It's funny how Cyrus brags about how his blog is above insults and then publishes ad hominems like this on the front page.

Justinian: your argument proves too much. Why exactly is ATRA less trustworthy than the trial-lawyer-funded opponents of reform? It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to question the motives of a participant in the reform debate while posting from a blog that is funded by Milberg Weiss, which manipulated the system through millions of dollars of illegal kickbacks to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in fees that might have better gone to the consumers they were supposedly protecting.

I think Cyrus is wrong, but I don't question his motives. My income from AEI this year will be more than 70% below the AGI I declared on my taxes the last full calendar year I was at a law firm, so my main funder is me: perhaps I support reform because I grew up admiring consumer advocates and am disgusted by a system where the consumer advocates are advocating for corrupt trial lawyers instead of consumers? Perhaps you can show your opponents some more respect and actually address the arguments they make instead of demagoguing over intentions: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It's funny how Lane's link to "protect them" is to a blog post he wrote about a decision by a judicial hellhole judge entirely in the plaintiffs' bar's pocket; that outlandish runaway decision, criticized by several Democratic state attorneys general, was thoroughly refuted by the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed it—a fact that Lane omits in his linked post. But, of course, it's only reformers who commit misrepresentations in describing cases, right?

By the way, plaintiffs' bar corruption in the civil justice system is driving up the costs of products, sending jobs overseas, and costing lives. Perhaps reformers say this because it's true, not just because it's scary.

Ted, I neither know nor care who funds this blog. As you well know, I've been doing this for years, and my posts here are cross posted at my own site. I have yet to receive any compensation for my efforts, with the exception of a single check for $25.00 from Cafepress for the sale of a few bumper stickers and t-shirts. The only agenda I have is my own.

As for showing opponents respect? Ted, I do respect you. You're a talented lawyer who I believe cares about the justice system. We simply disagree on what's best for it.

The ATRA, on the other hand, cares nothing about preserving the justice system. If a measure were proposed that eliminated all personal injury suits against corporations, they'd support it. That group is dedicated to using propaganda and lies to deceive people into gutting the civil justice system.

The link you criticize is in no way a misrepresentation. It's posted purely to refute a central claim of tort reformers - that "runaway juries" are the problem. In this instance, Philip Morris disproved their own argument by requesting a jury trial. The facts show that judges, not juries, award punitive damages most often.

I've decided I'm not willing to debate corruption in the civil justice system with you, as you're unwilling to admit that there is even one iota of corruption on the defense side. Your refusal to make such an admission shows you're either intentionally deceptive, or naive. When you're willing to admit the reality - that there are bad apples on both sides of the issue - we can discuss ways to reduce corruption and protect consumers.

Justinian once again dishonestly misrepresents my position; one can see what I actually wrote here. His perfect record of consistently refusing to honestly engage real arguments in favor of attacking strawmen is intact: this is the real reason he refuses to debate corruption in the civil justice system, because he doesn't dare actually address the real arguments being made.

His argument about runaway juries is a non sequitur: that there are dishonest judges that make bad rulings hardly precludes the existence of runaway juries, most of which come about through steering through poor jury instructions. The two are not mutually exclusive. And no reformer has ever said that the problem is solely one of runaway juries. Once again, Justinian attacks a strawman rather than honestly engages the arguments actually made by reformers.

What position of yours did I dishonestly represent? I was making broad generalizations about the mendacious arguments of Philip Morris and the ATRA. Are you the attorney of record or spokesperson for either entity?

Rather than addressing what I actually said, you instead try and play the victim.

I have no fear of debating corruption in the civil justice system. I'm opposed to it in all forms, by any party. You appear to only be opposed to corruption if its perpetrated by a plaintiff or his attorney. In fact, you won't even admit that there has ever been a single corrupt or unethical act committed by a single defendant or defense attorney.

Perhaps you're more interested in protecting the reputation of the ATRA and its corporate backers than the integrity of the justice system.

What position of yours did I dishonestly represent?

The part where you said (and repeated): "you won't even admit that there has ever been a single corrupt or unethical act committed by a single defendant or defense attorney."

You know that's not true. I told you that's not true the last time you made that accusation. And you repeat it twice here, demonstrating your lack of commitment to honesty.

Actually, Ted, I never saw that response. The thread had degenerated so much that I lost interest and quit visiting.

However, your words in that thread were:

My position is that I have seen no evidence of a single jurisdiction that systematically violates the due process rights of plaintiffs the way that those of out-of-state corporate defendants are violated by jurisdictions identified as judicial hellholes.

I'm open-minded enough to recognize the possibility that one exists. The fact that noone has identified such an animal with specificity, though they have plenty of incentive to do so, suggests to me otherwise.

That is not an admission that there are corrupt defendants and corrupt defense attorneys. Do you agree that there are? And if so, do you have any suggestions on reform measures that will reduce or eliminate ALL corruption?

Hi Guys,

I'm travelling. But just an FYI. My fellowship salary was funded by Milberg Weiss, a decision made long before the indictment of said firm.

Moreover, said firm has NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY of anything, it has only been indicted.

I am not here to debate the merits of those accusations, but firms and people alike are innocent until proven guilty. I just simply believe in that.

In any event, I am pretty sure that Milberg Weiss has not given any money to the creation of this actual blog project. The fact that I don't even know should also support my point that this blog is not influenced by an outside force with a self--interested agenda - as seems to be Ted's conception of things.

(for transparency's sake I will double check - Ted please do the same regarding your funders. ; )

Moreover, aside from me, everybody else on this blog is a volunteer.

So Ted, if you have a problem with my funding, by an accused but not convicted law firm (one which has brought a lot of great suits - including reparations for holocaust survivors) that's fine,
but don't try and bring in people who receive (unlike you) no money for their contributions to this blog.... which again............is everybody except me.

I don't believe your peers on overlawyered.com and pointoflaw.com can say that same about their independence and volunteer status

And I will be back into this fray shortly when I return.

I don't have a problem with your funding. I have a problem with your blog's hypocrisy and dishonest attacks, two problems repeated in your most recent comment where you recklessly make a series of baseless and untrue accusations.

What reckless and baseless assertions did he make? That you and your cohorts at overlawyered/point of law are compensated at least in part to advance the "reform" agenda? Is that not true?
Isn't your entire job, in essence, to advance the reform agenda espoused by AEI and its corporate masters?

You also accused Cyrus of hypocrisy. Isn't it hypocritical of you to complain that you're the victim of ad hominem attacks, and then attempt to discredit Cyrus and this entire blog by making an ad hominem attack against Cyrus' employer?

Perhaps you've forgotten that you recently bristled when someone tried to discredit you and AEI by pointing out that convicted felon Ken Lay was a trustee of and contributor to AEI?

Your response to that ad hominem attack was:

"I promise you that Ken Lay did not speak to me from beyond the grave to help me draft the comment to Mr. Lattman’s post. I’m not sure why you’re attacking me on multiple websites to obsess over someone I have never met or spoken to as opposed to, say, discussing whether my statements are accurate.

We'll let the readers decide who here is a hypocrite.

Well said Justinian.

What sort of dishonest game is Justinian playing?

1) Justinian says reformers aren't credible because some reformers have funding sources that are self-interested.
2) I noted that this blog has self-interested funding sources, and the ad hominem criticism is therefore hypocritical.
3) Justinian calls me a hypocrite... because why? Because I pointed out his attack was hypocritical?

Like I said, I don't care about Cyrus's funders. His arguments are wrong because his arguments are wrong, not because his fellowship is provided by a notoriously corrupt plaintiffs' firm. I merely pointed out that Justinian's argument against reform is both bogus and hypocritical, because he doesn't hold Cyrus to the same standard. I hold Cyrus to the same standard I hold myself: I don't find it relevant who funds AEI, and I don't find it relevant who funds Cyrus. Thus, Justinian is a hypocrite who uses ad hominem attacks, and I am not.

originally posted this in a different section

Lastly, as to funding sources, which everbody should always question, I think a quick look at my bio makes clear that the only interest group I have ever "served" so to speak - is the public interest.

Cyrus is a recent graduate of NYU Law School. Before law school he was engaged in community development work for five summers as a volunteer, Project Supervisor, Assistant Project Director, and Project Director in Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Honduras. In addition to his summertime work in Latin America, Cyrus spent a summer in Ghana performing research on matrilineal inheritance with Alliance International Research for Minority Scholars. Shortly after college he worked as a researcher at Massachusetts Voters for Fair Elections (a clean elections advocacy group) and as an intern at Political Research Associates (a research center dedicated to studying right wing movements). During law school Cyrus interned at Make the Road by Walking, the Socio-Economic Rights Project of the Community Law Center in Capetown, the NYU Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the New York State Defenders Association's Immigrant Defense Project, and the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Working Group. His law school extracurricular activities included serving as Co-Chair of the NYU Chapter of the National Lawyer's Guild (2004-2005), Education Chair of NYU's Law Students for Human Rights (2004-2005), MCC Representative of NYU BALSA (2004-2005), and Co-Chair of NYU's Public Interest Law Foundation (2005-2006). In his last year at NYU, Cyrus served as an Articles Selection Editor for the NYU Review of Law and Social Change (2005-2006) and was selected as the Arthur Garfield Hays Roger Baldwin Civil Rights & Human Rights Fellow (2005-2006).

What does your bio indicate Ted?

In any event, I think this conversation is great and I'd really like to know more about your think tank's funding sources.

The Drum Major Institute's are up on our website.

Let's compare.

Once again, Ted does what he does best: Ignores the facts and engages in ad hominem attacks. The facts are:

1: Last month, Ted said it was wrong to question whether he was trustworthy because he works for a firm funded by Enron and Kenneth Lay.

2: Now, Ted questions whether Cyrus is trustworthy because he works in part for a firm that has been indicted.

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit

Function: noun

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Just for accuracy's sake. I currently "work for" the Drum Major Institute. My salary,in th form of a fellowship, was requested and secured from said law firm almost a year before said legal problems.

Just to keep the record accurate.

I never said Cyrus was not trustworthy because he gets his money from the corrupt and dishonest Milberg Weiss (which is corrupt and dishonest because they are corrupt and dishonest, not because they are indicted). To the extent Cyrus isn't trustworthy, it's because he regularly gets facts and legal analysis wrong, and because he is reflexively pro-litigation-lobby regardless of the public-policy consequences, not because his money comes from Milberg Weiss. (One way in which Cyrus gets his facts wrong is claiming that Milberg Weiss didn't have legal problems in 2005. Par for the course.)

I said by Justinian's reasoning, Cyrus is untrustworthy, and asked why Justinian wasn't applying the same standards to Cyrus that he asked others to apply to reformers. I then noted that Justinian's reasoning was an illogical ad hominem attempt to distract from the substantive issues (such as Milberg Weiss's corruption); I never said ATRA was untrustworthy.

There are the only two conceivable explanations for Justinian's multiple lies in the 9/29 4:37 comment when the truth is right there above him in the comment-thread: either he is fundamentally dishonest and thinks his readers are easily-fooled idiots, or he does not know how to read.