Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

Jose wrote:
What's missing from the statement, and unfortunately deliberately so
in many cases, is that if the system is used as it was MEANT to be
used, the citizen has to SEEK OUT the lawyer for protection instead of
the other way around.

It used to be that way... at least it used to be that lawyers (and
doctors and drug companies) were prohibited from advertising. (Whether
by law or by their professional organizations I don't know). The
concept of freedom of speech (that it is up to the listener to decide
the merits, rather than up to some other agency to decide what the
listener may or may not hear) was part of the stated rationale.

I remember as a young man coming up through the educational ladder when
lawyers were respected members of the community. Lawyers were sought
after for opinion and their opinion was considered by almost everyone 9I
knew anyway) as delivered through a foundation of honesty and integrity.
Lawyers were in fact some of the most respected members of the community.
All gone now. Typical of the lawyers in my present community are an
entire segment, and I literally mean an entire large office building,
almost entirely filled with attorneys specializing in drop and fall,
auto accidents, and the vast majority and the most financially rewarded,
an entire cadre of attorneys specializing in medical malpractice.
There are literally almost as many lawyers in the malpractice business
where I live as there are doctors. The reason for this is that the
doctors are leaving the state in ever increasing numbers.
One of our best friends is a neuro surgeon. You don't even want to guess
what he has to pay for his malpractice insurance.
This isn't anywhere at all representing what SHOULD be the level of
litigation protection against normal malpractice. It's indicative of the
HUGE and highly lucrative BUSINESS that the practice of malpractice law
has become.
And this is only the TIP of this iceberg :-))

When lawyers seek clients to initiate litigation against large
corporations, the formula changes, or at least has a tremendous
ability to change, into a corrupt attempt to initiate lawsuits against
corporations for a profit motive instead of a protection motive.

And here is where the judges enter the picture. It comes down to a
judgment in court. Why don't the meritless cases lose? =That's= where
the responsibility lies.

Jose

I agree that the judges are indeed included in the equation that defines
unethical law practice....but then again, judges are lawyers :-))

Jose, it's not any one thing that's wrong with the legal system. It's
the entire thing that's wrong. You can look in any direction and find a
constantly degrading curve of ethics and greed. It's the OVERALL result
of this that defines the legal system as we see it here today in the
United States.


--
Dudley Henriques

I remember as a young man coming up through the educational ladder when lawyers were respected members of the community. Lawyers were sought after for opinion and their opinion was considered by almost everyone 9I knew anyway) as delivered through a foundation of honesty and integrity.

Would that it were true for politicians.

Seems to me that this is a natural consequence of a capitalistic system;
although it might be "honorable" to forgo money in exchange for
integrity in business, it is an inherently unstable situation. Nobody
wants to be the poor schmo that gets stepped all over while everyone
else gets the goodies.

These instabilities are evident in other contexts too - how many
monopolies do you know of that voluntarily keep their prices and profits
low, for the greater good?

Jose, it's not any one thing that's wrong with the legal system.

True enough. It comes down to human nature. But the system is supposed
to be a defense against human nature. Alas, it is run by... er... humans.

It's the entire thing that's wrong.

Got a proposed fix? (No, I'm not interested in becoming benevolent
dictator

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
I remember as a young man coming up through the educational ladder
when lawyers were respected members of the community. Lawyers were
sought after for opinion and their opinion was considered by almost
everyone 9I knew anyway) as delivered through a foundation of honesty
and integrity.

Would that it were true for politicians.

Seems to me that this is a natural consequence of a capitalistic system;
although it might be "honorable" to forgo money in exchange for
integrity in business, it is an inherently unstable situation. Nobody
wants to be the poor schmo that gets stepped all over while everyone
else gets the goodies.

These instabilities are evident in other contexts too - how many
monopolies do you know of that voluntarily keep their prices and profits
low, for the greater good?

Jose, it's not any one thing that's wrong with the legal system.

