Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 01/15/2004 View Wed 01/14/2004 View Tue 01/13/2004 View Mon 01/12/2004 View Sun 01/11/2004 View Sat 01/10/2004 View Fri 01/09/2004
1
2004-01-15 Home Front
$1B Lawsuit for Gitmo Crowd
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2004-01-15 7:44:01 AM|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 My only comment: Rule 11(B) and (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure


Posted by Anonymous 2004-1-15 9:01:54 AM||   2004-1-15 9:01:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 1. i wonder who would get the money if the lawsuit is won? 2. someone kill that fool
Posted by smokeysinse 2004-1-15 9:21:08 AM||   2004-1-15 9:21:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Yagman, in his current lawsuit, said that the appeals court meant that the detainees are U.S. ’’inhabitants’’..

Somebody take this guy out back and beat his ass to a bloody pulp.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-1-15 10:17:49 AM||   2004-1-15 10:17:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 If these mooks are "inhabiting" anywhere, it's a plot of land leased from Cuba. Maybe Lawyer-boy oughta sue Fidel, huh?
Posted by mojo  2004-1-15 10:33:38 AM||   2004-1-15 10:33:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 This guy needs a hemp necktie. We should also extend the privilege to about half the current judges on the US 9th Circus Course of A squeal. When judges and lawyers take over the government, rights are discarded. It's time for that second revolution, begun by killing all the (bad) lawyers. That will include judges, too, since 99% of them are former lawyers.
Posted by Old Patriot  2004-1-15 10:56:00 AM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]  2004-1-15 10:56:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Heavy sigh . . .

Disclaimer: I am one of those /sarcasm on/ nasty, blood-sucking trial attorneys /sarcasm off/. TRULY, THOUGH, I don’t fault any of you for your reactions, because this suit has every appearance of being baseless, groundless, and substantially vexatious, but . . . please consider the following:

Our country is one of the very few that permits liberty, individualism, and dissent. It is the commitment to these kinds of constitutionally protected principles that has made this country great. Vigorously debated, competing views allow for the best views to prevail--and for the best views to be refined even further.

I realize that my profession (trial work), like any profession, has its fair share of nut-jobs, money-grubbers, and idiots--but the general concept of the courts, juries and lawyers is a good one (as recognized by the nation’s founders). I have lived in countries where the principles of the American judicial system had no play, and there was a proportional lack of liberty, individualism, and dissent. A strong judicial system that permits liberty, individualism, and dissent will always leave the door open for this kind of stuff, and other crazy law suits, BUT OVERBEARING ATTEMPTS TO ELIMINATE THE ABUSES WILL NECESSARILY HAVE THE CONSEQUENCE OF QUASHING LIBERTY, INDIVIDUALISM, AND DISSENT. Federal Rule 11 allows for punishment of this attorney if the Court finds he is abusing the system, but I really don’t think we want a system that is abuse-proof--the trade-off in loss of access to the Courts is just not worth it.

Also, before you react too quickly to multi-million dollar verdicts, please consider that the collective wisdom of a jury (the right to which is found in the Bill of Rights) is fairly uncanny--multi-million dollar verdicts are extremely rare. Multi-million dollar verdicts tend to be awarded where a corporation has made a business decision to market a known, bad product--after the finance department has worked up numbers showing that the cost of paying off verdicts and settlements will be less than profits made off the product (e.g., the Pinto car bombs, the heart stopping Fen-Phen drug cocktail . . .) Also, yes, there are attorneys who make a bundle of money off of lawsuits--but, on average, doctors and business executives make more money than lawyers. Any of these professions have their high-rollers, their middle class, and those just scraping by, and for every law firm that “makes it big” I bet 2 or 3 go out of business just trying to protect the rights of average, everyday Americans.

Oh, well, enough said. Sorry for the long post.
Posted by cingold 2004-1-15 12:53:51 PM||   2004-1-15 12:53:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Cingold,

I hear you, and I commiserate. I know several lawyers that I consider "friends" - people close enough to me to ask favors of (but NOT legal ones), help out when they need it, and support when they're down. I've also had the gross misfortune of having to deal with quite a number of the OTHER kinds of lawyers.

