Kia Franklin
Oops is right! Tort Deform Hypocrisy at its Finest/Worst
A recent blog by Ted Frank provides another example of the supremely disingenuous words and motives—which Justinian Lane pointed out recently—of a disingenuous “movement.” The pro-deformers are at it again. Frank writes:
Perhaps one reason trial lawyers so frequently accuse reformers of manufacturing popular outrage is because such astroturfing is a common trial-lawyer tactic…
Wow, I’m thinking, this sounds juicy. So, I read on, and what’s the big evil “trial lawyer conspiracy”? A letter writing campaign. (A letter writing campaign!?! Not so juicy after all.) Frank describes the letters as “written at the behest of” the AAJ and “criticizing the Bush administration officials who dare to stand up to….attempted extortion.” According to Mr. Frank, it is “attempted extortion” to hold corporate financial advisors responsible for their role in corporate defrauding of investors. I suppose next I’ll be told to believe that the Bush administration, with all of its tort reform ties, was not at all influenced by these corporate friendships. Okay. Well, the Supreme Corp. may very well agree with that, but I smell a rat.
But, back to Frank’s complaint: What if tort “reformers” are accused so frequently because the accusation is true? I wonder why Frank forgot to mention that tort deformers have been doing the super-sized, super-funded, and super-secret version of this “manufacturing” for decades now, all on big businesses’ dime (See here and here). But tort “reformers” did not waste their time on any small-scale, letter-writing campaigns. No, they helped fund state-level front groups (CALAs) to dispense deform-propaganda on bus and billboard ads; provided paid “experts” for news reporting on lawsuits; and generated skewed “polls” about Americans’ perceptions about the civil justice system (Read more).
A Public Citizen and Center for Justice and Democracy study shows that:
Since 1991, “tort reform” advocates have set up dozens of tax-exempt groups in at least 18 states (currently there are 27 active groups) to plant their “lawsuit abuse” message in the media and the public consciousness, and to influence legislation, the judiciary and jurors. These groups claim to speak for average Americans and represent themselves as grassroots citizens groups determined to protect consumer interests. But their tax filings and funding sources indicate that they actually represent major corporations and industries seeking to escape liability for the harm they cause consumers — whether it be from defective products, medical malpractice, securities scams, insurance fraud, employment discrimination or environmental pollution. These organizations hide their pro-business agenda behind consumer-friendly names like Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, Stop Lawsuit Abuse, Lawsuit Abuse Watch, and People for a FAIR Legal System.
So, let’s see if we can get this straight: Decades of disseminating propaganda, un-substantiated claims of a lawsuit crisis, and other distortions conveniently tailored to the interests of corporate entities, does not amount to “manufacturing public outrage.” But sharing factual information and then encouraging citizens to take action based upon their independent judgment about that information, does.
Tort “reformers” seem to have a problem with public expression of views, except when it is done from behind the curtain, or when it helps big business, or both. The stealthy, pseudo-“independent” tactics of tort “reformers” have been exposed time and time again, making their bold accusations against civil justice advocates’ letter writing campaign laughable in light of their mammoth misdeeds.
But, since we’ve been given the opportunity, let’s take pause and ask: why are deformers making such a big fuss over a little letter writing campaign? Because its success, marked by genuine public support rather than propaganda and political influence, is threatening. It helped expose another simple truth about big tort-deform lies, reminding us that most Americans do not want to limit their rights so that businesses can keep their profits high, and be protected from having to pay from the harm they cause. (Read more). It reminds us that because of tort lawsuits, harmful yet profitable products have been taken off the market, and that without tort lawsuits, we’d have to rely on government regulation to do that. Did someone say Vioxx?
But tort deformers’ attack on civil justice efforts, hypocritical as it is, is nonetheless exciting. It means that the American public may be on the verge of effectively expressing its outrage at the quiet success of corporate “just us” justice.
You can visit the website of People Over Profits, the organization that encouraged the letter writing campaign, to learn more about their efforts.
Posted at 2:16 PM, Jun 27, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Kia:
Well written.
--ET
Posted by: Eric @ New York Personal Injury Law Blog | June 27, 2007 03:53 PM
Eric: Explain something. Will you support a statute in all jurisdictions permitting a straight legal malpractice claim by an adverse third party to improve the product of the tort lawyer? Why not? Your product is defective. Some tires may fail 1 in a 1000 times. Your product fails over 500 in a 1000 times.
If you cannot support such, shut your hypocritical, lying, land pirate mouth.
I want to hear from Eric why damage caused by a deviation from professional land pirate standards of land pirate due care should be exempted from tort liability. We can apply tort reform measures to the claim against the tort feasing land pirate. For example, a certificate of merit by a land piracy expert in the same land pirate specialty would be required before filing a claim. Non-economic damages caps would be permitted. Statutes of limitations would apply from the date of the discovery of the damages. Any tort reform would apply to the land pirate malpractice litigation. All land pirates would be required to pay for very high insurance coverage before any renewal of land piracy licenses.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | June 27, 2007 08:51 PM
I've visited PEOPLE OVER PROFITS several times - while not quite on the lunatic fringe, they're nearly there
Posted by: Paul W Dennis | June 28, 2007 06:58 AM
Of course, trial lawyers do not want corporations to pay for the harm they cause. They want corporations to pay for the harm other people cause. Or harm caused by acts of god. Or no harm at all, like many consumer protection lawsuits. Just as long as those with deep pockets pay.
Posted by: David Nieporent | June 28, 2007 09:29 AM
Supremacy Clause--may I call you SC? SC, my friend, please REFRAIN from saying disrespectful cheap-shotty things like: "If you cannot support such, shut your hypocritical, lying, land pirate mouth." It is supremely unproductive. Didn't you see the exchange between Elizabeth Edwards and Ann Coulter? Well, saying stuff like that makes you look like Ann Coulter.
Had to get that out of the way. A second thought:
You write in your comment to Eric, "Your product is defective. Some tires may fail 1 in a 1000 times. Your product fails over 500 in a 1000 times." What is this product? A prevailing judgment? Well, since there are always going to be at least two sides in a lawsuit, that means that for every case, someone's gotta win, someone's gotta lose. (50/50, or 500 in 1000). That's how it works.
Posted by: Kia | June 28, 2007 01:04 PM
One more thing...
Why are some people so quick to pass corporate wrongdoing off as a problem caused by someone else or an act of God, and so quick to believe the average citizen is irresponsible enough and has enough time/money to sue when they don't genuinely believe they were harmed? The truth is most people who've actually been injured and actually could sue, don't.
"Other people" (as David N. has put it) don't defectively design products, allow their workers to work in unsafe environments, sell drugs that have deadly side effects with no warning, or provide grossly inadequate services, all because it makes $en$e. So why are we so afraid to focus on the times when corporations DO inflict harm? Why are we avoiding the question of the vast majority of consumer protection cases in which people HAVE been harmed?
Corporations are let off the hook for wrongdoing so much more frequently than they are wrongly blamed. And part of it is because they've bought justice. Many corporations get to write off the expense of litigation (corporate welfare), while individual people don't. They get to include litigation expenses in their budgets and to do cost/benefit analyses to determine if it makes any sense to comply with the law (or whether it just costs less to litigate).
People think that the civil justice system is there to protect them, and they think this because it is SUPPOSED to do that.
Posted by: Kia | June 28, 2007 03:21 PM
Kia: I like the familiar, first name basis, Supremacy, SC is OK.
Those were not cheap shots. Those were elements. Each required scienter.
I have bought the package. I believe in torts. I do not believe in any tort reform, thus the animosity of Ted. I am to the right of Ted so much, I have come around to the left of your side.
I even oppose Supreme Court limits on punitive damages.
Now, tell me the policy justifications for lawyer self-dealt immunities from the benefits of torts. Prosecutors, judges, lawyers without privity, states, kings, the irresponsible lawsuit proof. Tell me why lawyer, self-dealt immunities are good. If they are not good for the lawyer, explain to me why they are good for anyone else.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | June 28, 2007 09:08 PM
By the way - who funds this site? Since I am aware that there are a lot of shell games associated with blogs such this one, this is really a multiple part question:
1) who funds this site ?
2) who funds the party that funds this site ?
3) who fund the the party that funds the party that funds this site ?
I think if we can follow the chain far enough we'll find out that this site gets its funding, directly or indirectly from the plaintiff bar - either that or the lunatic left-wing fringe
Posted by: Paul W Dennis | July 1, 2007 02:24 AM
Responding to Paul's question: Tortdeform is funded by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, a nonpartisan, nonprofit, public policy organization.
Posted by: Kia | July 2, 2007 03:45 PM
Kia: If the policy institute is a non-profit, the blog should allow more balance. For example, invite Ted to blog. -have only seen left, Democrat talking points in the blog.
Such partisanship opens you to IRS scrutiny. PLease, review. I like everyone here, even Eric. I don't want to give the IRS any pretext to attack the people here.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | July 2, 2007 05:21 PM
I checked out the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. A lot of their funding comes from trial lawyers and unions - if that's nonpartisan, then I'm Barbra Streisand.
Posted by: Paul W Dennis | July 2, 2007 11:59 PM
Not sure if Kia fully answered PWD's question. The Drum Major Institute's funding is drawn in large part from plaintiff's lawyers. Their board of directors can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_Major_Institute#Current_Board_of_Directors It contains many very prominent and wealthy trial lawyers (particularly if you exclude the public figures like Randi Weingarten and MLK III). One of them (Melvin Weiss) is also a named partner in a law firm that funds Kia's fellowship. I don't think think that there is anything wrong with pointing this out--nor, contrary to SCs point is there anything wrong with supporting causes that are more in line with the Democratic party than the Republican party--but I think it does a disservice to the readers of this site. Everyone who writes does so with conscious and unconcious biases and it is best to be upfront about them. It is understandable that Kia is reluctant to acknowledge her source of funding--for those who do not read the business pages it's become clear that much of Melvin Weiss' wealth came from his firm defrauding its plaintiffs. But I don't think it helps this debate--or the intelligent points that Kia makes--to sweep all this under the rug.
Posted by: Drew Drytellar | July 3, 2007 12:08 AM
If Drew's remark is true, I invite the punkass, horrible people, land pirates funding this site to come on it. Stop hiding behind a girl. She is very bright and competent. But, you are not too good nor too smart for the public demanding explanations for the damage you do to this nation.
Also, where is that jive turkey, mental midget, Ralph Nader?
Don't send left wing union goons to beat me up, neither, or I will sue.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | July 3, 2007 11:56 PM
Get off your HIGH horse supremacy claus.... stop hiding behind the personal insults. If you want to take part in the debate that is one thing, but just insulting people actually moving this dialogue forward doesn't help anyone, on either side.
To address your personal insult (referring to the blogger as a "girl") - I don't see belitting her and referring to her as a child makes your argument. No one is hiding behind a "girl." Rather, the Drum Majors wisely hired an attorney from Georgetown Law who cares about this issue and is willing to work very hard for little pay.
In response to all of the insuations about this blog being biased due to its funding - I Actually checked the website and the organization is funded by a variety of groups: trial lawyers, an insurance company, a big business owner, MLK III, etc. Kia certainly has said things against big business and insurance companies so if she has any biases they must not be coming from her funders. Furthermore, she has repeatedly recognized the possibility of frivolous suits.
Furthermore, every nonprofit is getting $ from someone/somewhere and to be honest, if Kia is working for the drum majors its probably because her heart is with the plaintiffs, not their attorneys. So all this nonsense about why this blog is supports the "left wing union goons" has nothing to do w/ $$. In fact it is the other way around... the people who care about this issue find others who care and have $ to support their work in the field.
Posted by: Dana | July 5, 2007 03:08 PM