George wrote:
On 7/20/2010 5:05 PM, RickH wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:31 pm,
wrote:
wrote in message

...


If more people were aware of their 5th amendment rights and
actually made use of them by remaining silent when they are
placed under arrest and strongly demanding an attorney, most
of the people you say are being unfairly dealt with by the
system would have more of an opportunity to have a better
outcome...

===================

Excellent video on the 5th amendment, and how easy it is to get
yourself in
trouble. I'd like to try this next time I get pulled over for some
nebulous
traffic offense. Sit there in total silence. Or maybe tell the cop "I'm
bored with dinner ideas. What are you having tonight?"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5833865&hl=en#


Try that one in Chicago and you'll get what we call here a "tune up"
from the cop. That boy needs a "tune up"!


Unfortunate that you think you should accept the idea of a police "tune
up". Police are our employees. You simply need to give them respect and
no more. Any cop who delivers a "tune up" needs to be immediately
dismissed and prosecuted.

My good friend is the police chief in a 100,000 population area and he
will tell you the best defense you have against dishonest police or
police who are looking for an easy way to close a case is to
respectfully say nothing.

Speak of which,
Five Tulsa officers indicted today,
Read more from this Tulsa World article at
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic... hrimgs214950

Evan wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:39 am, FatterDumber& Happier Moe
wrote:
Good for walmart, and it illustrates just how unfair the system it.
95% of the parties charged have to plea guilty because they can't afford
a decent attorney. If they dare go to trial and lose the book is thrown
at them for not pleading out. It makes for a very unfair system that is
supposed to be based on presumption of innocence until found guilty.


What on earth are you blabbering on about ?

"Guilty" is only a plea entered in a Criminal Court when brought up
on a criminal charge...

Walmart is going after OHSA on some of the finer points of
"administrative law"... Taking the agency to court for such
interpretations is the only recourse after you have exhausted
discussing the matter with those higher up in the food chain of
the agency than the individual who has meted out the fine or
citation...

As far as the justice system being unfair ? It sounds like you
really don't know enough about it to make that determination...

When you are charged with a crime that will result in a loss of
freedom (a.k.a. you are placed in "jeopardy") you are automatically
appointed a lawyer free of charge if you can not afford to hire one
on your own...

If more people were aware of their 5th amendment rights and
actually made use of them by remaining silent when they are
placed under arrest and strongly demanding an attorney, most
of the people you say are being unfairly dealt with by the
system would have more of an opportunity to have a better
outcome...

As far as going to trial, only 10% of criminal cases ever make
it to a trial because most people are willing to go for the sure
thing and they make a deal if they can get one... Many cases
are dropped because of reluctant witnesses or evidence that
gets contaminated or misplaced... As to your "you get the
book thrown at you if you dare to go to trial and lose" rant,
that has NOTHING to do with the fact you went to trial...
That has everything to do with various nut-job anti-crime
zealots out there who demand "mandatory minimum
sentences" for every crime under the sun -- taking the power
of the trial judge away and forcing them to impose the
mandated sentence upon the defendant when they are
found guilty...

You are innocent until proven guilty in the American
criminal justice system, most people screw themselves
over by trying to talk their way out of it with the police,
seemingly unaware that everything they say in an
interview room with the police is recorded... It might
not end up being used against you as direct evidence
at a trial but it is usually more than enough to prevent
your lawyer from putting you on the stand to tell your
side of the story as then the things you said to the
police during the interview can be used to impeach
what you are testifying about and make you look even
worse than you are... In order to be punished you
need to be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt"
by a jury of 12 of your fellow citizens or a judge if
you give up your right to a jury and opt for a bench
trial...

~~ Evan

Just making a point, criminal, civil, administrative, juvenile
whatever if someone has to make their quota or respond because of the
media,... beware. Oh yeah, if you are guilty be very aware.

On 7/20/2010 4:05 PM, RickH wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:31 pm,
wrote:
wrote in message

...

If more people were aware of their 5th amendment rights and
actually made use of them by remaining silent when they are
placed under arrest and strongly demanding an attorney, most
of the people you say are being unfairly dealt with by the
system would have more of an opportunity to have a better
outcome...

===================

Excellent video on the 5th amendment, and how easy it is to get yourself in
trouble. I'd like to try this next time I get pulled over for some nebulous
traffic offense. Sit there in total silence. Or maybe tell the cop "I'm
bored with dinner ideas. What are you having tonight?"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5833865&hl=en#


Try that one in Chicago and you'll get what we call here a "tune up"
from the cop. That boy needs a "tune up"!


ya, and then the asshole cop would get what i call an "overhaul" in the
courtroom. That boy needs an "OVERHAUL"

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

George wrote:

Unfortunate that you think you should accept the idea of a police
"tune up". Police are our employees. You simply need to give them
respect and no more. Any cop who delivers a "tune up" needs to be
immediately dismissed and prosecuted.

My good friend is the police chief in a 100,000 population area and he
will tell you the best defense you have against dishonest police or
police who are looking for an easy way to close a case is to
respectfully say nothing.

Alternatively, give the cop something he hasn't heard before.

I pulled up behind two Houston PD officers (I was a deputy sheriff) who had
just pulled over a Pontiac that passed us both as if we were sitting still
at 3:00 a.m. on a deserted freeway.

