"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.

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, 10:56*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, 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?

"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

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.

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

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.

I think it's pretty hard to find a lawyer who will take on a suit that
has no merit, particularly for a percentage, and most people won't put
their own money into legal fees unless they think they have a real cause
of action.

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

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.

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, 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

"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 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."

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.

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

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.

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 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 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

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.

"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.

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.

"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 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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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