True enough. It comes down to human nature. But the system is supposed
to be a defense against human nature. Alas, it is run by... er... humans.

It's the entire thing that's wrong.

Got a proposed fix? (No, I'm not interested in becoming benevolent
dictator

Jose
I think you have summerized it up nicely. It seems our capitalist legal
system has some serious built in flaws and if these flaws are used for
unethical purposes, the result can easily become what we are seeing today.

I honestly have no idea what the fix might be. What absolutely
freightens me to death is that there might not be a fix, and even if
there were, human nature will be too much a factor to allow it's
implementation.

In the meantime, I watch the stock market go up and down with my money
with some kind of unexplainable hope in my heart, and do the very best I
can in life to avoid any and all contact with the legal system :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

I honestly have no idea what the fix might be. What absolutely freightens me to death is that there might not be a fix, and even if there were, human nature will be too much a factor to allow it's implementation.

I think that it =is= the case that there is no fix... at least no fix
that doesn't break something else we hold dear. It is all about
balance, and different people's ideas as to where it should balance.

In the meantime, I watch the stock market go up and down with my money with some kind of unexplainable hope in my heart, and do the very best I can in life to avoid any and all contact with the legal system :-))

I tried to make money in the stock market. Now I make money in the
basement. Alas, that makes it harder to avoid contact with the legal
system.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
I honestly have no idea what the fix might be. What absolutely
freightens me to death is that there might not be a fix, and even if
there were, human nature will be too much a factor to allow it's
implementation.

I think that it =is= the case that there is no fix... at least no fix
that doesn't break something else we hold dear. It is all about
balance, and different people's ideas as to where it should balance.

I fear this is correct.

In the meantime, I watch the stock market go up and down with my money
with some kind of unexplainable hope in my heart, and do the very best
I can in life to avoid any and all contact with the legal system :-))

I tried to make money in the stock market. Now I make money in the
basement. Alas, that makes it harder to avoid contact with the legal
system.

It's getting harder and harder to open and maintain an honest business
in the United States. Between the ungodly taxes and the cost of
litigation protection it's becoming more and more a global business
environment.
Everywhere I look I see decline and chaos. Cheery picture I know, but I
keep trying to visualize the old bottle as being half full anyway.

What the hell....I can't change anything. A friend of ours owns a paint
store. On the shelf he has a can of paint that says on the back of the
label;
"Don't take internally". The guy this is written for nullifies my vote
!!! :-)))))))))))))))


Jose


--
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Jose wrote:
What's missing from the statement, and unfortunately deliberately so in
many cases, is that if the system is used as it was MEANT to be used,
the citizen has to SEEK OUT the lawyer for protection instead of the
other way around.

It used to be that way... at least it used to be that lawyers (and
doctors and drug companies) were prohibited from advertising. (Whether
by law or by their professional organizations I don't know). The concept
of freedom of speech (that it is up to the listener to decide the merits,
rather than up to some other agency to decide what the listener may or
may not hear) was part of the stated rationale.

I remember as a young man coming up through the educational ladder when
lawyers were respected members of the community. Lawyers were sought after
for opinion and their opinion was considered by almost everyone 9I knew
anyway) as delivered through a foundation of honesty and integrity.
Lawyers were in fact some of the most respected members of the community.
All gone now. Typical of the lawyers in my present community are an entire
segment, and I literally mean an entire large office building, almost
entirely filled with attorneys specializing in drop and fall, auto
accidents, and the vast majority and the most financially rewarded, an
entire cadre of attorneys specializing in medical malpractice.

One might say it began when lawyers found they could make buckets of money
getting criminals, particularly gangsters off from charges. In many cases,
they were consultants to gangsters, advising them how to conduct their
crimes with the least likelihood of capture or successful prosecution.

And no, I don't mean the "bootleggers" and bank robbers of the 1920's and
30's, I'm referring to the gangs of the 1870's and onward.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY.