Law Suits and Popular Ignorance

I think you know damn well how dysfunctional our society has become. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Actually, I damn well know that one of the few institutions that's capable of getting it right most of the time is the judicial system. And by that I mean the current judicial system that we actually have, not the one that exists in the Glen Beck / Bill O'Reilly fantasy world.

It always cracks me up how courts are "activist" and "broken" when they rule against the right, but are doing justice proud when they rule for it.

Watch TTH's video again. That might as well have been you in the lawyer's office.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Yup Mazo you are right.
I made a complete clusterfuck of that by rushing between here, the ipod thread and packing my case. Apologies, ignore me and go back to some proper discussion with people who have time to pay attention before responding. I'm spanked
God give me some warm weather!!!!!!!!
C xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yes, the founders absolutely intended that all juries be made up of white male land-owners who would protect the economic interests of big companies. Fortunately we moved away from that standard a long time ago and now we let everybody serve because everyone except you recognizes that poor people and minorities are actually both human beings and American citizens. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Just a note Mazo: I’ve been called for jury three times, and I’ve been summarily dismissed by the defense attorneys all three times. I am white, male and former military. Somehow, I’m no longer considered a “peer.” Is that better or worse? Just askin'.

Actually, I damn well know that one of the few institutions that's capable of getting it right most of the time is the judicial system. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Maybe it gets it right most of the time, but it sure fails often enough to impose a lot of costs on all of us, and to give certain types of lawyers a very bad name. Why do you think the American Association for Justice changed its name from The Association of Trial Lawyers of America?

Are you going to try to deny that we have an entitlement-minded society that often encourages plantiffs with non-meritorious claims to take a shot at a lucrative payday?

Watch TTH's video again. That might as well have been you in the lawyer's office. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I can't watch it again, since I didn't watch it in the first place. Why waste the time? Don't the comments regarding it offer convincing evidence that it's completely fatuous?

Just a note Mazo: I’ve been called for jury three times, and I’ve been summarily dismissed by the defense attorneys all three times. I am white, male and former military. Somehow, I’m no longer considered a “peer.” Is that better or worse? Just askin'. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Uh, you'll also get kicked off a jury by most prosecutors.

Trial lawyers don't care so much what opinions you hold, they care about how tightly you hold them. Somebody with your profile is likely to make up his mind about the case based on subconscious factors. That's not what trial lawyers want to see. They want people who will listen and consider with an open mind and, frankly, old white veterans aren't generally part of that demographic. I'd kick you off the jury too regardless of which side I was on.

What I don't get is how people think this introduces "bias". The whole point of jury selection is that BOTH sides get to strike jurors. The process is designed to ensure a fair shot for everybody. Somehow, though, it's always the evil criminal defense attorney or the greedy plaintiff's lawyer who gets mentioned. How do you people not notice that the prosecutor and defense lawyer are kicking off jurors too?

Cheers,
Mazo.

Whoa whoa whoa . . .

I think we're talking about two different things here.

I'm not an expert in Mass law but I'm pretty sure they only cap non-economic damages in med malpractice cases. Is there really a $100K on non-economic loss there? I'm shocked if they put that into place. It would be the strictest in the country by far.

The keep trotting it out in Texas as a way to "lower premiums," and we keep beating it back. No evidence it really lower premiums, and if it does, the only way it does it is by fucking the injured party out of damages that they are otherwise likely to recover. Plus, good drivers pay higher premiums as a result of bad drivers actions.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just floored by it if you're right. It means that the tort reform loonies have really gotten out of hand in Boston.

I think that we must be talking about two different things here. Are you, perhaps, talking about the limits on the insurance policy?

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Massachusetts has no fault auto liability. Damage caps based on impairment ratings, economic loss, etc. It makes an auto accident almost like a workers compensation case. It's another brand of tort reform that was popular in the early 1970's. You recover from your own carrier, even if the other party is at fault, but you are severely limited in what you can recover in most cases.

I can't watch it again, since I didn't watch it in the first place. Why waste the time? Don't the comments regarding it offer convincing evidence that it's completely fatuous? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

"It should be perfectly obvious that my opinion is absolutely correct and the only one that matters. I therefore have no need to listen or learn any more. People should just forget about democracy and elections and juries of one's peers and let me make all the decisions for everybody because I am so thoroughly and omnipotently correct about all things."

Ah yes, the mantra of the new right.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Are you going to try to deny that we have an entitlement-minded society that often encourages plantiffs with non-meritorious claims to take a shot at a lucrative payday? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

How do you get a recovery if it's not meritorious? They take those cases and try them and beat your ass and make you eat your $50 - 100k in expenses. (Because that's what we do to them when we have them spread-eagled -- we take them in front of a jury and whip their ass.) 40% of $0 is $0.

Do you really think I'm paying $135k a month in overhead on bad lawsuits? About $80k/mo. of that is case expenses -- depositions, medical records, experts, etc. I close about 20 files a year, of those 6 - 8 are major lawsuits. Please explain how I can make that overhead with non-meritorious claims? How can anybody?

Watch the video. I think that lawyer in the video knows exactly what you've been smoking.

Massachusetts has no fault auto liability. Damage caps based on impairment ratings, economic loss, etc. It makes an auto accident almost like a workers compensation case. It's another brand of tort reform that was popular in the early 1970's. You recover from your own carrier, even if the other party is at fault, but you are severely limited in what you can recover in most cases. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

But that's not true in a serious accident. Once specials go above a certain limit (I think it was $2K) you're allowed to pursue standard liability claims against the other party with no non-economic damages cap.

It was designed that way to take care of the 99% fender benders that occur without serious injury under the simple no-fault rules but still allow recovery in serious accidents.

At least that's the way I remember it. Haven't looked at it in a while. I'll have to check it out. Haven't had an auto case in ages.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Trial lawyers don't care so much what opinions you hold, they care about how tightly you hold them. Somebody with your profile is likely to make up his mind about the case based on subconscious factors. That's not what trial lawyers want to see. They want people who will listen and consider with an open mind and, frankly, old white veterans aren't generally part of that demographic. I'd kick you off the jury too regardless of which side I was on. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Your right to hold a prejudice trumps the right of others to serve. And you call that justice?

Your right to hold a prejudice trumps the right of others to serve. And you call that justice? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but I'll ask you again: How is the system unbalanced when the prosecutor is throwing off one juror he doesn't like for every one the defense doesn't like? If both sides are eliminating the people biased against them then don't we end up with a balanced jury?

Cheers,
Mazo.

"It should be perfectly obvious that my opinion is absolutely correct and the only one that matters. I therefore have no need to listen or learn any more. People should just forget about democracy and elections and juries of one's peers and let me make all the decisions for everybody because I am so thoroughly and omnipotently correct about all things."

Ah yes, the mantra of the new right.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Go ahead, enjoy all the cheap shots you want; they're free! I daresay that I listen, read, and learn every bit as much as you do, though. But that doesn't mean there's any need for me to sit through an obviously silly and biased video. And just where do you get off obnoxiously hectoring someone with whom you disagree or whose posts you apparently find irritating or condescending? Take a look at some of your own posts. See what I mean?

How do you get a recovery if it's not meritorious? They take those cases and try them and beat your ass and make you eat your $50 - 100k in expenses. (Because that's what we do to them when we have them spread-eagled -- we take them in front of a jury and whip their ass.) 40% of $0 is $0.

Do you really think I'm paying $135k a month in overhead on bad lawsuits? About $80k/mo. of that is case expenses -- depositions, medical records, experts, etc. I close about 20 files a year, of those 6 - 8 are major lawsuits. Please explain how I can make that overhead with non-meritorious claims? How can anybody? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Judging from your posts in this and other threads, you eschew frivolous and non-meritorious lawsuits. If that's the case, kudos to you! But if you're honest, you must admit that many of your brethren aren't quite so ethical. Do you deny that some attorneys attempt to profit from threats to bamboozle carefully chosen and clueless juries largely made up of people suffering from severe cases of social resentment and wealth envy?

But that's not true in a serious accident. Once specials go above a certain limit (I think it was $2K) you're allowed to pursue standard liability claims against the other party with no non-economic damages cap.

It was designed that way to take care of the 99% fender benders that occur without serious injury under the simple no-fault rules but still allow recovery in serious accidents.

At least that's the way I remember it. Haven't looked at it in a while. I'll have to check it out. Haven't had an auto case in ages.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Ok I know I said I'd be quiet but TTH re-iterated what I thought was correct...but then got lost and thought I had it all wrong. Let us know Mazo if you find different...seriously.

C x

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but I'll ask you again: How is the system unbalanced when the prosecutor is throwing off one juror he doesn't like for every one the defense doesn't like? If both sides are eliminating the people biased against them then don't we end up with a balanced jury?

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

But you have admitted you are making a decision based on your superficial prejudices without really knowing the qualities and character of the person you are dismissing. You are assuming that your prejudices are superior to any qualities a juror, with credentials such as mine, can bring to a jury. And from this we have justice?

But you have admitted you are making a decision based on your superficial prejudices without really knowing the qualities and character of the person you are dismissing. You are assuming that your prejudices are superior to any qualities a juror, with credentials such as mine, can bring to a jury. And from this we have justice? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

OK Hank, one more time:

If the defense attorney is applying his "superficial prejudices" and the prosecutor is counteracting that by applying his "superficial prejudices" then how is the system biased?

It's only biased against potential jurors who are likely to hold opinions so strong that they'll ignore anything they hear at trial and vote the way their gut tells them. Isn't that exactly what we want?

I'm sorry nobody wants you on their jury. I think that's probably a good thing.

Cheers,
Mazo.