This New York Times blog informs us that Presidential campaign candidates are buying ad space on google--their ads will pop up on the side of the screen when you enter certain key words. This is a campaign strategy that one blogger recommended back in February, and apparently, some Presidential hopefuls have heard that call to action.

Now, if you google the phrase "tort reform" you'll see an ad reading: "John McCain for President." This makes sense as McCain has been pro tort "reform" in the past. But he's also voted against certain tort "reform" measures, earning the reputation of being more left on business issues than other Republicans. So perhaps his purchase of the ad signals his desire to reshape his reputation among conservatives surrounding the issue.

Tomorrow I begin a two week seminar on handling your own legal work pro se. That is bypassing the lawyers, screwing the prosecutors right back, defending yourself capably, getting what you want, and helping others, showing them how.

My next door neighbors want my building because I have the elevator in what used to be a single use double commercial storefront and upstairs. They were so awful from the first day that they cannot come to me and ask to use it knowing I will snarl and say no.

So my dog gets off her leash, runs across to the park to find some garbage tidbit some teen has tossed. Voila! A ticket to pay a fine of $57 for dog running loose or go to court, guilty verdict is foreordained, and pay the $57 plus $100 in court costs.  I got 2 of them, both very explainable incidents, so I go and find out no chance for justice for me or anyone else in the room that day. Dog running loose is to anyone without shit for brains is when you open the door-or not-and let your dog go out alone to piss, poop, and generally disturb anyone it wants to for however long it wants to do so before it gets bored and comes back home.

Me, I run after mine and grab her. So I think that's self explanatory. Not.

Continue on. It gets worse.

Cross-posted from Tort Deform

For those of you who have tuned in to our "Tort ‘Reform’ Hypocrites" series, you already have insight into the quickly shifting stances of at least some important public supporters of tort "reform."

Some of you may also have read my op-ed on the topic as well.

It’s a pretty large phenomenon: public supporters of tort "reform" who when injured waste no time turning to the courts to utilize the very legal avenues they publicly criticize and attempt to foreclose through their public advocacy and lobbying.

But there’s another kind of slippery proponent of tort "reform." It’s the kind that tells a story about a lawsuit, but intentionally omits portion of the story in order to satirize and marginalize the merits of the suit.

Cross-posted from Tort Deform

by Valkyrie Hanson

Adrianne was forced into arbitration by debt collectors for an alleged debt she owed on an MBNA credit card.  The dispute was handled by the National Arbitration Forum or (NAF).  The entire proceeding went on without her knowledge or a chance to clear it up.  It would be bad enough if the story ended there, but it gets worse.  Adrianne has never held an account with MBNA and she didn’t owe the money.  She was notified of the alleged debt and the secret arbitration proceeding 3 months after the award was granted to the debt collector.  She was told that she owed close to $15,000.00.  When she inquired about the mysterious account and the debt, the sum suddenly changed to $8,000.00.  Despite the fact that Adrianne never held an account with MBNA and did not owe the debt, NAF refuses to vacate the award.    

Cross-posted from Tort Deform

Juries, especially civil juries, instill some of the habits of the judicial mind into every citizen, and just those habits are the very best way of preparing people to be free.... They make all men feel that they have duties toward society and that they take a share in its government. By making men pay more attention to things other than their own affairs, they combat that individual selfishness which is like rust in society.... [The jury] should be regarded as a free school which is always open and in which each juror learns his rights, . . and is given practical lessons in the law. .. I think that the main reason for the ... political good sense of the Americans is their long experience with juries in civil cases."  - Alexis de Tocqueville

Tort "reformers" would have you believe that America is plagued by runaway juries that result in "jackpot" justice based on the jurors’ random and emotional whims about a particular case.

This framing of juries is inaccurate. Juries, although imperfect, do a reasonably good job of evaluating civil claims.

Arbitrating Away the American Dream (Vol 1): One Conservative Grandmother’s Battle With Mandatory Arbitration

Mandatory arbitration? What does that even mean? How can it affect me?

Right now, if you have a new home, new car, car lease, credit card, bank account, cell phone, storage room, utilities, or an exterminator you more than likely have one. Since you probably don’t know what it is, and since you probably have one, it might make sense to learn more about the devastating effect that this type of agreement can have on your life.

