Ford gets caught lying again...

The question really is after getting caught time and time again why is no one in Jail? It is past time for the Department of Justice to get involved here and put some of these lying bastards in Jail. How many people have to die before we do something? Is a family member of yours next?

 

Judge Finds Ford Fraudulently Concealed Electronic Causes of Unintended Acceleration

The Senior Judge of the Florida’s Fifth Judicial Circuit has set aside a jury verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company, blasting the automaker for defrauding the court and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by claiming that it knew of no other cause of unintended acceleration than driver error and for concealing years of testing that showed that electromagnetic interference was a frequent root cause of UA in Ford vehicles.
In his withering decision, Senior Judge William T. Swigert of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Sumter County, Florida ordered a new trial in which the jury would only consider compensatory and punitive damages in Stimpson v. Ford. The post-trial order is a victory for Attorney Thomas J. Murray, of Murray & Murray based in Sandusky, Ohio, who represented the Stimpson family.
The case concerned an October 28, 2003 crash which left Peggy Stimpson permanently paralyzed. Her husband alleged that he was unable to stop the couple’s 1991 Ford Aerostar, when it suddenly accelerated from their carport as he put the van into gear. The Aerostar hurtled more than 100 feet, and crashed into a utility pole.
In his 51-page decision, Judge Swigert excoriated Ford for systematically concealing a long history, stretching back to the 1970s, of studying the problem of electromagnetic interference and unintended acceleration, working to resolve it, but nonetheless finding many instances of it in the real world. Swigert enumerated each step Ford took in achieving a high level of corporate malfeasance – among them, lying to NHTSA, systematically destroying field technical reports that identified electromagnetic interference with the cruise control servo as a cause of unintended acceleration and misleading its own experts, who have repeatedly testified in other cases that driver error had to be the cause of such events.
“The proofs introduced at trial include various patents owned by Ford showing that electronic malfunctions in the cruise control system can cause sudden, unintended acceleration, in addition to reports from Ford’s engineers, including SIRs and CQIS reports, diagnosing sudden acceleration as a problem with the cruise control system. Ford’s Ishikawa engineering diagram likewise shows that EMI is a cause of sudden unintended acceleration.”
Swigert’s decision also rapped Ford’s Counsel J. Randolph Bibb for accusing the Stimpson’s attorney of lying and withholding the results of expert witness tests conducted to show what caused the tire marks left by the Stimpson’s Aerostar as it rocketed out of the carport. Both sides agreed that testimony regarding the tests would not be introduced, since they had not been recorded. But at trial, Ford’s attorney brought them up in a cross-examination and in his closing arguments, suggesting that the results had been withheld from the jury because they were unfavorable to the Stimpsons’ theory of the case.
We will recount the history of Ford’s concealment in all of its ignominious detail in a future blog post, and its implications for the much-relied-upon conclusions of the1989 An Examination of Sudden Acceleration, known within NHTSA as “The Silver Book.” Manufacturers, such as Ford, have been waving this tome in front of juries in UA cases, as proof positive of driver error. Judge Swigert, weighing it against Ford’s knowledge of electronic causes of unintended acceleration, as sketched by the internal documents and Ford employee testimony that the plaintiffs introduced at trial, was not impressed. He found it was based on false information and untested assumptions, for which no empirical evidence existed.
Stimpson V. Ford:  Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Memorandum Decision
Stimpson V. Ford: Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Judgement, Partial Final Judgement in Favor of Plaintiffs on Liability, and Order Conditionally Granting New Trial.

Wall Street uses Walmart ruling to batter screwed investors

Injustice of the week, easy here. Well you can't say I didn't warn you. decsions have consequences and if you find a way to screw the average guy or "little people" like they call them you can count of Goldman Sachs and Krew to take full advantage of it, 100% of the time.  as Joe the slummer says "Economic slavery is a bitch man." 