As with any group, there are good and bad. Most groups are self-regulating: the rotten are pruned, and the better encouraged to take on even greater responsibility. That used to be the duty of the American Bar Association and several other legal groups. Unfortunately, the last fifty years has seen an explosion in the number of lawyers, and the virtual elimination of any internal regulation and explusion of bad fruit. There's a maxim of government that anything that is unregulated (by market forces, by imposed regulation, or by self-regulation) tends to expand, eventually over-running the boundaries of "acceptability". The legal profession made it there 30 years ago. If the legal profession will not or cannot regulate those within its midst that exceed the boundaries of acceptable behavior, the entire group will be painted with the same brush as those that act inappropriately. There's also a point where those outside the group get fed up enough that they no longer tolerate the group, or find a way to impose acceptability upon the group from without.

I don't doubt that you're one of those that act appropriately according to both the laws and social contract of this nation. I also know there are a large number of your associates that do not. Failure to self-correct the problem will result in a solution being imposed.
Posted by Old Patriot  2004-1-15 1:14:09 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]  2004-1-15 1:14:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Are these people who stick up for these vermen in Gauntanamo really just driven by greed or is it something much sicker,its beyond me how people can stick up for these scum.I'm appalled.
Posted by Jon Shep U.K  2004-1-15 1:30:27 PM||   2004-1-15 1:30:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Federal Rule 11 allows for punishment of this attorney if the Court finds he is abusing the system, but I really don’t think we want a system that is abuse-proof--the trade-off in loss of access to the Courts is just not worth it.

The question is, would it happen in this case? And I believe the answer is likely to be "no".

That's why I suggest this Yagman guy get a good beating. A distinction between scrupulous and unscrupulous is made and appropriate punishment administered in lieu of declaring that all lawyers are parasites. :)
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-1-15 1:32:02 PM||   2004-1-15 1:32:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Cingold, These people held at gitmo are not U.S. citizen and the goverment is setting up a court system to provide them some sort of justice. If our President was the Hitler/Stalin/Tazmanian Devil that everyone paints him as these people would be pushing up daisies in Afghanistan. Funny thing the lawyers aren't clogging the courts with suits against France, Germany, Russia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Egypt. All of these countries should be co-defendants with respect to 9/11. Hell I bet they would settle out of court! No the Lawyers are SOLELY to blame for this and I think they should fix it. Disbar these idiots and censure Judges that dole out law from the bench. If it were up to me I would start with a clean slate.
Posted by Anonymous 2004-1-15 1:52:28 PM||   2004-1-15 1:52:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 I don't blame you all for being upset with Yagman, and other shysters. Just, please, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Here in Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court is fairly rigorous in disbarring attorneys that are questionable. The system isn’t perfect, but will go into your personal life and remove you from the profession if it does not like what it sees (e.g., wife beaters, tax evasion, contracts broken unfairly, ect.) Also, the Colorado Supreme Court is even stricter about scrutinizing professional actions--even so, you’re probably right that just filing this Gauntanamo suit won’t get this California attorney disbarred. But, Yagman is likely to spend a fortune that won’t ever be paid back to him, and he will lose the suit. That is, he will get a financial beating, although (maybe) not a physical one. I haven’t looked at Yagman's pleadings, but I suppose he has filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the all purpose federal statute that permits suits for violations of state and federal laws and rights. To prevail Yagman would have to show that the “alleged bad actor” (President, Official, ect.) knew or should have known that the actions in question violated federal laws or rights. The fact that the Gauntanamo thugs are not U.S. citizens severely limits the laws and rights in question. Moreover, the fact is that the U.S. Supreme Court is looking at these issues, and will (in all likelihood) issue a ruling that completely vindicates the Executive Branch (i.e., President, etc.). I know this bogus Gauntanamo suit is a pain, but I’d rather have a system like this where suits like this can be filed. The bad suits will lose, and the system is kept in tune for those rare occasions where official government excess must be restrained (e.g., post-Civil War detentions, citizen internments, illegal search and seizure, etc. . . ) In my mind the Court's consideration of Yagman's bogus suit is comparable to the some 1,700 times planes have been scrambled to keep the nation safe, only to find out there was no problem. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and some bogus lawsuits . . .
Posted by cingold 2004-1-15 2:57:24 PM||   2004-1-15 2:57:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Cingold, damn you for making sense! Can I at least spit on this @$$hole if I see him on the stgreet? Probably not!
Posted by Cyber Sarge  2004-1-15 4:27:24 PM||   2004-1-15 4:27:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Can I at least spit on this @$$hole . . .

