Corp Reform - Not Tort Reform

Cicinfo - UPDATED

Lately, I've been getting a ton of hits from people searching for cicinfo.  I had no idea why until I got a letter from Freecreditreport.com advising me that freecreditreport.com entered into a settlement with the FTC over consumers who weren't given full refunds.  The letter reminded me of the lawsuit I had against Freecreditreport.com back in 2004.  (Search the site for the saga.)

Since I've been getting so many hits, I thought I'd dig and see what I can figure out about cicinfo.

Apparently, Freecreditreport contracted with Garden City Group to handle the details of the settlement.  Garden City Group appears to be a legal "middleman" that processes the paperwork, refunds, etc. in class action cases and other cases with a large number of people involved.  I have no idea how reputable/honest/efficient that Garden City Group is, but judging by their list of clients, I assume they're at least OK.

Freecreditreport.com and I resolved our differences back in 2004, so I have no need to participate in this settlement.  However, if I did, here's what I would do:

• Follow the directions in the letter.
• Not send my social security number via email.
• Send any paperwork or forms via certified mail and keep copies for myself of anything I sent.

All the standard disclaimers apply: I'm not a lawyer; this isn't legal advice; if you have legal questions, find a lawyer through the yellow pages or your State Bar Association.

On a side note, I'm happy to see that the FTC did some good in this case.  The wheels of justice turn slowly, but at least they still turn.

UPDATE:

For more info, visit the FTC's page about the settlement:

"Consumerinfo.com, Inc., doing business as Experian Consumer Direct, has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceptively marketed “free credit reports” by not adequately disclosing that consumers automatically would be signed up for a credit report monitoring service and charged $79.95 if they didn’t cancel within 30 days, in violation of federal law. The settlement requires Consumerinfo to pay redress to deceived consumers, bars deceptive and misleading claims about “free” offers, requires disclosure of terms and conditions of any “free” offers, and requires the defendant to give up $950,000 in ill-gotten gains."

A Motion To Kiss My Ass

Looks like we all dodged a bullet.  Apparently, Matthew Washington, an inmate in Georgia, filed a motion to compel all Americans to kiss his ass.  This post is a funny read over at Concurring Opinions:

"In the instant case, Plaintiff has sued all of the judges and one magistrate judge from this District as well as one judge and one magistrate judge from the Middle District of Georgia. Plaintiff also unsuccessfully tried to join Judge Michael Karpf of the Superior Court of Chatham County and United States Senator Sam Nunn. His five motions to amend are overshadowed by the “Motion to Kiss My Ass” which Plaintiff filed (apparently to express his frustration with Magistrate Judge G.R. Smith's refusal to allow the addition of Judge Karpf and Senator Nunn). This case has been pending less than one year and already Plaintiff has filed three interlocutory appeals. Likewise, in Matthew Washington v. R.D. Collins, et al., Plaintiff has already filed three frivolous interlocutory appeals in a case which is only several months old."

At least this guy puts his money where his mouth is; rather than filing in forma pauperis in which the court waives filing fees, he uses his disability checks to pay them. 

Who does tort reform protect? Drug abusing doctors, for starters...

Wouldn't it be horrible if malpractice lawsuits drove doctors like this out of practice?

Now, it could be that the doctor in question really wasn't using drugs, despite three drug tests to the contrary.  And it could be that even if the doctor was using drugs, that he wasn't impaired when he treated the patients that died.  And it could also be that even if he was impaired, that wasn't the cause of the deaths of both patients.  We'll have to watch the trial(s).

But if the doctor was high, and his impaired state did lead to these two deaths, is there any reason whatsoever that tort reform should protect him?

A First Amendment Question Far More Important Than F.A.I.R. v. Rumsfeld

As exciting as the oral arguments were in F.A.I.R. v. Rumsfeld, a case of much greater importance to our free speech rights was filed in an El Paso County Court-at-Law.

From the El Paso Times:

"A West El Paso man is suing his neighbors for $125,000 because he claims the dog barks nonstop. The pet's owners deny the allegations, but their lawyer says that if the dog was barking, it has a constitutional right to do so.

"I can assure you we are going to fight this case to the death. Take it all the way to the (U.S.) Supreme Court if necessary. I can honestly state that if the dog did bark at all, the dog was simply exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech," said Monty Stevens, lawyer for the Alvarados."

Keep track of this case here. 

Honda Did WHAT?!

I don't even know if there are words to describe just how disgusting this is.

"The sanctions decision, issued on October 3, 2002, by Placer County (California) Superior Court Judge James D. Garbolino, found that Gratzinger had “deliberately” obliterated key evidence in Davis v. Honda, a lawsuit based on a March 1999 accident in a Honda Civic that left plaintiff Sarah Davis, then 17 years old, a quadriplegic. The court found that by intentionally destroying marks showing that Davis had been wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident – the “single most critical issue” in the case – Honda had “attempted to rob” the plaintiff “of her right to litigate on a level playing field.” As a sanction, the court held Honda liable for Davis’s injuries and ruled the jury would only decide how much in damages Honda paid Davis."

At least the good guys at Trial Lawyers for Public Justice exposed this, and as a consequence, the evidence-altering "expert witness" Honda used will probably have a hard time getting gigs in the future.  Can anyone give me one good reason why criminal charges shouldn't have been brought against the guy?  Disgusting.

One More Thought About The Monster Cable Lawsuits

Would anything be more ironic than if Monster Cable sued monsterlawsuits.com?  Would the headline read, "Monster Cable files monster lawsuit against MonsterLawsuits.com?"  Or, "Lawsuit-Monster Monster Cable Sues MonsterLawsuits.com over Monster Moniker?"

