> Now, i *know* that these bulletin boards are the internet equivalent of either the "Wild, Wild West," or a Chicago bar fight, but geeeezz, Foggy, dont you have enough common sense to realize that if you are suffering from road rage on the information super highway that its time to pull over and let someone ELSE drive??? Take some free advice: 1) find a rest area 2) drink some decaffinated tea. I pulled all these quotes out to, hopefully, demonstrate to you that you have almost ZERO argument. If you had one, and stuck to it, that might have been one thing to throw in some cute zingers but sadly you fall short. All it did was leave you looking *silly* beating your chest like you are "Tarzan, Lord Of The Internet". In this day and age, man, it dont impress the babes. . Chase


What you need to do, Chase, is some Beaver reading. Search him in
this NG and have a look at the way he patronizes, berates, insults,
belittles, dismisses, etc. those who disagree with his petrified
preconceptions. I have this (very thin) hope that if enough of it is
thrown back at him he just may get the hint and become a little less
abusive. I've never been one to throw the first stone. If you have
the time also read a few posts from his two lickspittles, Larry and
Merlin. Good fun!

And BTW I write all my own material! :)

FoggyTown

On 11 Jul 2003 01:42:42 -0700, foggytown@aol.com (Mike Girouard)
wrote:
Now, i *know* that these bulletin boards are the internet equivalent of either the "Wild, Wild West," or a Chicago bar fight, but geeeezz, Foggy, dont you have enough common sense to realize that if you are suffering from road rage on the information super highway that its time to pull over and let someone ELSE drive??? Take some free advice: 1) find a rest area 2) drink some decaffinated tea. I pulled all these quotes out to, hopefully, demonstrate to you that you have almost ZERO argument. If you had one, and stuck to it, that might have been one thing to throw in some cute zingers but sadly you fall short. All it did was leave you looking *silly* beating your chest like you are "Tarzan, Lord Of The Internet". In this day and age, man, it dont impress the babes. . ChaseWhat you need to do, Chase, is some Beaver reading. Search him inthis NG and have a look at the way he patronizes, berates, insults,belittles, dismisses, etc. those who disagree with his petrifiedpreconceptions. I have this (very thin) hope that if enough of it isthrown back at him he just may get the hint and become a little lessabusive. I've never been one to throw the first stone. If you havethe time also read a few posts from his two lickspittles, Larry andMerlin. Good fun!And BTW I write all my own material! :)

What you are experiencing, Foggy, is the humiliation of picking a
fight and having your *** kicked. If you are going to insult lawyers
on a legal newsgroup, you had better have more than your bare bigotry
at hand. If you are going to wax philosophical about all of those
"frivolous lawsuits," you had better know what your facts are.

You should start with your definition of "frivolous lawsuit" so we can
all see clearly what you really are complaining about. Then we can
talk about how many of them exist and whether they are being
adequately addressed.

- Jon Beaver

Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On 11 Jul 2003 01:42:42 -0700, foggytown@aol.com (Mike Girouard)wrote: Now, i *know* that these bulletin boards are the internet equivalent of either the "Wild, Wild West," or a Chicago bar fight, but geeeezz, Foggy, dont you have enough common sense to realize that if you are suffering from road rage on the information super highway that its time to pull over and let someone ELSE drive??? Take some free advice: 1) find a rest area 2) drink some decaffinated tea.
I pulled all these quotes out to, hopefully, demonstrate to you that you have almost ZERO argument. If you had one, and stuck to it, that might have been one thing to throw in some cute zingers but sadly you fall short. All it did was leave you looking *silly* beating your chest like you are "Tarzan, Lord Of The Internet". In this day and age, man, it dont impress the babes. . ChaseWhat you need to do, Chase, is some Beaver reading. Search him inthis NG and have a look at the way he patronizes, berates, insults,belittles, dismisses, etc. those who disagree with his petrifiedpreconceptions. I have this (very thin) hope that if enough of it isthrown back at him he just may get the hint and become a little lessabusive. I've never been one to throw the first stone. If you havethe time also read a few posts from his two lickspittles, Larry andMerlin. Good fun!And BTW I write all my own material! :)What you are experiencing, Foggy, is the humiliation of picking afight and having your *** kicked. If you are going to insult lawyerson a legal newsgroup, you had better have more than your bare bigotryat hand. If you are going to wax philosophical about all of those"frivolous lawsuits," you had better know what your facts are.You should start with your definition of "frivolous lawsuit" so we canall see clearly what you really are complaining about. Then we cantalk about how many of them exist and whether they are beingadequately addressed.- Jon Beaver

My attention was drawn to froggy when he started a pattern of rather
disparaging comments about lawyers, derogatory comments about
particular posters, all unprovoked, all while everyone else was being
civil and discussing the topic at hand. Foggywits "Picked a fight".
Which was rather stupid, I thought, considering he just had to
know what an impotent little bigot he was.

At some point during his self-humiliation I noticed that his "helmet"
was really a bandana and his "sword" was really a jantitor's mop, and
I backed off ... I just decided I wasn't going to be the one to to
spoil foggywits' "impossible dream"

Did you know he writes his own material?

-Merlin

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:24:26 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On 11 Jul 2003 01:42:42 -0700, foggytown@aol.com (Mike Girouard)wrote:> Now, i *know* that these bulletin boards are the internet equivalent of either> the "Wild, Wild West," or a Chicago bar fight, but geeeezz, Foggy, dont you> have enough common sense to realize that if you are suffering from road rage on> the information super highway that its time to pull over and let someone ELSE> drive???>> Take some free advice: 1) find a rest area 2) drink some decaffinated tea.> I pulled all these quotes out to, hopefully, demonstrate to you that you have> almost ZERO argument. If you had one, and stuck to it, that might have been one> thing to throw in some cute zingers but sadly you fall short. All it did was> leave you looking *silly* beating your chest like you are "Tarzan, Lord Of The> Internet". In this day and age, man, it dont impress the babes.>> . ChaseWhat you need to do, Chase, is some Beaver reading. Search him inthis NG and have a look at the way he patronizes, berates, insults,belittles, dismisses, etc. those who disagree with his petrifiedpreconceptions. I have this (very thin) hope that if enough of it isthrown back at him he just may get the hint and become a little lessabusive. I've never been one to throw the first stone. If you havethe time also read a few posts from his two lickspittles, Larry andMerlin. Good fun!And BTW I write all my own material! :)What you are experiencing, Foggy, is the humiliation of picking afight and having your *** kicked. If you are going to insult lawyerson a legal newsgroup, you had better have more than your bare bigotryat hand. If you are going to wax philosophical about all of those"frivolous lawsuits," you had better know what your facts are.You should start with your definition of "frivolous lawsuit" so we canall see clearly what you really are complaining about. Then we cantalk about how many of them exist and whether they are beingadequately addressed.- Jon BeaverMy attention was drawn to froggy when he started a pattern of ratherdisparaging comments about lawyers, derogatory comments aboutparticular posters, all unprovoked, all while everyone else was beingcivil and discussing the topic at hand. Foggywits "Picked a fight".Which was rather stupid, I thought, considering he just had toknow what an impotent little bigot he was.At some point during his self-humiliation I noticed that his "helmet"was really a bandana and his "sword" was really a jantitor's mop, andI backed off ... I just decided I wasn't going to be the one to tospoil foggywits' "impossible dream"Did you know he writes his own material?-Merlin