"Step out of the car, please" on Houston PD officer called to the driver.

Out of the car stepped this GIANT black man. Gold chains around his neck. I
swear he must have been a linebacker for the Houston Oilers.

"Why were you in such a hurry, sir?" asked the officer as he look up (way
up) at the driver.

"Pussy, man!" said the driver.

The cop looked at his partner. His partner looked at him. They both looked
at me. I shrugged.

"Say what?" said the officer.

"Pussy, man! My old lady called me. Said to get my black ass over to her
place! Said she was in the 'mood.' And officer, she ain't in the mood all
that often!"

The officer looked at his partner. His partner looked at him.

"Well, can't really give a man a ticket for that. Go on, get outta here, but
take it easy!"

" 'Preciate it officers, I really do."

The Pontiac peeled out in a cloud of dust leaving us three cops on the side
of the freeway, small smiles on our faces, comfortable with the thought
that, in a small way, we made the world a better place.

A good evening for all.

Larry wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
RickH wrote:
On Jul 20, 6:49 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"The feds are complaining about getting dragged into court, having
to file time-consuming paperwork, and generally being treated like
any taxpayer who get crosswise with the IRS. "

"The federal agency claims its precious time is being eaten up by
Wal-Mart's legal maneuvers. Officials at the Department of Labor
say that, over the past five months, 17 percent of the available
attorney hours in its New York office have been devoted to this one
little case..."

http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulG.../wal-mart_stri...

I understand that Wal-Mart will NEVER settle a meritless
"slip-and-fall" case. They may lose money defending such a case but
their theory is that a vigorous defense against a single nuisance
suit deters 100 others.


Staff attorneys at wal-mart are paid a salary so their hours are a
constant expense anyway no matter what the workload is. Also the
staff attorneys work multiple cases simultaneously. But 100 suits
deterred is a genuine savings, that is where the staff attorneys
become an asset rather than an expense.

Don't forget, the lawyers at OSHA are on salary too. Still, it's fun
to see them outsmarted.

Are you for real? Doing back flips because WW is fighting a $7k fine,
for an employee getting killed?

I'll bet you really get your jollies off if you hear of mutiple
fatalities at a work place.

Absolutely digusting.

It wasn't an employee, it was a shopper. The death of anyone is irrelevant
to the ex post facto regulation that OSHA was trying to impose on Wal-Mart.

Had it been a Wal-Mart employee, I'd have sent a sympathy card.

Evan wrote:
On Jul 20, 7:49 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"The feds are complaining about getting dragged into court, having
to file time-consuming paperwork, and generally being treated like
any taxpayer who get crosswise with the IRS. "

"The federal agency claims its precious time is being eaten up by
Wal-Mart's legal maneuvers. Officials at the Department of Labor say
that, over the past five months, 17 percent of the available
attorney hours in its New York office have been devoted to this one
little case..."

http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulG.../wal-mart_stri...

I understand that Wal-Mart will NEVER settle a meritless
"slip-and-fall" case. They may lose money defending such a case but
their theory is that a vigorous defense against a single nuisance
suit deters 100 others.


Apples and Oranges man... "Slip-and-fall" cases are civil lawsuits
brought by private parties against a company in which the injured
party claims negligence on the part of the defendant contributed
to their injury... You will never know the totally honest figures as
far as how many claims big businesses settle on, as a "gag order"
is usually a term of the settlement offer and the plaintiff would have
to surrender their monetary award if they ever disclosed any such
information...

Oh, I agree it's apples and oranges, but the philosophy is still the same.
Wal-Mart takes either the long view or the righteous indignation route
(whichever you choose) and deals from principle rather than the easy way.

Jim Yanik wrote:


A company I worked for,Tektronix,fought from 1961 to 1971 on a patent
infringement case,where the Feds took Tek o'scope designs to other
companies and had them make copies of the scopes,and bought those
instead of from Tek.
They were copied all the way down to unused bolt holes in the chassis.

But they performed poorly compared to Tek originals.... :-)

So,I find it humorous that a FedGov employee is complaining about
getting dragged into court.

Heh! I have a similar story.

LaCoste & Romberg declined to sell an air/sea gravimeter to Romania. The
State Department intervened.

"We're trying to build rapport with the country. They need your gravimeter.
Sell it to them."

"Nope," said Lucian LaCoste.

"Why not?" asked a representative from the State Department.

"Because they're Communists," said LaCoste. "Or didn't you know that?"

"Then they'll have to buy it from someone else."

"Nobody else makes one" replied LaCoste.

"Then we'll have to provide a development grant to somebody to develop one,"
the State Department fuzzy says.

"Go right ahead. It's only our money."

So, the federal government DID give a development grant to Hughes Helicopter
to develop an air/sea gravimeter. The one they built worked pretty well -
except for one small oddity. If the batteries for the internal heaters ever
ran down, the gravimeter had to be returned to the factory for
recalibration. As a result, nobody really bought the thing (except, perhaps,
Romania).

cjt wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
"The feds are complaining about getting dragged into court, having
to file time-consuming paperwork, and generally being treated like
any taxpayer who get crosswise with the IRS. "

"The federal agency claims its precious time is being eaten up by
Wal-Mart's legal maneuvers. Officials at the Department of Labor say
that, over the past five months, 17 percent of the available
attorney hours in its New York office have been devoted to this one
little case..."
http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulG...back/page/full

I understand that Wal-Mart will NEVER settle a meritless
"slip-and-fall" case. They may lose money defending such a case but
their theory is that a vigorous defense against a single nuisance
suit deters 100 others.
Have they ever conceded that a case had merit?

