"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.

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

"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.

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.



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.

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?

"keith" wrote in message
...
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?

===========

I was about to respond with "You knew what I meant", but then I realized
that you didn't, and explaining it would be pointless because of your
condition.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"keith" wrote in message
...
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?

===========

I was about to respond with "You knew what I meant", but then I realized
that you didn't, and explaining it would be pointless because of your
condition.


The on-staff attorneys are a fixed cost. So they are only evaluating
the variable (maybe marginal is the better term) costs of printing,
couriers, etc. This is a whole lot different than most of us where the
ALL of the costs of a suit are variable costs.

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

On Jul 20, 10:48*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,



*"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"keith" wrote in message
...
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?

===========

I was about to respond with "You knew what I meant", but then I realized
that you didn't, and explaining it would be pointless because of your
condition.

* The on-staff attorneys are a fixed cost. So they are only evaluating
the variable (maybe marginal is the better term) costs of printing,
couriers, etc. This is a whole lot different than most of us where the
ALL of the costs of a suit are variable costs.

Yeah, employees are sitting around waiting for something to do.
They'd all have jobs if there were no suits.

Another moron heard from.

On Jul 20, 10:48*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,



*"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"keith" wrote in message
...
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?

===========

I was about to respond with "You knew what I meant", but then I realized
that you didn't, and explaining it would be pointless because of your
condition.

* The on-staff attorneys are a fixed cost. So they are only evaluating
the variable (maybe marginal is the better term) costs of printing,
couriers, etc. This is a whole lot different than most of us where the
ALL of the costs of a suit are variable costs.


Yes, you got my point; you're a moron.

"keith" wrote in message
...
On Jul 20, 10:48 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,



"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"keith" wrote in message
...
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?

===========

I was about to respond with "You knew what I meant", but then I realized
that you didn't, and explaining it would be pointless because of your
condition.

The on-staff attorneys are a fixed cost. So they are only evaluating
the variable (maybe marginal is the better term) costs of printing,
couriers, etc. This is a whole lot different than most of us where the
ALL of the costs of a suit are variable costs.


Yes, you got my point; you're a moron.

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


Apparently, you didn't know that many companies have their own legal
departments with attorneys on salary. You must be very young. You don't have
much knowledge of the world yet.

On Jul 20, 10:22*am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"keith" wrote in message

...
On Jul 20, 10:48 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In article ,

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"keith" wrote in message
....
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?

===========

I was about to respond with "You knew what I meant", but then I realized
that you didn't, and explaining it would be pointless because of your
condition.

The on-staff attorneys are a fixed cost. So they are only evaluating
the variable (maybe marginal is the better term) costs of printing,
couriers, etc. This is a whole lot different than most of us where the
ALL of the costs of a suit are variable costs.

Yes, you got my point; you're a moron.

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

Apparently, you didn't know that many companies have their own legal
departments with attorneys on salary. You must be very young. You don't have
much knowledge of the world yet.

I can definitely see Walmart's point. If they just settled, a lot
more greedy people would "accidentally" fall and sue them to try to
get rich-quick. This would cause prices to go up in order to cover
these unnecessary lawsuits.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

The on-staff attorneys are a fixed cost. So they are only evaluating
the variable (maybe marginal is the better term) costs of printing,
couriers, etc. This is a whole lot different than most of us where the
ALL of the costs of a suit are variable costs.


Yes, you got my point; you're a moron.

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


Apparently, you didn't know that many companies have their own legal
departments with attorneys on salary. You must be very young. You don't have
much knowledge of the world yet.

Just out of personal curiosity.. .were you by any chance toilet
trained at gunpoint?

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

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

The on-staff attorneys are a fixed cost. So they are only evaluating
the variable (maybe marginal is the better term) costs of printing,
couriers, etc. This is a whole lot different than most of us where the
ALL of the costs of a suit are variable costs.


Yes, you got my point; you're a moron.