But Merlin, what are these "frivolous lawsuit" he seems to be talking
about?

- Jon Beaver

Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:24:26 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
You should start with your definition of "frivolous lawsuit" so we canall see clearly what you really are complaining about. Then we cantalk about how many of them exist and whether they are beingadequately addressed.- Jon BeaverMy attention was drawn to froggy when he started a pattern of ratherdisparaging comments about lawyers, derogatory comments aboutparticular posters, all unprovoked, all while everyone else was beingcivil and discussing the topic at hand. Foggywits "Picked a fight".Which was rather stupid, I thought, considering he just had toknow what an impotent little bigot he was.At some point during his self-humiliation I noticed that his "helmet"was really a bandana and his "sword" was really a jantitor's mop, andI backed off ... I just decided I wasn't going to be the one to tospoil foggywits' "impossible dream"Did you know he writes his own material?-MerlinBut Merlin, what are these "frivolous lawsuit" he seems to be talkingabout?- Jon Beaver

Actually, I have no idea what the voices in Foggy's head tell him.
One can only look to what he says, and from that form an opinion
as to the contents of the mellonous protuberance from which
he occasionally belchfires his pontifications. Did you know he
writes his own material? Still, it IS kind of interesting (in
the bizarre sense) that he has so long managed to elude
all sources of ignition.

First, Froggy was advocating a system of compensating civil
defendants for the costs they incur during their defense, including
both suffering and financial costs. As froggy rhetorically put it :
"If the claimant knew that if he lost he was going to have to pay the
defendant's costs wouldn't that cut down on the mountains of frivolous
suits every year?"

In another conversation, which eventuially started this thread,
Froggy belicosly trolled: "In my personal opinion (albeit formed by
considerable experience and observation) the probable
root cause of frivolous/specious lawsuits is the contingency fee
system. "

Somewhere in there Scott Hendrick chimed in with a lament
and (prosecutor) Larry tried to explain about the currrent judicial
process sorting out claims, and Scott or somebody lamented that
there should be a method of weeding out frivolous suits BEFORE they
were filed, wherein Robert Reich jumped in with his preferred method
of doing so, and we were off on another romp with folks merrily
problem solving without the froggiest idea or consensus of what
'frivolous' lawsuit means.

Personally I figure 'frivolous lawsuit' is one of those political
slogans used as a rallying cry for a scheme of conservative-
sponsored tort reforms which sought to allow the bloated
rich to prey on the opressed poor and middle classes
without taking any personal responsibility, which was their
other rallying whine that the poor should take 'personal
responsibity', but not the rich, which also seemed to be
a complaint about having to pay for food programs for the
poor. Both programs were hallmarks of the oxymoronic
"compassionate conservative" campaigns of the 90's.
Maybe froggy is a holdover? Perhaps even a leftover!
Did you know foggy writes his own material?

So, what did you figure foggy meant when he was referring
to "frivolous/specious" lawsuits?

-Merlin

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:20:12 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:24:26 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:>You should start with your definition of "frivolous lawsuit" so we can>all see clearly what you really are complaining about. Then we can>talk about how many of them exist and whether they are being>adequately addressed.>>- Jon BeaverMy attention was drawn to froggy when he started a pattern of ratherdisparaging comments about lawyers, derogatory comments aboutparticular posters, all unprovoked, all while everyone else was beingcivil and discussing the topic at hand. Foggywits "Picked a fight".Which was rather stupid, I thought, considering he just had toknow what an impotent little bigot he was.At some point during his self-humiliation I noticed that his "helmet"was really a bandana and his "sword" was really a jantitor's mop, andI backed off ... I just decided I wasn't going to be the one to tospoil foggywits' "impossible dream"Did you know he writes his own material?-MerlinBut Merlin, what are these "frivolous lawsuit" he seems to be talkingabout?- Jon BeaverActually, I have no idea what the voices in Foggy's head tell him.One can only look to what he says, and from that form an opinionas to the contents of the mellonous protuberance from whichhe occasionally belchfires his pontifications. Did you know hewrites his own material? Still, it IS kind of interesting (inthe bizarre sense) that he has so long managed to eludeall sources of ignition.First, Froggy was advocating a system of compensating civildefendants for the costs they incur during their defense, includingboth suffering and financial costs. As froggy rhetorically put it :"If the claimant knew that if he lost he was going to have to pay thedefendant's costs wouldn't that cut down on the mountains of frivoloussuits every year?"In another conversation, which eventuially started this thread,Froggy belicosly trolled: "In my personal opinion (albeit formed byconsiderable experience and observation) the probableroot cause of frivolous/specious lawsuits is the contingency feesystem. "Somewhere in there Scott Hendrick chimed in with a lamentand (prosecutor) Larry tried to explain about the currrent judicialprocess sorting out claims, and Scott or somebody lamented thatthere should be a method of weeding out frivolous suits BEFORE theywere filed, wherein Robert Reich jumped in with his preferred methodof doing so, and we were off on another romp with folks merrilyproblem solving without the froggiest idea or consensus of what'frivolous' lawsuit means.Personally I figure 'frivolous lawsuit' is one of those politicalslogans used as a rallying cry for a scheme of conservative-sponsored tort reforms which sought to allow the bloatedrich to prey on the opressed poor and middle classeswithout taking any personal responsibility, which was theirother rallying whine that the poor should take 'personalresponsibity', but not the rich, which also seemed to bea complaint about having to pay for food programs for thepoor. Both programs were hallmarks of the oxymoronic"compassionate conservative" campaigns of the 90's.Maybe froggy is a holdover? Perhaps even a leftover!Did you know foggy writes his own material?So, what did you figure foggy meant when he was referringto "frivolous/specious" lawsuits?-Merlin

There's nothing wrong, per se, with believing that those who create
the country's wealth solely through their own efforts should get to
keep it as against those who want to take a share of it that they
haven't earned or contributed to, and to despise those who make a
living aiding, abetting, counseling, or persuading them to do so.