 

 

Walmart Supreme Court Ruling Being Used By Wall Street To Battle Investors Over Losses

WILMINGTON (Tom Hals) - The U.S. Supreme Court's dismissal of a massive sex-bias case against Wal-Mart Stores Inc may have handed Wall Street a new weapon in its battle against angry investors who lost billions on securitized home loans.
At first glance, last month's ruling in the Wal-Mart case may seem far removed from lawsuits over complex mortgage investments blamed for helping to trigger the global financial crisis in 2008.
But attorneys are seizing on the Supreme Court decision as they fight to prevent pension fund investors from banding together as a class to pursue claims they were misled about bonds built from flimsy mortgages.
In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court on June 20 found that 1 million current and former female employees from 3,400 of the retailer's stores had too little in common to form a class. The court's language about issues of a "common question" could, according to attorneys arguing for the banks, also bar mortgage bond investors from suing en masse.
Lawyers defending a unit of Washington Mutual argue that the "commonality" that was missing among the female Wal-Mart workers is also missing among investors in securitized mortgages, even when they invested in the same pool of loans.
They made the argument in court papers filed on June 22 arguing against certifying a class of investor plaintiffs suing Washington Mutual. The case is pending in U.S. District Court in Seattle.
If successful, the defense tactic could prevent investors in mortgage-backed securities from pooling their resources and bringing a case as a group. That could make it more difficult for them to pursue cases against big issuers of mortgage bonds, such as Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Washington Mutual legal team referred questions to JPMorgan, which bought the bank in 2008. JPMorgan did not immediately return a call for comment on Friday.
CLASS SYSTEM
The Wal-Mart case was closely watched and the ruling is expected to make it tougher to bring class-action cases, which are often used in drug and product liability lawsuits and have led to mammoth settlements with consumers or shareholders.
The Supreme Court decision steers courts away from certifying broad classes of plaintiffs while leaving the door open to breaking out sub-classes later, said James Cox, a professor at Duke University Law School.
In the mortgage market, banks securitized home loans by collecting large pools of mortgages and placing them with a trust. The trust then issued bonds cut into "tranches," each carrying a different credit rating. The higher-rated tranches were paid first from the money flowing from homeowners.
Courts already have denied class status to investors who sued on behalf of all others who bought bonds issued by different trusts that were set up by a particular bank or mortgage company, such as Countrywide Financial.
The Supreme Court's Wal-Mart decision may help narrow the class scope further, separating tranches within a particular loan pool trust.
In their court papers, Washington Mutual lawyers cite the Wal-Mart decision for their argument that each tranche of the mortgage-backed security needs to be analyzed separately to determine which loans back which tranche, and whether those loans were properly written.
"Even if plaintiffs seek to ask the same question across all loan groups and all securities, unless they can be assured of getting the same answer, no class can be certified," the court filing says.
The Wal-Mart ruling is the first case cited in Washington Mutual's argument. The company's lawyers also cite the decision to make their point that each tranche must be evaluated separately, not lumped together merely because they have common legal claims, according to the court papers.
Thomas Hatch, an attorney who has brought mortgage-backed securities cases but is not involved in the Washington Mutual lawsuit, said courts are right to narrow classes to a single trust, but he disagreed with cutting to the tranche level.
"The defendants are wrong in claiming you have to be in the same tranche to be in the same class," said Hatch, because those various slices of the bond rely on the same offering document. "It isn't tranche specific, it is trust specific."
The Seattle federal court will take up the Washington Mutual class certification issue on July 27.
The case is In re Washington Mutual Mortgage Backed Securities Litigation; U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, No. 09-00037
(Editing by Martha Graybow, Gary Hill)

Justice Prosser, this ain't family values...You Sir, need an ass kicking

I know a lot of lawyers from Wisconsin and a lot of good conservatives from the Midwest. Calling a  judge a "Bitch" to her face, and then strangling her damn sure would get any lawyer not only disbarred for life in Mississippi Alabama or Louisiana but would get you some jail time and/or anger management as well. (A Supreme Court Justice even more so.) The bar need to step in and suspend Justice Prosser as this is an embarrassment to the legal profession, conservatives and Republicans alike, which I am all three. If they will not hold Prosser accountable then the US attorney should step in. This is not the way to behave in any business setting much less a legal one and there are clearly laws and Codes of ethics that have been broken here.

