ZZZooommm rant latest

In article , "Juan E Jimenez"
writes:


Just what exactly do you lose (besides the time the litigation takes)?
If you have liability insurance, you probably don't even pay an extra
dime.

Oh, I get it. The $750,000 came from thin air.

It doesn't change the fact that money changed hands, but it changes the
reason WHY.

No, it does not. A lawsuit was filed, and the defendant made the choice to
pay rather than having a judge telling him to do so.


OR, the plaintiff decided to settle for something rather than nothing.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

In article , "Eric Miller"
writes:


We definitely need some kind of tort reform.
Americans have a lottery mentality regarding civil suits, both as plaintiffs
and jurors... and the jackpots keep getting bigger and bigger.

I quite literally has become a legal lottery. File enough lawsuits against
enough companies and you will eventually hit a winner. The costs of filing are
next to nothing so there is no incentive to not go for it.

I still think the loser of a lawsuit should pay all court and legal costs,
though I understand the downside of that too (from a recent post here).

I agree completely. The loser and their lawyers should have to pay the court
costs and the costs for the opposition attorney and other expenses.

At a bare minimum, plaintiffs should only be able to sue for actual damages.
If punitive damages must be awarded, do something useful with them. Apply
them to safety reform, quality assurance... or just pay down the national
debt.

The lawyers will NEVER allow that idea to grow. They stand to make too much
off the current system to allow any major changes. We are trying to put a cap
on non-economic damages in lawsuits here in Texas right now and you should see
how much money the lawyers are pouring into defeating it.

As a last resort, BURN the money... whatever it takes to keep it out of the
hands of the lawyers and plaintffs.
Suits are for redressing wrongs, not a reward for either lack or personal
responsiblity or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Eric "I'm too young to be this old"

Agree.



Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

In article , "Eric Miller"
writes:

I don't disagree that we need tort reform, but I do disagree that all
lawsuits that are settled out of court have no merit, or are settled
solely
for economic reasons. Many times suits are settled because the defendant
realized that there's no way he/she can win. I think you know that as well
as I do.

I didn't say --- all cases settled out of court have no merit.
I did say --- settling out of court says nothing about a case's merit.

Remember, cases get settled out of court because the plaintiff gets a
guaranteed payout instead of rolling the dice and possibly getting nothing.
The plaintiff settles because their case isn't so airtight that they're
assured of a win.
The defendant is more strongly motivated to settle because when juries are
involved because there is no upper bound to what might be awarded.

I'm in favor of capital punishment for stupid juries... summary judgments,
immediately enforced, no chance for appeals!

Eric (Of course, I feel the same way about parking tickets and jaywalking
)



The problem with taking any civil lawsuit before a jury is knowing the mindset
of the jury. I sat on a civil case once where the plaintiff clearly had no
case but her daddy ran a law firm and needed to give some junior lawyers a
little court experience. I was totally ****ed that I had to waste a week of my
time and lose a weeks income to sit on the damn jury in the first place. Then
I almost puked when four of the lady jurists voted to give the bitch something
just because they felt sorry for her. When I questioned them about why, did
they beleive the defendent was at fault, their answer was no but what
difference did it make, the insurance would pay for it.

It is that very mindset that has led to so many out of court payoffs and the
legal lottery that now exists. Since most lawsuits involving personal injury
will be filed in the home community of the plaintiff, it becomes a real crap
shoot for the defendant as to rather a fair and impartial judgement can be
obtained. All it takes is a pathetic looking defendant, a smart lawyer, a
hometown jury, and the big bad corporation or insurance company to make for
some real bad judgements. Even when the defendants know they can win, the cost
of winning and the potiential for endless appeals can be enough to result in
settlements.

So even losing a lawsuit does not always imply any fault, just sympathy.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
nk.net...

You said one time you were going back to PR so your kids could get a
better education than they can get here in this country. If you are the
product of the PR education system I feel sorry for your kids.

Sure, feel sorry that they're attending a school with 99% graduation rate,
95% post-graduate degree completions, 75% ivy league admissions, etc.

Now, don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave this country.
Please hurry and go.

Leave the country? HAHAHAHAHAH! What school system are you a product of,
dork? The one that doesn't know that PR has been part of the US for more
than 100 years? ROFLMAO!

Juan

"Michael Pilla" wrote in message
...

The problem is that only the folks on the side that settled know the real
reason and right now, that is Chuck since he was a principal party to the
reason for the settlement.

So is the side receiving the settlement, Michael.

He has indicated, to my satisfaction...

No, he has suggested it. He knows he can't prove it. But he knows he can
rationalize it. If you're satisfied with that, that's your prerogative. I'm
satisfied with the fact the I've proven that he's been succesfully sued,
contrary to what he's implied.

Juan

"RobertR237" wrote in message
...

As I mentioned earlier in another post, either quote me entirely or don't
quote
me at all.

To quote your own noises: "No." I decide what to quote, not you.

Nothing naive about it and if you had included the rest of my post it was
quite
clear.

Wrong again.

So quit pulling this **** and YOU won't look like such a damn fool. I
know what the signs said and what they were about but also know that out
of the
100's of thousands of attendants at Oskhosh this year not more than a few
dozen
have any clue what-so-ever regarding those signs.

Unhuh. And you interviewed them all to see if they were in the hundreds of
thousands of hits that aero-news.net receives daily during the show.

The only fool here is you, son.

Juan

"RobertR237" wrote in message
...

Its clear Juan, you see ONLY what you WANT to see.

As opposed to you, who only smells what you want to smell. Wipe your nose,
it's brown again.

Juan

"RobertR237" wrote in message
...
AND TAKE JIM WITH YOU!

Another graduate of the RAH School of Idiotic Geography.

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...

And let's not forget that the Bankruptcy trustee sued Jim Campbell for
fraud and perjury. Campbell settled out of court. If Juan wants to
believe that accepting an out-of-court settlement is a full admission of
guilt, I ain't sure if I want to disabuse him. :-)

Ron, does Jim state or imply he's never been successfully sued? Simple
question.

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Juan E Jimenez"

Chuck will not be further embarassed if he chooses not to make any more
derogatory comments about me and imply that I lie about him. And I don't
even have to surmise that it might be worth a try...


Juan, he implied nothing of the sort. He STATED you lied. No implication
on his
part nor a need for you to infer.

And I have proven that I didn't lie. He did. Heck, I didn't even break out
all the evidence. All it took was a nudge and bleaahhh! it all came out in
one heave.