There's nothing wrong, per se, with believing that all wealth is the
creation of society, created at the at the expense, risk and harm to
everyone, that the very laws which permit the creation of wealth also
impose responsibility on the entrepreneur to those individuals who are
harmed by the enterprise, and that contempt for those who assist them
is nothing less than contempt for those laws and the rights of those
individuals.

Most people's definition of "frivolous lawsuit" depends entirely on
their point of view. But I'll give you my definition: A claim or
defense which is asserted solely for the purpose of injuring another,
or profiting from the threatened injury to another, by the controversy
itself. My definition requires both an absence of merit and an
injurious motive. Neither an assertion of a meritorious claim with
bad motive, nor assertion of an unmeritorious claim in good faith, is
a "frivolous lawsuit."

Most asserted "frivolous lawsuits" simply don't fit this definition,
and those that do are subject to civil liability for abuse of process
(no merit in law) or malicious prosecution (no merit in fact.)

You got a better definition?

- Jon Beaver

Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:20:12 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:24:26 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:>Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
Personally I figure 'frivolous lawsuit' is one of those politicalslogans used as a rallying cry for a scheme of conservative-sponsored tort reforms which sought to allow the bloatedrich to prey on the opressed poor and middle classeswithout taking any personal responsibility, which was theirother rallying whine that the poor should take 'personalresponsibity', but not the rich, which also seemed to bea complaint about having to pay for food programs for thepoor. Both programs were hallmarks of the oxymoronic"compassionate conservative" campaigns of the 90's.Maybe froggy is a holdover? Perhaps even a leftover!Did you know foggy writes his own material?So, what did you figure foggy meant when he was referringto "frivolous/specious" lawsuits?-MerlinThere's nothing wrong, per se, with believing that those who createthe country's wealth solely through their own efforts should get tokeep it as against those who want to take a share of it that theyhaven't earned or contributed to, and to despise those who make aliving aiding, abetting, counseling, or persuading them to do so.There's nothing wrong, per se, with believing that all wealth is thecreation of society, created at the at the expense, risk and harm toeveryone, that the very laws which permit the creation of wealth alsoimpose responsibility on the entrepreneur to those individuals who areharmed by the enterprise, and that contempt for those who assist themis nothing less than contempt for those laws and the rights of thoseindividuals.Most people's definition of "frivolous lawsuit" depends entirely ontheir point of view. But I'll give you my definition: A claim ordefense which is asserted solely for the purpose of injuring another,or profiting from the threatened injury to another, by the controversyitself. My definition requires both an absence of merit and aninjurious motive. Neither an assertion of a meritorious claim withbad motive, nor assertion of an unmeritorious claim in good faith, isa "frivolous lawsuit."Most asserted "frivolous lawsuits" simply don't fit this definition,and those that do are subject to civil liability for abuse of process(no merit in law) or malicious prosecution (no merit in fact.)You got a better definition?- Jon Beaver

No. But (no big surprise) I have comment/context.

First I note that your "nothing wrong, per se" arguments do not
appear "incompatible per se" so that there appears to me no
logical reason a person couldn't agree with both of the offered
propositions.

In addition, regarding limitations on a right to sue, It should
also come as no suprise to the lawyers in this group,
(although some of the posters may not know) that the
United States Constitution provides a First
Amendment right that : "Congress shall make no law ...
abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government
for a redress of grievances" This right dates back to rights
purportedly granted in the Magna Carta.

Thus, this is no trivial matter for foggywitted anklebiters to
tinker with during their playtime, no indeed, for the right to
petition encompasses the right to sue and,
"The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of
force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all
other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government."
(Chambers v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (1907) 207 U.S. 142, 148 )

So, when you are messing with the right to sue, you are messing
with the US Constitution, and every red-blooded patriot should
take special note of every unpatriotic, treasonous, scum-sucking
swine who would undermine our Constitution and the great country
founded upon it, God Bless America, Amen. (sniff).

That said, and having wrapped my argument imperviously in the
good old American Flag, it might then be noted that, like other
first amendment rights, this 'right to sue' is not absolute. It
can give way when need is great.

So perhaps we start first with the idea that the right is given in
all circumstances, and then consider what limits might necessarily
follow. The first limitation might be that a right to sue should not
encompass a right to file "pretended Grievances ... made use of
to serve the Ends of factious and seditious Persons[.]" (See 4
Blackstone, Commentaries 147-148)

In other words, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that
a suit which was completely without merit and brought with an
injurious motive, would provide an example satisfying
the latter exception, while leaving the substance of our first
amendment 'right to sue' fully intact.

So Jon, once again it appears you have taken the high,
safe ground. Why am I not surprised?

Perhaps there are other exception which can be considered?

-Merlin

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:08:26 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
Most people's definition of "frivolous lawsuit" depends entirely ontheir point of view. But I'll give you my definition: A claim ordefense which is asserted solely for the purpose of injuring another,or profiting from the threatened injury to another, by the controversyitself. My definition requires both an absence of merit and aninjurious motive. Neither an assertion of a meritorious claim withbad motive, nor assertion of an unmeritorious claim in good faith, isa "frivolous lawsuit."Most asserted "frivolous lawsuits" simply don't fit this definition,and those that do are subject to civil liability for abuse of process(no merit in law) or malicious prosecution (no merit in fact.)You got a better definition?

I've got a better issue. How and by whom should lawsuits be decided?
If we did a better job that department, there wouldn't be as many
suits that lack merit.