If you're talking about a new regulation back-applied to an event over a
year old, no, they do not agree.

"notbob" wrote
Hey, when you've got more money than god. what's a few legal fees. I
doubt they give a flying crap about other nuisance suits. It's just a
simple exercise in power. They have more money than they can possible
use, so what else can they do for chuckles. Howzabout flex some muscle
and see who we can make flinch. Oooh... lookee!! The US government!
Jinkies.

nb

Evidently you do not own a business that has been sued.

I'm glad someone has the resources and courage to stop some of the crap that
goes on every day with illegitimate claims.

On 07/20/10 10:35 pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Hey, when you've got more money than god. what's a few legal fees. I
doubt they give a flying crap about other nuisance suits. It's just a
simple exercise in power. They have more money than they can possible
use, so what else can they do for chuckles. Howzabout flex some muscle
and see who we can make flinch. Oooh... lookee!! The US government!
Jinkies.

Evidently you do not own a business that has been sued.

I'm glad someone has the resources and courage to stop some of the crap
that goes on every day with illegitimate claims.

When I was on vacation in New Zealand about 40 years ago I was surprised
to find that they had a universal accident insurance program that even
covered visitors. There was a standard list of compensation amounts to
be paid for lost wages, loss of limbs, loss of sight in one (or both)
eyes, etc., etc. No lawsuits for half the things that end up in US
courts. An American lawyer on my tour bus thought it was a terrible system.

Perce

On Jul 20, 6:07*pm, George wrote:
On 7/20/2010 5:05 PM, RickH wrote:





On Jul 20, 3:31 pm,
wrote:
*wrote in message

....

If more people were aware of their 5th amendment rights and
actually made use of them by remaining silent when they are
placed under arrest and strongly demanding an attorney, most
of the people you say are being unfairly dealt with by the
system would have more of an opportunity to have a better
outcome...

===================

Excellent video on the 5th amendment, and how easy it is to get yourself in
trouble. I'd like to try this next time I get pulled over for some nebulous
traffic offense. Sit there in total silence. Or maybe tell the cop "I'm
bored with dinner ideas. What are you having tonight?"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5833865&hl=en#

Try that one in Chicago and you'll get what we call here a "tune up"
from the cop. *That boy needs a "tune up"!

Unfortunate that you think you should accept the idea of a police "tune
up". Police are our employees. You simply need to give them respect and
no more. Any cop who delivers a "tune up" needs to be immediately
dismissed and prosecuted.

My good friend is the police chief in a 100,000 population area and he
will tell you the best defense you have against dishonest police or
police who are looking for an easy way to close a case is to
respectfully say nothing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The cops here in Chicago are scared ****less. I think three have been
shot (assination style) in the last month alone. It's the murder
capital of the world, I'm amazed when I hear news reports "that 7
people were killed in Iraq this week" and I look at Chicago which
usually exceeds that in a few days, especially in summer. The cops
are on a hair trigger and wont put up with anything anymore, in a way
I cant blame them. Illinois is so incredibly f#$cked up, 16 Billion
in unpaid govt pension liabilities, highest corporate tax rates in the
world, unemployment around 12%, one party (Dem) political system that
is corrupt beyond belief, 3 of the last 6 governors in jail or going
to jail, A mayor that acts like Henry the VIII, gangsters, unsafe
neighborhoods, every lawer on the take. Illinois is truly hell on
earth, it's home, but man I'd love to get out of here. I'm not alone
the population of the state is going down leaving even less people and
corporations in the private sector to pay for the mess these corrupt
overspending Democrats have gotten us into here. No I dont blame the
cops one bit for wanting to administer a "tune up", maybe eventually
they can clean up this town one tune up at a time.

On 2010-07-21, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Evidently you do not own a business that has been sued.

No, but I've dealt with "a business" and been screwed!

.....and more times than I've sued, which is none all.

nb

On 2010-07-21, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Evidently you do not own a business that has been sued.

No, but I've dealt with "a business" and been screwed!

.....and more times than I've sued, which is none all.

nb

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"notbob" wrote
Hey, when you've got more money than god. what's a few legal fees. I
doubt they give a flying crap about other nuisance suits. It's just a
simple exercise in power. They have more money than they can possible
use, so what else can they do for chuckles. Howzabout flex some muscle
and see who we can make flinch. Oooh... lookee!! The US government!
Jinkies.

nb

Evidently you do not own a business that has been sued.

I'm glad someone has the resources and courage to stop some of the crap
that goes on every day with illegitimate claims.

Who says it's an illegitimate claim? Or have you prejudged (as in
prejudice) it?

"cjt" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"notbob" wrote
Hey, when you've got more money than god. what's a few legal fees. I
doubt they give a flying crap about other nuisance suits. It's just a
simple exercise in power. They have more money than they can possible
use, so what else can they do for chuckles. Howzabout flex some muscle
and see who we can make flinch. Oooh... lookee!! The US government!
Jinkies.

nb

Evidently you do not own a business that has been sued.

I'm glad someone has the resources and courage to stop some of the crap
that goes on every day with illegitimate claims.

Who says it's an illegitimate claim? Or have you prejudged (as in
prejudice) it?

I'm not talking about any one particular claim, but I've seen many over the
years. I've been involved in defending them for companies I've worked for
and I know people that have made them. Sure, there are some where a
business really is negligent, but there are many more that are not. Same
with Workman's Comp, SS disability etc.

RickH wrote:


The cops here in Chicago are scared ****less. I think three have been
shot (assination style) in the last month alone. It's the murder
capital of the world, I'm amazed when I hear news reports "that 7
people were killed in Iraq this week" and I look at Chicago which
usually exceeds that in a few days, especially in summer. The cops
are on a hair trigger and wont put up with anything anymore, in a way
I cant blame them. Illinois is so incredibly f#$cked up, 16 Billion
in unpaid govt pension liabilities, highest corporate tax rates in the
world, unemployment around 12%, one party (Dem) political system that
is corrupt beyond belief, 3 of the last 6 governors in jail or going
to jail, A mayor that acts like Henry the VIII, gangsters, unsafe
neighborhoods, every lawer on the take. Illinois is truly hell on
earth, it's home, but man I'd love to get out of here. I'm not alone
the population of the state is going down leaving even less people and
corporations in the private sector to pay for the mess these corrupt
overspending Democrats have gotten us into here. No I dont blame the
cops one bit for wanting to administer a "tune up", maybe eventually
they can clean up this town one tune up at a time.

Chicago will soon be awash in cash as they charge $180 to register a
firearm.

On 2010-07-21, HeyBub wrote:

Chicago will soon be awash in cash as they charge $180 to register a
firearm.

Which is sure to create even more "criminals". These laws are so
incredibly stupid, it makes one wonder if they aren't purposely
designed to intentionally criminalize gun owners so law enforcement
can drag out good ol' "probable cause".

nb

On 2010-07-21, RickH wrote:

The cops here in Chicago are scared ****less. I think three have been
shot (assination style) in the last month alone.

If I hadda live where the humidity sometimes reaches 102%, I'd
probably start shooting people too!

nb

On Jul 20, 4:03*pm, RickH wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:26*pm, Evan wrote:



On Jul 20, 2:00*pm, keith wrote:

.

While your statement might be 100% correct, it's irrelevant. *The
*fact* is that employees aren't free, just as attorneys hired on
retainer are not free. *Litigation costs money no matter which sort of
lawyers are used.

Absolutely not... *The only costs involved are the filing fees and the
costs of any presentation materials and expert witnesses...

When in-house legal staff are busy with one case that means that
any other cases would just take the remaining staffers longer to
deal with until the "case of utmost importance" is resolved and
those tasked with taking it on are free to deal with other matters...

What litigation would cost excessively more money, one in which
your in-house counsel staff is inadequate to deal with either because
of the legal area in dispute OR the amount of time it would take away
from other legal matters and therefore hiring on outside attorneys
at a great cost is required which costs money upfront which can be
recouped in the damages awarded if you successfully prosecute
your case and win...

~~ Evan

And if you consider benefits, and inability to layoff easily if you
over-hired, it might be cheaper to augment the staff with contracted
attorneys. *In any case the legal work is a planned, budgeted, known
expense for a company like wal-mart. *But having to pay suits is not.

Finally, someone else in this group with a brain.

It doesn't matter if they're hired guns or in-house staff, the
decision to litigate has its cost/benefit tradeoff. Which to use is
purely a long-term economic issue. WalMart didn't make the decision
to litigate because they have free labor.

On Jul 20, 3:20*pm, Evan wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:56*am, keith wrote:



On Jul 20, 8:58*am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"notbob" wrote in message

news

On 2010-07-20, HeyBub wrote:

I understand that Wal-Mart will NEVER settle a meritless "slip-and-fall"
case. They may lose money defending such a case but their theory is that
a
vigorous defense against a single nuisance suit deters 100 others.

Hey, when you've got more money than god. what's a few legal fees. *I
doubt they give a flying crap about other nuisance suits. *It's just a
simple exercise in power. *They have more money than they can possible
use, so what else can they do for chuckles. *Howzabout flex some muscle
and see who we can make flinch. *Oooh... lookee!! *The US government!
Jinkies.

nb

What legal fees? They have salaried lawyers. Employees of the company, in
other words.

Right. *Employees are free. *No salaries, no employment taxes, free..
I wonder why 17% of the workers are un(der)employed?

17% of the lawyer's "billable hours" (lingo for their working time) of
the in-house

Wrong.

staff counsel at the Dept. of Labor - New York Office - OHSA Division
are being
dedicated to this one case... *They are not "underemployed" as they
would
otherwise be dealing with multitudes of more simple cases if they were
not
engaged in the effort to defend their agencies position on the Walmart
matter...

If you think that is odd, you have no idea how many man hours and tax
dollars
go into presenting some criminal cases... *Two or three Assistant
District
Attorneys prepping a case where millions of dollars have been spent to
get it
this far with investigation time, evidence gathering, lab processing
of the
evidence and obtaining expert witnesses to provide testimony... *That
all adds
up very quickly...

....and your point is?

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 05:51:23 -0700 (PDT), keith
wrote:

On Jul 20, 4:03 pm, RickH wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:26 pm, Evan wrote:



On Jul 20, 2:00 pm, keith wrote:

.

While your statement might be 100% correct, it's irrelevant. The
*fact* is that employees aren't free, just as attorneys hired on
retainer are not free. Litigation costs money no matter which sort
of
lawyers are used.

Absolutely not... The only costs involved are the filing fees and the
costs of any presentation materials and expert witnesses...

When in-house legal staff are busy with one case that means that
any other cases would just take the remaining staffers longer to
deal with until the "case of utmost importance" is resolved and
those tasked with taking it on are free to deal with other matters...

What litigation would cost excessively more money, one in which
your in-house counsel staff is inadequate to deal with either because
of the legal area in dispute OR the amount of time it would take away
from other legal matters and therefore hiring on outside attorneys
at a great cost is required which costs money upfront which can be
recouped in the damages awarded if you successfully prosecute
your case and win...

~~ Evan

And if you consider benefits, and inability to layoff easily if you
over-hired, it might be cheaper to augment the staff with contracted
attorneys. In any case the legal work is a planned, budgeted, known
expense for a company like wal-mart. But having to pay suits is not.

Finally, someone else in this group with a brain.

It doesn't matter if they're hired guns or in-house staff, the
decision to litigate has its cost/benefit tradeoff. Which to use is
purely a long-term economic issue. WalMart didn't make the decision
to litigate because they have free labor.

In house legal staff dramaticaly lowers the costs of this sort of
thing. A non-lawyer paralegal secretary does 99% of the work. Things
like slip& fall cases are so routine, the paperwork and filings are
mostly boilerplate. The paralegal asks the supervisor, "should we use
defense #a3c on this, or #ac7?

Meanwhile the plaintiff, who is of MUCH more limited means must hire a
lawyer at retail.

The corporation lawyers often use that as the only leverage needed to
make a case go away. They simply keep delaying progress in the case by
filing extensions, which cost them relatively nothing, while it makes
the plaintiff run out of money to pay THEIR lawyer. A case can be
strung along for YEARS this way.



Meanwhile (at Wal Mart), they're spending most of their time doing their
real job: Handling boring stuff like real estate acquisitions, leasing (to
other retailers on the properties where WM is the anchor store), etc.

As I remember, when California registered assault weapons. They set up
registration stations all over, and only got one or two registrations
that day. I expect the same in Chicago.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Chicago will soon be awash in cash as they charge $180 to register a
firearm.

On Jul 21, 8:14*am, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 05:51:23 -0700 (PDT), keith
wrote:



On Jul 20, 4:03*pm, RickH wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:26*pm, Evan wrote:

On Jul 20, 2:00*pm, keith wrote:

.

While your statement might be 100% correct, it's irrelevant. *The
*fact* is that employees aren't free, just as attorneys hired on
retainer are not free. *Litigation costs money no matter which sort of
lawyers are used.

Absolutely not... *The only costs involved are the filing fees and the
costs of any presentation materials and expert witnesses...

When in-house legal staff are busy with one case that means that
any other cases would just take the remaining staffers longer to
deal with until the "case of utmost importance" is resolved and
those tasked with taking it on are free to deal with other matters....

What litigation would cost excessively more money, one in which
your in-house counsel staff is inadequate to deal with either because
of the legal area in dispute OR the amount of time it would take away
from other legal matters and therefore hiring on outside attorneys
at a great cost is required which costs money upfront which can be
recouped in the damages awarded if you successfully prosecute
your case and win...

~~ Evan

And if you consider benefits, and inability to layoff easily if you
over-hired, it might be cheaper to augment the staff with contracted
attorneys. *In any case the legal work is a planned, budgeted, known
expense for a company like wal-mart. *But having to pay suits is not..

Finally, someone else in this group with a brain.

It doesn't matter if they're hired guns or in-house staff, the
decision to litigate has its cost/benefit tradeoff. *Which to use is
purely a long-term economic issue. *WalMart didn't make the decision
to litigate because they have free labor.

In house legal staff dramaticaly lowers the costs of this sort of
thing. A non-lawyer paralegal secretary does 99% of the work. Things
like slip& fall cases are so routine, the paperwork and filings are
mostly boilerplate. The paralegal asks the supervisor, "should we use
defense #a3c on this, or #ac7?

Ah, I see. Out-house legal staffs aren't allowed to use paralegals.

Meanwhile the plaintiff, who is of MUCH more limited means must hire a
lawyer at retail.

You mean, like the US government? ...which BTW, is the subject here.

The corporation lawyers often use that as the only leverage needed to
make a case go away. They simply keep delaying progress in the case by
filing extensions, which cost them relatively nothing, while it makes
the plaintiff run out of money to pay THEIR lawyer. A case can be
strung along for YEARS this way.

Another one who thinks employees are free.

"keith" wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 8:14 am, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 05:51:23 -0700 (PDT), keith
wrote:



On Jul 20, 4:03 pm, RickH wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:26 pm, Evan wrote:

On Jul 20, 2:00 pm, keith wrote:

.