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


Apparently, you didn't know that many companies have their own legal
departments with attorneys on salary. You must be very young. You don't
have
much knowledge of the world yet.

Just out of personal curiosity.. .were you by any chance toilet
trained at gunpoint?


What a strange question. Why do you ask? My statement about corporate legal
departments was 100% accurate. It seems impossible to live more than maybe 3
decades without somehow becoming aware of that, even just through regular
reading of a news source designed for grownups.

With that in mind, what's your problem with my comments? Be very specific.

rlz wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:22 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"keith" wrote in message

...
On Jul 20, 10:48 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In article ,

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"keith" wrote in message
...
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?

===========

I was about to respond with "You knew what I meant", but then I
realized that you didn't, and explaining it would be pointless
because of your condition.

The on-staff attorneys are a fixed cost. So they are only evaluating
the variable (maybe marginal is the better term) costs of printing,
couriers, etc. This is a whole lot different than most of us where
the ALL of the costs of a suit are variable costs.

Yes, you got my point; you're a moron.

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

Apparently, you didn't know that many companies have their own legal
departments with attorneys on salary. You must be very young. You
don't have much knowledge of the world yet.

I can definitely see Walmart's point. If they just settled, a lot
more greedy people would "accidentally" fall and sue them to try to
get rich-quick. This would cause prices to go up in order to cover
these unnecessary lawsuits.

did you read the article? it refers to a salesperson being trampled in the
(i believe xmas sale) rush when they opened the doors. are you saying
someone would throw themselves in front of a horde and want to get trampled
on purpose?

"chaniarts" wrote in message
...
rlz wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:22 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"keith" wrote in message

...
On Jul 20, 10:48 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In article ,

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"keith" wrote in message
...
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?

===========

I was about to respond with "You knew what I meant", but then I
realized that you didn't, and explaining it would be pointless
because of your condition.

The on-staff attorneys are a fixed cost. So they are only evaluating
the variable (maybe marginal is the better term) costs of printing,
couriers, etc. This is a whole lot different than most of us where
the ALL of the costs of a suit are variable costs.

Yes, you got my point; you're a moron.

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

Apparently, you didn't know that many companies have their own legal
departments with attorneys on salary. You must be very young. You
don't have much knowledge of the world yet.

I can definitely see Walmart's point. If they just settled, a lot
more greedy people would "accidentally" fall and sue them to try to
get rich-quick. This would cause prices to go up in order to cover
these unnecessary lawsuits.

did you read the article? it refers to a salesperson being trampled in the
(i believe xmas sale) rush when they opened the doors. are you saying
someone would throw themselves in front of a horde and want to get
trampled on purpose?


I didn't interpret his message that way. But I wouldn't put it past someone
to pretend they didn't see the large yellow WET FLOOR sign in the bathroom
entrance and "slip & fall".

On Jul 20, 11:51*am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

m...



In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

The on-staff attorneys are a fixed cost. So they are only evaluating
the variable (maybe marginal is the better term) costs of printing,
couriers, etc. This is a whole lot different than most of us where the
ALL of the costs of a suit are variable costs.

Yes, you got my point; you're a moron.

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

Apparently, you didn't know that many companies have their own legal
departments with attorneys on salary. You must be very young. You don't
have
much knowledge of the world yet.

You prove your cluelessness with every post.

* Just out of personal curiosity.. .were you by any chance toilet
trained at gunpoint?

What a strange question. Why do you ask? My statement about corporate legal
departments was 100% accurate. It seems impossible to live more than maybe 3
decades without somehow becoming aware of that, even just through regular
reading of a news source designed for grownups.

With that in mind, what's your problem with my comments? Be very specific..

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.

"keith" wrote in message
...
On Jul 20, 11:51 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

m...



In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

The on-staff attorneys are a fixed cost. So they are only evaluating
the variable (maybe marginal is the better term) costs of printing,
couriers, etc. This is a whole lot different than most of us where
the
ALL of the costs of a suit are variable costs.

