Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Should Christians be involved in class action lawsuits? Why or why not?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I general I agree. There is one industry that deserves a wave of lawsuits. Big Tobacco. They sell a defective product (what else do you call something that kills about 50% of it's users) they use chemicals like ammonia to "free up" nicotine to make it more bioavailable to the human body, (read free-basing), it causes more than lung cancer, there are new links between nicotine and MS, as well as a group of auto-immune diseases. I have to admit, I would not care if they took a BIG hit.Virtually every class action lawsuit is legalized theft by trial lawyers.
Sorry, but I'd rather live homeless and hungry than have anything to do with them. All you need to know is that the lawyers get rich off them, regardless of the actual case.
Can you say John Edwards?
I general I agree. There is one industry that deserves a wave of lawsuits. Big Tobacco. They sell a defective product (what else do you call something that kills about 50% of it's users) they use chemicals like ammonia to "free up" nicotine to make it more bioavailable to the human body, (read free-basing), it causes more than lung cancer, there are new links between nicotine and MS, as well as a group of auto-immune diseases. I have to admit, I would not care if they took a BIG hit.Virtually every class action lawsuit is legalized theft by trial lawyers.
Sorry, but I'd rather live homeless and hungry than have anything to do with them. All you need to know is that the lawyers get rich off them, regardless of the actual case.
Can you say John Edwards?
Virtually every class action lawsuit is legalized theft by trial lawyers.
Sorry, but I'd rather live homeless and hungry than have anything to do with them. All you need to know is that the lawyers get rich off them, regardless of the actual case.
Can you say John Edwards?
If you have been damaged, then you can seek a remedy at law. But class action lawsuits are ways to avoid ordinary burdens of proof, and designed to enrich lawyers.
Virtually every class action lawsuit is legalized theft by trial lawyers.
Sorry, but I'd rather live homeless and hungry than have anything to do with them. All you need to know is that the lawyers get rich off them, regardless of the actual case.
Can you say John Edwards?
this same thing made me dump some stock I owned in Altria and Ride Aid stores. I can't understand how someone could make and sell a product that when used regularly causes addiction and kills.I general I agree. There is one industry that deserves a wave of lawsuits. Big Tobacco. They sell a defective product (what else do you call something that kills about 50% of it's users) they use chemicals like ammonia to "free up" nicotine to make it more bioavailable to the human body, (read free-basing), it causes more than lung cancer, there are new links between nicotine and MS, as well as a group of auto-immune diseases. I have to admit, I would not care if they took a BIG hit.Virtually every class action lawsuit is legalized theft by trial lawyers.
Sorry, but I'd rather live homeless and hungry than have anything to do with them. All you need to know is that the lawyers get rich off them, regardless of the actual case.
Can you say John Edwards?
Actually they killed members of my family BEFORE warning labels! I became addicted as a stupid kid! And yes, they target "future smokers" if you KILL 50% of your users you ALWAYS need replacements! As for class actions, I have money! I don't need theirs! I don't care if lawyers get it! Fred, you are smart guy, how you can compare fast food to a truly LEGAL DRUG like nicotine shocks me. I want to see them go down. Hard.I general I agree. There is one industry that deserves a wave of lawsuits. Big Tobacco. They sell a defective product (what else do you call something that kills about 50% of it's users) they use chemicals like ammonia to "free up" nicotine to make it more bioavailable to the human body, (read free-basing), it causes more than lung cancer, there are new links between nicotine and MS, as well as a group of auto-immune diseases. I have to admit, I would not care if they took a BIG hit.Virtually every class action lawsuit is legalized theft by trial lawyers.
Sorry, but I'd rather live homeless and hungry than have anything to do with them. All you need to know is that the lawyers get rich off them, regardless of the actual case.
Can you say John Edwards?
I have absolutely no sympathy even for tobacco class action suits. There have been warning labels since the 60s, and the things you speak about are common knowledge. No body is putting a gun to someone's head to make them smoke. It is a very small step from tobacco lawsuits to fast food lawsuits, to just about anything else.
If you have been damaged, then you can seek a remedy at law. But class action lawsuits are ways to avoid ordinary burdens of proof, and designed to enrich lawyers.
I general I agree. There is one industry that deserves a wave of lawsuits. Big Tobacco. They sell a defective product (what else do you call something that kills about 50% of it's users) they use chemicals like ammonia to "free up" nicotine to make it more bioavailable to the human body, (read free-basing), it causes more than lung cancer, there are new links between nicotine and MS, as well as a group of auto-immune diseases. I have to admit, I would not care if they took a BIG hit.Virtually every class action lawsuit is legalized theft by trial lawyers.
Sorry, but I'd rather live homeless and hungry than have anything to do with them. All you need to know is that the lawyers get rich off them, regardless of the actual case.
Can you say John Edwards?
I have absolutely no sympathy even for tobacco class action suits. There have been warning labels since the 60s, and the things you speak about are common knowledge. No body is putting a gun to someone's head to make them smoke. It is a very small step from tobacco lawsuits to fast food lawsuits, to just about anything else.
