Artwork

Chat with other listeners of the Nicole Marie show here!
-- On the Air from 8 AM - 1 PM

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Re: Artwork

Postby Marye » Thu Sep 11, 2003 2:34 pm

HAHAHA... Shapley and Tim... funny stuff.

Jm.....

I've never seen a poop-scoop put a bad person in jail
See it all the time. They just wear different suits.. :D

get you money to pay you back for harms you've suffered.
Yeh.... then its called, their fee


:D
Marye
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: Artwork

Postby jmfryar » Thu Sep 11, 2003 2:43 pm

other party in a lot of instances has to pay your fee...depending on the action and the reasons...

England has a great system - loser pays for everything - attorneys, barristers, court costs, the whole nine yards...keeps a lot of frivilous suits out...but does prevent a lot of deserving people from having their day in court...

Interesting how everyone thinks attorneys should work for free...
jmfryar
3rd Chair
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Artwork

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Sep 11, 2003 2:46 pm

Originally posted by jmfryar:

You are sitting in a chair and the phone next to you rings. You reach over to answer the phone, let's say 2 feet away. Your hand must cover half that distance, or one foot. Your hand must then cover 1/2 the remaining distance, or 6 inches.

Your hand must continue moving and reaches the halfway mark of three inches.

Your hand continues on, reaching the 1 and 1/2 inch mark.

Continuing on to 3/4" before the phone...and as we all know, there is no final number. Every number divisible by 2 is, in turn, divisible by 2.

In other words, theoretically, you cannot answer the phone. Matter of fact, if you invert the argument, you can't move a finger.

Well, this theory doesn't seem to stop us from getting up and answering the phone, or any other activity.

Reminds me of a joke I recently heard. You have a scientist and an engineer. In front of them are two beautiful, nude women. They're told they can step toward them and make love to them when they reach them, but each successive step has to be half the distance than the previous. The scientist immediately gives up as he knows he will never actually make contact. The engineer, however, simply says: "I'll get close enough." and takes his first step....




Same as if I decided to go on a rant as to why tenors are the weakest of the bunch...what the hell do I know about either except for what I've read in some article somewhere? I will always defer to those that do...

And no, there's no actual article...put down the candlestick operatenor...
:D
Of course there would be no article, unless it was under "fantasy"! :D
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: Artwork

Postby treebeau » Thu Sep 11, 2003 2:52 pm

Well, I for one did not say or type anything that meant that I think lawyers should work for free.

Interesting the word "everyone." It's much like "always" or "never." My wife used to say I was "always" angry, or "never" helped with this or that. That was completely untrue and caused me to be skeptical when I hear people using those words.

Regards,
Tim B.
treebeau
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 2133
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2000 12:01 am
Location: Winston-Salem, NC, USA

Re: Artwork

Postby Marye » Thu Sep 11, 2003 2:56 pm

I'm Canadian Jm.... Canada/England.... Common Law..


And do I think really think lawyers should work for free? I work in a law firm...they pay me. Of course I want them to be paid.....Sheesh Jm... I did wink you know... ;) ;) ;)
Marye
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: Artwork

Postby jmfryar » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:02 pm

hmmm...and herein enters the classic problem...

sigh...teaches me to speak in general terms when I'm trying to be funny...from now on I will be exacting and precise with my language...

but wait...Marye complained I was being too "lawyerly" in my writing, so I can't be TOO specific...

so why don't we just agree that the "everyone" was followed by the metaphysical "who complains about lawyers fees" and we'll call it a draw?
jmfryar
3rd Chair
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Artwork

Postby barfle » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:04 pm

I work with legal documents (patent applications) all day. One thing I know about lawyers is that they can and sometimes do serve useful purposes, and I don't simply mean to help submarines submerge.

However, I also find that most of the documents I read are deliberately intended to obfuscate the uninitiated. Clarity is NOT the goal of most of these guys, and it is incredible how a simple concept can be made incomprehensible by an attorney being paid five bucks a word.

