Just when you thought the world was screwed up enough........

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152006/news/...san_edelman.htm

 

Here we have a bunch of lawyers cashing in on efforts to deny health benefits to 9/11 1st responders. In other words......a big pile of money going to people who would deny the heros of that day the very least they deserve.

 

Sad, sickening, really messed up.......cant come up with enough words like that to describe this story.

 

 

Reason 9273456298746512987561298376129871623 why lawyers are douchebags.

Edited October 16, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[CrimsonWeltall]

I'm glad the government is spending millions of dollars to make sure that sick first responders don't get those millions.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'm glad the government is spending millions of dollars to make sure that sick first responders don't get those millions.

 

 

Just so we're all clear.......that's the NYC government that has this set up not the feds.

[Texsox]

If we didn't have some many rights and freedoms, we would not need so many lawyers.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If we didn't have some many rights and freedoms, we would not need so many lawyers.

 

 

I disagree. If we weren't a nation of petty, spiteful, asshats with no sense of personal responsibility and every desire to make a fast buck at someone else's expense then we wouldn't need so many lawyers.

[Flash Tizzle]

It's despicable, but not uncommon.

 

Airline industries, for example, hire high-priced corporate lawyers to devalue the "price" of victims following crashes. I'm sure many companies follow similar measures when people are injured (for legitimate reasons) and seek compensation.

 

I don't know how any laywer working this particular case could live with themselves. Does a life of luxury compensate for the suffering thousands of families must endure?

 

First responders and those whom spent thousands of hours digging at Ground Zero didn't exactly have an idea what they were breathing. As I recall, sensors were sent up to detect asbestos. False security, really. They weren't breathing asbestos -- they were breathing polverized concrete, among other objects burnt from the jet fuel. Hell, it was actually worse than asbestos when you think of the rapid onset of illness.

[NorthSideSox72]

Let's make sure we differentiate between lawyers who are part of the criminal legal system, and those on the civil suit and litigation side. Big difference.

 

And as Nuke said, the problem is the fact that our society is filled with "asshats" who are consistently unwilling to take personal responsibility (in this case, the city government is the asshat). The lawyers are just enablers. I blame the asshats a lot more than I do the lawyers.

 

Since the societal trend away from taking responsibility will take a long time to reverse, there are two other things that can be done - tort reform and the removal of juries from civil trials. I realize the latter is an unpopular idea, but I personally don't believe the jury trial system works. In the case of this specific issue, the federal government could intervene in some fashion. Probably would be a good PR move too, for whatever branch goes after it first.

[AbeFroman]

Somebody thinks they are worth all that money to reduce the amount of money paid on insurance claims... i think that makes the insurance company execs scummier than the lawyers.

[Texsox]

We have an adversarial legal system. It works when both sides work hard and offer their best case. Doesn't matter if it's civil or criminal. Name a better legal system anywhere? Our rights are protected when the least among us are as vigerously fought for as the most priviledged. It isn't always pretty, and it seems down right scummy at times, but it has served us well for a very long time.

[jackie hayes]

Wait.......

 

The entire purpose of this company is to indemnify the City against 9/11 claims, right?

 

The company is not intended in any way to provide benefits, health or otherwise, to survivors or responders, right?

 

If you set up an organization dedicated to maintaining that NYC is not liable, and they maintain that the City is not liable, why are you blaming the people of that organization?

 

I see Post, I get sceptical. Gimme some detail, here.

[Soxbadger]

Nuke,

 

So I assume you work at a job that does not make any sort of profit.

 

Because when you make a profit, you are "making a quick buck off some one elses expense."

 

Im sorry but last I checked you do not need a lawyer. You can go into almost any case as a Pro Se plaintiff or defendant. The only problem is you will most likely lose. So people pay the money so that they make sure they are properly represented.

 

The real problem is that corporations are willing to spend millions on their lawyers to make sure that the regular joe has basically no chance to beat them. If you are looking for big legal fees, look no farther than corporate America.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke,

 

So I assume you work at a job that does not make any sort of profit.

 

 

You assume correctly.

 

Let's make sure we differentiate between lawyers who are part of the criminal legal system, and those on the civil suit and litigation side. Big difference.

 

And as Nuke said, the problem is the fact that our society is filled with "asshats" who are consistently unwilling to take personal responsibility (in this case, the city government is the asshat). The lawyers are just enablers. I blame the asshats a lot more than I do the lawyers.

 

Since the societal trend away from taking responsibility will take a long time to reverse, there are two other things that can be done - tort reform and the removal of juries from civil trials. I realize the latter is an unpopular idea, but I personally don't believe the jury trial system works. In the case of this specific issue, the federal government could intervene in some fashion. Probably would be a good PR move too, for whatever branch goes after it first.

 

 

I take issue with the bolded portion of your statement. Often time, Lawyers go out there and seek out people and encourage them to sue in order to fatten their own pockets, then they go shopping for a sympathetic jury that will see their things their way ( think of Marion county, IL. ).

[Soxbadger]

Often time, Lawyers go out there and seek out people and encourage them to sue in order to fatten their own pockets, then they go shopping for a sympathetic jury that will see their things their way ( think of Marion county, IL. ).

 

Well the first part I would be interested in seeing your facts. There are ARDC rules out about contacting clients, so I would be interested in what you consider "encouraging to sue." Are you talking about the infomercials that list your rights and says you may be able to get compensation?

 

Are you talking about class action lawsuits that get sent to all members of the perceived class?

 

As for forum shopping, the part about Marion, IL, I dont understand what your beef is. There are rules about forum and jurisdiction.

 

If the court legally has personal and subject matter jurisdiction, then why should the plaintiff not be able to bring the lawsuit where ever they want?

 

The defense can motion the court to move the case to a more convenient forum, but in almost all of the cases where they forum shop, the case can be legally brought in almost every single jurisdiction. Does that mean that the plaintiffs lawyers should pick a forum where they may lose for their client? Or is it their job to do their best to win for their client?

 

Its not like the corporation is going to be playing "fair" or making sure that the plaintiff has a good shot.

 

Not to mention almost every one of those class action lawsuits are appealed and the end money reduced significantly or settled out of court.

 

Lawyers dont make cases, the cases make themselves. If you want to get rid of lawyers, then make sure people follow the law. Make sure that employers pay their employees so that the Wage, Payment, Collection act does not exist. Make it so that people pay their child support. Make it so that people dont break lending laws.

 

But last I checked for every person that follows the law, there seems to be atleast 1 person who is actively trying to break it or make a short cut.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Well the first part I would be interested in seeing your facts. There are ARDC rules out about contacting clients, so I would be interested in what you consider "encouraging to sue." Are you talking about the infomercials that list your rights and says you may be able to get compensation?

 

Are you talking about class action lawsuits that get sent to all members of the perceived class?

 

As for forum shopping, the part about Marion, IL, I dont understand what your beef is. There are rules about forum and jurisdiction.

 

If the court legally has personal and subject matter jurisdiction, then why should the plaintiff not be able to bring the lawsuit where ever they want?

 

The defense can motion the court to move the case to a more convenient forum, but in almost all of the cases where they forum shop, the case can be legally brought in almost every single jurisdiction. Does that mean that the plaintiffs lawyers should pick a forum where they may lose for their client? Or is it their job to do their best to win for their client?

 

Its not like the corporation is going to be playing "fair" or making sure that the plaintiff has a good shot.

 

Not to mention almost every one of those class action lawsuits are appealed and the end money reduced significantly or settled out of court.

 

Lawyers dont make cases, the cases make themselves. If you want to get rid of lawyers, then make sure people follow the law. Make sure that employers pay their employees so that the Wage, Payment, Collection act does not exist. Make it so that people pay their child support. Make it so that people dont break lending laws.

 

But last I checked for every person that follows the law, there seems to be atleast 1 person who is actively trying to break it or make a short cut.

 

Ambulance chasing is common practice, In fact, when my mother got into an accident some years back the family was accosted by a lawyer in the waiting area of the damn hospital offering to "sue the hell out of em". A call to a nearby security officer ended his pitch.

 

Your last sentence also caught my eye as for every one breaking the law or trying to get over on the system there will be a lawyer doing his damdest to ensure that justice is thwarted and the perp gets away with whatever he has done and fatten his own pockets in so doing.

[santo=dorf]

Say, who's in charge of getting criminals criminals convicted and put in jail? Army people?

 

Oh wait, it's those damn lawyers again. :rolly

[Texsox]

Your last sentence also caught my eye as for every one breaking the law or trying to get over on the system there will be a lawyer doing his damdest to ensure that justice is thwarted and the perp gets away with whatever he has done and fatten his own pockets in so doing.

 

So who should lawyers defend? I'm guessing you think the government is infallable and if someone is charged of a heinous crime they must be guilty. Damn that innocent until proven innocent concept.

 

How can you swear to uphold a constitution you don't believe in? Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our justice system. Even the military would provide you an attorney if you were accused of a crime. Of course you would wave counsel and just plead guilty, since the charges must be true.

 

Our system works precisely because someone is fighting for everyone the government accuses of a crime. We all can sleep better at night knowing that the government can't just bust down our door and lock us up.