I am a hot head,  Justice Prosser. I go to the gym and take it out on the weights and generally yell at my family...way too much. I have fought many a man, been shot at, stabbed, and had the hell beat out of me more than a few times. (I deserved it every damn time.) But sir, I have never and never will strike a women, no matter what. As Trace Adkins says in his songs that is something no man should ever do, and sometimes you got to kick a mans ass. You sir, appear to  need an ass kicking. I assure you if you pulled that crap here in Mississippi one of your victim's brothers or kin would already have paid you a "visit" to discuss the matter man to man. Since that has no happened may I extend an invitation to "visit" with me or maybe Trace Adkins if you prefer and we will "explain" it to you in terms you will surly remember.  (Glad to give him your number.) I am sorry the little lady is bullying you sir, maybe you just need to man up. This is a disgrace. Justice Prosser is a disgrace, to the bar, the legal profession, The Republican party, all good Conservatives, and all men in general. No lets see what s done about this. My prediction, not a damn thing.

Here is the story:


Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers last week, according to at least three knowledgeable sources.
Details of the incident, investigated jointly by Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, remain sketchy. The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships.
They say an argument that occurred before the court's release of a decision upholding a bill to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public employees culminated in a physical altercation in the presence of other justices. Bradley purportedly asked Prosser to leave her office, whereupon Prosser grabbed Bradley by the neck with both hands.
Justice Prosser, contacted Friday afternoon by the Center, declined to comment: "I have nothing to say about it." He repeated this statement after the particulars of the story -- including the allegation that there was physical contact between him and Bradley -- were described. He did not confirm or deny any part of the reconstructed account.
Bradley also declined to comment, telling WPR, "I have nothing to say."
The sources say Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs was notified of the incident. One source says Tubbs came in to meet with the entire Supreme Court about this matter. Tubbs, contacted by Wisconsin Public Radio, declined to comment.
Sources also say the matter was called to the attention of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which investigates allegations of misconduct involving judges. James Alexander, executive director of the commission, said Friday that "we can neither confirm nor deny" that the incident was under investigation. "The commission hasn't given me any authority to make any confirmation."
Amanda Todd, spokesperson for the court, sent an email to the full court on Friday afternoon informing them of the Center's media inquiries on the matter. Reporters also contacted each justice individually. As of the end of day Friday, none of the justices had commented.
The Journal Sentinel reached out to all of the justices Saturday. Neither Bradley nor Prosser returned calls, and the other five justices either didn't return calls or declined to comment.
It is unclear what day the incident took place. Sources say it happened last week, before the court's release of its ruling on the collective bargaining case. The decision was released on the afternoon of June 14.
The Judicial Commission was created by the Supreme Court in 1971 to "discipline and correct judges who engage in conduct which has an adverse effect upon the judicial administration of justice and the confidence of the public and the judiciary and its process." It investigates possible violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, officially Chapter 60 of the Supreme Court Rules, with ultimate decisions on discipline being imposed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Chapter 60 states that judges are required to "uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary" and "avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety" in all activities. And Chapter 62 requires judges and other court personnel to "be civil in their dealings with one another" and "abstain from any conduct that may be characterized as uncivil, abrasive, abusive, hostile or obstructive."
Judicial Commission investigations are confidential, unless it issues a formal complaint against a judge. But the commission's rules also state, "Should a complaint or investigation become known to the public, the Commission may issue a brief statement to confirm its pendency, clarify the procedural aspects of the proceedings, state that the judge denies the allegations," and provide other basic information.
Prosser, 68, a former Republican legislator who served as Assembly Speaker, was appointed to the court in 1998 by Gov. Tommy Thompson. He won a high-profile April election that was often cast as a referendum of sorts on the policies of Republican Gov. Scott Walker, including his effort to strip most collective bargaining rights from public employees. Prosser, after a recount, defeated challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg by 7,000 votes out of nearly 1.5 million cast.