Also, much of what I see is clearly an attempt by the attorney to maximize their fees, at the expense of the inventor, who is often a small organization or an individual. Lots of these guys will simply put an application back in the mill, knowing that it's just more fees from the inventor, without making a meaningful change to the application to explain how it is different (which is all that's necessary) from the existing technology.
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Re: Artwork

Postby jmfryar » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:05 pm

I thought Canadian was more similar to American, where your attorney also represented you in court...

and I know Canada has not adopted the same principal of "loser pays" yet...although everyone is watching very, very carefully...

:D

Oh Marye? Do you get "profit sharing" too?
jmfryar
3rd Chair
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Artwork

Postby jmfryar » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:11 pm

And that's not true of any profession Barfle?

Doctors don't run needless tests to pad their bills? Auto mechanics don't do unnecesary repairs? Contractors don't bill for work that they haven't done or use shoddy materials?

But what is the one profession that will help you rectify all those evils???

ah-ha!!

There are bad and good in any profession...the legal community is incrediably demanding when it comes to care and concern for clients for a large number of reasons...beyond business...

With regard to the language, it's not there to create issues, it's there to protect the client. There is a vast vocabulary with very precise legal definitions that are meant to guarantee that all things are clear to both parties. What you see as a bar to the average individual comprehending what is going on, I see as a guarantee that that persons rights are being protected...
jmfryar
3rd Chair
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Artwork

Postby Shapley » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:26 pm

Jim,

The problem is that the mess lawyers are hired to get us out of was, more often than not, created by lawyers. On top of that, lawyers are the primary obstacle to the passage of meaningful tort reform. We won't have "loser pays" in America because of the opposition by lawyers.

This story has been around awhile, and it may be an urban legend:
[A Charlotte, NC, lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars,
> and then insured them against fire among other things.
> Within a month having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and
> without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the
> lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company.
> In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires."
> The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the
> man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.
> The lawyer sued ... and won!
> In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that
> the claim was frivolous.
> The Judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the
> company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also
> guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is
> considered to be unacceptable fire, and was obligated to pay the claim.
> Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance
> company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss
> of the rare cigars lost in the "fires."
> NOW FOR THE BEST PART... After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance
> company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!!
>
> With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used
> against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured
> property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine.]

If it is true, it exemplifies the reasons why so many people distrust lawyers. Clearly, the questions of "is it right" and "is it legal" have grown so far apart that the law can no longer be said to serve the cause of justice in many cases.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Artwork

Postby jmfryar » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:39 pm

sorry to burst your bubble, but it's an urban legend...

http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp

but the thought behind it is what drives people up the wall - this mystical language that attorneys speak and write in that is only discernable to, shock and suprise, other attorneys. And the whole aspect of court and trial, negotiation and motion, memo and decision that forces a lay person to wonder "If it exists so that only an attorney can understand it, it must have been created by attorneys" are false. Way false. The legal system has become what it is as a reflection of the exceptionally complex society in which we live.

The number one thing standing in the path of Tort reform are the attorneys who are protecting the 18 year old quadrapalegic who will have to figure out a way to survive for 40+ years on 300K if it goes through. Tort reform, as it exists, although does some good, protects insurers more than anyone else.

Words that are bandied about so loosely in conversation have very, very precise definitions in the law. This is to protect both sides so that there are no misunderstandings if, at some point, the parties all decide that they actually meant something else.

I understand (trust me!) the frustration, resentment and anger that exist out there about the profession. But the fuel to it is, unfortunately, ignorance of the profession - I can explain what I can, answer questions as best as I am able, and refer out to sources if I am lost - but to condemn an entire profession because of "stories", "tall-tales" and "urban legends" is really, very silly.

Especially when it is, in all sincerity, the profession that stands between civilization and anarchy...
jmfryar
3rd Chair
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Artwork

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:54 pm

It's past lunchtime now, and I'm still waiting for my tots..... Got the ketchup out & everything.....
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: Artwork

Postby Marye » Fri Sep 12, 2003 9:06 am

Sorry... OT... we highjacked this thread to speak of lawyers. And one last shot....

In Canada our lawyers go to court but our laws are more like the U.K., parliamentary system. We cite precedent with the U.S. as well as the U.K. but I will shut up... But one last point lawyers DO pad their bills, I have seen it myself. Not all lawyers do this but if you are representing a large corporation then, yes, it is done. But there are lawyers who represent the "little guy" and are not likely to get paid much at all. I like those type of lawyers myself.

Nuff said...
Marye
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: Artwork

Postby Shapley » Fri Sep 12, 2003 9:12 am

Jim,

I had assumed it to be an urban legend, that is why I sugested that it may be one. I'm always suspicious whenever the specifics are vague, as in "in a southern state", a "State appeals court ruled", etc., Although often the fabricator will go to the trouble of creating a fraudulent case number and everything, which makes it more believable, but easier to debunk.

I had started writing a "if it is false" paragraph yesterday, but was interupted. Now work, sleep, and time have derailed that train of thought, so I don't recall where I was going with it.

Anyhow, I do not condemn the profession because of tall tales and urban legends, I think they exist because the profession has condemned itself. I know several lawyers, and I use them when necessary. Some people were my friends before they became lawyers :D .

The point is that the profession has given itself a black eye, and the profession is working to ensure that the eye does not heal. It will be difficult for the 18 year old quadraplegic to survive her whole life on 300K, but does that justify requiring the maker of a non-defective part that just happened to be installed in the motorcycle that was improperly and illegally driven, resulting in her condition, to pay for her future because they are the only ones with pockets deep enough to afford it?

If a company produces a product it is fair game for the vultures that want to rob them of a share, or of all, of their profit by suing over any malfunction, including those caused by normal wear and tear. Lawyers are getting rich writing the warning labels that we have to publish on everything we make to try to head off the inconceivable notion that a moron will try to use a power tool in the rain, or the bathtub.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Artwork

Postby jmfryar » Fri Sep 12, 2003 9:31 am

You had me up until the motorcycle - then you switched professions...

Lawyers aren't to fault in that area and neither are they in the warning labels issue - take a look at insurance companies in their attempts to get out of paying claims...they're your culprit. Litigation may turn on awareness, but it's an average or typical person doctrine. It's the insurers that want those labels to provide them outs.

The issue you raise is genuine...but there are multiple sides to it. It has to be proved that the bearing in the motorcycle was the fault of the accident...do you really think that the bearing company has all the money and not, oh...say...Honda or Kawasaki??? Take a moment and think...bearing company - manufacturer...who has the big bucks?

But we could go on like this forever...it's much easier to raise a specific issue or question rather than conceptual generalities. People are angered and intimidated, by the profession without a doubt. I'd be more than happy to lend what little understanding I have and, if I can't answer a specific question, then refer you to somewhere that can.

Otherwise it's just bashing and that's not the least productive.

So if there is a specific case, an incident or story that made you go "WHAT?!?" like the McDonalds coffee case, I'd be more than happy to answer whatever I can.

P.S. - bill padding is illegal. If you suspect it has happened you should contact your state or local bar association. Large corporations retain in-house council to go over bills to determine that they are getting the services they pay for. Individuals should ALWAYS ask for an itemized bill and go over it for the same reason - ask questions if you are not sure of something.

Wow...if I can squealch a few more of these myths and legends, it can only help the image of the profession.

:D
jmfryar
3rd Chair
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Artwork

Postby Shapley » Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:46 am

RE:<<Otherwise it's just bashing and that's not the least productive.>>

Not productive, but sooo fun!!! :D

The insurance companies hire lawyers to write the warning labels, and to defend them as well as their clients. the primary blame I place on insurance companies is their willingness to settle out of court on frivolous suits, when it cheaper to so than to "do the right thing" and fight against it. The result is insurance fraud perpetrated with the willing assistance of the insurance company itself.

Product liability is a serious issue. There are cases where companies have been negligent or outright irresponsible in their design or manufacturing processes. However, there are similarly over-generous juries that award unfair damages in cases where little or no failure on the part of the defendant exists. It has been shown that in some cases, it is only necessary to parade the injured into the court room and win the sympathy of the jury to get a settlement. No need to show negligence, someone has been injured and someone has to pay. Look for the "deep pockets" and that is who will pay the most.

In my companies own example, we settled out of court, at the request of our insurance company. One of our suppliers, whose safeguards had been overridden to cause the injury, did not, thinking they had a firm case. The jury ruled against them, and they paid about four times what we did. So much for doing the right thing. Our part in the suit was that we bought the equipment from the company that fought it out and resold it to the company whose employee overrode the equipment safeguards and lost an extremity. It cost us about 10K.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Artwork

Postby jmfryar » Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:59 am

Not at the request of your insurance company, but the attorneys employed by your insurance company who, after careful legal analysis, determined that it would be more cost effective to settle the case than to pursue it. They could have said "what the hell" and continued litigation to "pad their bills" but that would be unethical.

And attorneys and lawyers didn't do that to your distributor...

a jury did that to them.

and juries are not made up of attorneys and lawyers, last I checked...so how can you blame a profession for what your neighbor decided?

And we all know that big corporations are nothing but greedy malevolent organizations that don't care about people and do everything they can to go out of their way to earn profit, even at the cost of human lives!

The retiree who's laid off a month before he'd collect benefits.

The thugs hired to harm and murder union organizors.

ENRON (need I say more)

Big Tobacco who know and have always known that their products are highly addictive!!

Chemical plant disasters! Lead based paint! Aesbestos!!

and you, as a member of a major company, are nothing but a cog in a mindless automaton that perpetrates these horrible, awful events on humanity!

See what happens when you speak in generalities? Anyone seems evil and awful.

Again, if you have a specific in mind, then let me know. Otherwise, I'll just start telling blonde jokes to lighten the mood.

<small>[ 09-12-2003, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: jmfryar ]</small>
jmfryar
3rd Chair
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Artwork

Postby piqaboo » Fri Sep 12, 2003 11:10 am

Has there been any recent hair dye litigation?
Retardation caused by excessive peroxide exposure? ;)
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Re: Artwork

Postby Shapley » Fri Sep 12, 2003 11:16 am

Lawyers filed the suit, and sat down in smoke filled rooms to determine, even though the client was a fool who violated the rules and caused his own injury, we can pursue this. Even if the jury ruled against them, enough litigants had settled out of court before the trial to give them what they desired, rather than "cast the dice" and wait for the jury's decision. Anything the jury gave them was just icing. :D (I hope that lightens the mood).
Lead was put it paint at a time when it was not known of the health hazards involved. It remains safe as long as one does not eat the paint.

Similarly, asbestos was not known to be a health hazard. Its use was encouraged by the government as a fire retardant (there may be some in the FRS, have you checked the label? :eek: ) The same government, BTW, that is still the major user of lead-based paints. (Many marine paints used by the Navy are lead-based, as there is not a suitable replacement for the lead).


V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 09-12-2003, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Artwork

Postby Marye » Fri Sep 12, 2003 11:39 am

Originally posted by piqaboo:
[b] Has there been any recent hair dye litigation?
Retardation caused by excessive peroxide exposure? :D

Lawyers filed the suit, and sat down in smoke filled rooms to determine, even though the client was a fool who violated the rules and caused his own injury, we can pursue this.
Contingency fees... yes/no?

<small>[ 09-12-2003, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Marye ]</small>
Marye
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Nicole Marie

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]

cron