From: joem@meaddata.com (Joe Mehrle)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:45:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.011538.10476@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
|> 
|> " Hillary Clinton trusts lawyers more than parents.
|> I think she has it exactly backwards."
|> 
|> In article <1992Sep6.175234.19488@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
|> >
|> >In article <1992Sep1.212734.14105@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, 
|> >pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) said:
|> >
|> >> The cases Hillary Clinton was considering have to do with other
|> >> things, like "cosmetic surgery, abortion, ..." and other choices a
|> >> child might contemplate.  She wants to expand the scope of
|> >> litigation to cover choices a child might make in contravention with
|> >> the wishes of non-abusing parents.  The "abusive" parents aspect is
|> >> a deliberate red herring to deflect the issue.
|> >
|> >Please cite your reasons for believing this.
|> 
|> Because it is true, and is based on a direct quote of what she wrote.
|> 
|> The discussion of her positions have been written in The New York Times,
|> The Wall Street Journal, and The American Spectator (and elsewhere of course). 
|> No write-up that I've encountered disputed my above statements.
|> In fact, I somewhat understated the situation because I didn't
|> want to misquote. But it is clear that her earlier (1974) article
|> does go even farther than this. Her '79 article speaks of
|> "cosmetic surgery".

 Give me the exact artice because I would love to see the context in
which the statement was made.  Also, for several years now children
can sue parents in tort (i.e. intentional, and negligence)  I do not
see anything that is not already allowed.  Besides when are we as a
society going to begin to protect children they have so few rights as
it is, meanwhile child abuse constinues to escalate.

|> 
|> >Please bear in mind the
|> >difference between plastic (or other) surgery performed for purely
|> >cosmetic reasons and plastic (or other) surgery performed for the
|> >purpose of correcting or lessening the effects of a medical problem
|> >(e.g., a harelip).
|> Did H. Clinton mention harelips? And what do harelips have to do
|> with abusive parents, anyway?
|> So a child will go out and pay a lawyer (with whose money?) to sue
|> the parents so he/she can get the harelip surgery/braces/abortion
|> desired that the parents don't approve of.  Once the principle is
|> established, where do you draw the line? You get (you guessed it)

No, your wrong here and you obviously know  little about our legal
system, or my guess is that you have been on the losing side of a
lawsuit because of you hostility towards the law.  It is not
arbitrary.  Lines if drawn will be drawn at the extremes, i.e. where
no reasonable minds could differ and where reasonable minds can come
to only one conclusions.  Suing for braces is an extreme and no judge
would even let this get to the jury, i.e. it would be a summary
judgment for the parents if on the other hand you reach a more gray
area where it is tough to tell, the judge lets it go to the jury and,
guess what your peers decide (constitutional right in the 6th and 7th
amendments).

|> a judge to figure out the fine vague and fuzzy line between an "important"
|> and "fundamental" decision like harelips, and incosequential ones
|> like getting tattoos, playing music loudly, etc. More legal meddling.
|> Hard cases make bad law, and apparently harelips make for harebrained
|> legal principles.

No.  Sacrificing principles of law to obtain individual just results,
result in fuzzy rationale and bad law.  We hold our principles as the
paramount function of the law to maintain consistency.  Reason is
paramnount in maintaining the application of the Law.

|> 
|> >> Both Clintons are well-beloved by trial lawyers. Having lawyers
|> >> further stick their noses into the workings of families is yet
|> >> another solution-by-litigation that has done more harm than good in
|> >> the many areas we have tried.
|> >
|> >Please cite your reasons for believing this.
|> 
|> I believe it because is true. Hillary Clinton trusts lawyers more than
|> parents; I think she has it exactly backwards.
|> 
|> >> It's like saying we don't need tort reform because lawsuits only
|> >> occur with "serious abuses" in liability or medical malpractice.
|> >> Well, the bill for litigation is $300 billion in this country, and
|> >> with the lawyers Clinton & Clinton, who are anti-tort reform(*) and
|> >> pro-litigation, it will further increase.
|> >
|> >Please cite your reasons for believing that this figure is accurate.
|> 
|> The source is a Forbes article on the cost of litigation.
|> Direct costs: $80 billion a year and rising. Add in indirect costs,
|> and is swells to $300 billion. This study was also cited
|> by Sen. Rockefeller in a TV debate on S.640, the tort reform bill in the
|> Senate. S 640 will just nick this problem, but it is a start.
|> 

It won't pass and did you see the hundreds of victims of defective
products who were protesting saying this bill trampled all over
constitutional rights.  See a previous article I posted entitled "Food
for Thought" to see the constitutional issues.  This bill will die like
they all have for the past 10 years, so good luck on your crusade with
the rest of corporate america and the AMA.

|> >Please cite your reasons for believing that it would further increase
|> >under a Clinton administration.
|> 
|> Clinton promises new and wonderful regulations, more "concern" (ie
|> regulation) for the environment, and is supported by the liberal-lawyers,
|> such as Ralph Nader's ATLA-supported Public Citizen. 
|> Please cite your reasons for reasons for asking this apparently
|> uninformed question.
|> 
|> >Please cite your reasons for
|> >believing that the current figure, be is $300 billion or not, is too
|> >high.
|> 
|> Please cite your reasons for believing that the current figure
|> of $300 billion is a fair cost for an arbitrary legal system
|> that is used by a weapon by Corporations (eg. Apple, Pennzoil, Lotus) and
|> interest groups, and yet is incapable of protecting ordinary
|> citizens from violence, fraud and robbery.
|> 
|> Please read "Knowledge and Decisions" by Thomas Sowell, especially
|> his chapter on the legal system, to understand where I'm coming from.
|> 


Is he a lawyer? Has he studied the history of the law and our legal
system v. other countries?


|> Understand that the legal system is *not* a zero sum, but a negative sum
|> game. You break your leg in an accident, and to recover the damages
|> of, say $10,000, you may expend twice that amount. So a "recovered"
|> tort costs more, in time, effort and money, all around, than the original
|> offense. Contingency-fee lawyers skim off 30% or more of malpractice or
|> liability suits, suits that may last years and have huge costs.
|> Understand that Hillary Rodham, not satisfied with the destruction of families
|> in child custody battles (vz. the recent Allen-Farrow horror show),
|> postulated, in her briefs, another negative-sum legal jungle for kids
|> vs. parents.
|> 
|> $300 billion could .... <fill in your more desirable social goal here>
|> Instead we use it to, inefficiently and with arbitrariness, right
|> certain wrongs, and in some cases wrong certain rights.
|> The legal system needs reform and improvement,
|> and we can and should do that. We need a cleaner, clearer, sharper
|> line.
|> 
|> >> (*) Clinton killed a tort reform proposal in Arkansas in 1987.  This
|> >> fact was touted in a fund raising letter for Clinton that was sent
|> >> to memebers of the American Trial Lawyers Association.  Clinton also
|> >> opposes the kind of tort reform favored by Bush and Quayle.
|> >
|> >Please elaborate.  What were the details of the proposal that Clinton
|> >"killed"?
|> 
|> The source for this is the WSJ. I since have heard that the fund-raising
|> letter made it to a Bush advertisement.
|> 
|> > What kind of tort reform is favored by Bush and Quayle?
|> >Please be specific.
|> 
|> Quayle was specific, last year, in front of the ABA. It apparently
|> didn't win him much praise there, and I suspect that if I
|> restated them, it wouldn't help win you over.
|> 

 Yeah and this is why for the first time in 3 elections the ABA will
endorse Clinton and I read a recent article that said the democrats
for the first time in 3 elections will raise more money in donations
than the republicans.  Surprised?  Not me, Quayle is attacking the ABA
because he has the AMA endorsing him which is costing Americans a hell
of a lot more than litigation.  And there are those that believe that
the reason why america has the best medical care in the world is
directly because of the threat of a lawsuit.  Anyway, lawyers are 
inside of government and know politics as well as anyone, I have no
doubt Bush and Quayle made a serious political mistake this time, we
are a month and a half from the election and Bush still trails by 15
points. Its over, baring a small miracle.  Even if he would win he does
not have the legislative support in congress even on the republican
side to win this reform battle so why is it an issue.

|> But ...  my view: I support the elimination, yes,  *ELIMINATION*, of
|> contingincy fees, except when the plantiff is indigent.  I
|> support plaintiffs paying the defendent's court costs if the
|> plaintiffs are wrong or are instigating a frivolous law suit.
|> Appalled?
|> 
|> >-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
|> 
|> Pat, PhD 
|> 
|> PS.  Please cite your reasons, as a friend of liberty, for believing
|> that a corpulent monstrosity like our own legal system is in fine shape
|> and is, likewise, a friend to liberty. (hint: I think otherwise.)
|> 
|> PPS. A guilty man comes into your office, and wants you to represent
|> him and plead not guilty. As his attorney, what does "legal ethics"
|> require you to do? (hint: doing his bidding, as is the current vogue,
|> is a suggestion to some of us that "legal ethics" is an oxymoron.)
|> 
|> PPPS.  Please cite your reasons for repeating "please cite your reasons".
|> :-)

Bush derives his power from the constitution which he swore to uphold
if he seeks changes fundamentally in constitutional rights such as
much of the reform proposed he has no authority to seek its changes
from within government.  He must step down and fight from outside as a
citizen anything else is a violation of the oath he swore to uphold
and violates the power vesting in him from the constitution.
--
Joe Mehrle                        ----------------------------------
Mead Data Central, Dayton, Ohio   |  **    CLINTON/GORE `92      **  |
Internet: joem@meaddata.com       ----------------------------------
UUCP:     !uunet!meaddata!joem    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton