The Fake Crisis over Lawsuits

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Mm mmm. That's the least disgusting thing I ever read on the internets.

Why does everything end up being about food & drink on this board?

Thanks for your insight and details, Mr Maturin ... back when this thread was more serious ...

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

Ah, well, that must have been my prejudice then. I thought you were an atheist and that atheists don't believe things without evidence.

Fence

The definition of 'atheist' is enough to sustain a whole bulletin board. To a lesser extent, so are the definitions of logical positivism, empiricism and rationalism. I predict that when those definitions are worked out, "not believing things without evidence" will be somewhere in the mess but not synonymous with atheism.*

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

Wow. Where the hell did that come from?

Fence was trying to pull a No True Atheist(tm) fallacy on me.

* But I may be prejudiced.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

Genesis: Light! A he! A rib!

Is that an anagram of something? It looks like an anagram of something.

I have wondered it's an anagram of Lisa's real name. I now have evidence of this fact (hey, Fence).

"Lisa Genesighthearib"

[Fencesitter]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Fence was trying to pull a No True Atheist(tm) fallacy on me.

* But I may be prejudiced.

You're too quick for me, JoeP.

Fence

[Trojan]

It's interesting the right hates lawyers till they need them to get out of ethics charges, money laundering and other Family Values troubles they seem to crawl into. Also notable; icky Scooter Libby (who got that nickname because he 'scooted' across the floor when a child-GROSS!) and the White House have to attend ethics classes while Libby has a slushfund now called the Scooter Libby Defense Fund! Outrageous! They're getting him all lawyered up to avoid prosecution. Tommy Delay loves lawyers too it appears. Yeah, the right hates working people having access to representation, they want those rights squelched so they can have the lawyers all to themselves.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by alphamale

I read somewhere that the amount of civil litigation in this country is more than the rest of the world combined.

I heard somewhere that statements prefaced with "I read somewhere/I heard/sombody told me XYZ" are often unreliable.

I read once that they're sometimes downright made up, pulled out the ass, bullshit!

[alphamale]

Author says U.S. litigation is most expensive in the world.

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release...lease_id=90621

[alphamale]

From Duke University law school course syllabus:

The Concept of Due Process: Controlling Punitive Damages . One of the most controversial aspects of American tort law is the ability of some plaintiffs to seek “punitive damages.”

http://www.law.duke.edu/curriculum/c...ll2004/190_01/

[alphamale]

Catalog of lawyers screwing up the country:

http://www.overlawyered.com/

[alphamale]

....scattered like rats!.........

[Corona688]

Unlike you, other people often have better things to do. Have a little patience instead of proclaiming victory like some 3rd-grade bully.

I don't see how these anecdotes and opinion pieces help you, really, they're very emotional, but I see very little in the way of facts and numbers; but I'm not really on either side of this fight.

[erimir]

Making posts when most people are asleep, waiting 15 minutes and getting no response is hardly reason to declare victory

I'm too tired to look over that right now anyhow. I need sleep.

But hey, at least there's hope that you can be taught to make actual arguments!

[JoeP]

I win!

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Nah. This horseshit "lawsuit crisis" story repeats itself at fairly regular intervals here in the U.S. Private insurance companies make money by investing the policy premium payments they collect. When investments are good, insurers cut premiums to attract more customers and thereby bring in more investment capital. The higher investment income goes, the more reckless the insurers' premium cutting and underwriting practices get. Eventually, the whole mess comes crashing down. Investment income does a full gainer into the toilet and insurers, thanks to their dubious pricing and underwriting practices, are left to operate on a very thin margin.

At that point, the insurance industry and its ever-obedient lap dogs -- chambers of commerce, Republican legislators and the insurer-funded American Tort Reform Association -- start screaming about a "litigation crisis" that's causing an "insurance crisis" and threatening the very fabric of American life. The solution, so these professional liars tell us, is a singularly odious form of corporate welfare known as tort reform. Arbitrarily cap recoveries,* eliminate joint and several liability, etc. and everything will be fine.

We've heard a lot of this nonsense with regard to medical negligence cases in recent years. When the last investment income crash occurred, insurers started losing money hand over fist. Doctors got fucked in a big way when insurers imposed astronomical increases in malpractice insurance premiums to cover their own losses. Desperate for relief (and often constitutionally incapable of admitting fallibility), many a physician jumped on the tort reform bandwagon.

Trouble is, thirty years of tort reform history prove rather conclusively that tort reform legislation never translates into lower premiums. Indeed, the statistics show that premiums rise faster and farther in tort reform states than in non-reform states. Tort reform helps insurers by lowering payouts on injury claims, but those savings don't get passed on to consumers. Heaven forbid that State Farm's CEO be forced to skinny by on $3 million a year instead of his customary $10 million.

So, then, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about "lawsuit crises" are directly related to the insurance industry's business cycle. There have been three major tort reform waves, all of which coincided perfectly with dramatic downturns in investment income. That's no coincidence. And as Fencesitter's article shows, the data on which such wailing is based are utterly bogus.

*Tort reformers call these caps on damages, which is a rather egregious misnomer. The amount of damages a person can suffer on account of a tortfeasor's negligence is limitless. Thus, you can only cap recoveries, not damages.

Just when I think alphamale's vacuous bleating can't possibly serve any useful purpose, you turn a bag of shit into an educational experience. Thanks!

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Author says U.S. litigation is most expensive in the world.

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release...lease_id=90621

That's a press release for a book. The statistic is unexplained and unsubstantiated.

Next.

From Duke University law school course syllabus:

The Concept of Due Process: Controlling Punitive Damages . One of the most controversial aspects of American tort law is the ability of some plaintiffs to seek “punitive damages."

True enough. So?

Next.

Catalog of lawyers screwing up the country:

It's a blog, not a catalog, and the author is a lawyer himself and therefore Mengele according to you, no matter what law he practices.

So what precisely was your little thief-in-the-night post flood supposed to prove again?

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Catalog of lawyers screwing up the country:

http://www.overlawyered.com/

Of course, the blog is a front end for the Manhattan Institute.

And it has the Roller v. Copperfield suit on the front page--a guy suing David Copperfield (the magician, not the book or fictional character) for stealing his God-given powers. I'd heard rumors of this suit.

And, glory be! It's in my district! He drew Judge Tunheim and Magistrate Noel. It was their lucky day!

[livius drusus]

You have "magistrates" in your district? That's so Chancery Court sounding. If dude were suing the book/fictional character he'd feel right at home.

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

You have "magistrates" in your district? That's so Chancery Court sounding. If dude were suing the book/fictional character he'd feel right at home.

All the federal courts have magistrate judges (to use the full name). They are not Article III judges with lifetime appointments; they are Article I judges.

They handle most of the pre-trial motions and things like settlement conferences. The district court judge can refer other things to them for a Report and Recommendation, which the district court judge can (and usually does) approve as the order. With the consent of the parties, they can also try the entire case.

When Magistrate Noel is assigned to one of mine, I routinely consent to having him try the entire case.

[livius drusus]

I may have had some nebulous notion of magistrate judges, but I had no idea they were actually referred to as "Magistrate". I quite like it.

So do you think the plaintiff will consent to having Magistrate Noel try this case or will Judge Tunheim be the lucky one? Which one of them will make for more amusing trial transcripts?

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I may have had some nebulous notion of magistrate judges, but I had no idea they were actually referred to as "Magistrate". I quite like it.

So do you think the plaintiff will consent to having Magistrate Noel try this case or will Judge Tunheim be the lucky one? Which one of them will make for more amusing trial transcripts?

Looks like the case is dead.

Tunheim referred a motion to dismiss to Noel for a hearing and he recommended dismissal.

I like the Defendant's brief:

Plaintiff’s Complaint is best described as a claim for
usurpation of Godly powers, which as this Court is aware, is beyond the jurisdiction of
this Court or any court of this earth.

Can't beat that for understatement. The Maslon firm does good work.

And from the R&R:

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal states that Plaintiff believes that
a United States Court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit alleging that one party has usurped the godly
powers of another party. However, Plaintiff has failed to cite to an authorizing statute that would
allow for such a claim to proceed. No such cause of action exists in the Federal system, and
therefore Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim as a matter of law.

[livius drusus]

Plaintiff has failed to cite an authorizing statute... That just slays me.

* livius drusus laughs and laughs.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by alphamale

The Concept of Due Process: Controlling Punitive Damages . One of the most controversial aspects of American tort law is the ability of some plaintiffs to seek “punitive damages.”

Care to discuss any of those cases?

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Plaintiff has failed to cite an authorizing statute... That just slays me.

UNITED STATES ex rel. Gerald MAYO v. SATAN AND HIS STAFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

54 F.R.D. 282; 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10548

December 3, 1971

WEBER, District Judge.

Plaintiff, alleging jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 241, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prays for leave to file a complaint for violation of his civil rights in forma pauperis. He alleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall.

Plaintiff alleges that by reason of these acts Satan has deprived him of his constitutional rights.

We feel that the application to file and proceed in forma pauperis must be denied. Even if plaintiff's complaint reveals a prima facie recital of the infringement of the civil rights of a citizen of the United States, the Court has serious doubts that the complaint reveals a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by the court. We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district. While the official reports disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. The defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the plaintiff was a foreign prince with no standing to sue in an American Court. This defense was overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether or not this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to determine at this time.

If such action were to be allowed we would also face the question of whether it may be maintained as a class action. It appears to meet the requirements of Fed.R. of Civ.P. 23 that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law and fact common to the class, and the claims of the representative party is typical of the claims of the class. We cannot now determine if the representative party will fairly protect the interests of the class.

We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions as to service of process.

For the foregoing reasons we must exercise our discretion to refuse the prayer of plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.

It is ordered that the complaint be given a miscellaneous docket number and leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by alphamale

From Duke University law school course syllabus:

The Concept of Due Process: Controlling Punitive Damages . One of the most controversial aspects of American tort law is the ability of some plaintiffs to seek “punitive damages.”

http://www.law.duke.edu/curriculum/c...ll2004/190_01/

Wait a minute, that's just one class in a first-year "perspectives" course.

If you had any brains you might have noticed the preceding topic is probably much more suited to whatever argument you're trying to make:

The Special Problem of the "Hired Gun" Expert Witness. The American legal system relies extensively on the use of expert testimony in litigation. Experts are not retained by the courts but rather selected by the parties as part of the adversarial system. How should courts review the proposed testimony from paid experts?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by CaDan

Of course, the blog is a front end for the Manhattan Institute.

You betcha. It's also worth noting that Ted Frank, one of the blog's two major contributors, authored the definitive guide to trolling on Usenet. The blog's appearance in this thread speaks volumes on multiple subjects.