The decision was released late in the afternoon June 14, only eight days after the court heard oral arguments on the case. On June 13, Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, had suggested that the court could rule on the matter soon, saying his party intended to introduce the changes as a budget amendment the following day if the court did not act by then.
The 4-3 decision, which held that Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi overstepped her authority in voiding the bill, was notably contentious. Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote a stinging dissent chiding the majority for "hastily reaching judgment" on a ruling that was "disingenuous, based on disinformation," "lacking a reasoned, transparent analysis" and laden with "numerous errors of law and fact."
Abrahamson singled out Prosser for criticism, calling his concurrence "long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant. Like the order, the concurrence reaches unsupported conclusions." She said the ruling "seems to open the court unnecessarily to the charge that the majority has reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law… ."
Prosser acknowledged in March that he called Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson a "bitch" and threatened to "destroy" her during a closed-door meeting.
At the time, Prosser told the Journal Sentinel that the outburst to Abrahamson came after the chief justice took steps to undermine him politically and to embarrass him and other court conservatives.
"In the context of this, I said, 'You are a total bitch," Prosser said. "I probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely . . . warranted. They (Abrahamson and Bradley) are masters at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements. This is bullying and abuse of very, very long standing."
In a March interview Bradley said Prosser had flashes of extreme anger on and off over the years.
"It's been going on for years off and on," she said in March of Prosser's outbursts.
After Prosser's outburst, Bradley sent an email to him and other justices saying the behavior was unacceptable. She said this March that from the time of her email until then there had been no incidents of similar magnitude.
She said she sent the email in an effort to stop Prosser from behaving inappropriately.
"I've been trying over the years to (figure out) best how to deal with it and one way is to call it out, and that's what this email was," Bradley said in March. "I've thought of other ways that have been unsuccessful. This was to describe it as it is and then you can deal with it."
At the time of Prosser's outburst to Abrahamson, Bradley said she considered going to law enforcement.
It "crossed my mind but I didn't want to do it," she said.
"This…for me at least in part is about the institution," she added. "This behavior shouldn't be occurring at the workplace."
An hour and a half before sending her Feb. 18, 2010 email to all the justices, Bradley sent an email to Abrahamson and Justice N. Patrick Crooks expressing her frustration with Prosser's outbursts.
"As you both know, I am no longer wiling to tolerate Prosser's abusive behavior," Bradley wrote. "I have been at a loss just how to proceed."

Injustice of the week......No more bankers indicted for 2008 collapse

Sorry for the gap. I was away in trial and glad to say my case will not be an justice of the week. Only a few bankers convicted so far and the most time that has been given so far 8 year.  You have got to be kidding right? steal a thousand its a felony, more then that get to go federal court, steal millions get sent to Pensacola CC if your are unlucky, steal billons, I promise no one will dare say crap. What a Country!

Injustice of the week:Texans need to be another country, like Iran....

Texas already passed the second more comprehensive"tort reform" aka corporate welfare and irresponsibility bill in the county a few years back. (Next to Mississippi) They laws are so bad there that builders are vitually immune for building bad houses, and trust me they have worst in the country by far, doctors are immune, and big business kills people for fun. Plus they have a complete Republican Supreme Court that reverse what verdict people actually manage to get. But apparently that is not enough they now want loser pays. Not like in England, as the defendant corportaion never has to pay, just the injured plaintiff. Texas Justice style! Why not just do what they really want just make civil trial by jury illegal in Texas. Mexico already has better justice system they they do now. (Read prior post)

Texas governor declares tort reform "emergency."
The Houston Chronicle (5/6, Rogers) reported after Gov. Rick Perry declared tort reform "an 'emergency,'" on Saturday lawmakers were slated to consider a lawsuit reform proposal "that includes a 'loser pays' provision." Proponents say the bill reins in frivolous lawsuits, changes what party pays legal fees, and allows "questions of law to be appealed during a trial and encourage parties to settle." Brad Parker of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association said the measure "has morphed into a bill that could apply not only to a frivolous lawsuit but to a lawsuit that someone happened to lose." Parker added, "It's closing the courthouse doors because it's financially infeasible to proceed with the litigation due to the high economic risk."

