Rotario

It's not opinion. There's plenty of empirical evidence.

DARKMAZ8

Have a nice life.... :D

klegg

Wrong Wrong Wrong....Tort reform has nothing to do with bankruptcy reform, and both are examples of the little guy getting screwed.


Let me address bankruptcy first. You have never been able to "run up" credit cards and then file...your spending habits and what dept you assumed prior to filing are looked at, you can not buy a 100,000 ring and then file 2 days later. Never have you been able to do that. The real problem is the credit co,s who give out insane credit lines., combined with our "keep up with everyone else" society, with is also in part caused by media pressure. Let me give you to examples. One, I still get credit card offers for my dead brother. He dies in 1998, after an extended bought with brain cancer, and in debt. Why is he cleared for a $10,000 credit line?

Oh yes, have you ever scene a bankruptchy hearing? It is about the most painful and humiliating thing that a person could have happen.


second example. My seceratary is a 20 year old collage student, on her own with 3 maxed out cards....she just got approved at her bank for a $5,000.00 card. She already has a card with this bank, and she is behind! If she ends up defaulting on this new card, I have to tell you, I say it is the bank's fault. There is a term we use in the law...."due dillagence"


Now, a word about tort reform. Insurance companys and big corps have the money to hire the best legal minds out there. Why are they so afarid of the legal system? A jury is made up of your peers. They here both sides, and render a decision. Does the attorney somehow use mind control to get a favorable verdict? Nope. It is because the facts usually support what the jury does. Examples of why big buisness wants tort reform? The pinto case, where ford decided it was cheaper to pay the familys of people who were burned to death in the pinto then to fix the problem with the gas tank....they let people die after they knew the tanks were a problem. The asbestos companys knew that their product was killing people. I have seen letters written by company lawyers, advising the presidants that the product was dangerous and should be removed form the market...the response "if asbetos gave the worker a good life, let it give them a fast death"

The legal system is the guardian of the people. Our country was founded on the free, unfettered right to trial. True, no system created by man is perfect, BUT Screwing with our basic rights is never a good idea. Should we change our criminal system, so that we return to the days of the "star chamber", and everyone is guilty until proven innocent....would it be better if 10 innocent people go to jail to insure one guilty persaon does not?

Finally, while I can not claim to have meet evey lawyer in the USA, I have no doubt delt with many more then you. The vast majority are honest and decent. The worst I have delt with, by far, work for the insurance industry, followed by large manufactering.

Really, you should get informed before you make such ill advised statements. People just love to swallow what ever crap is flung at them in 2 second sound bites.

klegg

Yup, that about sums it up.

klegg

Ah yes, the "personal responsibility" argument. Tell me, where is the personal responsobility of the banks? Where is fords responsibility for the pinto? When someone runs a red light, and blows out your back, where is their responsibility?


Really, what you mean is the little guy bears all the resonsibility for everyone elses actions, while the elite and wealthy bear none for theirs.

And no doubt you would run to a lawyer faster then anyone if the need arose.

Blaaz

Klegg, thanks for bringing a professional opion to this thread.
No lawyer jokes from me - at least for a little while.

klegg

You are welcome. I try to stay low key now, but after 11 years in practice, I just really hate the misinformation spread around.

RX8-TX

I've got none yet. Maybe I don't feel my wife and I are ready to bring children to this world. But that is beyond my point. How can you worry about a car, when the well being of your wife and self are at stake (and children?!)?

In a situation like that, letting the car go would the last of my concerns. In fact, screw the car, guitar and computer. If you still can't catch the drift, don't bother.

markd

Ooops, guess it didn't help that I ratted you out :D

Rotario

No, I didn't say that, and that's not even close to a reasonable interpretation of what I did say. Do you always screw someone elses words around sideways just to try and reinforce your personal viewpoint? You must be a lawyer (or a politician).

For every Pinto and asbestos story you can come up with, I can come up with a McDonalds coffee story (where the law and the legal system were totally abused).

So what's your point?

Bill

Howard

I really wish I had not started a controversy about the law. I had only one question. I am concerned about my wife. We are letting go of our home and moving to an apartment. My children are older then most of you. For those of you who think I should sell the car and buy something else that is not posible. I can't sell the car to pay off the loan because the loan is more then the car is worth and I have tried trading down but even if I could do that I'm not sure it is legal to buy a car while in the process of a bankruptcy. We probably won't keep the car and will be without for a while. Right now my concern is transportation to the doctor and such and I will not be able to get any kind of loan after bankruptcy to purchase decent transportation. My previous car was a 1985 and I got tired of the breakdowns but I am willing to go back to that. In fact my son still has that car parked in his back yard and with repairs I can drive that. All I asked was whether or not the attorney was being truthful in saying I could not reaffirm. I talked to 2 other attorneys and the bank after this original post and they said that is hog wash and thtat reaffirming was my choice not the attorneys decision.. I actually am much more concerned about losing a home I have lived in for twenty five years, but I did not bring that up because this forum is about the RX8. We will not do without and will live fine in an apartment. I'm sorry if I offended some with this post. It was the wrong place to bring this question to in the first place.

Aratinga

Howard, aren't you allowed to homestead your home in order to keep it through the bankruptcy? Here in California that's how it works. You are also allowed to keep one car as far as I know. Of course, if you are way behind on your mortgage payments that's a different story -- the bank can still foreclose.

I wish you the best, and I hope your wife recovers from her illness soon. The car is just a car, and can be replaced later when you're back on your feet. Good luck to you both.

klegg

Well bill, let us talk about McDonalds, since you brought that up. Do you know what that case settled for? I do. Do you know the facts? I bet not. McDonalds has a long history with their coffee. At trial, they testified that they get 10 scaldings a week from it, many serious enough to require skin grafts. They also tesitified that they knew their coffee was 40 degrees hotter then what the FDA recomends hot beverages be sold at, and if they followed the FDA guidelines they would not have the serious injuries. BUT, they sell a million dollers worth of coffee a day, and it SMELLS better that hot! Your on the jury, what do you do?

Why, you punish the corp who put people at risk in the face of Government recomendations to make a buck more on the SMELL!

Now the jury was pretty pissed off, and the verdict reflected that. But, the judge used something called a JNOV to bring the verdict down, it is a tool that lets the judge say..."yeah jury, I know they did wrong, but lets not lose our heads here"

So, the system worked. The coffee is now a safe temp, the injured women got a fair settlement(she did need grafts on her labia and anus) and McDonalds got the message. But hey, do not take my word for it, run it in google and read the facts

Like I said, look it up and learn!
Bill, I am always happy to educate.
Rich

klegg

You did not offend anyone. Any decent person would feel for your situation. I do think you need to get another lawyer, 'cuse this guy is not correct in what he is telling you, and has no people skills.


If you need more help. send me a pm. Good luck!

scottmhr1

Klegg,
I never said tort reform and bankruptcy reform were the same. Talk about spouting misinformation. The legal system has been out of whack for quite some time and reform is necessary. None of these reforms will make large companies free of responsibilities. Just reign in the outrages problems with the system. You can't say that when the airways are flooded with ads for legal firms that something isn't wrong. Most of these law firms are out for thier own pocket book, not the rights of the "little people". You opinion is very biased as a lawyer. It has little merrit when discussing reforms based on that biased opinion.

Napboy

and why blame the credit card companies? they don't force you to use their services. they tell you exactly how much they're charging you to use their money. just because their charges are high and you don't like that, that doesn't give you the right to steal from them. that's part of the reason that they're rates are so high in the first place.

klegg

Well, we blame them because they are giving credit to people who are high risk. Remember, they do not want you to pay off that balance! They love that 12-18% return. And they get it from people who can not afford to pay off that balance. That is why the lower wage earner gets so many card offers. The bank knows they will have to carry the balance.

And like I said...you can not run up a big debt and then file. That was the point of my first post, to correct more bad info being posted by the uninformed.

And there are a lot of ad's for medical services, car dealers, restaurants, hospitals ect. I guess they are all problems too?


Really guys, who has a clouded view here? Who even knows what the heck they are talking about....are you guys involved in the legal system? Do you research the info you get from rush limbaugh, or do you just blindly swallow it? Have you ever been involved in, or actually seen, a hearing?

Hmmmm. Tell you what. Go camp out at the court house and watch a few trials. Then we will talk. Or at least research your topics!

:p

1.3L

[QUOTE=klegg]Wrong Wrong Wrong....Tort reform has nothing to do with bankruptcy reform, and both are examples of the little guy getting screwed.


Doesn't tort reform also take into account frivolous civil lawsuits?

1.3L

scottmhr1

lol,
What a typical response from someone who is made to answer reasonable questions. The is no answer, just you don't know what your talking about and listen to Rush Limbaugh. At least now we know where you are coming from.
All have a good night no sense trying to discuss an issue with one that biased.

Rotario

I did, Rich. That's your side of the story -- here's mine:

The woman had been to this same McDonalds several times before, and complained to the employee(s) and manager about the coffee. She then chose of her own free will to go back and buy more. Add to that, she decided (of her own free will) to place it between her thighs and drive off.

If the coffee temperature was so offensive to her, why didn't she just go somewhere else? Why did she choose to put it in a precarious spot (between her legs), rather than put it in a cuphoder? Just 'cause I can jump off a cliff doesn't mean that I will, nor will I sue someone if I should happen to live through it.

That's my non-lawyer position on this.

Bill

Rotario

Despite the fact that I don't agree with you above, :D that's a very generous offer, Rich. Kudos.

Bill

klegg

[QUOTE=1.3L]No, not really. Many states have a staute about that in the books. For example, IN NJ we have some pretty stiff penaltys for filing a claim that is groundless.

Tort reform is a much more complex issue. For example, In NJ we have the "VERBAL THRESHold". If you are injured in a MVA, your injury must fall into one of 5 catagories to be able to sue for pain. Sounds good, right? Here is the catch....what is "serious"' to one person, may not be to another. Often, a victum of a MVA will suffer a bulging or herniated disc. If you can think of a spinal disc as an oreo cookie, the bone is the cookie and there is material that acts as a shock absorber that would be the cream filling. If streched or twisted, that material can pop out, and if it hits the thecal sac, cord or one of the nerves, you have a big problem. Intense pain, numbness, ect. I have seen it so bad that the person had problems walking, or controling their bladder and bowels.

Now, to prove yo9u have this, you need an MRI or CAT scan. Guess what? The insurance co will not pay for it. How do you prove your case? More importantly, how do you get proper treatment?

Now, even if you do not have symptoms now, you are at high risk of making it worse with lifting or more physical stress.. Now, a laborer would have a hard time with this, but a "desk jockey" would not. so again, how does this fall into the system? Easy, we say that the injury is not serious, and is not enough to "pierce" the threshold. So a whole lot of injured people never get their day in court. This is the problem with tort reform.

Now let us discuss med mal. In NJ, The docs were upset with their insurance rates. Some were paying 100,000 a year. Of course, they were making about 500,000 a year, but hey, let us put that aside. To sue for malpractice, you must submit a sworn certification from a qualified physician that malpractice occured, just to be able to file. Seems fair, right? Well, cliams fell about 25% with this law, so it worked. Now here is the problem. The insurance co are still claiming that there is a "crisis", and that more reform is needed. So they raise rates again. Remeber, claims have dropped 25%, so they are paying out 25% less a year. So, they then pass a law limiting a recovery to, say, 250,000. max. Now, it costs in excess of 1,000,000 for extended care for a seriously injured person, say someone paralyzed or brain damaged. But there is that cap! So who gets to care for that person? The tax payer. Not the insurance co who collects premiums to insure against this loss, and who post millions of dollers in net profit a year, and who already got a 25% boost in their bottom line.

And you know why all of this started? Because the insurance industry invested in tech stocks in the late 90's, and took a bath when the bubble burst. So now they are desperate to raise their "bottom lines" to attract investers.

Yup, it sure is a fair system. That is the issue with tort reform.

klegg

Thank you. The fact is, I do about $10,000 in free legal work a year for vets and the elderly. Many lawyers do this, but you never hear about it because it is not "tasty" news.

klegg

Thats is not "my side", what I posted are the facts....I notice you did not put in any of McDonalds culpable conduct....why? If you did look it up, you had to see what they did and said, right?

Rotario

Rich,

You're leaving out one little tidbit. The proposed $250k cap is on punitive damages only. Makes just a little difference.