3766 Failure of Justice

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

The past is not dead.  In fact, it's not even past.

--William Faulkner--

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Paula Deen thing is still pissing me off.  People are acting like the lawsuit was completely bogus, everything was just fine, all is forgiven, welcome back.

It wasn't, and it isn't, and you aren't!

The suit had nothing whatsoever to do with Ms. Deen's use of the n-word twenty years ago.   That's just what the news media happened to pick up on.  They completely ignored the actual meat of the complaint.  I suspect it was because that's all Ms. Deen admitted to, and the reporters were perhaps afraid of being sued for defamation if they used material from the complaint before it was "proven".

The suit was about sexual and racial discrimination in the workplace.  (I read the complete filing.)  The court ruled that the complainant did not have standing in the racial discrimination part of the suit, so that part was dropped.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen!  What it means is that because the woman was white, and the suit involved discrimination against black employees of the restaurant, she could not sue for that because she suffered no loss because of it, and that's all it means.  You have to have "standing" to sue.  Her sexual discrimination portion was allowed to progress. The black employees would have to sue for the racial discrimination, but they would have to prove injury beyond insult, and that might be difficult (read "expensive") so that's not likely to happen.

Now the entire suit has been "dropped".  That doesn't mean it had no merit! What it means is that the parties reached an agreement and settled outside of court. 

From an article on the case,

Chapman University law professor Lawrence Rosenthal said that the attorneys in the case employed a common, and nonetheless shrewd, legal tactic when they agreed Friday to drop the case "without any award of costs or fees to any party," according to a court document.

Note the use of the word "award".  That doesn't mean no monies were paid.  It simply means that the court did not award money to anyone.  Naturally, because it was settled outside of court and the suit was dropped.  This also means that it is not a matter of public record, and we will never know how much it cost Ms. Deen to make it all go away.

No, Ms. Deen.  In my mind at least, the lawsuit was NOT completely bogus, everything was NOT just fine, and all is NOT forgiven!  In my mind at least, the very wording chosen by your attorneys shows that.
.

3508 Zimmerman Charged!

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

It is better to be wanted by the police than not wanted at all.

-----------------------------------------------

Just watched the announcement on TV. Second degree murder! Wow! I was expecting an accidental manslaughter determination. The prosecutor didn't mention secondary charges, which means if a jury won't go for 2nd degree, he'll get off. Hmmmm.

(Again, the completely random green quote at the top looks non-random.)
.

3433 Lawsuits

Friday, December 30, 2011

Thinking is a skill, not an innate ability.
-- Northrop Frye --

----------------------------------------------------------------

Most Ridiculous Lawsuit of 2011 Announced!

[From http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2011/12/most-ridiculous-lawsuit-of-2011-announced/]

"The U.S. has been the undisputed lawsuit capital of the world for some time. And while the courts play a central role in resolving disputes and maintaining a civil society, that function isn’t easy when they are packed with frivolous suits.

Ridiculous lawsuits clog up our legal system’s dwindling resources, taking time away from legitimate grievances to devote to the vindictive, the hypocritical, the irresponsible, and the outright absurd.

With that in mind, FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org has compiled some of the most egregious examples of frivolous and abusive litigation from around the country and asked you to tell us which ones were the most ridiculous. These suits range from the comical and absurd to the disturbing, but they all underscore a real problem – lawsuits hurt businesses, families, and everyday Americans through lost time, money and job growth.

So which lawsuits are the doozies this past year? First, here’s the lawsuit that you thought was the most ridiculous:

• Convict sues couple he kidnapped for not helping him evade police. A man who kidnapped a couple at knifepoint while he was running from the police is now suing the victims, claiming that they promised to hide him in exchange for an unspecified amount of money. The plaintiff, currently in jail, is seeking $235,000 for the alleged “breach of contract.”

And here’s the rest of the top ten as determined by you who voted at FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org:

• Man suing for age discrimination says judge in his case is too old. A 60-year-old musician who is suing for age discrimination wants the judge removed from the case – because he’s too old. Ironically, the plaintiff says his fight against age-based discrimination is too important to leave in the hands of the 88-year-old judge.
• Young adults sue mother for sending cards without gifts and playing favorites. The plaintiffs, now 20 and 23, claimed the mother “sometimes didn’t include gifts in cards sent to her children; played favorites with her children . . . did not send care packages until his sixth semester away at college . . . changed her surname, thus ‘causing attention’ at her daughter’s school events; and refused to buy her a homecoming dress.”
• Obese man sues burger joint over tight squeeze in booths. A nearly-300 pound man is suing White Castle restaurants, saying that their booths are too tight to accommodate someone of his size. In fact, he’s so distraught by the booths that he hasn’t been to White Castle in months (instead, he sends his wife to pick up his burgers so he can eat them at home).
• Woman sues over movie trailer; says not enough driving in ‘Drive’. A Michigan woman who claims she was misled by the trailers for the movie ‘Drive’ is suing the distributors of the film. She says she was disappointed by the lack of driving in the film and was expecting something more similar to the ‘Fast and Furious’ films.
• Mom files suit against exclusive preschool over child’s college prospects. A New Yorker is suing a private preschool, saying the school’s curriculum has seriously hurt her 4-year-old’s chances of getting into an Ivy League college.
• Man sues bar for not disarming him before he started drinking (and fighting). A Pennsylvania man illegally brought a gun into a bar, then got injured in a drunken shootout with another patron, and now has sued the bar for not searching him for a weapon on his way in.
• Passenger’s lawsuit says cruise ship was too fast. An Indiana woman is suing Carnival Cruise Line, claiming she got sick because the boat was going too fast and was swaying from side to side.
• Woman disagrees with store over 80¢ refund, sues for $5m. A New York woman decided to make a $5 million federal case out of a disagreement over 80¢. Her suit says she used a $5-off coupon when she purchased a bevy of items for over $100. When she returned one of the items, the store pro-rated the refund to account for the discount.
• Mother sues Chuck E. Cheese – says games encourage gambling in children. A California woman has filed a lawsuit against Chuck E. Cheese on the grounds that their games are actually an illegal form of gambling and could get kids hooked. She is seeking at least $5 million; the restaurant says the games are legal and has asked a judge to dismiss the suit.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to vote. And while we can’t predict everything 2012 has in store, it’s a good bet there’ll be more ridiculous lawsuits. So remember to visit FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org monthly to vote for your favorite ridiculous lawsuits."

----------------------------

On the other hand, some of the US Supreme Court's decisions this past year in favor of corporations will make it almost impossible to sue them when they screw you. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbobelian/2011/12/28/the-top-three-cases-that-impacted-corporate-america-in-2011/.

In perhaps my oversimplification, the AT&T decision says that if a corporation puts that hateful but standard arbitration clause in your contract, you can't join a class action suit against them. That doesn't mean you can't sue them, you don't give up that right, but it does mean you have to sue them individually. Now consider going up against a gazillion-dollar corporation's legal department all by yourself. (Worse, and not mentioned in this article, there's a movement afoot to rule that the loser in a civil case pays BOTH parties' legal fees, in an effort to stop frivolous lawsuits- see above.)

The Wal-Mart ruling bothers me because in essence, it says that if a corporation allows individual managers to discriminate, then the individual managers can be sued by the individual complainants, but the corporation cannot be sued by a class of victims just because they don't have a corporate policy against such discrimination.

This is looking like corporations can pretty much do anything they damn well please, free from the threat of anyone suing them.

Now, I'm not a fan of class action suits. Too many law firms go out hunting for people to join a suit they, the lawyers, thought up, then they settle for a gazillion, and each of the citizen parties to the suit get a pittance. That's not right. But if a bunch of people have been harmed, class action suits have an important purpose. If nothing else, it's bad publicity and a threat of punishment.

Now, there's not even that. Welcome to USA, Inc.
.

3387 Damned if you do and....

Friday, November 4, 2011

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature,
the heart of a heartless world,
and the soul of soulless conditions."
--Karl Marx --

----------------------------------------------------------------

I will reserve my thoughts on Herman Cain's sexual harassment problems, where the claims came from, who dug it up and why, whether it means anything or not, blah blah blah.

But listening to some of the arguments, I've concluded that in general, victims can't win.

If they report it to HR, they might get some money from a settlement, but it comes with a requirement that they can't ever talk about it. Companies often settle these claims because it's cheaper than the legal fees of fighting it would be. Almost all individual victims end up settling, because they'd be an individual fighting a company/corporation in court, and who's going to pay their legal fees if they lose against a corporate army? Companies often settle without the permission of the accused harasser, and a settlement is therefore not an admission of guilt.

The end result is that the accused harasser can claim that it never happened, that the accuser is a liar, and the accuser/victim, we don't know which, really, cannot refute that under the terms of the settlement.

Either way, settlement or go to court, the alleged victim will be either branded forever a money-grubbing liar, or face a high probability of bankruptcy.

If they don't report it to HR, if the victim realizes there's no way to win and it's a sure way to lose a job, and good luck getting a good reference when you look for another, then when she (or he) finally does report it, everyone assumes that it's obviously not true, because if it were true, why wasn't it reported earlier? Therefore it didn't happen, and the accuser is a publicity-seeking liar.

All accusers who can't afford to fight an army of lawyers in court become a liars, regardless of the truth.

It reminds me of rape accusations, back in the 50's. In most states the victim had to produce TWO witnesses to the rape, or a bruised and battered body she could have acquired in no other way, otherwise she was lying. Most victims never reported the rape.
.

3302 If I lose at the casino, can I sue?

Friday, July 8, 2011

On "image": It may not get the job done, but it makes it possible to get the job done.
-- Paul Levine, Night Vision --

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meetup crazies have started. Just had a guy drop out of the dinner group. He said he didn't realize it was a singles group and suggests that I put "singles" in the description. His reason for coming to that conclusion? He noticed that all the other people who had joined were single.

Sigh.

--------------------------------

I don't care what you think of the Casey Anthony thing. The fact remains that the prosecution was unable to prove any kind of murder charges to the jury. Period. That means over, done, finis on those counts.