Any doubt about this being a political attack....

Texas House passes ‘loser pays’ tort reform

The past couple of weeks, airwaves around the state capital in Austin have been saturated with TV ads decrying an “assault” on liberties. The “assault” was actually a strong tort reform bill that discourages frivolous lawsuits by making plaintiffs pay defendant’s expenses if they lose a lawsuit. The ads were paid for by the Mostyn law firm out of Houston. That name might be familiar to PJM readers and has certainly become familiar to everyone who watches Texas politics. Over the past couple of years, trial lawyer Steve Mostyn has reaped millions from lawsuits in the aftermath of hurricanes (and mold lawsuits prior to that), lawsuits that all but emptied the state’s windstorm insurance fund. Mostyn has used some of those millions to set himself up as a Texas version of George Soros, funding a “shadow party” on behalf of far left Democrats all over the state. His latest ad campaign defended the status quo, in which there is no early opt out for frivolous lawsuits in Texas, and which allows trial lawyers to sue on contingency knowing that the worst that can happen to them is they won’t collect; meanwhile, those they sue will be out expenses for defending themselves. That environment encourages frivolous lawsuits, and has made lawyers like Mostyn and fellow Democrat Jim Dunnam very wealthy men. And, it has made insurance more and more expensive for everyday Texans.
Well, the GOP controlled Texas House handed Mostyn and the trial lawyers a major defeat on Saturday. They moved forward on HB 274, which would create a “loser pays” tort system similar to the one already prevalent in Britain. The purpose is to choke off frivolous lawsuits by making contingency fee trial lawyers themselves subject to expense recovery if they lose a case, improving the legal and employment climate in the state according to Gov. Rick Perry. Given the importance of trial lawyers to the Texas Democratic Party, the House session was every bit as contentious as might be expected, but at least the Democrats didn’t run off to Oklahoma this time. Even if they had it wouldn’t have mattered much, since the GOP enjoys a massive majority in the House.
The bill will be up for final House passage on Monday. The Senate version, SB 13, is still in committee. Gov. Perry has made tort reform one of his priorities for the 2011 legislative session and specifically supports “loser pays”; if the bill passes the Senate and gets to his desk, he will sign it.

'Loser pays' bill passes with no debate

Rare GOP move causes controversy on House floor

Updated: Saturday, 07 May 2011, 11:31 PM CDT
Published : Saturday, 07 May 2011, 9:50 PM CDT

