

But I always enjoy the part of the thread where the thread becomes the discussion instead of the arguments because it must mean I've won!
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


54 posted 10-25-2006 10:28 AM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Ohboy, the local Bush Bashers get really vocal when caught red-handed don't they Mike, I know you can defend yourself better than I can cover for you but I just wanted to point out who first went political on this thread. They just can't seem to restrain themselves.

But to get back to the topic: "99% of all lawyers give the rest a bad name." I don't know who originally said that but I did say it to a dear friend who happens to be a lawyer a few months ago. Her response, after several seconds: "Damn, that's right."

I read an article several years ago, I don't remember the source or original subject now. Burried in it was an interesting statistic. At that time in Japan, there was 1 lawyer for every 10,000 people. In the UK there was 1 for every 4,000. In the US, there was 1 for every 400. That should give a pretty good idea of one of the major problems with our legal system.

I also have a personal experience to relate. I own a small and rare (in the country) 1948 British car. Spare parts are extremely hard to find. There is a large club in England catering to these cars. The club has contracted with several manufacturers to reproduce many of the parts that wear out. Unfortunately, their liability insurance prohibits them from selling any of those part to anyone who might export them to North America. That includes Canada too. The reason? You guessed it. Americans are just too damn prone to sue over anything that they don't like. Now I can almost understand items like poorly manufactured tierods or brake and steering parts but they can't even sell me stuff like door weather stripping or a replacement fuel gauge.

Having spent a few years in the legal industry, I know there are many lawyers out there who have very good income. I also know there are many with the highest ethical standards. But there are also many who will do almost anything to "make a buck." The reason? Again, we have entirely too many for their own good. Actually, I have several personal friends who are lawyers.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


55 posted 10-25-2006 12:03 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Again, we have entirely too many (lawyers) for their own good.

I lost interest in this thread when it went partisan, but I just can't let this go unchallenged.  

It's called supply and demand, Pete, and I honestly think you're looking at the wrong end of the teeter-totter.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


56 posted 10-25-2006 02:34 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Possibly to some extent. I still believe, however, that the main problem is on the supply side. It's much like any other lucrative field. People think they see a way to get rich and jump on it. Pretty soon there are way too many doing it. Next thing is those not at the top of the field have to "do the dirty work" in order to survive.

Of course it is true that they would simply be starved out if the public weren't greedy enough to go for someone else's money when an opportunity is offered. My experience in the legal field was designing, installing and managing the computer systems for a major law firm. One of the senior partners at the firm commented once that we were probably looking at a pretty lean couple of years coming up. I questioned that since the economy seemed pretty good and the forcasts were all positive. His answer was "When the economy is good, people can make money by earning it. When it slows, it's just easier to sue someone who already has it. We make money when people sue." That was one of those lawyers for whom I still have a great deal of respect.

This was a highly successful firm so we didn't have to chase ambulances or take those cases of women pouring hot coffee on their crotches. But there are plenty others who will and do.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


57 posted 10-25-2006 03:04 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Ohboy, the local Bush Bashers get really vocal when caught red-handed don't they  Mike, I know you can defend yourself better than I can cover for you but I just wanted to point out who first went political on this thread. They just can't seem to restrain themselves.



Why should anyone ever 'restrain themselves' Pete?  There's no getting caught to it -- we're either doing it or not.  If I was going to start Bush bashing I could have brought up any number of the latest scandals to dog the people on Penn Ave.  

And, the next time I feel like Bush bashing -- I'll just go right ahead and do it.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


58 posted 10-25-2006 04:13 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I agree completely, Ron. It IS supply and demand. The lawyers create the demand and then they supply a sufficient amount of lawyers to handle it.

Such a deal....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


59 posted 10-25-2006 06:07 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Before Coca Cola was invented there was no demand for it.

Even after there was such a thing the demand was limited.

But when a Pepsi comes along and the two start to compete and advertise and raise awareness -- demand for both products increases.  When I used to sell to jobbers they'd all tell me the same thing -- 'I don't want to be the only guy with this in his book'.

I don't think it's productive to focus too much attention on which side, supply or demand, is 'responsible'.  We know that the majority of cases that pass muster into an actual trial (or even settlement) do so because there is MERIT.

Ron's point earlier is correct -- if everyone would just do what they are supposed to do -- no one would ever have to sue.  But, insurance companies reject claims out of hat as a matter of standard operating procedure -- if you file a disability claim against Social Security -- you're going to have to get a lawyer and sue the Federal Government before it's all over.