Jordan Fogal, an award winning author whose personal struggle with her builder and her mandatory arbitration contract was featured in a Mother Jones Magazine article, has tirelessly struggled to bring attention to the public about the dangers of mandatory arbitration agreements.

Cross-posted from Tort Deform: The Civil Justice Defense Blog

By Laurie Gindin Beacham, Communications Director & Joanne Doroshow, Executive Director, of the Center for Justice & Democracy

Sometimes an issue doesn't hit home until one's home is hit.  That appears to be the case for new Republican Senate Whip Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.). The Senator's Mississippi beachfront home was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina last year, and he's been fighting with State Farm, his home insurance company, ever since. State Farm has refused to pay for damage to Lott's house, so Lott has joined legions of other Katrina victims who are in the same boat.  He has sued his insurance company.

Cross-posted from Tort Deform: The Civil Justice Defense Blog

by Laura K. Abel & David Pedulla

If you are charged with a crime, facing prison, and unable to afford an attorney, the U.S. Constitution requires that the court appoint one for you.  Did you know, though, that in civil cases, where the consequences may be far more devastating than spending a brief time in prison, counsel generally is not guaranteed?  Every day, parents fight to keep their children, and families fight to keep their homes, without a lawyer by their side.  Fueled by the knowledge that this is unjust, and bya recent resolution from the American Bar Association, advocates around the country are working to change this sad state of affairs.

Cross-posted from Tort Deform The Civil Justice Defense Blog

For some time now, I’ve been meaning to post about why “loser pays” is a bad idea.  Loser pays is a legal concept in which the loser of a lawsuit is forced to pay the legal costs of the winner.  Advocates of “loser pays” claim that enacting it would dramatically cut down on the mythical frivolous lawsuits that supposedly clog our court system.  I don’t doubt that “loser pays” will cut down on frivolous lawsuits.  The problem is that “loser pays” will also dramatically decrease the number of serious and meritorious lawsuits, especially those filed by individuals against corporations.  Here’s the first reason I oppose “loser pays.”

Criminal Law

To be fair, we’d have to apply it to criminal law, too.

Cross-posted from Tort Deform: The Civil Justice Defense Blog

By Professor Henry Greenspan

I had anticipated that this installment about the struggle to rescind Michigan’s absolute drug industry immunity law would be not be a happy one.  Almost certainly, those who opposed rescinding would retain control of our State House.  And that meant that Speaker Craig DeRoche would continue to be able to block floor votes on any of the several bills to rescind immunity.  DeRoche’s  veto was the ballgame.  He knew that a majority in the House, both Republicans and Democrats, were in favor of rescinding.  He also knew that polls consistently showed that at least 70% of Michigan citizens favored rescinding.  So there was certainly high water on the other side of the levee, but there seemed no possibility of a serious storm.

My op-ed was published in the West Virginia Record: Sue as I say, not as I sue.

NEW YORK -- In recent years, the courts of West Virginia have been a favorite target of the self-labeled tort "reform" movement.

In West Virginia, and across the nation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and state chambers are attempting to push forward what they term tort "reforms." These legislative initiatives limit, constrict, and sometimes eliminate Americans' ability to go to court when they are injured by others' misconduct.

Of course, these chambers of commerce represent corporate business interests, and the fact that they are so aggressively pushing these initiatives forward must indicate to you that corporations see it as in their financial interest to make it as hard as possible to sue them, no matter what injuries their actions cause. (keep reading op-ed)

Cross-posted from Tort Deform:The Civil Justice Defense Blog
By Jordan Fogal

One word is never mentioned as a cause of the rising foreclosure rates: arbitration.

Every reason imaginable is listed for the rise in foreclosures, except one: arbitration.

Perhaps, the word is not mentioned because it is being used in platform speeches by most Republican candidates and touted as one of their many accomplishments?  For example, Governor Perry here in Texas is mighty proud.

Conservatives say they have given us tort reform. Sounds like a present or a gift, doesn't it? They didn't do this for us. They did this to us.

Even if the public (besides the ones of us who have learned the hard way) does wake up by next year, 1.3 million homeowners nationwide will have lost their homes.