RHR

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:18:01 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:20:12 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:>On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:24:26 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:>>Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:Personally I figure 'frivolous lawsuit' is one of those politicalslogans used as a rallying cry for a scheme of conservative-sponsored tort reforms which sought to allow the bloatedrich to prey on the opressed poor and middle classeswithout taking any personal responsibility, which was theirother rallying whine that the poor should take 'personalresponsibity', but not the rich, which also seemed to bea complaint about having to pay for food programs for thepoor. Both programs were hallmarks of the oxymoronic"compassionate conservative" campaigns of the 90's.Maybe froggy is a holdover? Perhaps even a leftover!Did you know foggy writes his own material?So, what did you figure foggy meant when he was referringto "frivolous/specious" lawsuits?-MerlinThere's nothing wrong, per se, with believing that those who createthe country's wealth solely through their own efforts should get tokeep it as against those who want to take a share of it that theyhaven't earned or contributed to, and to despise those who make aliving aiding, abetting, counseling, or persuading them to do so.There's nothing wrong, per se, with believing that all wealth is thecreation of society, created at the at the expense, risk and harm toeveryone, that the very laws which permit the creation of wealth alsoimpose responsibility on the entrepreneur to those individuals who areharmed by the enterprise, and that contempt for those who assist themis nothing less than contempt for those laws and the rights of thoseindividuals.Most people's definition of "frivolous lawsuit" depends entirely ontheir point of view. But I'll give you my definition: A claim ordefense which is asserted solely for the purpose of injuring another,or profiting from the threatened injury to another, by the controversyitself. My definition requires both an absence of merit and aninjurious motive. Neither an assertion of a meritorious claim withbad motive, nor assertion of an unmeritorious claim in good faith, isa "frivolous lawsuit."Most asserted "frivolous lawsuits" simply don't fit this definition,and those that do are subject to civil liability for abuse of process(no merit in law) or malicious prosecution (no merit in fact.)You got a better definition?- Jon Beaver No. But (no big surprise) I have comment/context. First I note that your "nothing wrong, per se" arguments do not appear "incompatible per se" so that there appears to me no logical reason a person couldn't agree with both of the offered propositions.

There is another point of view: The strong should just take what they
want from the weak. "After all, we are not communists." -- Don
Barzini in The Godfather.
In addition, regarding limitations on a right to sue, It should also come as no suprise to the lawyers in this group, (although some of the posters may not know) that the United States Constitution provides a First Amendment right that : "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances" This right dates back to rights purportedly granted in the Magna Carta. Thus, this is no trivial matter for foggywitted anklebiters to tinker with during their playtime, no indeed, for the right to petition encompasses the right to sue and, "The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government." (Chambers v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (1907) 207 U.S. 142, 148 ) So, when you are messing with the right to sue, you are messing with the US Constitution, and every red-blooded patriot should take special note of every unpatriotic, treasonous, scum-sucking swine who would undermine our Constitution and the great country founded upon it, God Bless America, Amen. (sniff). That said, and having wrapped my argument imperviously in the good old American Flag, it might then be noted that, like other first amendment rights, this 'right to sue' is not absolute. It can give way when need is great. So perhaps we start first with the idea that the right is given in all circumstances, and then consider what limits might necessarily follow. The first limitation might be that a right to sue should not encompass a right to file "pretended Grievances ... made use of to serve the Ends of factious and seditious Persons[.]" (See 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 147-148) In other words, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that a suit which was completely without merit and brought with an injurious motive, would provide an example satisfying the latter exception, while leaving the substance of our first amendment 'right to sue' fully intact. So Jon, once again it appears you have taken the high, safe ground. Why am I not surprised? Perhaps there are other exception which can be considered?

Yes. Lawsuits which are so destructive of an essential industry that
there is a public need that outweighs the public and private risk.
But there's an immense red herring! I'm not thinking of the tobacco
industry, and certainly not the insurance industry. I do have in mind
the medical professions. Most medical practitioners will tell you
that medical malpractice insurance PREMIUMS are what make the cost of
private practice prohibitive. They have been told it's because of
lawsuits and not greedy insurance companies. They have been told that
these lawsuits are because of greedy patients and lawyers and not
because of negligent doctors. And they have been told that the cost
of these lawsuits is the result the payments to greedy patients and
their lawyers and not because of the cost of "frivolous defenses."

I am not against an insurance company making a sound business decision
that it is more economical to defend all claims than to pay the
meritorious ones, and to pass that cost on to their insureds. I'm
just against them lying to their insureds about it. And I'm sick to
death of them pretending big premiums are because of "frivolous
lawsuits."

The only way to protect the medical professions from greedy insurance
companies is to subsidize them, prohibit or limit medical malpractice
suits, and guarantee medical treatment for all citizens. In the
meantime, I guess we are going to have to continue forcing each greedy
individual to hire his own greedy lawyer to sue the evil bastards and
make their greedy insurance companies pay. "After all, we are not
communists."

- Jon Beaver

Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:18:01 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:20:12 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:>Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: So Jon, once again it appears you have taken the high, safe ground. Why am I not surprised? Perhaps there are other exception which can be considered?Yes. Lawsuits which are so destructive of an essential industry thatthere is a public need that outweighs the public and private risk.But there's an immense red herring! I'm not thinking of the tobaccoindustry, and certainly not the insurance industry. I do have in mindthe medical professions. Most medical practitioners will tell youthat medical malpractice insurance PREMIUMS are what make the cost ofprivate practice prohibitive. They have been told it's because oflawsuits and not greedy insurance companies. They have been told thatthese lawsuits are because of greedy patients and lawyers and notbecause of negligent doctors. And they have been told that the costof these lawsuits is the result the payments to greedy patients andtheir lawyers and not because of the cost of "frivolous defenses."I am not against an insurance company making a sound business decisionthat it is more economical to defend all claims than to pay themeritorious ones, and to pass that cost on to their insureds. I'mjust against them lying to their insureds about it. And I'm sick todeath of them pretending big premiums are because of "frivolouslawsuits."The only way to protect the medical professions from greedy insurancecompanies is to subsidize them, prohibit or limit medical malpracticesuits, and guarantee medical treatment for all citizens. In themeantime, I guess we are going to have to continue forcing each greedyindividual to hire his own greedy lawyer to sue the evil bastards andmake their greedy insurance companies pay. "After all, we are notcommunists."- Jon Beaver

Hey, I'm no fan of greedy and dishonest insurance companies.
But as you point out, this problem involves policy choices
of who has access to what medical care, and whether and
how to spread the cost of the services and of medical
malpractice. The greedy insurance companies are
presently left to make those decisions for us, which are
made soley on economic terms. For this "service" they take a
bloated and escallating percentage of the gross... after all.....
we are not communists.

As a result of greed, insurance companies (and HMO's) have
manipulated the market to create scarce resource where once
there was productivity and abundance, and have systematically
undermined recourse to the courts for redress of grievances.
Thus, access to medication and medical care is distributed
disproportionately to wealth or position, and the costs of
malpractice are spread disproportionatly to those who can
least resist the insurance comapny's avarice.