• Josh Hinkle

AUSTIN (KXAN) - Drama hit the Texas House floor in a rare Saturday session, as Republicans worked to suspend rules to push a handful of bills through the process quickly.
"We're now here at two o'clock before Mother's Day. People are testy. People are tired," said Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, one of the minority party’s most vocal members during the weekend tiff.
HB 274 , the latest of Gov. Rick Perry’s emergency items, brought the most contention. The measure would force plaintiffs who lose their lawsuits to pay the legal fees. Democrats scoffed at the legislation they said protects big corporations but not the “little man” seeking to sue them.
"Everyone on this floor has measures to be considered that are very important following this bill we have to get to,” said the bill’s author, Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe.
For Creighton, three days of delay were enough. He said Democrats were using the chamber’s rules to stall his bill and hold up the House.
“We've had parliamentary procedure used as trench warfare to keep this bill from being considered,” he said.
Every member mattered, as the House barely had the necessary quorum to take action. Many Republicans were nowhere to be found.
"Until DPS goes wherever they need to go to bring all members back to the Texas House of Representatives and that the doors be locked,” said Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston.
"We're here,” said Rep. Larry Taylor, R-League City. “We're ready to work, and we're not being offered that opportunity to work with our colleagues on the Democratic side."
With a vote of 86-11 (with three present but not voting), Republicans had the exact 100 members needed to pass motions and bills, pushing HB 274 to a vote with no amendments or debate. Shortly after, the House passed the bill 89-12.
"Are you recognizing for that motion to be made at this bill at this time without a single amendment being offered by any member of the House?” Creighton asked Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio.
"You're the chair,” Rep. Trey Martinez-Fischer, D-San Antonio, shouted at Straus. “You're the arbiter of these rules. We threw out a chair, because they didn't enforce the rules. If you don't want to enforce the rules, that's on you."
With their 101 supermajority, Republicans can make this move at anytime for any bill. This was a first for this session.
"We have to watch out for the precedents that we're setting,” said Rep. Mark Strama. “When we set a precedent that says we're going to suspend rules when they get in our way, we really make ourselves vulnerable to having processes that are purely driven by the majority."
Creighton said, when the House gets to final passage on Monday, members can debate and amend all they want. However, it takes a lofty two-thirds vote for amendments on final passage, which is once again a process not in favor of the Democratic voice.

Texas Considers 'Loser Pays' Tort Reform Measure

Mark Whittington Mark Whittington – Fri May 6, 1:26 pm ET

Contribute content like this. Start here.

According to the AP, Texas Governor Rick Perry has declared a tort reform measure to be "emergency legislation", which means that it will be placed on a fast track to be considered and passed by the Texas Legislature.
The measure, House Bill 274, will call upon the Texas Supreme Court to tighten rules for bringing a civil law suit. It would also institute a "loser pays" system that would require the plaintiff to pay for the defendant's legal bills should he or she lose the law suit.

According to the Point of Law website, the United States is unique in all of western democracies in the fact that it does not have a loser pays regime for civil law suits, with the exception of Alaska, which has had the rule for decades, and Oregon and Oklahoma, which has applied loser pays to a significant amount of civil actions.

Point of Law suggests that he principle behind loser pays is that it would discourage frivolous law suits, often brought to persuade a defendant to settle out of court rather than undergo the expense of a trial. It would also provide an incentive for more reasonable out of court settlements.

A further argument for loser pays points to the fact that even if a party who is being sued prevails in court, he or she is often out a significant amount of money simply defending him or herself.

The Point of Law website suggests, however, that one reason that loser pays has not been more widely enacted in the United States is that the American bar is very powerful and jealously defends what for it is a lucrative industry. Contingency fee lawyers can make a considerable amount of money in filing legal actions, even if sometimes the cases are weak.

Texas has previously passed a tort reform bill that limited non economic damages to $750,000. The bill, passed in 2003, was aimed primarily at curbing medical malpractice lawsuits. The American Tort Reform Association claims that the law has resulted in a decrease in medical liability premiums for physicians in Texas and an increase in physician recruitment and retention in the state,

Texas resident Mark Whittington writes about state issues for the Yahoo! Contributor Network

Yeah we don't have Sharia law either, nor do most other countries have Corporations writing all the laws, and in all European countries most of what we have as civil law is criminal. If a bridge falls down or a train derails because of negligence or bad engineering people go to jail. (BP) Plus it goes both ways not just for people who are injured.

Texas Considers 'Loser Pays' Tort Reform Measure

• • Share
  • retweet
  • Email
  • Print

Mark Whittington Mark Whittington – Fri May 6, 1:26 pm ET

Contribute content like this. Start here.

According to the AP, Texas Governor Rick Perry has declared a tort reform measure to be "emergency legislation", which means that it will be placed on a fast track to be considered and passed by the Texas Legislature.
The measure, House Bill 274, will call upon the Texas Supreme Court to tighten rules for bringing a civil law suit. It would also institute a "loser pays" system that would require the plaintiff to pay for the defendant's legal bills should he or she lose the law suit.