Yes, you got my point; you're a moron.

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

Apparently, you didn't know that many companies have their own legal
departments with attorneys on salary. You must be very young. You don't
have
much knowledge of the world yet.

=================
You prove your cluelessness with every post.
=================


So, you think many companies DO NOT have their own legal departments with
attorneys on salary?

"keith" wrote in message
...
On Jul 20, 11:51 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message


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.

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

You used the term "legal fees". Those are billed to a client by a law firm
not connected with the client. You need to choose your words more carefully.
100% of educated people would agree that "legal fees" are entirely different
from "salary".

On 7/20/2010 2:07 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jul 20, 11:51 am,
wrote:
"Kurt wrote in message

m...



In ,
wrote:

The on-staff attorneys are a fixed cost. So they are only evaluating
the variable (maybe marginal is the better term) costs of printing,
couriers, etc. This is a whole lot different than most of us where
the
ALL of the costs of a suit are variable costs.

Yes, you got my point; you're a moron.

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

Apparently, you didn't know that many companies have their own legal
departments with attorneys on salary. You must be very young. You don't
have
much knowledge of the world yet.

=================
You prove your cluelessness with every post.
=================


So, you think many companies DO NOT have their own legal departments with
attorneys on salary?


You're missing the boat, Joe. Of course companies have legal
departments. Do you think their lawyers are sitting around waiting for
something to do? There is a ton of legal work to do in a big
corporation. Lawsuits are generally extra costs and outside firms are
hired for specific work in the local geographic area. Company I worked
for was spending a million dollars a month extra just to fight law suits
over a single product. Not a single case was lost but it still cost a
million a month extra for several years.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:49:08 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote Re Wal-Mart fights back:

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.


Good for Wal-Mart.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

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.

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.

Many years ago, IBM announced a vapor(hard)ware machine the day before
Control Data Corporation (CDC) was to unveil their (in the flesh)
super-dooper number cruncher. Of course IBM got all the press.

CDC got ****ed and sued IBM for restraint of trade, unfair competition, and
everything else. The Justice Department, smelling blood, joined the suit and
called for a break-up of IBM.

The suit went on for YEARS (there were more lawyers on IBM's side than the
entire complement of the Anti-Trust division of the DOJ). Finally, the night
before trial was to start, IBM and CDC worked a secret, backroom deal. CDC
got an undisclosed amount of cash and a division of IBM, The Service Bureau
Corporation. CDC technicians worked all night to fulfill their part of the
deal: destroying all records, depositions, data bases, etc. so that not a
scrap of analysis or discovery gleaned in almost ten years remained. Not
even a tittle.

The next day, CDC withdrew their suit and the DOJ had bupkus.

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...

Walmart vs. OHSA is a dispute over "administrative law" on the part
of the OHSA officials interpretation of how and where it can apply its
regulations and just what should have been foreseeable and what
shouldn't have been... Administrative law has the full force and
effect
of Federal or State law only it was written internally by the
government
agency which is enforcing it...

Walmart is by no means the only company which can challenge the
government at this level... Most international corporations have more
in-house counsel on staff for various specialties than any government
agency... Every contract they enter into has to be evaluated as to
how
it will be interpreted and enforced in each jurisdiction where it
applies
and usually when entering into a complicated contract the parties
agree
that any disputes over the terms of the contract will be dealt with in
a
given court... I.E. one party is surrendering their legal rights to
bring
suit in a local court and is agreeing that any disputes MUST be dealt
with in a specific jurisdiction...

~~ Evan

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

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
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...

~~ Evan

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

"Evan" 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#

On 2010-07-20, HeyBub wrote:

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

There ya' go, HB, muh man! I know I always break out in wild
celebration whenever worker's safety suffers a significant defeat.

How many fingers you got, there, HB?

nb

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.

On Jul 20, 3:31*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Evan" 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"!

"RickH" wrote in message
...
On Jul 20, 3:31 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Evan" 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"!
============

Well, we need SOME kind of a good response to "Do you know how fast you were
going?" I suppose another would be "How fast do YOU think I was going?"
Respond ONLY with questions. The only safe statement to make is "I'm bored
with dinner ideas.", or "I need to wash this car more often."

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.



Big corporations always use litigation to bankrupt their enemies.
Just what the constitution was crated for.


--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:31:22 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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#


Good video. One thing not mentioned was "Res gestae", something spoken
/ blurted out before the officer even asked the first question.

"I didn't mean to shoot him!" "Officer I didn't see the kid, I feel
so bad."

All spoken before Miranda warnings.

"Res gestae (Latin "things done") is a term found in substantive and
procedural American jurisprudence and English law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_gestae

Me, I STFU.

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?

HeyBub wrote:
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.

Many years ago, IBM announced a vapor(hard)ware machine the day before
Control Data Corporation (CDC) was to unveil their (in the flesh)
super-dooper number cruncher. Of course IBM got all the press.

CDC got ****ed and sued IBM for restraint of trade, unfair competition, and
everything else. The Justice Department, smelling blood, joined the suit and
called for a break-up of IBM.

The suit went on for YEARS (there were more lawyers on IBM's side than the
entire complement of the Anti-Trust division of the DOJ). Finally, the night
before trial was to start, IBM and CDC worked a secret, backroom deal. CDC
got an undisclosed amount of cash and a division of IBM, The Service Bureau
Corporation. CDC technicians worked all night to fulfill their part of the
deal: destroying all records, depositions, data bases, etc. so that not a
scrap of analysis or discovery gleaned in almost ten years remained. Not
even a tittle.

The next day, CDC withdrew their suit and the DOJ had bupkus.


Destroying evidence is often not the best idea.

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.

LSMFT wrote in
:

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_strik
es_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.



Big corporations always use litigation to bankrupt their enemies.
Just what the constitution was crated for.



actually,the FEDGOV has essentially unlimited time,resources and
money(taxpayer money) to pursue lawsuits.
Corporations will usually take the path of lowest cost to them.


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.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"chaniarts" wrote in message
...
rlz wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:22 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"keith" wrote in message

...
On Jul 20, 10:48 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In article ,

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"keith" wrote in message
...
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?

===========

I was about to respond with "You knew what I meant", but then I
realized that you didn't, and explaining it would be pointless
because of your condition.

The on-staff attorneys are a fixed cost. So they are only evaluating
the variable (maybe marginal is the better term) costs of printing,
couriers, etc. This is a whole lot different than most of us where
the ALL of the costs of a suit are variable costs.

Yes, you got my point; you're a moron.

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

Apparently, you didn't know that many companies have their own legal
departments with attorneys on salary. You must be very young. You
don't have much knowledge of the world yet.

I can definitely see Walmart's point. If they just settled, a lot
more greedy people would "accidentally" fall and sue them to try to
get rich-quick. This would cause prices to go up in order to cover
these unnecessary lawsuits.

did you read the article? it refers to a salesperson being trampled in
the (i believe xmas sale) rush when they opened the doors. are you
saying someone would throw themselves in front of a horde and want to
get trampled on purpose?


I didn't interpret his message that way. But I wouldn't put it past
someone to pretend they didn't see the large yellow WET FLOOR sign in the
bathroom entrance and "slip & fall".

What's the use of a WET FLOOR sign, when you need a sign which says,
CUIDADO PISO MOJADO?

"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.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:07:07 -0400, George
wrote:

Any cop who delivers a "tune up" needs to be immediately
dismissed and prosecuted.

What about an attitude adjustment? I worked with a guy nicknamed
"Spin". When the person left his office, he forgot what he went there
for. Spin spun him around.

No office furniture damaged.