Did you know that California recently passed legislation,
effective Jan 1, 2003, requiring arbitration companies
handing HMO and health insurance arbitration disputes
to post certain information on the internet (California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.96).

The American Arbitration Association scurried away
from the light shined on them by 1281.96 :

"As a result of a review of its caseload in the health care area,
the American Arbitration Association has announced that it
will no longer accept the administration of cases involving
individual patients without a post-dispute agreement to arbitrate.
In order to provide sufficient notice to provide for an orderly
transition, this change will become effective on January 1, 2003.

AAA, the world’s largest provider of alternative dispute resolution
services, has also determined that there will be no change in the
administration of cases in the health care area where businesses,
providers, health care companies, or other entities are involved on
both sides of the dispute.

Distinguishing a patient undergoing health care treatment from
other situations involving an individual, AAA has determined that
they will continue to administer pre-dispute agreements to
arbitrate in all areas outside of the health care field, as long as
there are appropriate due process safeguards as defined by
the courts."

http://www.adr.org/jump.jsp?jump=Healthcare&JSPsrc=\LIVESITE\
focusArea\Healthcare\focus-healthcare.html

Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message news:<tp8tgvs1skd1er0jjjbp5mpoabggfu81ro@4ax.com>... On 11 Jul 2003 01:42:42 -0700, foggytown@aol.com (Mike Girouard) wrote: Now, i *know* that these bulletin boards are the internet equivalent of either the "Wild, Wild West," or a Chicago bar fight, but geeeezz, Foggy, dont you have enough common sense to realize that if you are suffering from road rage on the information super highway that its time to pull over and let someone ELSE drive??? Take some free advice: 1) find a rest area 2) drink some decaffinated tea. I pulled all these quotes out to, hopefully, demonstrate to you that you have almost ZERO argument. If you had one, and stuck to it, that might have been one thing to throw in some cute zingers but sadly you fall short. All it did was leave you looking *silly* beating your chest like you are "Tarzan, Lord Of The Internet". In this day and age, man, it dont impress the babes. . ChaseWhat you need to do, Chase, is some Beaver reading. Search him inthis NG and have a look at the way he patronizes, berates, insults,belittles, dismisses, etc. those who disagree with his petrifiedpreconceptions. I have this (very thin) hope that if enough of it isthrown back at him he just may get the hint and become a little lessabusive. I've never been one to throw the first stone. If you havethe time also read a few posts from his two lickspittles, Larry andMerlin. Good fun!And BTW I write all my own material! :) What you are experiencing, Foggy, is the humiliation of picking a fight and having your *** kicked. If you are going to insult lawyers on a legal newsgroup, you had better have more than your bare bigotry at hand. If you are going to wax philosophical about all of those "frivolous lawsuits," you had better know what your facts are. You should start with your definition of "frivolous lawsuit" so we can all see clearly what you really are complaining about. Then we can talk about how many of them exist and whether they are being adequately addressed. - Jon Beaver

Point proven.

> >What you need to do, Chase, is some Beaver reading. Search him inthis NG and have a look at the way he patronizes, berates, insults,belittles, dismisses, etc. those who disagree with his petrifiedpreconceptions. I have this (very thin) hope that if enough of it isthrown back at him he just may get the hint and become a little lessabusive. I've never been one to throw the first stone. If you havethe time also read a few posts from his two lickspittles, Larry andMerlin. Good fun!And BTW I write all my own material! :) What you are experiencing, Foggy, is the humiliation of picking a fight and having your *** kicked.

I see you still haven't passed that "Reality Perception 101" course.

If you are going to insult lawyers on a legal newsgroup, you had better have more than your bare bigotry at hand. If you are going to wax philosophical about all of those "frivolous lawsuits," you had better know what your facts are. You should start with your definition of "frivolous lawsuit" so we can all see clearly what you really are complaining about. Then we can talk about how many of them exist and whether they are being adequately addressed. - Jon Beaver

If after your "33 years experience" (which I now suspect to be more
like 2 years experience repeated 15 times) you can't define a
frivolous lawsuit then no wonder you have problems. And why bother
defining something you don't believe exists to begin with anyway?

FoggyTown

> >What you need to do, Chase, is some Beaver reading. Search him inthis NG and have a look at the way he patronizes, berates, insults,belittles, dismisses, etc. those who disagree with his petrifiedpreconceptions. I have this (very thin) hope that if enough of it isthrown back at him he just may get the hint and become a little lessabusive. I've never been one to throw the first stone. If you havethe time also read a few posts from his two lickspittles, Larry andMerlin. Good fun!And BTW I write all my own material! :) What you are experiencing, Foggy, is the humiliation of picking a fight and having your *** kicked.

I see you still haven't passed that "Reality Perception 101" course.

If you are going to insult lawyers on a legal newsgroup, you had better have more than your bare bigotry at hand. If you are going to wax philosophical about all of those "frivolous lawsuits," you had better know what your facts are. You should start with your definition of "frivolous lawsuit" so we can all see clearly what you really are complaining about. Then we can talk about how many of them exist and whether they are being adequately addressed. - Jon Beaver

If after your "33 years experience" (which I now suspect to be more
like 2 years experience repeated 15 times) you can't define a
frivolous lawsuit then no wonder you have problems. And why bother
defining something you don't believe exists to begin with anyway?

FoggyTown

mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote in message news:<3f0eea4c.2173884@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>... Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On 11 Jul 2003 01:42:42 -0700, foggytown@aol.com (Mike Girouard)wrote:> Now, i *know* that these bulletin boards are the internet equivalent of either> the "Wild, Wild West," or a Chicago bar fight, but geeeezz, Foggy, dont you> have enough common sense to realize that if you are suffering from road rage on> the information super highway that its time to pull over and let someone ELSE> drive???>> Take some free advice: 1) find a rest area 2) drink some decaffinated tea.> I pulled all these quotes out to, hopefully, demonstrate to you that you have> almost ZERO argument. If you had one, and stuck to it, that might have been one> thing to throw in some cute zingers but sadly you fall short. All it did was> leave you looking *silly* beating your chest like you are "Tarzan, Lord Of The> Internet". In this day and age, man, it dont impress the babes.>> . ChaseWhat you need to do, Chase, is some Beaver reading. Search him inthis NG and have a look at the way he patronizes, berates, insults,belittles, dismisses, etc. those who disagree with his petrifiedpreconceptions. I have this (very thin) hope that if enough of it isthrown back at him he just may get the hint and become a little lessabusive. I've never been one to throw the first stone. If you havethe time also read a few posts from his two lickspittles, Larry andMerlin. Good fun!And BTW I write all my own material! :)What you are experiencing, Foggy, is the humiliation of picking afight and having your *** kicked. If you are going to insult lawyerson a legal newsgroup, you had better have more than your bare bigotryat hand. If you are going to wax philosophical about all of those"frivolous lawsuits," you had better know what your facts are.You should start with your definition of "frivolous lawsuit" so we canall see clearly what you really are complaining about. Then we cantalk about how many of them exist and whether they are beingadequately addressed.- Jon Beaver My attention was drawn to froggy when he started a pattern of rather disparaging comments about lawyers, derogatory comments about particular posters, all unprovoked, all while everyone else was being civil and discussing the topic at hand. Foggywits "Picked a fight". Which was rather stupid, I thought, considering he just had to know what an impotent little bigot he was. At some point during his self-humiliation I noticed that his "helmet" was really a bandana and his "sword" was really a jantitor's mop, and I backed off ... I just decided I wasn't going to be the one to to spoil foggywits' "impossible dream" Did you know he writes his own material? -Merlin

Ah! One lickspittle returns. The would-be lawyer squeaks again!

FoggyTown

> Most people's definition of "frivolous lawsuit" depends entirely on their point of view. But I'll give you my definition: A claim or defense which is asserted solely for the purpose of injuring another, or profiting from the threatened injury to another, by the controversy itself. My definition requires both an absence of merit and an injurious motive. Neither an assertion of a meritorious claim with bad motive, nor assertion of an unmeritorious claim in good faith, is a "frivolous lawsuit."

That's not bad. In my context the "injurious motive" would be getting
money which is underserved. Most asserted "frivolous lawsuits" simply don't fit this definition, and those that do are subject to civil liability for abuse of process (no merit in law) or malicious prosecution (no merit in fact.)

"Most"? How many lawsuits have you seen in your career? How many are
you involved in at the moment? Somehow I don't think that even your
swollen feelings of self-importance would purport to have seen "most"
of the specious suits filed in the USA.

FoggyTown

foggytown@aol.com (Mike Girouard) wrote:Jon Beaver wrote Most people's definition of "frivolous lawsuit" depends entirely on their point of view. But I'll give you my definition: A claim or defense which is asserted solely for the purpose of injuring another, or profiting from the threatened injury to another, by the controversy itself. My definition requires both an absence of merit and an injurious motive. Neither an assertion of a meritorious claim with bad motive, nor assertion of an unmeritorious claim in good faith, is a "frivolous lawsuit."That's not bad. In my context the "injurious motive" would be gettingmoney which is underserved.

You're projecting again. Your context would be a frivolous
defense demonstrating insurance company bad faith....
as if anyone needed any more evidence of 'insurance bad faith'
than you, you billious puddle of pontificating bilgewash.
Most asserted "frivolous lawsuits" simply don't fit this definition, and those that do are subject to civil liability for abuse of process (no merit in law) or malicious prosecution (no merit in fact.)"Most"? How many lawsuits have you seen in your career? How many areyou involved in at the moment? Somehow I don't think that even yourswollen feelings of self-importance would purport to have seen "most"of the specious suits filed in the USA.FoggyTown

You've already proved you don't know spit about the subject. Even
after being given a suitable definition, its obvious you have no
clue what it all means.

foggytown@aol.com (Mike Girouard) wrote:mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: My attention was drawn to froggy when he started a pattern of rather disparaging comments about lawyers, derogatory comments about particular posters, all unprovoked, all while everyone else was being civil and discussing the topic at hand. Foggywits "Picked a fight". Which was rather stupid, I thought, considering he just had to know what an impotent little bigot he was. At some point during his self-humiliation I noticed that his "helmet" was really a bandana and his "sword" was really a jantitor's mop, and I backed off ... I just decided I wasn't going to be the one to to spoil foggywits' "impossible dream" Did you know he writes his own material? -MerlinAh! One lickspittle returns. The would-be lawyer squeaks again!FoggyTown


"Would-be lawyer"? What makes you think I'm a "would-be lawyer"
you foggy-witted, mop-wielding fop.

Incidentally... lets be serious for one sec here...
do you really write your own material?

-Merlin

mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote in message news:<3a5171e9.11620279@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
In addition, regarding limitations on a right to sue, It should also come as no suprise to the lawyers in this group, (although some of the posters may not know) that the United States Constitution provides a First Amendment right that : "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances" This right dates back to rights purportedly granted in the Magna Carta.

What does this have to do with lawsuits? It looks to me as if it
covers "petitioning the government" (legislature or executive). I
suppose it COULD be read as allowing lawsuits, but that doesn't
explain laws that DO ban lawsuits in some categories.

In article <eh76hvgolkqdk85ulg30js6d1au8p90o80@4ax.com>, Robert Risch
<rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:The wrong way to settle disputes is to allow the plaintiff to makedemands of the defendant with the threat of invasive pre-trialdiscovery

How else can each side gather evidence they need to prove their case at trial?

and/or an American lawyer show trial, complete with a juryof incompetents, picked to be favorable to the plaintiff.

Why would a jury necessarily favor a plaintiff? Both sides have the same
number of peremptories, both sides have the same rules for foir-cause
challenges, and so on. Of course the plaintiff will try to pick a jury
favorable to them, and the defendant will attempt to select jurors
favorable to them. Duh.

In article <cb8d4013.0307140046.3bcfbe5c@posting.google.com>,
foggytown@aol.com (Mike Girouard) wrote:
What you need to do, Chase, is some Beaver reading. Search him inthis NG and have a look at the way he patronizes, berates, insults,belittles, dismisses, etc. those who disagree with his petrifiedpreconceptions. I have this (very thin) hope that if enough of it isthrown back at him he just may get the hint and become a little lessabusive. I've never been one to throw the first stone. If you havethe time also read a few posts from his two lickspittles, Larry andMerlin. Good fun!And BTW I write all my own material! :) What you are experiencing, Foggy, is the humiliation of picking a fight and having your *** kicked.I see you still haven't passed that "Reality Perception 101" course.If you are going to insult lawyers on a legal newsgroup, you had better have more than your bare bigotry at hand. If you are going to wax philosophical about all of those "frivolous lawsuits," you had better know what your facts are. You should start with your definition of "frivolous lawsuit" so we can all see clearly what you really are complaining about. Then we can talk about how many of them exist and whether they are being adequately addressed. - Jon BeaverIf after your "33 years experience" (which I now suspect to be morelike 2 years experience repeated 15 times) you can't define afrivolous lawsuit then no wonder you have problems. And why botherdefinignsomething you don't believe exists to begin with anyway?
*YOU* are saying "frivolous lawsuits" exist. You're being asked to define
what you mean by "frivolous lawsuits." We don't know whether or not they
exist because we don't know what a "frivolous lawsuit" in the context of
your statements is. If you define it for us, we can tell you whether we
agree that there are such creatures as "frivolous lawsuits," which would
be the necessary first step towards discussing whether they are a problem
and, if so, how to deal with them.

It would be like it I asked you whether or not you believed that
quigglyfarbs were the worst invention ever. Wouldn't you want to know
what a quigglyfarb was before you could agree, disagree, or debate that
statement?

On 14 Jul 2003 17:27:44 -0700, ronnirubin@sprintmail.com (Arthur L.
Rubin) wrote:
mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote in message news:<3a5171e9.11620279@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>... In addition, regarding limitations on a right to sue, It should also come as no suprise to the lawyers in this group, (although some of the posters may not know) that the United States Constitution provides a First Amendment right that : "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances" This right dates back to rights purportedly granted in the Magna Carta.What does this have to do with lawsuits? It looks to me as if itcovers "petitioning the government" (legislature or executive). Isuppose it COULD be read as allowing lawsuits, but that doesn'texplain laws that DO ban lawsuits in some categories.

Why would it need to explain that?


- Jon Beaver

ronnirubin@sprintmail.com (Arthur L. Rubin) wrote:
mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote in message news:<3a5171e9.11620279@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>... In addition, regarding limitations on a right to sue, It should also come as no suprise to the lawyers in this group, (although some of the posters may not know) that the United States Constitution provides a First Amendment right that : "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances" This right dates back to rights purportedly granted in the Magna Carta.What does this have to do with lawsuits? It looks to me as if itcovers "petitioning the government" (legislature or executive). Isuppose it COULD be read as allowing lawsuits, but that doesn'texplain laws that DO ban lawsuits in some categories.

OK, so at least SOMEONE around here is paying some
attention. It doesn't have anything to do with lawsuits, Art.
It has to do with a rhetorical segway for a comment that
whatever a person's right to sue, the right to present a
frivolous suit (as defined by Jon] was not necessarily
encompassed within it.

Besides, I also used it as a device to annoy foggytown...
ok me bad, so what is other point?

[One Ca case indicated the right of petition
encompassed a right to sue and defend. This may be
of significance where access to the courts is curtailed,
such as for a vexatious litigant, or in circumstances
raising an equal protection issue based on a
non-protected class. Just an idea. ]

-Merlin

mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote in message news:<3f11e780.34382990@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>... foggytown@aol.com (Mike Girouard) wrote:mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: My attention was drawn to froggy when he started a pattern of rather disparaging comments about lawyers, derogatory comments about particular posters, all unprovoked, all while everyone else was being civil and discussing the topic at hand. Foggywits "Picked a fight". Which was rather stupid, I thought, considering he just had to know what an impotent little bigot he was. At some point during his self-humiliation I noticed that his "helmet" was really a bandana and his "sword" was really a jantitor's mop, and I backed off ... I just decided I wasn't going to be the one to to spoil foggywits' "impossible dream" Did you know he writes his own material? -MerlinAh! One lickspittle returns. The would-be lawyer squeaks again!FoggyTown "Would-be lawyer"? What makes you think I'm a "would-be lawyer" you foggy-witted, mop-wielding fop. Incidentally... lets be serious for one sec here... do you really write your own material? -Merlin

Well, if you don't want to be a lawyer, what do you want to be? (Own material)

FoggyTown

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:10:49 -0400, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:
In article <eh76hvgolkqdk85ulg30js6d1au8p90o80@4ax.com>, Robert Risch<rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:The wrong way to settle disputes is to allow the plaintiff to makedemands of the defendant with the threat of invasive pre-trialdiscoveryHow else can each side gather evidence they need to prove their case at trial?
What an idiotic question. The presumption is that all just causes
require fishing expeditions. If you claim that a document is needed,
ask the judge during the trial and see if he agrees that it is
relevant you will get it. That is what happens in most other
countries and is the reason so many cases that are more appropriate
for a foreign court, are filed in the US.
and/or an American lawyer show trial, complete with a juryof incompetents, picked to be favorable to the plaintiff.Why would a jury necessarily favor a plaintiff? Both sides have the samenumber of peremptories, both sides have the same rules for foir-causechallenges, and so on. Of course the plaintiff will try to pick a juryfavorable to them, and the defendant will attempt to select jurorsfavorable to them. Duh.

You seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that cases are filed in
certain areas where it is known that the judges and juries are pro
plaintiff. Ever hear of Alabama, Mississippi and the Bronx?

RHR

In article <vu68hvks4sl321bclutt9krd157jujet48@4ax.com>, Robert Risch
<rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:10:49 -0400, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:In article <eh76hvgolkqdk85ulg30js6d1au8p90o80@4ax.com>, Robert Risch<rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:The wrong way to settle disputes is to allow the plaintiff to makedemands of the defendant with the threat of invasive pre-trialdiscoveryHow else can each side gather evidence they need to prove their case at
trial?What an idiotic question. The presumption is that all just causesrequire fishing expeditions.

No, it isn't. Discovery is limited to things that are relevant or likely
to lead to relevant evidence. To have more restrictive discovery means
more suprises at trial, which makes for longer trials as parties need
adjournments mid-trial to consider the evidence and how to rebut or
question it.
If you claim that a document is needed,ask the judge during the trial and see if he agrees that it isrelevant you will get it.

But how do you know what documents exist?
Why would a jury necessarily favor a plaintiff? Both sides have the samenumber of peremptories, both sides have the same rules for foir-causechallenges, and so on. Of course the plaintiff will try to pick a juryfavorable to them, and the defendant will attempt to select jurorsfavorable to them. Duh.You seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that cases are filed incertain areas where it is known that the judges and juries are proplaintiff. Ever hear of Alabama, Mississippi and the Bronx?

Yes I've heard of them. And regardless of where the plaintiff wants to
sue, the defendant still must be subject to the jurisdiction of that
court.

In article <vu68hvks4sl321bclutt9krd157jujet48@4ax.com>,
Robert Risch <rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:10:49 -0400, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:Robert Risch <rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:
The wrong way to settle disputes is to allow the plaintiff to makedemands of the defendant with the threat of invasive pre-trialdiscovery
How else can each side gather evidence they need to prove their case attrial?
What an idiotic question. The presumption is that all just causesrequire fishing expeditions.