If you have been damaged, then you can seek a remedy at law. But class action lawsuits are ways to avoid ordinary burdens of proof, and designed to enrich lawyers.
LOLDrugs don't kill people. People kill people.
Should Christians be involved in class action lawsuits? Why or why not?
I general I agree. There is one industry that deserves a wave of lawsuits. Big Tobacco. They sell a defective product (what else do you call something that kills about 50% of it's users) they use chemicals like ammonia to "free up" nicotine to make it more bioavailable to the human body, (read free-basing), it causes more than lung cancer, there are new links between nicotine and MS, as well as a group of auto-immune diseases. I have to admit, I would not care if they took a BIG hit.
I have absolutely no sympathy even for tobacco class action suits. There have been warning labels since the 60s, and the things you speak about are common knowledge. No body is putting a gun to someone's head to make them smoke. It is a very small step from tobacco lawsuits to fast food lawsuits, to just about anything else.
If you have been damaged, then you can seek a remedy at law. But class action lawsuits are ways to avoid ordinary burdens of proof, and designed to enrich lawyers.
Not all Fred. This is a broad brush you are using. Go watch Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich. This is a legitamate case.
Drugs don't kill people. People kill people.
Thomas with respect to you as a Pastor. Would you apply this to Big Tobacco? Would you call them righteous? I know stockholders who would not give them that much credit!Should Christians be involved in class action lawsuits? Why or why not?
I think Proverbs 1:10-19 is applicable to your question.
10 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
11 If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
12 Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
13 We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:
14 Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
15 My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:
16 For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.
17 Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
18 And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.
19 So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.
You're missing the entire point. Nowhere is it asserted that class action lawsuits make it possible for a suit to be brought, but they do make it easier for a suit to be brought, and it cuts down on the expending of judicial resources. I havn't studied this particular part of civil procedure in-depth yet, but I also suspect that a corporate defendant (which will likely be the case) has a right to expedient justice, and would be denied this right through having to litigate 2,000 of the same claims over and over. They'd lose millions in lawyer fees when everything could be joined into a single suit. I'm sorry, but the accused have rights too, and no one should be forced to pay millions in fees when it would cost an inth of that to litigate it once-and-for-all.
You are presuming that there are actual trials. A minuscule portion of suits actually go to trial. Of 100 suits, maybe 5 or 10 actually start a trial. Maybe 2 go all the way to a verdict. It's virtually unheard of. Most experienced (10-15+ years) litigation attorneys at major firms have tried a handful of cases. I'm not worried about verdicts. The danger is settlements.As for how many lose, I ask how many win? How many class action suits do you hear about a year that actually win? One... maybe? If there is such an epidemic of frivolous, class-action law suits, why are they not rampant?
The truth? They aren't, at least I don't think so.
On top of that, due to the nature of the funding, a lawyer isn't going to take a case that's a dead horse out of the gate. They're going to pick cases they at least reasonably think are winners. Those that they think are reasonably winners, aren't the ones where they are able to formulate some theory and manipulate a loop-hole to "beat the system". Those are extreme risks, because unless there's some sort of public policy that's got their back on the issue, the court can simply close the loop-hole on them. A court does not have to allow them to manipulate anything and if they don't like it, they can stop it without any reaosning other than they think it is unjust in that situation. Stare decisis is a suggestion that is well-followed, but not universally followed. If it was universally followed, we should give up hope on over-turning Roe v. Wade. As it stands, courts can overrule prior decisions, so no cross-eyed theory is bullet-proof.
The cases that are winners are clearly winners, or at least concievably winners. Upon analyzing the facts and the law, I think it would be clear whether they have a case or not. If it's not clear, then I doubt they'd take it.
Even the ambulance chasers aren't manipulating the system and getting people who don't deserve money...money. Often, those people really have been civily wronged in some sense. Now, they may try to blow it out of proportion, but they can only do that so much I surmise. And the people they're representing aren't shysters, they really have suffered injury. The hypothetical limping, crippled, cheat that wins a million dollars is, for the most part, a myth. People do try to play tht card, but in the instances I've seen it happen, they don't get anything.
I defer to Fred.
You're missing the entire point. Nowhere is it asserted that class action lawsuits make it possible for a suit to be brought, but they do make it easier for a suit to be brought, and it cuts down on the expending of judicial resources. I havn't studied this particular part of civil procedure in-depth yet, but I also suspect that a corporate defendant (which will likely be the case) has a right to expedient justice, and would be denied this right through having to litigate 2,000 of the same claims over and over. They'd lose millions in lawyer fees when everything could be joined into a single suit. I'm sorry, but the accused have rights too, and no one should be forced to pay millions in fees when it would cost an inth of that to litigate it once-and-for-all.
I've been a corporate lawyer for almost 15 years, and I have never once heard in my life of a corporate defendant that actually would rather have a class action suit than normal litigation. You are just completely wrong here. The class action suit is used as a weapon to engorge a settlement from a defendant 999 times out of 1000.