Demand is originally created by one party injuring another party.

Yes.  Lawyers, and the inaccurate portrayal of cases in the media -- have created additional AWARENESS of 'deep pockets'.  A hightened awareness certainly leads to more litigation -- but most of it is going to be legitimate.  Certainly there are criminals who are going to try to scam every institution -- they don't need lawyers to do that though -- it just so happens they are available.

But, if this statement is correct;

quote:

I questioned that since the economy seemed pretty good and the forcasts were all positive. His answer was "When the economy is good, people can make money by earning it. When it slows, it's just easier to sue someone who already has it. We make money when people sue."



and the demand for litigation continues to rise then there must be SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE ECONOMY.  With which -- I refer you back to my original premise.

iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


60 posted 10-25-2006 06:30 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Not A Poet -- I've been in the legal field since 1980 and I used to say when people asked me why I took that job and left a prominent steel company (before I would have been laid off as I could see that coming), "Well, when times are good, there are lawsuits, and when times are bad, there are lawsuits."  As long as there is a justice system, there will be lawsuits and attorneys, their staff, and a service industry fulfilling their needs.  I suppose we could go back to Solomon's ways of offering to cut the baby in half when two people argued over it, but I would fear that with some people's cold hearts, we might just end up with a severed body.  

If the schools Mike refers to want to end recess or playing tag, that is their choice.  But it seems to me that their choice is based out of fear.  If they have adequate staff or supervision and playground rules in place, then they shouldn't be afraid of lawsuits because the claimant would have to prove negligence on the part of the school.  My guess is that they don't have what they need and that is why they've made their decision.  To go along with Reb's statement, lack of adequate staff is also a reflection of the economy.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


61 posted 10-26-2006 12:30 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Then they shouldn't be afraid of lawsuits because the claimant would have to prove negligence on the part of the school.  My guess is that they don't have what they need and that is why they've made their decision.

Wrong again, Iliana. Whether they are found guilty or not, the schools would still be paying. That's the problem. The threat of a lawsuit being filed is enough to cause major problems for a school, business, or whatever. That idyllic world of "If I'm right there's no problem" doesn't exist. Companies,  even knowing that they are right, will sometimes settle lawsuits to avoid the costs of going to trial. Sadly, the schools are right in their decision.....
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


62 posted 10-26-2006 02:22 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Who's wrong, Mike?  Schools carry property insurance.  A claimant would file a claim.  It is up to the insurance company to pay the claim or not.  If it is a valid claim, then they should pay it.  The problem is, once again that insurance companies deny claims as a matter of standard course these days.  That's the problem.  People then get angry because there is no justice.  That's when they hire attorneys.  

If the school is not at fault, there should not be a worry.  If the school knew about a hazard on the grounds and didn't do anything to prevent injury, then the claim should be paid.  This is pre-litigation.  If my child skinned their knee, then it is no big deal.  If my child broke their leg because she/he was running while playing tag and fell in a big open hole with no warning markers, then it is the fault of the school and their insurance company should pay for the medical bills.  

There used to be insurance offered in school for just this kind of thing.  I think my parents used to pay something like $25 or $50 per year for it.  Whatever happened to that?  

We pay insurance for everything.  For instance, automobile liability insurance is required in many states.  Insurance carriers have a multi-billion dollar industry just in liability insurance and yet their practice nowaday is to deny claims.  The only claims I see settle pre-lawsuit these days are death, paraplegia, and multiple broken bones and pemanent disability claims.  And those cases won't settle if there is even a slim chance the insurance company's attorneys can sway a jury into thinking the responsible party wasn't really responsible--it was just one of those things....accidents happen....and believe it or not, that flies sometimes.  By gum, I've even seen cases where the guilty party was an ex-con, drunk and on drugs go to trial and only render the Plaintiff, who sustained back injuries which required surgery, a couple of thousand dollars.  Seems to me, it would have made more sense to save the cost of litigation/trial for the insurance company just to go ahead and be nice and pay the guy's medical expenses if the drunk drug addict caused the accident.  But the insurance companies have spent millions of dollars convincing the general public/jury poll that all lawsuits are frivolous and that's what makes our rates go up. Check out the net profits of Allstate and State Farm for the last couple of years.  You will see they are at an all-time high.  Cost of litigation, my eye!  While you're at it, contact various state insurance commissions and attorneys general, and check out the number of insurance code violations that have been found by insurance companies in the last several years.  But that doesn't even phase companies like State Farm or Allstate.  