The phrase you're looking for is "investigations." All just causes require
investigations.
If you claim that a document is needed,ask the judge during the trial and see if he agrees that it isrelevant you will get it.

That's stupid even by your standards. You want to go to trial _before_
discovery? And then ask _during_ the trial? What if the document doesn't
prove anything?

I suspect the doctor screwed up. I want to see the hospital records to
determine whether he did. I have to file suit, draft and argue motions
without knowing the facts, prepare for trial without knowing the facts, get
everyone together in the courtroom, start the trial, then ask the judge to
look at the documents, find out that they don't prove the case, and send
everyone home?
That is what happens in most othercountries and is the reason so many cases that are more appropriatefor a foreign court, are filed in the US.

I doubt you have any idea what goes on in "most other countries."

---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

In article <qqgahv0s0irqdobt4qjseef4rnvrmggacl@4ax.com>, Robert Risch
<rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:I know how important it is to you to uncover inter department memoswhich can be used to ridicule the defendant. Unfortunately, Americantrials are full of these ad hominems which don't show that what thedefendant did caused the alleged harm to the plaintiff. But they aregreat to feed to a jury of dummies.

If they don't show that the defendant did what he's accused of doing, the
document isn't relevant. But the plaintiff can't know that without seeing
it, now can he?

Besides, I've noticed your posts focus almost exclusively on torts
lawsuits. I hope you realize that contract cases, and especially criminal
cases, are completely different beasts.
I suspect the doctor screwed up. I want to see the hospital records todetermine whether he did. I have to file suit, draft and argue motionswithout knowing the facts, prepare for trial without knowing the facts, geteveryone together in the courtroom, start the trial, then ask the judge tolook at the documents, find out that they don't prove the case, and sendeveryone home?Why should your suspicion be worth jack ****?

A suspicion isn't worth anything, which is excatly why there IS
discovery. To see if those suspicions can be substantiated, BEFORE
trial. Pretrial motion practice might be expensive, but it's a fraction
of a trial's costs.
The alternative is abody of civil servants whose job it is to oversee medical practice.I detest that such matters are left to the abilities of lawyers toconvince laymen.

A lawyer is a layman in the field of medical practice. A lawyer is only
an expert in the area of trial practice - in other words, how to have
medical witnesses convey their expertise to the layperson jurors. IOW,
Risch, what you fail to comprehend is that a lawyer doesn't testify at a
trial.
That is what happens in most othercountries and is the reason so many cases that are more appropriatefor a foreign court, are filed in the US.I doubt you have any idea what goes on in "most other countries."You know nothing but the American trial model. In other countries,the tribunal does the investigation of the claims brought by theparties. Things are not left up to how well a lawyer can bring inirrelevancies to convince a jury of ignoramuses. I posted this linkbefore but since it didn't stick, here goes again. Read the lastparagraph. NO (pre-trial) DISCOVERY!!!!!

Well, this is changing the definition of discovery. Certainly, the
investigative tribunal gets to gather evidence before the trial. *that's
discovery.* It's just the court gathering information, instead of one of
the parties.

Mike Girouard wrote:
Now, i *know* that these bulletin boards are the internet equivalent of either the "Wild, Wild West," or a Chicago bar fight, but geeeezz, Foggy, dont you have enough common sense to realize that if you are suffering from road rage on the information super highway that its time to pull over and let someone ELSE drive??? Take some free advice: 1) find a rest area 2) drink some decaffinated tea. I pulled all these quotes out to, hopefully, demonstrate to you that you have almost ZERO argument. If you had one, and stuck to it, that might have been one thing to throw in some cute zingers but sadly you fall short. All it did was leave you looking *silly* beating your chest like you are "Tarzan, Lord Of The Internet". In this day and age, man, it dont impress the babes. . Chase What you need to do, Chase, is some Beaver reading. Search him in this NG and have a look at the way he patronizes, berates, insults, belittles, dismisses, etc. those who disagree with his petrified preconceptions. I have this (very thin) hope that if enough of it is thrown back at him he just may get the hint and become a little less abusive.

My attitude exactly. JonBoy can't have much of a life if he does that
much posting, while actually practicing law in his spare time. He's gone
over the edge, as has his baby brother.
I've never been one to throw the first stone. If you have the time also read a few posts from his two lickspittles, Larry and Merlin. Good fun!

We now know that "Merlin" is none other than Jon's baby brother Bobby,
and it is therefore not surprising that he would be backing Jon the Ba'athist
in such a malicious and impassioned way.

Cub Pwosseccuta Larry is too wet behind the ears to be taken seriously.

At the end of the day, they all speak with one voice -- Jon's -- and they
shout anyone down who disagrees with them. Deciding the law by bluster
and continual invective ('Merlin' plays "bad cop") is their modus operandi.
And BTW I write all my own material! :) FoggyTown

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
Cub Pwosseccuta Larry is too wet behind the ears to be taken seriously.
At the end of the day, they all speak with one voice -- Jon's -- and theyshout anyone down who disagrees with them. Deciding the law by blusterand continual invective ('Merlin' plays "bad cop") is their modus operandi.

Dragging up old posts and responding to them in order to embroil
others in your vindictive campaign is useless, Ken.
Here in misc.legal you've given us ample evidence of what a
repulsive piece of trash you, and have given us all a pretty good
idea why its certain you'll never get a law license. No doubt the
the lawyers in the group are cheering this new evidence that
God exists.

But I also think we've concluded discussing your case. Your
malicious campaigns have cost you everything and have
destroyed your future. So its over and we can put a fork
in you, because "YOU'RE DONE".

Now if all you have left is a slander campaign against posters
here in misc legal, I suggest you give it a second thought before
you take matters any further. [Alas, that's been the source
of your troubles all along... no control mechanism, huh?.]
But, as it always has been, its up to you.

-Merlin

Ken Smith wrote:
We now know that "Merlin" is none other than Jon's baby brother Bobby, and it is therefore not surprising that he would be backing Jon the Ba'athist in such a malicious and impassioned way.
Cub Pwosseccuta Larry is too wet behind the ears to be taken seriously.
At the end of the day, they all speak with one voice -- Jon's -- and they shout anyone down who disagrees with them. Deciding the law by bluster and continual invective ('Merlin' plays "bad cop") is their modus operandi.

And Ken Smith obviously suffers from paranoia.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net