After the week I’ve been having, it’s good to know I can (sometimes) still make some sense. About your (tongue in cheek/spit in mouth?) question, there’s a corollary to the question “If a tree falls in the forest, with no one around, does it make a sound?” It is, “If an offense occurs, with no one to witness, is it a crime?” Old Yagman better hope he doesn’t bump into the right kind of people in some back alley . . .
Posted by cingold 2004-1-15 5:04:01 PM||   2004-1-15 5:04:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Yagman is the same guy who sued LAPD for allowing one of the crooks in the big shootout down there to die. Unfortunately, he is just successful enough to get some bad rulings published. He should be made an example of. All lawyers should be civil servants. There should be no private practice. This would ensure that every person arrested would be assigned a lawyer to defend his/her rights immediately without reguard to their financial situation. I suspect that the money saved by everyone who was protected from frivolous lawsuits and excessive judgements would more than pay the cost of civil service salaries.
Posted by Arch  2004-1-15 5:15:14 PM||   2004-1-15 5:15:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 All lawyers should be civil servants. There should be no private practice.

Arch: I understand your sentiments, but (obviously) don’t much care for the solution. Of course, I am biased. Nonetheless, I think this is no different than taking any profession (say, medicine) and saying there should be no private practice (i.e., all doctors should be civil servants). The countries that have nationalized professions (like Canadian medical care) have destroyed what was best in those professions. I apologize for the Yagmans in my profession--but not for my profession. Most states, if not every state, have ways to deter or punish frivolous lawsuits and reign in excessive judgments. I must admit, I have not seen excessive judgments (although I often hear such complaints), even though this law firm has had multi-million dollar verdicts. The one case that comes to mind is a poor kid that is just a few shades short of brain dead, but with huge physical challenges, limitations and needs. He will live like that until he dies, which won’t be soon, (because of a doctor who didn’t want to come down one floor in response to readings that were way off, and because of a nurse who didn’t want to rock the boat by insisting that some doctor look at the clearly bad readings). The millions are largely the cost of these lifecare needs and related economic earning losses. Under Colorado law (because this was a medical malpractice case), the pain and suffering this kid will go through for a lifetime was limited to only $250,000. I am proud that this firm obtained relief for this family, who had become destitute, even though we couldn't keep the marriage from failing under the pressure.
Posted by cingold 2004-1-15 5:54:03 PM||   2004-1-15 5:54:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 cingold, your point is well taken. One example excessive judgement would be the MacDonalds hot coffee issue. I am not saying that all large judgements are excessive, some certainly stand out. Apologies for people like Yagman do not help. The profession must take steps to police itself. Unfortunately, this type of lawyer, supported by the likes of the 9th Circuit, does a lot of damage to the credibility of our legal system. If, in fact, lawyers are the defenders of this system, they need to start defending it. Otherwise, they risk having the job taken away from them.
Posted by Arch  2004-1-15 6:29:51 PM||   2004-1-15 6:29:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Arch: I agree about internal policing of the profession. In fact, I hope some California lawyer files a grievance on ol’ Mr. Yagman. However, that said, if I mess up (which, of course, I never do ;) ) I have an ethical obligation to tell my clients they can sue me--I don’t know of another profession that is true of. My malpractice insurance protects my client from my mistakes, as it should be. If I were sued, my client would be protected from economic loss, and the Supreme Court would probably take my license (depending on the reasons). A large verdict doesn’t necessarily mean the verdict is wrong. Regarding the MacDonalds case, you might want to research what event took place that persuaded a group of everyday citizens (the jury) to award that kind of money (if the facts of the case weren’t sealed away from public view at MacDonalds urging)--remember, most people take the job of being on a jury very seriously, and juries don’t just give money away. The media was curiously silent about the critical facts (because a justified law suit won't sell papers, but outrage over a large verdict will?). Imagine that the MacDonalds coffee was so hot that it raised third degree burns on this woman. Imagine that the burns were to the woman’s genitals. Imagine that this woman was profoundly humiliated and hurt by what happened. Imagine that the only reason the coffee was so damn hot was because MacDonalds had instructed all employees to make and serve the coffee that hot (on the verge of boiling) so that when (the majority of all) customers got the coffee home it had just cooled to the most preferred temperature, and MacDonalds had increased sales from those people. Imagine that MacDonalds had repeated, bitter complaints from people getting scalded in the drive-through, but did nothing to make the coffee safer because of a business decision that the way to increase sales and profits was with this excessively hot coffee. Imagine that there was no warning to this woman about how extremely hot this coffee was, or how to safely handle a liquid that hot. Imagine that MacDonalds showed reckless indifference to the danger of excessively hot coffee, for the sole purpose of carrying out a business decision that the excessively hot coffee would increase sales. Given such facts, is it wrong for a jury to decide to send a message? I wager that MacDonalds coffee is no longer served at that ridiculously extreme temperature. So, that one lawsuit spared how many people what kind of pain and suffering? Bear in mind that product liability cases are largely responsible for a multitude of safety features that save lives and preserve productivity on a daily basis. Another plug for my profession.™ :)
Posted by cingold 2004-1-15 7:00:59 PM||   2004-1-15 7:00:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Cingold, I feel your pain. I was in the service for 20 years and EVERYONE thinks we are cut from the same cloth. If one guy is a dirtbag then we all must be. Kudos 2 U 4 defending your profession while not sticking up for that rat in lawyers clothing. I will admit that I did NEED a lawyer once and thank god I found one that helped me and not only himself. But you have to admit that some the high-profile ones really make your stomach turn. Unfortunately there are TOO many lawyers in California, can we exile them to say Idaho or North Dakota?
Posted by Cyber Sarge  2004-1-15 7:12:59 PM||   2004-1-15 7:12:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 I watched a long documentary on the 9th Curcuit on New Years Eve. Or was it the Three Stooges Marathon?
And, Cingold? You're all right.
Posted by tu3031 2004-1-15 8:50:15 PM||   2004-1-15 8:50:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 But you have to admit that some the high-profile ones really make your stomach turn.

Yes, they do. Sadly, they usually only take it right to the edge of getting disbarred, but sometimes they go far enough and we can kick them out. E.g., Clinton got disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court after being suspended by the Arkansas Supreme Court (NOTE: after being suspended in Arkansas, he probably has to reapply for admission--which does not have to be, and hopefully won't be, granted.)
Posted by cingold 2004-1-15 9:06:02 PM||   2004-1-15 9:06:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 My only comment: Rule 11(B) and (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure


Posted by Anonymous 2004-1-15 9:01:54 AM||   2004-1-15 9:01:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 1. i wonder who would get the money if the lawsuit is won? 2. someone kill that fool
Posted by smokeysinse 2004-1-15 9:21:08 AM||   2004-1-15 9:21:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Yagman, in his current lawsuit, said that the appeals court meant that the detainees are U.S. ’’inhabitants’’..

Somebody take this guy out back and beat his ass to a bloody pulp.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-1-15 10:17:49 AM||   2004-1-15 10:17:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 If these mooks are "inhabiting" anywhere, it's a plot of land leased from Cuba. Maybe Lawyer-boy oughta sue Fidel, huh?
Posted by mojo  2004-1-15 10:33:38 AM||   2004-1-15 10:33:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 This guy needs a hemp necktie. We should also extend the privilege to about half the current judges on the US 9th Circus Course of A squeal. When judges and lawyers take over the government, rights are discarded. It's time for that second revolution, begun by killing all the (bad) lawyers. That will include judges, too, since 99% of them are former lawyers.
Posted by Old Patriot  2004-1-15 10:56:00 AM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]  2004-1-15 10:56:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Heavy sigh . . .

Disclaimer: I am one of those /sarcasm on/ nasty, blood-sucking trial attorneys /sarcasm off/. TRULY, THOUGH, I don’t fault any of you for your reactions, because this suit has every appearance of being baseless, groundless, and substantially vexatious, but . . . please consider the following:

Our country is one of the very few that permits liberty, individualism, and dissent. It is the commitment to these kinds of constitutionally protected principles that has made this country great. Vigorously debated, competing views allow for the best views to prevail--and for the best views to be refined even further.

I realize that my profession (trial work), like any profession, has its fair share of nut-jobs, money-grubbers, and idiots--but the general concept of the courts, juries and lawyers is a good one (as recognized by the nation’s founders). I have lived in countries where the principles of the American judicial system had no play, and there was a proportional lack of liberty, individualism, and dissent. A strong judicial system that permits liberty, individualism, and dissent will always leave the door open for this kind of stuff, and other crazy law suits, BUT OVERBEARING ATTEMPTS TO ELIMINATE THE ABUSES WILL NECESSARILY HAVE THE CONSEQUENCE OF QUASHING LIBERTY, INDIVIDUALISM, AND DISSENT. Federal Rule 11 allows for punishment of this attorney if the Court finds he is abusing the system, but I really don’t think we want a system that is abuse-proof--the trade-off in loss of access to the Courts is just not worth it.