Allstate, for instance, has a giant computer god, called Colossus.  When adjusters get a claim, they plug in the injury, the age of the claimant and any personal information they have on the claimant, and see what Colossus tells them.  For soft-tissue injury cases, Colossus usually tells them with its facts and figures that the case is winnable, especially if the claimant is over a certain age, if a lawsuit were filed and not to offer any settlement or maybe just the initial ER bills and one doctor's visit, or the absolute low-ball figure.  Google Colossus and Allstate and see what you find.  It will probably make you very happy, but it has made an awful lot of people very, very angry.  

The courts are processing cases (going to trial) here in Texas (the typical fender bender type) in about a year after a lawsuit is filed.  Sometimes, it takes up to 18 months for some nerve damage and back/neck/shoulder injuries to fully manifest.  Insurance companies know this and have set the environment here through lobbying for particular legislation that has crippled claimants in even knowing the extent of their injuries sometimes.  There is so much more to this topic that could be discussed but it is not pertinent to your thread.  

Suffice it to say, I'm going back to blaming the galldang insurance companies for our litigous society. But Ron and Reb are right, too -- if everyone would just do the right thing, there would be much less litigation.  People, most people, sue when they are mad.  What makes them mad?  Getting the runaround and injustice.  Why, I used to work for a medical malpractice defense attorney who would give seminars to many doctors about how to avoid litigation.  One of the biggest things he addressed was their communication skills and bedside manner.

Having been through a lawsuit myself, I can tell you, it is no fun; it's a major disrupting hassle; your whole life is put on display; you're made to feel like the guilty party instead of the victim.  Filing a lawsuit in my book is the absolute last resort.    

[This message has been edited by iliana (10-27-2006 05:57 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


63 posted 10-26-2006 09:42 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If the school is not at fault, there should not be a worry.

.
.
Having been through a lawsuit myself, I can tell you, it is no fun; it's a major disrupting hassle; your whole life is put on display; you're made to feel like the guilty party instead of the victim.


Interesting opposing points of view....from the same person


If Billy Bully wants to punch Randy Dandy in the mouth and free up a tooth or two because Sally Sweetie(Billy's girlfriend) smiled at him, no school would be able to prevent it. What would the lawsuit say? Lack of supervision by the school. Faulty security.....minor monitoring. The Blackboard Jungle all over again. That shouldn't bother the schools, though,  because they are in the right....right?
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


64 posted 10-26-2006 10:22 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Mike, my two different stances have to do with one being a claim and the other being a lawsuit.  I reiterate:  the school should not have a worry if they are not negligent.  Billy Bully should be suspended for bad behavior.  If the school has insurance, the insurance company might be asked to pay for dental repair for the injured child, but that might be a doubtful claim.  I would think the more likely claim would be filed by the child's parents as a civil assault claim against Billy Bully's parents as his guardians.  If the school's insurance company is asked to make a payment and refuses, then and only then, does the school need to worry.  In my case, I tried my best to avoid litigation and the insurance companiy left me with no alternative.  I had doctors and hospitals threatening to sue me for medical bills.  

But I was just a little "guy" and so was the sweet elderly gentlemen who totaled my car and caused me grief.  He begged his insurance company to settle the claim but they basically hung him out to dry.  Had my case gone to trial, it would have probably exceeded his policy limits by a couple hundred thousand dollars or more which would have come out of his own pocket.  Of course, if that had happened, he could have turned around and sued his own insurance company for mishandling the claim and violating insurance codes, breaching their contract and breaching their fiduciary duty to him.  I suspect insurance carriers would not be so fast to ignore a school district if need be.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


65 posted 10-26-2006 01:55 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If the school's insurance company is asked to make a payment and refuses, then and only then, does the school need to worry.

That's my point. Why does the school ever have to worry? There is no school or no system in any school that can stop one kid from popping another kid in the nose. They are kids....some of them do things like that. Why should the school be expected to pay? Why should your above statement come into play? Why does the school need to worry? It makes no sense.....
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


66 posted 10-26-2006 02:43 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Mike, you know the answer to that.  There is always someone out there who will threaten to sue.  That doesn't mean they will be able to though.  They have to have legitimate grounds to sue.  No attorney I know would take such a case as you describe unless there was a history of supervisory negligence and such a gross neglect that it is something that needs to be fixed.

Lawsuits sometimes serve to get a situation fixed.  Take Fen-Phen for example.  A bad product; poison really.  And people would have continued taking it and dying or having strokes and heart attacks had attorneys not proven that the pharmaceutical companies knowingly manufactured and marketed a dangerous product -- now it is no longer on the market.  A school district being sued is not something most attorneys want to do because they are on the losing side of a jury to begin with being those same jurors are paying for the cost of the litigation ultimately through their property taxes.  It would take some extreme circumstances for this to be an attractive case for a plaintiff's attorney I think.  The way you put it, every tom, dick and harry is going to sue the school anytime they get a splinter in their finger.  I have more faith in people than that, Mike.  Hey, and I thought you were the guy who saw the world as a cup half full not half empty.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


67 posted 10-26-2006 04:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

There was a ladder company on 60 Minutes. The ladder manufacturers had 17 - SEVENTEEN!! - stickers on their ladders with warnings about common sense items everyone should know. The lawsuits against them averaged over 100 per year and the cost of defending themselves was driving them into bankruptcy. The final straw was a farmer who put the ladder up against the wall of his barn resting on snow and ice. The ladder slipped and the man broke a leg. The court awarded him $300,000.00.

Don't tell me you don't see ridiculous tags and warnings on products. The Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, M-LAW, whose main mission is to reveal how lawsuits and anxiety over lawsuits have created a need for overly obvious warnings on products, offers these:

A toilet brush with a tag that says "Do not use for personal hygiene"

A scooter with the warning "This product moves when used."

An electric blender used for chopping and dicing that reminds users to " "Never remove food or other items from the blades while the product is operating."

a three-inch bag of air used for packaging that read "Do not use this product as a toy, pillow, or flotation device."

Warning on a cartridge for a laser printer:
Do not eat toner.


Why do you think these ridiculous warnings exist? Fear of lawsuits from those people you have so much faith in...... and the lawyers eager to represent them.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


68 posted 10-26-2006 04:41 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Ever read "The Marching Morons," Mike?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


69 posted 10-26-2006 04:52 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

With Efim Hawkins and a world whose average intelligence is 45?

Nope
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


70 posted 10-26-2006 09:48 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Mike, it's interesting that the pied piper you bring into this discussion is named "Bob Jones"...how ironic.  I tried searching out his credentials, which is usually not difficult to do on most authors; however, there is virtually nothing.  About the only thing I found besides his personal friendship with the former Republican Governor John Mathias Engler* was that he has been a guest speaker for NAM (National Association of Manufacturers).  Now to me, that sounds like he has an agenda for politics and big business.  I find it quite curious that I can't find much out about his background.  Also, you will find the so-called "grassroots" organization of M-LAW (his group) has a Board of Directors comprised of business owners.  Doesn't sound grassroots to me at all.  Sounds like just what they did here in Texas.  Additionally, with regard to these lawsuits and warning labels which may have come about as a result of lawsuits that you mentioned, there is  insufficient detail to determine what happened on appeal or how old these cases even are.  For all I know, they could be 20 years old. Or, they could just be a bunch of malarkey.  

*Interestingly, M-LAW's founder and promoter Bob Dorigo Jones' good friend, former Governor Engler, who served from 1991 to 2003, married his second wife, Michelle, who was a LAWYER, in 1990. "She was named to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) board in 2001 by President George W. Bush and re-appointed in 2002. Engler has spent most of his adult life in government. He was serving in the Michigan House when he enrolled at Thomas M. Cooley LAW School, and graduated with a J.D. in 1981, having served as a Michigan State Senator since 1979. He was elected Senate Majority Leader in 1985 and served there until elected governor in 1990." (exerpts from Wikipedia with emphasis added)  Of particular note here are the words LAWYER and FREDDIE MAC, not to mention REPUBLICAN, see Freddie Mac Scandal.

In case you don't see my point, Mike, the man you quote as an authority on lawsuits, who has a specific agenda of tort reform, has close personal friends who are LAWYERS -- thing is, they are just Republican lawyers....lol.  You figure it out; I'm tired of trying to show you the reality.  But it is always fun debating you.  



[This message has been edited by iliana (10-27-2006 06:41 PM).]

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> You're it!!!...so sue me   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors