I'm having a hard time believing that President Bush is that stupid.
Is it possible he doesn't know that the "cost" of medical malpractice
lawsuits is cause by one thing and one thing only: medical
malpractice? It is medical malpractice that drives up insurance
rates, attorneys fees, court costs, and, all together, depresses the
availability of health care.

The only "problem" we have is deciding who is going to bear the
financial burden of incompetent medical practitioners. The list of
candidates is very short: (1) the negligent medical practitioners, (2)
all medical practitioners with the cost and risk spread by insurance
over the industry, (3) the taxpayer, with the risk covered by
government insurance programs or comprehensive public heath care, or
(4) the innocent injured patient. Sorry, folks, but neither "(5)
nobody" nor "(6) trial lawyers" is on the list.

As for those bottom-feeding scum-sucking greedy lowlife "trial
lawyers," I have a simple solution for getting rid of that evil lot:
Come up with a system where the poor injured patient doesn't have to
sue somebody to get reasonable compensation for his loss. Whoever you
decide is to be responsible needs to come forward with his checkbook
and make a reasonable offer of settlement or remedial medical care --
no making the poor injured person jump through legal hoops. Just make
an impartial investigation and be honest about the facts. Simple.
Can't happen? Okay, then quit whining if the innocent patient has to
get help, and then you have to deal with those, well, unsavory
characters called "trial lawyers."


- Jon Beaver

Jon Beaver wrote: I'm having a hard time believing that President Bush is that stupid.

I find it easy to believe that President Bush is that stupid, or even
worse. Ever heard him speak? ;)
Is it possible he doesn't know that the "cost" of medical malpractice lawsuits is cause by one thing and one thing only: medical malpractice?

It has a lot more to do with drug companies charging usurious prices
for medication, medical equipment salesmen making more than doctors, and
HMO profit margins. But you seem to forget who *bankrolled* John Kerry
and John Edwards.... :)
The only "problem" we have is deciding who is going to bear the financial burden of incompetent medical practitioners. The list of candidates is very short: (1) the negligent medical practitioners, (2) all medical practitioners with the cost and risk spread by insurance over the industry, (3) the taxpayer, with the risk covered by government insurance programs or comprehensive public heath care, or (4) the innocent injured patient.

America is a Third World ****hole banana republic, which can no
longer afford a social "safety net." Expect us to become an IMF basket
case in the next four years -- and vital basic utilities such as water
to become privatized. We've lost the vote and 'the rule of law,' and
despotism is as inevitable as darkness after sunset.

But this shouldn't bother you one iota, as you seem to think that the
innocent injured litigant should bear the burden of judicial corruption
and/or sloth. The Bar is supposed to keep the courts honest, but you're
more interested in defending corruption than fighting it. If that band
of Ba'athists in black robes can trample on our human rights with total
impunity, it is hard to credibly argue that the other demigods in white
coats should not also be immune from the consequences of their mistakes.
As long as they don't come for *you,* Pastor Niemoller. As long as
they don't come for you....

As for those bottom-feeding scum-sucking greedy lowlife "trial lawyers,"

...as Professor Dershowitz observed, you don't "get a reputation like
that unless you've done something to deserve it." And you've earned it
in spades, for as a profession, you have proven that you are a bunch of
craven invertebrates. As Professor Carl Bogus observes:

Saying that lawyers treat the judges with deference fails to cap-
ture the interaction; it is more accurate to say that lawyers bow
and scrape. Some lawyers have elevated fawning to an art form,
pulling it off with subtle elegance. Others are grotesquely
obsequious. But few tell a judge that he is wrong.

Carl T. Bogus, Culture of Quiescence, 9 Roger Williams L. Rev. 351, 352
(2004).

It apparently bothers you and your colleagues not a whit that judges
could hold that a statute that says "Every person" [who does X to Y is
liable to Y in tort] really means "Every person but us bribed judges,"
despite a clearly written statute and legislative history proving that
Congress was addressing the problem of corrupt Reconstruction judges.
And it has bothered you not a whit that three courts unlawfully denied
me the right to challenge the constitutionality of a statute directly
and uniquely affecting me -- in direct contravention of the caselaw on
point which is the law [Hart v. Massanari] which courts are "bound" to
follow [In re Smith, 10 F.3d 733 (10th Cir. 1993)] -- in an unpublished
opinion.

You've probably heard of Ken Schmier, as he practices in your area.
There shouldn't be a single trial attorney in this country who isn't on
Schmier's bandwagon (the abolition of non-publication rules -- of which
the Ninth Circuit's and California's [which grants courts the power to
"de-publish" binding precedent]) -- but over five hundred lawyers from
*your* circuit reportedly wrote letters in support of current rules.

"Grotesquely obsequious" fails to capture that [inter]action.

The next time you have Alex Kozinski's cock stuffed into your mouth
right up to the scrotum, stop and reflect for a moment as to why it is
that you have such a pathetic collective reputation.

To compare lawyers to prostitutes is to demean hard-working ladies of
the evening.

Ken Smith wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
I'm having a hard time believing that President Bush is that stupid.
I find it easy to believe that President Bush is that stupid, or even worse.

And knowing what we know about you, we hardly find that surprising.
Ever heard him speak? ;)

Yes, and I've also seen your incessant prattlings here on USENET about all
the imagined "injustices" you have "suffered" at the hands of the Colorado
Bar Examiners, and also the Federal courts. You're just a whiner who failed
to gain admittance the Colorado Bar Association, while George W. Bush is the
President of the United States. So what are we to conclude?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:Jon Beaver wrote:
I'm having a hard time believing that President Bush is that stupid.I find it easy to believe that President Bush is that stupid, or evenworse. And knowing what we know about you, we hardly find that surprising.

Even Ted admits that I have "keen insight and a sharp intellect" --
which gives me the proper standing to say that Bush has slightly more
intelligence than a kumquat.

Which means that he's smarter than Cameron John "Accused of Criminal
Stupidity Resulting in the Death of a Child" Brown, who is clearly not
as intelligent as a kumquat.

On 2005-01-09 16:52:07 -0800, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> said:
I'm having a hard time believing that President Bush is that stupid.

You give him way too much credit. He is that stupid.
Is it possible he doesn't know that the "cost" of medical malpractice lawsuits is cause by one thing and one thing only: medical malpractice? It is medical malpractice that drives up insurance rates, attorneys fees, court costs, and, all together, depresses the availability of health care. The only "problem" we have is deciding who is going to bear the financial burden of incompetent medical practitioners. The list of candidates is very short: (1) the negligent medical practitioners, (2) all medical practitioners with the cost and risk spread by insurance over the industry, (3) the taxpayer, with the risk covered by government insurance programs or comprehensive public heath care, or (4) the innocent injured patient. Sorry, folks, but neither "(5) nobody" nor "(6) trial lawyers" is on the list. As for those bottom-feeding scum-sucking greedy lowlife "trial lawyers," I have a simple solution for getting rid of that evil lot: Come up with a system where the poor injured patient doesn't have to sue somebody to get reasonable compensation for his loss. Whoever you decide is to be responsible needs to come forward with his checkbook and make a reasonable offer of settlement or remedial medical care -- no making the poor injured person jump through legal hoops. Just make an impartial investigation and be honest about the facts. Simple. Can't happen? Okay, then quit whining if the innocent patient has to get help, and then you have to deal with those, well, unsavory characters called "trial lawyers." - Jon Beaver


--
The Debt Collectors Win If You Let Them Abuse You!
In California, go to <http://www.westcoastlitigation.com>
In Florida, go to <http://www.hilyardlawfirm.com/>
In Minnesota, go to <http://www.lawpoint.com>
In New Jersey, go to <http://www.consumerslaw.com/debtcollectionabuse/>
In New York, go to <http://www.wnylc.net/web/news/XcNewsPlus.asp>
In Pennsylvania, go to <http://www.consumerslaw.com/debtcollectionabuse/>
In Wisconsin, go to <http://www.croenbarr.com/>
Everyone else see, <http://www.naca.net>

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:14:54 -0800, Gerald Wilson
<gwilson@welbbly.com> wrote:
On 2005-01-09 16:52:07 -0800, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> said: I'm having a hard time believing that President Bush is that stupid.You give him way too much credit. He is that stupid.

He still beat Kerry :)

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:52:07 -0800, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
As for those bottom-feeding scum-sucking greedy lowlife "triallawyers," I have a simple solution for getting rid of that evil lot:Come up with a system where the poor injured patient doesn't have tosue somebody to get reasonable compensation for his loss. Whoever youdecide is to be responsible needs to come forward with his checkbookand make a reasonable offer of settlement or remedial medical care --no making the poor injured person jump through legal hoops. Just makean impartial investigation and be honest about the facts. Simple.Can't happen? Okay, then quit whining if the innocent patient has toget help, and then you have to deal with those, well, unsavorycharacters called "trial lawyers."

The origin of the tort reform movement is basically, unjust settlement
of suits, due to the theatrical talents of shysters. If the US simply
adopted Roman Law legal procedures, many of these problems would be
solved. The most important feature being:

No direct questioning of witnesses by the lawyers at any stage from
discovery to trial. A judge (or panel of judges) extracts the
essentials of the arguments from written dossiers, produced by the
parties in the suit, and asks the questions. After the panel is
finished, round robin questioning (one question at a time) by lawyers,
jurors, plaintiffs, defendants, third parties, etc, can be permitted.

RHR

"RHR" <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in message
news:5uanv0h70s7qqc54q14lr3b4l4dc1s2t61@4ax.com... On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:52:07 -0800, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:As for those bottom-feeding scum-sucking greedy lowlife "triallawyers," I have a simple solution for getting rid of that evil lot:Come up with a system where the poor injured patient doesn't have tosue somebody to get reasonable compensation for his loss. Whoever youdecide is to be responsible needs to come forward with his checkbookand make a reasonable offer of settlement or remedial medical care --no making the poor injured person jump through legal hoops. Just makean impartial investigation and be honest about the facts. Simple.Can't happen? Okay, then quit whining if the innocent patient has toget help, and then you have to deal with those, well, unsavorycharacters called "trial lawyers." The origin of the tort reform movement is basically, unjust settlement of suits, due to the theatrical talents of shysters. If the US simply adopted Roman Law legal procedures, many of these problems would be solved. The most important feature being: No direct questioning of witnesses by the lawyers at any stage from discovery to trial. A judge (or panel of judges) extracts the essentials of the arguments from written dossiers, produced by the parties in the suit, and asks the questions. After the panel is finished, round robin questioning (one question at a time) by lawyers, jurors, plaintiffs, defendants, third parties, etc, can be permitted. RHR

Risch, the idiot, screeches hysterically again. Is the moon full? The
petit jury, the Founders said, is the Palladium of Liberty. If you want
that changed, Risch, you blubbering fool, have the Constitution amended.
Line up 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the states. That's what it says
in the Constitution you are too stupid and too lazy to read.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:46:29 -0500, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:52:07 -0800, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:As for those bottom-feeding scum-sucking greedy lowlife "triallawyers," I have a simple solution for getting rid of that evil lot:Come up with a system where the poor injured patient doesn't have tosue somebody to get reasonable compensation for his loss. Whoever youdecide is to be responsible needs to come forward with his checkbookand make a reasonable offer of settlement or remedial medical care --no making the poor injured person jump through legal hoops. Just makean impartial investigation and be honest about the facts. Simple.Can't happen? Okay, then quit whining if the innocent patient has toget help, and then you have to deal with those, well, unsavorycharacters called "trial lawyers."The origin of the tort reform movement is basically, unjust settlementof suits, due to the theatrical talents of shysters. If the US simplyadopted Roman Law legal procedures, many of these problems would besolved. The most important feature being: No direct questioning of witnesses by the lawyers at any stage fromdiscovery to trial. A judge (or panel of judges) extracts theessentials of the arguments from written dossiers, produced by theparties in the suit, and asks the questions. After the panel isfinished, round robin questioning (one question at a time) by lawyers,jurors, plaintiffs, defendants, third parties, etc, can be permitted.RHR

The system you seek is authoritarian. It's a system for satisfying
the sovereign that justice is being done. It's not applicable to a
free society. Your arguments are infused with the notion that the
legal system is supposed to be one where someone in authority steps
in, takes charge, and gets to the bottom of things without any
nonsense. The moment you start thinking of it as a system where free
men are forcing the sovereign to obey the law, to listen to their side
of the story told in their way by their representative, a relatively
modern idea, your notions come apart at the seams. In a free society,
lawyers are not there to help the sovereign, but to hinder it, if
necessary, to protect their client's rights. A bad thing? Only if
you insist that the sovereign's rights are paramount.

- Jon Beaver

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:38:34 -0800, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:46:29 -0500, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:52:07 -0800, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:As for those bottom-feeding scum-sucking greedy lowlife "triallawyers," I have a simple solution for getting rid of that evil lot:Come up with a system where the poor injured patient doesn't have tosue somebody to get reasonable compensation for his loss. Whoever youdecide is to be responsible needs to come forward with his checkbookand make a reasonable offer of settlement or remedial medical care --no making the poor injured person jump through legal hoops. Just makean impartial investigation and be honest about the facts. Simple.Can't happen? Okay, then quit whining if the innocent patient has toget help, and then you have to deal with those, well, unsavorycharacters called "trial lawyers."The origin of the tort reform movement is basically, unjust settlementof suits, due to the theatrical talents of shysters. If the US simplyadopted Roman Law legal procedures, many of these problems would besolved. The most important feature being: No direct questioning of witnesses by the lawyers at any stage fromdiscovery to trial. A judge (or panel of judges) extracts theessentials of the arguments from written dossiers, produced by theparties in the suit, and asks the questions. After the panel isfinished, round robin questioning (one question at a time) by lawyers,jurors, plaintiffs, defendants, third parties, etc, can be permitted.RHRThe system you seek is authoritarian. It's a system for satisfyingthe sovereign that justice is being done. It's not applicable to afree society. Your arguments are infused with the notion that thelegal system is supposed to be one where someone in authority stepsin, takes charge, and gets to the bottom of things without anynonsense. The moment you start thinking of it as a system where freemen are forcing the sovereign to obey the law, to listen to their sideof the story told in their way by their representative, a relativelymodern idea, your notions come apart at the seams. In a free society,lawyers are not there to help the sovereign, but to hinder it, ifnecessary, to protect their client's rights. A bad thing? Only ifyou insist that the sovereign's rights are paramount.- Jon Beaver

ROTFLMFAO! Truth Seeking : Shysters = Wolfsbane : Vampires
I think Jon recycled this expected tirade from a previous answer to
one of my posts. Since when is a malpractice or product liability
case necessarily something to do with the "sovereign's rights"?

RHR