According to the Point of Law website, the United States is unique in all of western democracies in the fact that it does not have a loser pays regime for civil law suits, with the exception of Alaska, which has had the rule for decades, and Oregon and Oklahoma, which has applied loser pays to a significant amount of civil actions.

Point of Law suggests that he principle behind loser pays is that it would discourage frivolous law suits, often brought to persuade a defendant to settle out of court rather than undergo the expense of a trial. It would also provide an incentive for more reasonable out of court settlements.

A further argument for loser pays points to the fact that even if a party who is being sued prevails in court, he or she is often out a significant amount of money simply defending him or herself.

The Point of Law website suggests, however, that one reason that loser pays has not been more widely enacted in the United States is that the American bar is very powerful and jealously defends what for it is a lucrative industry. Contingency fee lawyers can make a considerable amount of money in filing legal actions, even if sometimes the cases are weak.

Texas has previously passed a tort reform bill that limited non economic damages to $750,000. The bill, passed in 2003, was aimed primarily at curbing medical malpractice lawsuits. The American Tort Reform Association claims that the law has resulted in a decrease in medical liability premiums for physicians in Texas and an increase in physician recruitment and retention in the state,

Texas resident Mark Whittington writes about state issues for the Yahoo! Contributor Network

 

“Loser Pays” Means Families Pay

Texas Watch—May 4th, 2011

Share this:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Here we go again.  Lobbyists in Austin are once again trying to shield their corporate clients by socializing the cost when they cause needless death, injury, or financial devastation.  This time they are pushing HB 274, an un-American scheme that threatens families and small businesses with having to pay the bloated legal costs of big insurance companies and multi-national corporations.  Act Now to stop this dangerous legislation.
After 20+ years of pro-defendant legal changes, passing legislation that will make it even more difficult for Texans with valid claims to access the legal system is at best detrimental to public accountability and at worst unconstitutional.The bottom line is that their proposals are designed to intimidate families and small business owners into foregoing the legal accountability process, immunizing polluters, insurance companies, and other big corporate defendants from responsibility.
These schemes most acutely impact middle class families who could be financially devastated not only if they lose a valid lawsuit, but even if they just don’t win big enough.  And, the proposal before lawmakers puts small businesses at a particular disadvantage when facing a big corporation in court.
If this bill passes, defendants will be in complete control, leaving the family or business owner at the whim of the accused wrongdoer.  Also, under their gerry-rigged formula, even if you win a verdict, you could still be forced to pay the defendant’s legal costs.  In other words, you can win and still lose.
Despite the lobbyists’ rhetorical misdirections, this issue has nothing to do with penalizing people who file meritless lawsuits.  We already have stiff penalties on the books for that, including the payment of attorneys’ fees.  Their real goal is to erase the notion of corporate responsibility.  They want to erect so many obstacles to justice that we just throw up our hands and let corporate criminals like BP off the hook.
HB 274 would allow insurance companies even more latitude to deny and underpay valid claims.  For instance, a family injured in an auto accident would face an impossible choice if the at-fault driver’s insurance company denied a valid claim.  The family would face the threat of paying the bloated legal costs of the insurance company’s legions of lawyers or accepting whatever low-ball offer the insurer makes.
Florida’s experience with a scheme similar to the one being debated by our legislature was so bad that lawmakers there repealed it just five years later.  As the Duke Law Journal notes, proponents are “diplomatically silent about Florida’s unsuccessful experience.”  A former president of the nation’s oldest association of civil defense lawyers put it bluntly: “They tried it in Florida, and it was a disaster.”
Known as the “British Rule,” this concept was roundly rejected by our nation’s founders more than two centuries ago because it guts individual liberty.  In recent years, however, Britain and other countries have begun to rethink the wisdom of this system.  In fact, the British Ministry of Justice recently commissioned a report that recommends that Britain scrap its current system in favor of the “American Rule” in which both parties are responsible for their own legal costs.  The Economist magazine proclaimed that “every citizen in the land would, at last, have a fair opportunity to have a case heard in the nation’s courts.”
The bottom line is that Texas families already face significant barriers to accessing the constitutional promise of a right to Trial by Jury.  Adopting a scheme that has a dubious history and is designed to force families and small businesses with valid claims to weigh the possibility of paying the legal costs of multi-national corporations is not in the best interests of public safety, public justice, or public policy.