Also, before you react too quickly to multi-million dollar verdicts, please consider that the collective wisdom of a jury (the right to which is found in the Bill of Rights) is fairly uncanny--multi-million dollar verdicts are extremely rare. Multi-million dollar verdicts tend to be awarded where a corporation has made a business decision to market a known, bad product--after the finance department has worked up numbers showing that the cost of paying off verdicts and settlements will be less than profits made off the product (e.g., the Pinto car bombs, the heart stopping Fen-Phen drug cocktail . . .) Also, yes, there are attorneys who make a bundle of money off of lawsuits--but, on average, doctors and business executives make more money than lawyers. Any of these professions have their high-rollers, their middle class, and those just scraping by, and for every law firm that “makes it big” I bet 2 or 3 go out of business just trying to protect the rights of average, everyday Americans.

Oh, well, enough said. Sorry for the long post.
Posted by cingold 2004-1-15 12:53:51 PM||   2004-1-15 12:53:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Cingold,

I hear you, and I commiserate. I know several lawyers that I consider "friends" - people close enough to me to ask favors of (but NOT legal ones), help out when they need it, and support when they're down. I've also had the gross misfortune of having to deal with quite a number of the OTHER kinds of lawyers.

As with any group, there are good and bad. Most groups are self-regulating: the rotten are pruned, and the better encouraged to take on even greater responsibility. That used to be the duty of the American Bar Association and several other legal groups. Unfortunately, the last fifty years has seen an explosion in the number of lawyers, and the virtual elimination of any internal regulation and explusion of bad fruit. There's a maxim of government that anything that is unregulated (by market forces, by imposed regulation, or by self-regulation) tends to expand, eventually over-running the boundaries of "acceptability". The legal profession made it there 30 years ago. If the legal profession will not or cannot regulate those within its midst that exceed the boundaries of acceptable behavior, the entire group will be painted with the same brush as those that act inappropriately. There's also a point where those outside the group get fed up enough that they no longer tolerate the group, or find a way to impose acceptability upon the group from without.

I don't doubt that you're one of those that act appropriately according to both the laws and social contract of this nation. I also know there are a large number of your associates that do not. Failure to self-correct the problem will result in a solution being imposed.
Posted by Old Patriot  2004-1-15 1:14:09 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]  2004-1-15 1:14:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Are these people who stick up for these vermen in Gauntanamo really just driven by greed or is it something much sicker,its beyond me how people can stick up for these scum.I'm appalled.
Posted by Jon Shep U.K  2004-1-15 1:30:27 PM||   2004-1-15 1:30:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Federal Rule 11 allows for punishment of this attorney if the Court finds he is abusing the system, but I really don’t think we want a system that is abuse-proof--the trade-off in loss of access to the Courts is just not worth it.

The question is, would it happen in this case? And I believe the answer is likely to be "no".

That's why I suggest this Yagman guy get a good beating. A distinction between scrupulous and unscrupulous is made and appropriate punishment administered in lieu of declaring that all lawyers are parasites. :)
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-1-15 1:32:02 PM||   2004-1-15 1:32:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Cingold, These people held at gitmo are not U.S. citizen and the goverment is setting up a court system to provide them some sort of justice. If our President was the Hitler/Stalin/Tazmanian Devil that everyone paints him as these people would be pushing up daisies in Afghanistan. Funny thing the lawyers aren't clogging the courts with suits against France, Germany, Russia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Egypt. All of these countries should be co-defendants with respect to 9/11. Hell I bet they would settle out of court! No the Lawyers are SOLELY to blame for this and I think they should fix it. Disbar these idiots and censure Judges that dole out law from the bench. If it were up to me I would start with a clean slate.
Posted by Anonymous 2004-1-15 1:52:28 PM||   2004-1-15 1:52:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 I don't blame you all for being upset with Yagman, and other shysters. Just, please, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Here in Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court is fairly rigorous in disbarring attorneys that are questionable. The system isn’t perfect, but will go into your personal life and remove you from the profession if it does not like what it sees (e.g., wife beaters, tax evasion, contracts broken unfairly, ect.) Also, the Colorado Supreme Court is even stricter about scrutinizing professional actions--even so, you’re probably right that just filing this Gauntanamo suit won’t get this California attorney disbarred. But, Yagman is likely to spend a fortune that won’t ever be paid back to him, and he will lose the suit. That is, he will get a financial beating, although (maybe) not a physical one. I haven’t looked at Yagman's pleadings, but I suppose he has filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the all purpose federal statute that permits suits for violations of state and federal laws and rights. To prevail Yagman would have to show that the “alleged bad actor” (President, Official, ect.) knew or should have known that the actions in question violated federal laws or rights. The fact that the Gauntanamo thugs are not U.S. citizens severely limits the laws and rights in question. Moreover, the fact is that the U.S. Supreme Court is looking at these issues, and will (in all likelihood) issue a ruling that completely vindicates the Executive Branch (i.e., President, etc.). I know this bogus Gauntanamo suit is a pain, but I’d rather have a system like this where suits like this can be filed. The bad suits will lose, and the system is kept in tune for those rare occasions where official government excess must be restrained (e.g., post-Civil War detentions, citizen internments, illegal search and seizure, etc. . . ) In my mind the Court's consideration of Yagman's bogus suit is comparable to the some 1,700 times planes have been scrambled to keep the nation safe, only to find out there was no problem. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and some bogus lawsuits . . .
Posted by cingold 2004-1-15 2:57:24 PM||   2004-1-15 2:57:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Cingold, damn you for making sense! Can I at least spit on this @$$hole if I see him on the stgreet? Probably not!
Posted by Cyber Sarge  2004-1-15 4:27:24 PM||   2004-1-15 4:27:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Can I at least spit on this @$$hole . . .

After the week I’ve been having, it’s good to know I can (sometimes) still make some sense. About your (tongue in cheek/spit in mouth?) question, there’s a corollary to the question “If a tree falls in the forest, with no one around, does it make a sound?” It is, “If an offense occurs, with no one to witness, is it a crime?” Old Yagman better hope he doesn’t bump into the right kind of people in some back alley . . .
Posted by cingold 2004-1-15 5:04:01 PM||   2004-1-15 5:04:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Yagman is the same guy who sued LAPD for allowing one of the crooks in the big shootout down there to die. Unfortunately, he is just successful enough to get some bad rulings published. He should be made an example of. All lawyers should be civil servants. There should be no private practice. This would ensure that every person arrested would be assigned a lawyer to defend his/her rights immediately without reguard to their financial situation. I suspect that the money saved by everyone who was protected from frivolous lawsuits and excessive judgements would more than pay the cost of civil service salaries.
Posted by Arch  2004-1-15 5:15:14 PM||   2004-1-15 5:15:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 All lawyers should be civil servants. There should be no private practice.

Arch: I understand your sentiments, but (obviously) don’t much care for the solution. Of course, I am biased. Nonetheless, I think this is no different than taking any profession (say, medicine) and saying there should be no private practice (i.e., all doctors should be civil servants). The countries that have nationalized professions (like Canadian medical care) have destroyed what was best in those professions. I apologize for the Yagmans in my profession--but not for my profession. Most states, if not every state, have ways to deter or punish frivolous lawsuits and reign in excessive judgments. I must admit, I have not seen excessive judgments (although I often hear such complaints), even though this law firm has had multi-million dollar verdicts. The one case that comes to mind is a poor kid that is just a few shades short of brain dead, but with huge physical challenges, limitations and needs. He will live like that until he dies, which won’t be soon, (because of a doctor who didn’t want to come down one floor in response to readings that were way off, and because of a nurse who didn’t want to rock the boat by insisting that some doctor look at the clearly bad readings). The millions are largely the cost of these lifecare needs and related economic earning losses. Under Colorado law (because this was a medical malpractice case), the pain and suffering this kid will go through for a lifetime was limited to only $250,000. I am proud that this firm obtained relief for this family, who had become destitute, even though we couldn't keep the marriage from failing under the pressure.
Posted by cingold 2004-1-15 5:54:03 PM||   2004-1-15 5:54:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 cingold, your point is well taken. One example excessive judgement would be the MacDonalds hot coffee issue. I am not saying that all large judgements are excessive, some certainly stand out. Apologies for people like Yagman do not help. The profession must take steps to police itself. Unfortunately, this type of lawyer, supported by the likes of the 9th Circuit, does a lot of damage to the credibility of our legal system. If, in fact, lawyers are the defenders of this system, they need to start defending it. Otherwise, they risk having the job taken away from them.
Posted by Arch  2004-1-15 6:29:51 PM||   2004-1-15 6:29:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Arch: I agree about internal policing of the profession. In fact, I hope some California lawyer files a grievance on ol’ Mr. Yagman. However, that said, if I mess up (which, of course, I never do ;) ) I have an ethical obligation to tell my clients they can sue me--I don’t know of another profession that is true of. My malpractice insurance protects my client from my mistakes, as it should be. If I were sued, my client would be protected from economic loss, and the Supreme Court would probably take my license (depending on the reasons). A large verdict doesn’t necessarily mean the verdict is wrong. Regarding the MacDonalds case, you might want to research what event took place that persuaded a group of everyday citizens (the jury) to award that kind of money (if the facts of the case weren’t sealed away from public view at MacDonalds urging)--remember, most people take the job of being on a jury very seriously, and juries don’t just give money away. The media was curiously silent about the critical facts (because a justified law suit won't sell papers, but outrage over a large verdict will?). Imagine that the MacDonalds coffee was so hot that it raised third degree burns on this woman. Imagine that the burns were to the woman’s genitals. Imagine that this woman was profoundly humiliated and hurt by what happened. Imagine that the only reason the coffee was so damn hot was because MacDonalds had instructed all employees to make and serve the coffee that hot (on the verge of boiling) so that when (the majority of all) customers got the coffee home it had just cooled to the most preferred temperature, and MacDonalds had increased sales from those people. Imagine that MacDonalds had repeated, bitter complaints from people getting scalded in the drive-through, but did nothing to make the coffee safer because of a business decision that the way to increase sales and profits was with this excessively hot coffee. Imagine that there was no warning to this woman about how extremely hot this coffee was, or how to safely handle a liquid that hot. Imagine that MacDonalds showed reckless indifference to the danger of excessively hot coffee, for the sole purpose of carrying out a business decision that the excessively hot coffee would increase sales. Given such facts, is it wrong for a jury to decide to send a message? I wager that MacDonalds coffee is no longer served at that ridiculously extreme temperature. So, that one lawsuit spared how many people what kind of pain and suffering? Bear in mind that product liability cases are largely responsible for a multitude of safety features that save lives and preserve productivity on a daily basis. Another plug for my profession.™ :)
Posted by cingold 2004-1-15 7:00:59 PM||   2004-1-15 7:00:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Cingold, I feel your pain. I was in the service for 20 years and EVERYONE thinks we are cut from the same cloth. If one guy is a dirtbag then we all must be. Kudos 2 U 4 defending your profession while not sticking up for that rat in lawyers clothing. I will admit that I did NEED a lawyer once and thank god I found one that helped me and not only himself. But you have to admit that some the high-profile ones really make your stomach turn. Unfortunately there are TOO many lawyers in California, can we exile them to say Idaho or North Dakota?
Posted by Cyber Sarge  2004-1-15 7:12:59 PM||   2004-1-15 7:12:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 I watched a long documentary on the 9th Curcuit on New Years Eve. Or was it the Three Stooges Marathon?
And, Cingold? You're all right.
Posted by tu3031 2004-1-15 8:50:15 PM||   2004-1-15 8:50:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 But you have to admit that some the high-profile ones really make your stomach turn.

Yes, they do. Sadly, they usually only take it right to the edge of getting disbarred, but sometimes they go far enough and we can kick them out. E.g., Clinton got disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court after being suspended by the Arkansas Supreme Court (NOTE: after being suspended in Arkansas, he probably has to reapply for admission--which does not have to be, and hopefully won't be, granted.)
Posted by cingold 2004-1-15 9:06:02 PM||   2004-1-15 9:06:02 PM|| Front Page Top

07:42 Gabriel Hiza
00:10 Lucky
00:01 Lucky
23:51 Lucky
23:21 B
23:17 VRWconspiracy
23:16 4thInfVet
23:11 Tokyo Taro
23:00 CrazyFool
22:55 CrazyFool
22:49 CrazyFool
22:31 4thInfVet
22:16 Nero
22:08 Bomb-a-rama
22:06 Scooter McGruder
22:04 Gasse Katze
21:56 JDB
21:50 Raj
21:46 Raj
21:37 Ed Becerra
21:30 Ed Becerra
21:27 tu3031
21:25 tu3031
21:21 tu3031









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com