You are presuming that there are actual trials. A minuscule portion of suits actually go to trial. Of 100 suits, maybe 5 or 10 actually start a trial. Maybe 2 go all the way to a verdict. It's virtually unheard of. Most experienced (10-15+ years) litigation attorneys at major firms have tried a handful of cases. I'm not worried about verdicts. The danger is settlements.As for how many lose, I ask how many win? How many class action suits do you hear about a year that actually win? One... maybe? If there is such an epidemic of frivolous, class-action law suits, why are they not rampant?
The truth? They aren't, at least I don't think so.
On top of that, due to the nature of the funding, a lawyer isn't going to take a case that's a dead horse out of the gate. They're going to pick cases they at least reasonably think are winners. Those that they think are reasonably winners, aren't the ones where they are able to formulate some theory and manipulate a loop-hole to "beat the system". Those are extreme risks, because unless there's some sort of public policy that's got their back on the issue, the court can simply close the loop-hole on them. A court does not have to allow them to manipulate anything and if they don't like it, they can stop it without any reaosning other than they think it is unjust in that situation. Stare decisis is a suggestion that is well-followed, but not universally followed. If it was universally followed, we should give up hope on over-turning Roe v. Wade. As it stands, courts can overrule prior decisions, so no cross-eyed theory is bullet-proof.
The cases that are winners are clearly winners, or at least concievably winners. Upon analyzing the facts and the law, I think it would be clear whether they have a case or not. If it's not clear, then I doubt they'd take it.
Even the ambulance chasers aren't manipulating the system and getting people who don't deserve money...money. Often, those people really have been civily wronged in some sense. Now, they may try to blow it out of proportion, but they can only do that so much I surmise. And the people they're representing aren't shysters, they really have suffered injury. The hypothetical limping, crippled, cheat that wins a million dollars is, for the most part, a myth. People do try to play tht card, but in the instances I've seen it happen, they don't get anything.
Almost every problem in America today (small business, healthcare, immigration, corporate greed, etc) is made worse because of attorneys.
Hi Fred! Fred as you know we have a mutual friend, I knew you were a "law-books", I did not know you still were in practice! And sorry for being off topic!You're missing the entire point. Nowhere is it asserted that class action lawsuits make it possible for a suit to be brought, but they do make it easier for a suit to be brought, and it cuts down on the expending of judicial resources. I havn't studied this particular part of civil procedure in-depth yet, but I also suspect that a corporate defendant (which will likely be the case) has a right to expedient justice, and would be denied this right through having to litigate 2,000 of the same claims over and over. They'd lose millions in lawyer fees when everything could be joined into a single suit. I'm sorry, but the accused have rights too, and no one should be forced to pay millions in fees when it would cost an inth of that to litigate it once-and-for-all.
I've been a corporate lawyer for almost 15 years, and I have never once heard in my life of a corporate defendant that actually would rather have a class action suit than normal litigation. You are just completely wrong here. The class action suit is used as a weapon to engorge a settlement from a defendant 999 times out of 1000.
You are presuming that there are actual trials. A minuscule portion of suits actually go to trial. Of 100 suits, maybe 5 or 10 actually start a trial. Maybe 2 go all the way to a verdict. It's virtually unheard of. Most experienced (10-15+ years) litigation attorneys at major firms have tried a handful of cases. I'm not worried about verdicts. The danger is settlements.As for how many lose, I ask how many win? How many class action suits do you hear about a year that actually win? One... maybe? If there is such an epidemic of frivolous, class-action law suits, why are they not rampant?
The truth? They aren't, at least I don't think so.
On top of that, due to the nature of the funding, a lawyer isn't going to take a case that's a dead horse out of the gate. They're going to pick cases they at least reasonably think are winners. Those that they think are reasonably winners, aren't the ones where they are able to formulate some theory and manipulate a loop-hole to "beat the system". Those are extreme risks, because unless there's some sort of public policy that's got their back on the issue, the court can simply close the loop-hole on them. A court does not have to allow them to manipulate anything and if they don't like it, they can stop it without any reaosning other than they think it is unjust in that situation. Stare decisis is a suggestion that is well-followed, but not universally followed. If it was universally followed, we should give up hope on over-turning Roe v. Wade. As it stands, courts can overrule prior decisions, so no cross-eyed theory is bullet-proof.
The cases that are winners are clearly winners, or at least concievably winners. Upon analyzing the facts and the law, I think it would be clear whether they have a case or not. If it's not clear, then I doubt they'd take it.
Even the ambulance chasers aren't manipulating the system and getting people who don't deserve money...money. Often, those people really have been civily wronged in some sense. Now, they may try to blow it out of proportion, but they can only do that so much I surmise. And the people they're representing aren't shysters, they really have suffered injury. The hypothetical limping, crippled, cheat that wins a million dollars is, for the most part, a myth. People do try to play tht card, but in the instances I've seen it happen, they don't get anything.
Almost every problem in America today (small business, healthcare, immigration, corporate greed, etc) is made worse because of attorneys.