While your statement might be 100% correct, it's irrelevant. The
*fact* is that employees aren't free, just as attorneys hired on
retainer are not free. Litigation costs money no matter which sort
of
lawyers are used.

Absolutely not... The only costs involved are the filing fees and the
costs of any presentation materials and expert witnesses...

When in-house legal staff are busy with one case that means that
any other cases would just take the remaining staffers longer to
deal with until the "case of utmost importance" is resolved and
those tasked with taking it on are free to deal with other matters...

What litigation would cost excessively more money, one in which
your in-house counsel staff is inadequate to deal with either because
of the legal area in dispute OR the amount of time it would take away
from other legal matters and therefore hiring on outside attorneys
at a great cost is required which costs money upfront which can be
recouped in the damages awarded if you successfully prosecute
your case and win...

~~ Evan

And if you consider benefits, and inability to layoff easily if you
over-hired, it might be cheaper to augment the staff with contracted
attorneys. In any case the legal work is a planned, budgeted, known
expense for a company like wal-mart. But having to pay suits is not.

Finally, someone else in this group with a brain.

It doesn't matter if they're hired guns or in-house staff, the
decision to litigate has its cost/benefit tradeoff. Which to use is
purely a long-term economic issue. WalMart didn't make the decision
to litigate because they have free labor.

In house legal staff dramaticaly lowers the costs of this sort of
thing. A non-lawyer paralegal secretary does 99% of the work. Things
like slip& fall cases are so routine, the paperwork and filings are
mostly boilerplate. The paralegal asks the supervisor, "should we use
defense #a3c on this, or #ac7?

Ah, I see. Out-house legal staffs aren't allowed to use paralegals.

Meanwhile the plaintiff, who is of MUCH more limited means must hire a
lawyer at retail.

You mean, like the US government? ...which BTW, is the subject here.

The corporation lawyers often use that as the only leverage needed to
make a case go away. They simply keep delaying progress in the case by
filing extensions, which cost them relatively nothing, while it makes
the plaintiff run out of money to pay THEIR lawyer. A case can be
strung along for YEARS this way.

Another one who thinks employees are free.
==============


He did not even remotely imply that employees are free. Not even if you
squint and wish really hard.

Would it help if we just said "OK, you win."?

On Jul 21, 3:02*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"cjt" wrote in message

...





Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"notbob" wrote
Hey, when you've got more money than god. what's a few legal fees. *I
doubt they give a flying crap about other nuisance suits. *It's just a
simple exercise in power. *They have more money than they can possible
use, so what else can they do for chuckles. *Howzabout flex some muscle
and see who we can make flinch. *Oooh... lookee!! *The US government!
Jinkies.

nb

Evidently you do not own a business that has been sued.

I'm glad someone has the resources and courage to stop some of the crap
that goes on every day with illegitimate claims.

Who says it's an illegitimate claim? *Or have you prejudged (as in
prejudice) it?

I'm not talking about any one particular claim, but I've seen many over the
years. *I've been involved in defending them for companies I've worked for
and I know people that have made them. *Sure, there are some where a
business really is negligent, but there are many more that are not. *Same
with Workman's Comp, SS disability etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the frivolous and/or fraudulant claims will keep being filed until
such time as the losing side has to pay the legal fees of the
winners. Now it is a gold mine for sleaze lawyers. File any lawsuit
and they have nothing to lose. Lose the case? Big deal, they are out
some billable hours. Win and you win big.

One of the biggest legal scams going is the 'class action suit' Only
the lawyeers make out with the judgements, the plaintiffs get
pittances.

Harry K

On Jul 21, 7:14*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
RickH wrote:

The cops here in Chicago are scared ****less. *I think three have been
shot (assination style) in the last month alone. *It's the murder
capital of the world, I'm amazed when I hear news reports "that 7
people were killed in Iraq this week" and I look at Chicago which
usually exceeds that in a few days, especially in summer. *The cops
are on a hair trigger and wont put up with anything anymore, in a way
I cant blame them. *Illinois is so incredibly f#$cked up, 16 Billion
in unpaid govt pension liabilities, highest corporate tax rates in the
world, unemployment around 12%, one party (Dem) political system that
is corrupt beyond belief, 3 of the last 6 governors in jail or going
to jail, A mayor that acts like Henry the VIII, gangsters, unsafe
neighborhoods, every lawer on the take. *Illinois is truly hell on
earth, it's home, but man I'd love to get out of here. *I'm not alone
the population of the state is going down leaving even less people and
corporations in the private sector to pay for the mess these corrupt
overspending Democrats have gotten us into here. *No I dont blame the
cops one bit for wanting to administer a "tune up", maybe eventually
they can clean up this town one tune up at a time.

Chicago will soon be awash in cash as they charge $180 to register a
firearm.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That should lower the crime rate, right now with firearms being banned
the gang bangers know the citizens are defenseless.

On Jul 21, 7:25*am, notbob wrote:
On 2010-07-21, HeyBub wrote:

Chicago will soon be awash in cash as they charge $180 to register a
firearm.

Which is sure to create even more "criminals". *These laws are so
incredibly stupid, it makes one wonder if they aren't purposely
designed to intentionally criminalize gun owners so law enforcement
can drag out good ol' "probable cause". *

nb

Actually law abiding FOID holders will be thankful that firearms are
no longer illegal and will welcome the change regardless of the fees
and having to go to the burbs to make a purchase.

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
On 07/21/10 12:15 pm, RickH wrote:

Chicago will soon be awash in cash as they charge $180 to register a
firearm.- Hide quoted text -

That should lower the crime rate, right now with firearms being banned
the gang bangers know the citizens are defenseless.

No, the crims know that there will be more firearms around for them to
steal and use in worse crimes than theft.

Perce


Hopefully, you consider your post to be an opinion and not an authoritative
prediction.

On 07/21/10 12:15 pm, RickH wrote:

Chicago will soon be awash in cash as they charge $180 to register a
firearm.- Hide quoted text -

That should lower the crime rate, right now with firearms being banned
the gang bangers know the citizens are defenseless.

No, the crims know that there will be more firearms around for them to
steal and use in worse crimes than theft.

Perce

On Jul 21, 12:06*pm, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
On 07/21/10 12:15 pm, RickH wrote:

Chicago will soon be awash in cash as they charge $180 to register a
firearm.- Hide quoted text -
That should lower the crime rate, right now with firearms being banned
the gang bangers know the citizens are defenseless.

No, the crims know that there will be more firearms around for them to
steal and use in worse crimes than theft.

Perce


Chicago is already highest crime in country (maybe world) with having
all firearms be illegal, so your logic of (more guns = more crime)
does not hold. If anything the current ban is proof that (no guns in
the hands of responsible people = rampant crime).

On Jul 21, 12:41*pm, RickH wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:06*pm, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 07/21/10 12:15 pm, RickH wrote:

Chicago will soon be awash in cash as they charge $180 to register a
firearm.- Hide quoted text -
That should lower the crime rate, right now with firearms being banned
the gang bangers know the citizens are defenseless.

No, the crims know that there will be more firearms around for them to
steal and use in worse crimes than theft.

Perce

Chicago is already highest crime in country (maybe world) with having
all firearms be illegal, so your logic of (more guns = more crime)
does not hold. *If anything the current ban is proof that (no guns in
the hands of responsible people = rampant crime).

It's proof that not having guns in the hands of responsible people
doesn't mean that guns aren't going to be used in crime, anyway.
Looser gun laws = lower crime. Tighter gun permitting = more
crime.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...9735253&sr=8-1

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Larry wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
RickH wrote:
On Jul 20, 6:49 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"The feds are complaining about getting dragged into court, having
to file time-consuming paperwork, and generally being treated like
any taxpayer who get crosswise with the IRS. "

"The federal agency claims its precious time is being eaten up by
Wal-Mart's legal maneuvers. Officials at the Department of Labor
say that, over the past five months, 17 percent of the available
attorney hours in its New York office have been devoted to this one
little case..."

http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulG.../wal-mart_stri...

I understand that Wal-Mart will NEVER settle a meritless
"slip-and-fall" case. They may lose money defending such a case but
their theory is that a vigorous defense against a single nuisance
suit deters 100 others.


Staff attorneys at wal-mart are paid a salary so their hours are a
constant expense anyway no matter what the workload is. Also the
staff attorneys work multiple cases simultaneously. But 100 suits
deterred is a genuine savings, that is where the staff attorneys
become an asset rather than an expense.

Don't forget, the lawyers at OSHA are on salary too. Still, it's fun
to see them outsmarted.

Are you for real? Doing back flips because WW is fighting a $7k fine,
for an employee getting killed?

I'll bet you really get your jollies off if you hear of mutiple
fatalities at a work place.

Absolutely digusting.

It wasn't an employee, it was a shopper. The death of anyone is
irrelevant to the ex post facto regulation that OSHA was trying to impose
on Wal-Mart.

Had it been a Wal-Mart employee, I'd have sent a sympathy card.

By this response, you clearly didn't read the article _YOU_ posted. I
suggest you read it. Short version: It's about a clerk at one of their
stores.

OSHA becomes involved because, oh what the heck, you _should_ know. HINT:
The "O" stands for occupational.

On 7/21/2010 4:42 PM, Larry wrote:
wrote in message
m...
Larry wrote:
wrote in message
news RickH wrote:
On Jul 20, 6:49 am, wrote:
"The feds are complaining about getting dragged into court, having
to file time-consuming paperwork, and generally being treated like
any taxpayer who get crosswise with the IRS. "

"The federal agency claims its precious time is being eaten up by
Wal-Mart's legal maneuvers. Officials at the Department of Labor
say that, over the past five months, 17 percent of the available
attorney hours in its New York office have been devoted to this one
little case..."

http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulG.../wal-mart_stri...

I understand that Wal-Mart will NEVER settle a meritless
"slip-and-fall" case. They may lose money defending such a case but
their theory is that a vigorous defense against a single nuisance
suit deters 100 others.


Staff attorneys at wal-mart are paid a salary so their hours are a
constant expense anyway no matter what the workload is. Also the
staff attorneys work multiple cases simultaneously. But 100 suits
deterred is a genuine savings, that is where the staff attorneys
become an asset rather than an expense.

Don't forget, the lawyers at OSHA are on salary too. Still, it's fun
to see them outsmarted.