At least I thought that's what it was supposed to mean.

Florida, however, has decided to sue Anthony for the cost of the investigation and trial.

Huh?

Don't let your opinion of her guilt or innocence sway you while thinking about what that means. Instead, think about a truly honestly innocent person whom the police have decided to go after, and the prosecutor's office has decided to convict on circumstantial evidence.

Pretend it's you, and an entirely different case. Let's say you and your significant other had an argument and then he/she went missing. You thought he/she had left you, and being hurt and depressed, you said and did some stupid things, and then even started dating again. Then some weeks later he/she is found dead, shot by your gun, which you assume he/she must have taken with him/her and you had never noticed it was missing. The only prints on the gun are yours, and the death happened weeks before and you have no idea what you were doing at the time. We have cause, opportunity, prints, and no alibi. Also no guilt. You really didn't do it - but the state decides to prosecute. You spend two years in jail waiting for trial.

Your attorney manages to get you off on reasonable doubt (the "some other dude dooed it" defense), but the state is so pissed that they lost, so sure that they were right, so angry that they were "cheated", they sue you for the costs of the investigation and trial. Of course, having been in jail for the past two years, you have no money and no savings.

So, is this right and fair? THEY decided to investigate, they decided to prosecute, they bought the ticket and placed their bets, and they lost.

I think the only time it should be ok for the state to recoup investigation/prosecution costs is from someone who reports a crime that simply didn't happen. Like people who claim to have been kidnapped, or like the Tawana Brawley thing (that stands out for me because I was living there at the time). And even then, the state should be required to prove that the claims were bogus, not just be pissed.
.

2374 Screwed up legal system

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

It's no secret that I think the US legal system is a screwed up mess. It's no secret that prosecutors are more interested in winning than in finding the truth. And it's only coincidentally a personality flaw - it's the way the system is set up. They don't get rewarded for truth, only for wins.

The same with large law firms. Juniors don't make partner by getting to the truth. Only wins count.

It's no secret that innocent people plead guilty or no contest to criminal charges because they earn too much to qualify for a court-appointed attorney, but too little to hire their own. It's cheaper to just pay the fine, or take the 60 days in jail.

It's no secret that there are people who will sue everybody in sight for accidents that they themselves caused, because "it's free money", "it's the insurance company's money, so nobody is hurt". And there are unscrupulous lawyers who will take those cases on contingency because they know that the insurance companies will settle because it's cheaper than going to court, even though they know the plaintiff has no case. No case. But it's cheaper to pay the plaintiff and his lawyer off.

There are people who are serial suers.

There are lawyers who salivate over class action suits. I, personally, get four or more notices a year, every year, that unless I opt out, I am a member of a class action suit. Usually it's either a medical or stock owner thing. Most people just throw those notices away. The few I have followed up on, I discovered that whatever it was that happened, I was not actually affected. But there I am, on their list. In every case, the award is a few gazillion dollars, and each of the plaintiffs (most of whom were not injured in any way) gets a few dollars. The biggest check I have seen from a class action suit was $3.85. The lawyers get the gazillion minus the few thousand they paid the people who allowed themselves to be used to pad the "injured" list. It's no wonder they salivate.

The local TV stations' mid-morning schedule is full of "baby-momma" and judge shows. It's interesting that when the folks are asked "and where did you get the money to...", or "Do you have a job? No? Then what do you live on?", in more than half the instances, the reply is, "I had an award from a lawsuit." It's scary that there are people who think that's how to get free money.

The system encourages it.

I found an interesting website on the topic: http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/, from the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform · 1615 H St N.W. Washington D.C. 20062-2000. They have stories of outrageous lawsuits. There are videos, but you don't have to watch them - you get the same info faster from reading the stories.

Government has been blathering about tort reform for decades. It isn't going to happen if we leave it up to them. The lawyers have the majority vote there, remember?

Frivolous lawsuits must be stopped. Law firms that bring frivolous lawsuits should be penalized. Settlements should be scrutinized and not allowed in frivolous cases. But --- you and I could be sued at the (literal) drop of a hat, and then we'd be forced to hire a lawyer to prove the case frivolous.

Crap.

This is something we could learn from the French legal system. They do it right. Well, righter.

-----------------------
Post Script -
This entry has had a lot of visits, but next to no one clicks on the above link to my post on the French system.

So I decided to copy the pertinent part here:

In France, according to Jay and his father at least, the object of the courts is to find the truth. Cases are presided over by a panel of judges, who direct the research and investigation, and choose, summon, and question the witnesses. They want the whole truth, not someone's filtered and slanted version of it, and they keep probing until they are satisfied they've got it. Contrast this with American courts, where the object often seems to be to prevent the whole truth from coming out, to pit one attorney's skill at obfuscation and blocking against another's, winner take all.

This means that in the US, the outcome of family, civil, and criminal cases is often determined not by the truth and law, but by whose lawyer could dance faster. Which actually translates to who had the most money. Which explains a lot about the demographics of the prisons.

If I were innocent, I'd want a French court. If I were guilty, I'd want an American court and a rich uncle. That doesn't sound nice at all.

.