Monster Cable claims that the point of the lawsuits is to protect the value of their brand.  I wonder if they've figured out how much damage to the brand the lawsuits have done.

We've Already Had Punitive Damages Reform

One of the reasons often cited as a need for tort reform is punitive damages awards that run into the hundreds of millions, and sometimes even billions of dollars.

But the United States Supreme Court already implemented punitive damages reform in 1996, and again in 2003. This article explains how a $3 billion dollar punitive damages award is being reduced to $50 million dollars, pursuant to two Supreme Court decisions.

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court held that only in the most extreme cases should punitive damages be more than 4-5 times the amount of compensatory damages, and that punitive damages of 9 times compensatory damages nears the outer edge of constitutionality.

Since the Supreme Court already implemented punitive damages reform, it's needless to pass laws that are duplicative of their efforts.

The part of the article that I found most disturbing was this:

"$50 million is less than four days' profit for Philip Morris," he said in a prepared statement. "This fine will not punish it or deter its future conduct that imperils the health and lives of our citizens."

It seems odd that we'll let a jury take the remaining years of a man's life - or even kill him - but we'll only let a jury take a few days profit from a corporation, even if that corporation caused and continues to cause people to die.

And for the record, I'm against most tobacco suits; if cigarettes are so god damned bad, make them illegal.

Frivolous Lawsuits Can't Be Stopped

One point that I think needs to be made is that no tort reform proposal has been made that would actually stop frivolous lawsuits. One of our Constitutional rights is to sue anyone we want, for anything we want. No matter how frivolous our suit may be. Hell, an attorney could even bring a class action suit against Santa Claus on behalf of every person who didn't get a pony as a kid.

So how could we stop suits from being filed? Would we have court clerks evaluate every lawsuit to determine if it should be filed? That won't happen for two reasons. First, nonlawyers aren't allowed to give legal advice: It's called unauthorized practice of law, and it's illegal. Second, it would be unconstitutional - and scary - to have a nonelected official be able to pick and choose which lawsuits he or she would allow to be filed. What if the clerk refused to let lawsuits against friends or family be filed? The potential for abuse is too great. Ultimately, there's no way to prevent people from filing whatever lawsuit they wanted to - no matter how frivolous it may be.

For example, take a look at this pdf I created as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. Change the names of the parties and the name of the court, and you could file this in any court in America:

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES Greedy Plaintiff, complaining of Deep Pocket, and would show unto the Court as follows:

1: Greedy Plaintiff is envious of anyone with more money than him. He has nothing better to do than file frivolous and vexatious lawsuits to try and force rich Defendants into paying him a settlement for nuisance value.

2: Deep Pocket has committed no wrong against Greedy Plaintiff. Greedy Plaintiff’s suit is brought solely to vex, harass, badger, pester, annoy, irritate, terrorize, blackmail, extort, anger, worry, bullyrag, bother, bedevil, and beleaguer Deep Pocket.

3: Upon information and belief, this is a frivolous and vexatious lawsuit, with no basis in law or fact, and is brought solely because Deep Pocket has more money than Plaintiff.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Greedy Plaintiff, respectfully prays that Deep Pocket be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered for Greedy Plaintiff against Deep Pocket for economic, noneconomic, and punitive damages in the amount of one hundred billion dollars ($100,000,000,000.00) and such other and further relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled at law or in equity.

Once you filed this frivolous lawsuit, you could have the defendant served with a copy of it, and the defendant would have about 30 days to hire a lawyer and file an answer. If the defendant ignored the suit, you could obtain a default judgment - winning by default because the defendant didn't show up to contest it.

Sure, if the defendant answered, the suit would be dismissed. You'd probably even be ordered to pay the defendant's legal fees. And in some states, you could even be charged with a crime for knowingly filing a frivolous lawsuit.

But all of those things happen after a defendant is forced to spend time and money to respond to a frivolous lawsuit.

Make no mistake - tort reform will not and can not stop frivolous lawsuits. All it will do and can do is protect corporations from being held accountable when they cause injuries.

Runaway Judges Piss off Philip Morris

Turns out the bad guys at Philip Morris knowingly marketed "light" cigarettes as less dangerous than regular cigarettes, when they knew they were just as bad. So, the judge - not a jury - awarded $7 billion in economic damages and $3 billion in punitive damages. In fact, because big business has been so successful in convincing people that "runaway juries" are destroying the system, Philip Morris REQUESTED A JURY TRIAL, which was denied by the judge.

Let me state again: In a multibillion-dollar class action lawsuit, Philip Morris asked for a jury trial. You know, the same runaway juries that they always bitch about. Why? Because the bogus hype about runaway juries has worked. This shouldn't come as any surprise. After all, the Department of Justice issued a report years ago that shows judges award more money than jurors.

The court decision over at www.tobacco.org contains some great quotes from the judge. For example:

The Court recognizes that punitive damages are not favored in the law and this Court is careful not to award such damages improperly or unwisely. However, the course of conduct by Philip Morris related to its fraud in this case is outrageous, both because Philip Morris' motive was evil and the acts showed a reckless disregard for the consumers' rights. As a consequence, punitive damages are appropriate in this case.

Of course, Philip Morris is appealing the decision. The important thing about this case, for me anyway, is that it clearly shows that runaway juries aren't a problem. If the most hated industry in America would rather have their case tried by a jury than a judge, doesn't that show that their misinformation and propaganda has been working?