Are you for real? Doing back flips because WW is fighting a $7k fine,
for an employee getting killed?

I'll bet you really get your jollies off if you hear of mutiple
fatalities at a work place.

Absolutely digusting.

It wasn't an employee, it was a shopper. The death of anyone is
irrelevant to the ex post facto regulation that OSHA was trying to impose
on Wal-Mart.

Had it been a Wal-Mart employee, I'd have sent a sympathy card.

By this response, you clearly didn't read the article _YOU_ posted. I
suggest you read it. Short version: It's about a clerk at one of their
stores.

OSHA becomes involved because, oh what the heck, you _should_ know. HINT:
The "O" stands for occupational.



In case you haven't noticed "heybub" is a gadfly. He/she is just
interested in stirring things up not making sense out of anything.

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 07/21/10 12:15 pm, RickH wrote:

Chicago will soon be awash in cash as they charge $180 to register a
firearm.- Hide quoted text -

That should lower the crime rate, right now with firearms being
banned the gang bangers know the citizens are defenseless.

No, the crims know that there will be more firearms around for them to
steal and use in worse crimes than theft.


In order to steal a firearm, the gun has to exist and the burglar has to
break into the house to obtain it.

What are the chances of someone being home who's willing to operate the
firearm during the break-in? That's the calculation the goblin has to make.

Fortunately, that tabulation has already been done. In an exhaustive study
of all 3,050 counties in the country, it was discovered that crimes against
persons went DOWN after firearms, specifically concealed carry, was enabled.

Conversely, crimes against property (stolen cars, etc.) went up slightly as
the smarter criminals gravitated to less lethal endeavors.

Further, if the past is prologue, more guns in the hands of squints and
mopes is a Good Thing (tm). In Chicago, for example, 95% of the gun homicide
victims needed killin' anyway. Heck, even some of the shooters were caught!
So, at least one gomer is no longer preying on society, and sometimes two!

Regrettably, some innocents fall victim during these shoot-outs. But, as we
say in home repair, you can't build a house without making sawdust - there's
always some waste.

Larry wrote:

It wasn't an employee, it was a shopper. The death of anyone is
irrelevant to the ex post facto regulation that OSHA was trying to
impose on Wal-Mart.

Had it been a Wal-Mart employee, I'd have sent a sympathy card.

By this response, you clearly didn't read the article _YOU_ posted. I
suggest you read it. Short version: It's about a clerk at one of their
stores.

You're absolutely right. I completely misremembered. Thank you for pointing
out my error.


OSHA becomes involved because, oh what the heck, you _should_ know.
HINT: The "O" stands for occupational.

I have no problem with OSHA being involved. I have no problem with the
agency promulgating rules to prevent this from happening again.

But, in my view, it is unconscionable for OSHA to fine Wal-Mart for
violating a regulation that wasn't in force when the incident occurred.

I have to go shopping for a card.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Larry wrote:

It wasn't an employee, it was a shopper. The death of anyone is
irrelevant to the ex post facto regulation that OSHA was trying to
impose on Wal-Mart.

Had it been a Wal-Mart employee, I'd have sent a sympathy card.

By this response, you clearly didn't read the article _YOU_ posted. I
suggest you read it. Short version: It's about a clerk at one of their
stores.

You're absolutely right. I completely misremembered. Thank you for
pointing out my error.


OSHA becomes involved because, oh what the heck, you _should_ know.
HINT: The "O" stands for occupational.

I have no problem with OSHA being involved. I have no problem with the
agency promulgating rules to prevent this from happening again.

But, in my view, it is unconscionable for OSHA to fine Wal-Mart for
violating a regulation that wasn't in force when the incident occurred.

I have to go shopping for a card.

Any time there is a fatality within the work place, OSHA becomes involved.

Unfortunately, you're correct, common sense by management in the work place
will never be a regulation. Geez, if you have thousands of people waiting
for the doors to open, who needs any type of crowd control, when you have a
minimum wage worker told to open the doors. Management should set the
example, and have the CEO open them, without any type of crowd control
support.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



Further, if the past is prologue, more guns in the hands of squints and
mopes is a Good Thing (tm). In Chicago, for example, 95% of the gun homicide
victims needed killin' anyway. Heck, even some of the shooters were caught!
So, at least one gomer is no longer preying on society, and sometimes two!
Ah yes. I have been at a few misdemeanor murders in the past.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article ,
"Larry" wrote:


Unfortunately, you're correct, common sense by management in the work place
will never be a regulation. Geez, if you have thousands of people waiting
for the doors to open, who needs any type of crowd control, when you have a
minimum wage worker told to open the doors. Management should set the
example, and have the CEO open them, without any type of crowd control
support.

And how many WalMarts had been opened on Black Friday for how many
years with nary an injury, let alone a fatality? How many since?

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On 2010-07-22, cjt wrote:

I think it's pretty hard to find a lawyer who will take on a suit that
has no merit.....

Even harder to find a lawyer who will take on a suit that has no
assets!!

nb

notbob wrote:
On 2010-07-21, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Evidently you do not own a business that has been sued.

No, but I've dealt with "a business" and been screwed!

....and more times than I've sued, which is none all.

nb

Well said. A lot of businesses push the envelope under the assumption
(usually true) that people will just grin and bear it.