Lawyers arrogantly screw up paperwork on Mortgages..Bar wont do jack

Post from Frank Coxwell, I will add nothing other than Res Ipsa Loquitor brother.

EDITOR'S COMMENT: I'd like to see the expression of someone who sits on
a Bar grievance committee that meets out discipline to lawyers, when
they read this. In any situation, until the mortgage meltdown, if a
lawyer signed documents and then presented them as his client's
"evidence" he would be subject to severe discipline if not disbarment.
But as long as we have trillions of dollars at stake, nobody at the Bar
associations is saying anything. Here we have, courtesy of
stopforeclosurefraud.com, part of the transcript in which the lawyer
testifies rather arrogantly, that "sure" he signed the documents, so
what? No, he didn't ever speak to anyone about doing it, no he never
obtained permission or instructions, he just did it.The bottom line is that as long as we delay applying the law as it was
written and followed for hundreds of years concerning property rights,
contract rights, lending and attorney misconduct, the foreclosures will
continue, the housing mess will get larger, and the economy will
continue to sag under the weight of 80 million mortgage transactions
that in any other setting would be called grand theft. And as long as we
continue to hear that correction and restoration of the wealth taken
from investor-lenders and homeowners would be unfair to those who were
not defrauded, we will continue to be subjected to Alice in Wonderland
policies.


ROY DIAZ TRANSCRIPT

Excerpts:
Q. So through that corporate authority as Exhibit 4 to this deposition,
MERS assented to the terms Of this assignment of mortgage?
A. Through me.
Q. So it was you that assented to the terms of This assignment of
mortgage.
A. The one in this case, yes.
Q. And no one else.
A. Correct
Q. And you signed as vice president of MERS acting solely as a nominee
for America's Wholesale Lender; is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. How did you know that MERS was nominee for America's Wholesale
Lender?
A. By reviewing documentation.
Q. What documentation?
A. I don't specifically recall what I reviewed In this case to see that,
to determine that, but I would have reviewed either the mortgage or I
would have reviewed other documentation that would have established that
to me.
Q. So in this case you don't remember a single Document that you looked
at that would establish the Nominee status of MERS for America's
Wholesale Lenders; Is that correct?
A. I don't
Q. Did someone at America's Wholesale Lender Tell you that MERS was
acting as the nominee?
A. No.
Q. Did someone at MERS tell you they were Acting as Nominee for
America's Wholesale Lender?
A. NO.
Q. Was America's Wholesale Lender in existence On May 19, 2010?
A. don't now.
Q. Did you check that before signing this assignment of mortgage?
A. No.

Q. Now, you've said you review the MERS
Website and you've seen documents like this, like Composite Exhibit 6.
Any reason why you wouldn't review the documents contained in Exhibit 6
before executing the assignment of mortgage?
A. It's not necessary.
Q. Why not?
A. Because it's not. Because I decided it's not.
Q. You as vice president of MERS?
A. In every possible capacity as it relates to This case.
Q. Did you sign this assignment of mortgage after being retained as
counsel for the plaintiff?
A. After my law firm was retained?
Q. (Nods head.)
A. Is that the question?
Q. Sure.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So you executed an assignment to be Used as evidence in your
case, correct?
A. Sure.
Q. Is that a yes?
A. It's a sure.
Q. Is that a yes o a no?
A. You said sure earlier. Was that a yes or a No?
Q. Okay. So...
A. It's a yes.
Q. It's a yes.