Post #55,647
10/8/02 11:01:09 PM
|
Since this deals with poential legislation I will post here.
ASFI
[link|http://www.cala.com/cala16new.htm|http://www.cala.com/cala16new.htm]
their agenda ideas
1) Empower juries to make defendants "whole" if they deem them to be victims of meritless lawsuits.
define meritless (only if dismissed with prejuidice in my view)
2) Allow defendants to insist on mediation before going to trial.
mediation by who? whores in the same industry?
3) Disallow, whenever possible, junk lawsuits, including:
* A) Lawsuits from people injured while they were intoxicated;
Im intoxicated and some sober person runs a red light and paralyses me. I get fucked.
* B) Lawsuits from people injured while they were committing a crime; and,
* C) Unreasonable lawsuits from prisoners claiming a "deprivation" of their rights.
Sorry, if prisoners dont have access to courts the abuses come back and before the usual suspects jump me on that check out Cool hand luke which is a mild version of actual abuses. Being deprived of libert is the punishment not torture .
4) Develop reasonable standards for awarding punitive damages.
according to whom
5) Enact pure, no-fault auto insurance without thresholds.
I see, some SUV raving maniac hacking off while talking on a cell to a 900 sex number swerves 3 lanes and kills my wife and kids and gets out sez he's sorry as he drops a load on the bodies, I have to apply to my insurance for relief and get my premiums raised because I had a claim? no fucking way.
crocashit
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane."
Lyndon LaRouche
|
Post #55,650
10/8/02 11:27:38 PM
|
Needs far more detail
For the most part the words sound OK, but without more detail I'm not entirly sure what they are promoting here.
1. What do they mean by "Whole"? I'm guessing they are talking some form of accuser pays defendents costs. I am for a very limited and specific form of that, but only if it works both ways.
What I would like to see is to let the judge force the losing side to pay part or all of the winning sides expenses when he finds that the suit should never have been brought or that the defendent is so overwhelmingly guilty that he shouldn't have defended himself. But there needs to be some cap to keep large corporations from bankrupting small parties.
2. Very bad idea. This should always be an option, but in to many cases the defendent is simply trying to make the case take as long as possible. This gives them another 6 months to a year of drag out time right off the bat.
3a. I could see a specfic form of protection that prohibts those that are intoxicated from sueing for self-inflicted damage. But that is it.
3b. Again, a very limited form of protection here might make sense. I shouldn't have to make sure my house is burglery safe, but if I leave a live wire running across my living room floor that is another matter.
3c. I would like to see this sort of thing streamlined, say a three judge panel that meets once a month to review all applications by prisoners. If all three say the case is without merit it gets tossed out of hand. Something simple and fast to stop the pure drivel filed by some criminals. But a total ban is absurd, for reasons that Box points out.
4. Here I would just like to see some guidlines, as juries are often all over the place. Awards that are both too high and too low are common. But there shouldn't be a fixed cap.
5. I support no-fault but only up to a point.
Jay
|
Post #55,710
10/9/02 8:23:30 AM
|
Why?
I shouldn't have to make sure my house is burglery safe, but if I leave a live wire running across my living room floor that is another matter. What if I'm in the middle of some electrical work and I'm just too tired to continue? My family and pets are safely at the in-laws' place, and I'm sleeping in the next room. I should have to re-assemble that fixture before going to sleep? ===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #55,763
10/9/02 12:18:40 PM
|
Re: Cop abuses...
My brother-in-law is a prison guard. He told me one time that work has gotten a lot harder since they haven't been able to take the prisoners on "elevator rides."
"Elevator rides?" I asked.
"Yeah, we'd take them in the elevator, pull the stop button, beat the crap out of them, then push it in again. Quieted them up nicely."
I hope I never end up in prison for any reason.
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #55,819
10/9/02 4:56:25 PM
|
Some of G. Gordon Liddy's more amusing rants
are about prison guards. Let's just say he paints with a broad brush and depicts boxes of rocks favorably compared to guards. At least a box of rocks won't take you on an elevator ride.
The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
|
Post #55,911
10/10/02 1:03:19 AM
|
good way to get a shank in you
Chances are he wasnt doing that to lifers without parole.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane."
Lyndon LaRouche
|
Post #55,774
10/9/02 12:43:06 PM
|
Interesting note re: #4
Macomb County, MI (where I served jury duty) has a law that says civil suits for monetary damages need to go to a mediation panel first. The panel decides what they think a reasonable award should be.
1) If both parties agree that the panel's figure is fair, then the case is settled and never goes to court.
2) If one or the other party doesn't agree, it goes to court.
If it goes to court and the defendant was the disagreeing party, and the jury awards within 10% under the mediation panel's figure, then the defendant pays the plaintiff's court/legal costs.
If the plaintiff was the disagreeing party, and the jury awards within 10% over the mediation panel's figure, then the plaintiff pays the defendant's court/legal costs.
In other words if you disagree with the panel's findings, you had better be damn sure of it and win in court.
98% of all civil suits are settled in Macomb County, MI...
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #55,777
10/9/02 1:49:33 PM
|
0o0o0....I like that law
someone did some nice thinking with that law.
|
Post #55,783
10/9/02 2:25:01 PM
|
obAOL: ME TOO!
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #55,912
10/10/02 1:05:03 AM
|
20% spread is very reasonable I like !
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane."
Lyndon LaRouche
|