Cross-posted from Tort Deform: The Civil Justice Defense Blog

As I briefly mentioned in a previous post,  the federal government was attempting to create guidelines for proving Ground Zero related deaths from autopsies that included a hard to meet burden of proof. At the time I wrote the previous post, the federal government’s agency had submitted their Draft Guidelines for public comment.

After receiving these comments (many of which likely made the point I made in my previous post) the federal government has now decided to completely drop the creation of these guidelines.

Dropping these guidelines is not the correct approach.

Cross-posted from Tort Deform: The Civil Justice Defense Blog

In the previous posts, I’ve discussed damage caps and used a hypothetical car accident case to illustrate some problems with capping damages at $250,000 or $500,000.  I took a simple survey of some classmates to determine what they believed to be a fair jury award, and they were all a minimum of seven figures.   I even posted my own jury award, which was also seven figures.

I believe that most reasonable people would agree that capping noneconomic damages at some paltry sum such as $250,000 or $500,000 is too low.  Neither figure can come close to compensating someone for the loss of their limbs, the loss of their fertility, or the loss of a loved one.   I admit that in many cases, no dollar amount would be adequate compensation.  Take my legs, for example.  I wouldn’t trade my legs for $100 billion dollars.  

This excerpt is a chapter from the bookMaking a Killing: HMOs and the Threat to Your Health which you should buy).

When you next hear an insurance company executive complaining about how the insurance industry is being "victimized" by lawsuits, ask them about the subject of this post. Keep reading to understand a large and alarming loophole in our civil justice system.

Cross-posted from Tort Deform: The Civil Justice Defense Blog

By Professor Charles Silver

In 2003, the Texas legislature adopted a comprehensive package of tort reforms designed to greatly reduce the frequency of medical malpractice lawsuits, the size of malpractice payments, and physicians' insurance premiums.  Supporters of the reforms contended that if patients' rights were slashed, access to health care would greatly increase.  

Soon after the amendments passed, tort reform groups began trumpeting their success, claiming that doctors are moving to Texas in droves.  The Texas Medical Association asserts that "[f]rom May 2003 through July 2005,... more than 3,000 new doctors established practice in Texas."  Dr. Howard Marcus, Chairman of the Texas Alliance For Patient Access--a coalition of doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, health care providers and medical liability insurers that might be more aptly named the "Texas Alliance for Access to Patients"--contends that "[t]he physician growth rate is staggering" and predicts "a record 4,000 new Texas physicians will be licensed" in 2006.

Cross-posted from Tort Deform: The Civil Justice Defense Blog.

By Rick Cohen

It's no coincidence that the Texas Rangers play their home games at a stadium named Ameriquest Field.  The Rangers were once owned by George W. Bush.  Ameriquest's founder, Roland Arnall (along with his wife Dawn), has long been one of Bush's "Super-Ranger" level campaign contribution bundlers, contributing through his own wealth (he's in the nation's top 100 wealthiest Americans) and through Ameriquest's political machines.  In return, Bush named Arnall the ambassador to the Netherlands, an action acclaimed by Republicans and Democrats, because Arnall ambidextrously lavished political contributions on Democrats as well, including California's Bill Lockyer, Phil Angelides, and Gray Davis, the latter even while he also contributed to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

By Laurie Beacham, Communications Director, Center for Justice and Democracy

Here at the Center for Justice & Democracy, it seems the efforts to strip injured citizens of their legal rights is unending, and comes in all shapes and sizes.  But sometimes even we're shocked. This time it is courtesy of Halliburton.

Halliburton's subsidiary KBR (Kellogg Brown & Root) is reportedly the largest US military contractor in Iraq. Halliburton has been accused of overcharging the government for food, transportation, fuel and even recreational services. But it gets worse.

Former Halliburton employees told a Senate subcommittee hearing on September 18 that the company knowingly places unarmed civilian truck drivers into violent war zones in Iraq. The hearing addressed claims made in a lawsuit by families of Halliburton employees killed or injured in a 2004 ambush of its fuel convoy on a road near Abu Ghraib prison on April 9, 2004. The tragic event has come to be known as the "Good Friday Massacre." Six KBR drivers were killed, one is presumed dead, and 26 employees were injured.