I observe that people from your side of the argument often truncate and
mistate the facts of cases that they use as examples to undermine the
ability of the little guy to sue the big guy..........or even other little
guys who themselves would prefer to operate with impunity as they exploit
others and dislike having to answer for their actions in a court of law.  We
shall see how honest you turn out to be in the presentation of the facts.

There will always be chaos...but it will not affect the larger order.  See
quantum physics.

I wish time would permit me to explain in detail the co-existence of chaos
to order as it exists in new understandings of quantum physics....but that
is not the discussion here.  I believe that God alots each of his creations
a certain space of chaos to control or experience as he one chooses, but the
swirls of chaos will not undermine the patterns or order.  See the weather
models and extensions into philosophy.   Nevermind.........just don't doubt
my own understanding of chaos and order.  We can talk of this after my book
is published and you take issue.

For now, let it be known that I see the chaos you see, but I attribute it to
the degeneration of reason and rationality.  I see it as a symptom of the 30
second media bite and a windows mentality where thinking in depth is
sublimated into the paths provided and more and more restricted as a free
flowing event.

Among other things, I have studied law.  I have studied history.  I find the
presense of these corrupt, self-serving politicains to be consistent and
never lacking since the beginning of history.......yet law moves man closer
to the ideal rather than away from it.  Law shines a light on the
imperfections of man and offers a path to a better way.  That is the real
evolution, though you focus on the magnifications of the flaws of the moment
and endanger the accomplishments of thousands of years out of disgust for
things you think you see that exist in lessor detail or not at all as you
present.

I hear far more cries from the politicos than I hear from litigants.  I
think it is a straw man you build.

I have no interest in that case.  It is a single case and one in New Jersey.
It is for people in the state of New Jersey to worry about.  You stated the
facts of that case in a single sentence.  I was pointing out the folly of
doing that.  The facts of a case can be reduced (after due process and
judicial finding) to a paragraph but your sentence did not rely upon any
such findings nor fact.  It was just a heavy weighted opinion with no
meaning.  The case itself is just not important enough to the issue for me
to bother with.  The facts of one case do not reduce the values of our
judicial systems to the low levels you suggest.

I will choose the other case you offer to examine in detail as it is one
that might have been brought in Texas.

Except for the random terrorist event, we mostly walk the streets unharmed
from unhappy consequences of business or accident.  There are the
execeptions involving the lawless, but for the most part we suffer our
losses at the hands of accident and excess to the outcomes of a court or we
walk away from them rather than endure the due process.  Not
perfect..........but not nearly as bad as you protray.  Now if those of you
who desire to quash and make harder the ability to take a question to
court..........even a trivial one......then you would begin to see the
breakdown as a poor system of law and order gives way to less and less due
process.  An angry victim can have his day in court should he invest that
which is necessary to do so.........otherwise he can turn the cheek and save
his legal fight for another day.

Now that would be a case I might be interested in.

Okay, I looked that one up.  Who are the sources for the facts you give!
You mistate the facts.  Did you do the cutting or was it done by your
source.

The judge didn't "order" that, the judge "approved a settlement."  It is
always the aim of a court to get the issues settled outside the courtroom.
This was the case here.  The judge's order was an affirmation in the process
of settlement more than an order against the defendant.  What kind of a
person are you to blame a judge for approving a mutual settlement.

You did not mention that the man had filled out a federal form on which he
admitted to being under a restraining order preventing him for buying guns.
Do you see what I am talking about.  You are trying to destroy our system
and you are willing to lie to accomplish that.  If you mistate because you
listen to false media.........then the responsibility still rests with you.
Wal Mart agreed to pay $16 million because they did not pay attention to
something that society has deemed important.  They ignored the federal form
where the restrictions on this guy from buying firearms were clear!  That is
the tort.  Two people died because of their "negligence".   The tort is
negligence!  It is established in common law that people are responsible
when others suffer injury due to their "negligence!"  It has to do with
ancient law..........nothing to do with evil judges and lawyers.  You on the
other hand do perpetrate  evil by bearing false witness to the principals of
this case.  Shame upon you!

I was pointing out a factual actual historical event that happened in the
days when the circuit cour judge was much less accessable than he is today.
If you take cases out of a courtroom, they will be settled.  You talk of
some imagined evolution. I am just telling you that people settle their
differences either at law or by other means.  You are attacking the system
of law and advocating restricting accesss to the injured and even percieved
injured.   As can be seen even in the inane ten minute cases on the TV
courts (which short cut due process and law most of the time).  People often
have convoluted ideas about their positions.  With courts of law, they are
able to vent and have a consideration of the facts by a jury and a decision
of the law by a judge.  It will be explained to them and in a far far
majority of the cases, the loser goes away, perhaps sore..........but
uninclined to seek revenge.

I see the faces of the cut-throats of which you speak, but the faces may not
be the same faces you see.  I have never sued anyone.  I've been sued a
number of times.  I've won all the cases I should have won, and I lost a few
that I should have lost.  I really didn't fight those cases.  Many times in
all my businesses have I been wronged.  Most of the time, I either let it
go, or the well-reasoned threat of a lawsuit brought settlement.....never to
my complete satisfaction...but enough to stay my considerable warrior
instincts.  The availability of the courts have stilled my anger.  I could
always sue if I felt bad enough.........I didn't........the system worked
pretty good....but then I'm not in the constant habit of screwing other
people by design.

I truly believe you believe the words above.  I think perhaps you are moved
to indignation by talk radio.  It rots the mind!  Remember the case of the
woman who sued because of the hot coffee?  Oh so many were upset about that.
I read that case.  That coffee was not hot......it was super hot!  Because
of a market opportunity from an office building down the street, the manager
kept the coffee at super hot temperatures.  He was accustomed to selling
large orders for delivery throughout the building.  It was superhot to make
sure it was still hot after the long delivery process.  The tort was in
passing such superhot coffee across the drivethru window..........a place a
reasonable person could foresee spilled coffee as a normal occurrence.
Normal coffee would be uncomfortable....we've all experienced that without
law suit.

Normal coffee does not cause third degree burns.  The victim had to undergo
multiple skin grafts to replace the skin that was burned away by the coffee
that was hotter than one would expect.

To talk about this case as if it was just another case of hot coffee spilled
in the lap would be deceitful.  If the skin of your thigh was melted
requiring skin grafts..........you would then understand what the case was
about.  To assume from talk radio that the lady got 600,000 for a coffee
spill would be untrue.  It never happened that way, though the misstatement
of actual facts and the 30 second assumption of the facts of this case fuels
the anger of people such as yourself.

It remains, that one who feels themselves to be the victim of a lawsuit
without merit can sue for damages themselves.  Nuisance lawsuits do exist,
but not in the quantity as presented by those that prey upon the shallow
minds of talk radio audience.  A careful reading of the actual facts of most
of these talked about  cases usually reveal much more than the renditions
offered by the indignant talking head.

Someone with rationality and reason must stand up against those that would
stir up the unwashed and unminded to riot in the streets and vote in the
real corrupt politicians to undermine the systems of law that stand between
the bad and the good.  It ain't perfect, but trust me...if is far better
than to suffer the wrath of people like me that are capable of far more
revenge than we undertake due to our confidence in a better way of law and
due process.

If you take my access to a court of law (even if I have never used it
before) then you will leave me with a far darker solution.  I will walk away
from wrongs.  I have walked away from many wrongs, because they were not
worth the trouble and expense of a lawsuit...........but the existence of
that possibility vented my anger and saved, in the process, as many from
greater damage to themselves than that they inflicted upon me.

Don't underestimate the numbers of people who stay their hand as do I.  We
are multitudes!  We hold ourselves back because of a commitment to law and
order.  Take away the rights to redress, and you would not believe the storm
that would fall upon the land.  Law keeps us from the ancient ways, but we
the blood law still runs in our veins.  Don't do it!  You think you want
that .....but you do not!

Randy R. Cox

Randy R. Cox

 YOUR PSYCHIC ABILITIES ARE LACKING MY FRIEND... AWARENESS AND OBSERVATION ARE
 POWERFUL TOOLS IN UNDERSTANDING THE TRUTH.
 

 I WOULD HAVE HOPED FOR A BIT MORE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR BY NOW. YOUR  
 POINT SUGGESTS THAT OUR ONLY OPTIONS ARE VIOLENCE OR INJUSTICE. THIS IS
 PRECISELY THE MINDSET OF THIS COUNTRY THAT IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE SPIRALING
 CHAOS.

 THIS WOULD WORK WITH THE ABSENCE OF CORRUPT, SELF SERVING POLITICIANS,
 HOWEVER, WE ALL KNOW THIS ISN'T THE CASE.

  PERHAPS YOU SHOULD LOOK AT YOURSELF MR. COX. MY STATEMENT REGARDING PETER  
  HARVEY WAS WELL RESEARCHED. THIS IS A MAN WHO HAS TAKEN THE PEOPLE OF NEW
  JERSEY FOR TOTAL FOOLS. JUST ANOTHER CASE OF ABUSE OF POWER.
  http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,916059,00.html

 I ASK FOR HONESTY AND DIGNITY IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND THIS IS WHAT YOU  
 CONSIDER THE ONLY OPTION? MY POSTING DID NOT SUGGEST A PROHIBITION OF
 LITIGATION. ITS PRECISELY THIS TYPE OF OVERDRAMATIC BEHAVIOR IN THE
 COURTROOMS THAT DISTRACTS THE JURY FROM THE TRUTHS OF THE MATTER. A TYPICAL
 DECIETFUL FORM OF TRICKERY THAT IS USED BY ATTORNEYS.

 CHOICES IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS EITHER VIOLENCE OR CORRUPTION HAS JUST
 REAFFIRMED MY  POINT THAT THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS NOTHING MORE THAN EVOLVING
 STUPIDITY.
 WE MUST AS A WHOLE RECOGNIZE THE GRADUAL SELF DESTRUCTION IN THIS TREND OF  
 GREED AND TAKE A STAND AGAINST IT OR WE WILL JUST EVENTUALLY KILL OURSELVES
 OFF. GREED IS AN ULTIMATELY SELFCONSUMING BEHAVIOR....

Our legal system provides a way for "victims" of injudicious and frivolous
lawsuits to seek redress.  It is equally as flawed as the original lawsuit
itself in that it shares the problem of a seeking redress against damages
from a defendant with empty or shallow pocket.  It is still better than the
uncivilized alternative which tort reformers in their shallow view fail to
adress.  It isn't perfect, but people that share your hopeless view of the
tort system do so usually because they were either forced to pay a high
price for what a jury deemed a wrong they did that they do not recognize as
a wrong, or one of the mob that stimulates their adrenals by listening to a
talk radio show that exites the sedentary personality into a minor proactive
one---that is to say the radio voice is capable of moving the couch potato
from the couch to the phone to call in a radio show, write an article for a
newsgroup, or discuss it agitatedly over church or beer!

The former has had his day in court; the jury has spoken.  The later usually
makes up his "judicial mind" from ten minutes of detail and fact as recited
to him by a talk radio jock.  The later has not the same quality of fact to
deal with as the jury they are second guessing.  I am sickened by the
superficial readiness of both of these growing types of people to do away
with the flawed system we have without thinking of the consequences.  The
flawed system of common law we have was developed over hundreds of years to
prevent the injured from enforcing his own standards of redress.  Cherokee,
one of my many American cultures, did not have common law.  The ancient
Cherokee relied upon Blood Law for redress.  Revenge might be the better
word.  Without a flawed tort system with juries to decide....the alternative
would be man to man where might makes right.  I promise you it is far a
better thing to be on the wrong side of a tort court decision than to be on
the wrong side of a Blood Law obligation.  Under Blood Law your entire
family would have to answer to the perceived victim's entire family for as
long as it took to get justice..........or revenge....whichever word you
prefer!

Laws and systems of laws don't just appear out of a vaccuum.  They are
compromises made over time by process as decided by the whole where the
individual surrenders some of his personal perogative for action in exchange
for the contract to live among the group.

Many in Texas think as you do....but they are mistaken.  Many in Texas think
the high cost of medicine is due to the cost of mal practise lawsuit awards.
98% of all medical-malpractise lawsuits in Texas end with a judgment for the
defendant.  That means all those insane suits that you talk about are funded
by lawyers who have to try 100 cases to win two.  The cost of a medical
malpractise lawsuit for a plantiff runs from $50,000 to $350,000 dollars.  I
know of a couple of established attorneys who were wiped out completely
funding a case they thought would win............but did not.  These were
cases that had every right to win, but the jury pool was made up of people
likeminded to yourself that just could not believe that a friendly Doctor
could really sew up someone's chest with gauge still inside to leave
infections that caused three more operations to no avail until the patient
finally went to a third doctor who found the infected gauze.  The plaintiff
lost and the attorney, you will be pleased to know, went into domestic law
helping people get divorces.

You are quite smug in your quick statement of the facts.  Can you admit that
such a quick statement calls for a quick judgment without the real facts.
Any judgment made upon your statement would indicate the shallow mind that
is inadequate to examine such issues at all.  Virtually everyone that reads
this post will know that the above is not the only facts of this case.
Therefore, your statement is meaningless and belongs on talk
radio...........or right here on the newsgroup, but has no merit worth
consideration by serious people.

Go ahead, make it virtually impossible for one man to sue another.  That is
a step back to the old west.  We knew how to handle these things here in
Texas.  My wife's great grandfather had a long running dispute with his
French neighbor.  One day as he was choping the head off a chicken the
neighbor came out to gripe as he did often.  (They had no small claims court
in those days).  The Frenchman had his hand on the fence post and was
steadily giving my wife's grandfather a dressing down.  He didn't talk much.
He didn't say a word.  When he had heard all he wanted to hear, he just took
the hand axe he used on the chicken and chopped of two of the Frenchman's
fingers.  The dispute was settled........no lawyers........no judge.....no
jury!

I'm with you!  The tort system is only a fence that keeps us apart.  I don't
like the fence and neither do you.  As soon as I finish killing this
chicken.........I'll deal with it my own way.  Go ahead and stand there with
your hand on the post :-)

Just kidding........offered as something to think about.  It really is just
as simple as you present it...........and me.  If you don't like the tort
system we can go back to the old Blood Law ways if you want to.  That is
where we are headed, but don't say I didn't warn you!  You might not like
what you get.

Bin Laden didn't feel he could get a fair hearing in a court of law in the
United States.  The WTC is just an magnified example of what happens when
people decide to settle things in their own way.  People who perceive
themselves as injured do not just walk away.  Either they have a day in
court or they find another way to get even.  It is the nature of man  that
he will do these things.  A flawed tort system is better than the
alternative.

Randy R. Cox

As a lifelong citizen of the US, I am concerned about the
deteriorating trend that is destroying the dignity and integrity of
the American people. Among the inevitable crime, overpopulation and
every day social issues that contribute to the ongoing problems that
we face, there is a much deeper and darker influence that has been
quickly evolving into a social "plague". I have closely observed the
ethical decline of this country's government and I am sickened by the
warped values of our legal system. We now live in a country that
solicits injudicious and frivolous lawsuits, encourages people to
destroy honest businesses and their reputations, and rewards this
sadistic behavior with a monetary payoff.

The lawyers and judges in this country (with the exception of a very
few who are courageous enough to stand strong on their convictions),
have sold their concern of humanity for greed and personal gain.
The government has been reduced to nothing more than organized crime
as they over tax us and force the honest businesses to pay them
exorbitant amounts of money under the pretense of litigation. Of
coarse, on occasion, there are legitimate causes, but the epidemic of
sue happy litigators has reached a level of pure insanity.

For example, NJ State Attorney General, Peter Harvey's is suing Nissan
for producing cars with headlights that thieves find enticing to
steal.
Or how about a federal judge ordering WalMart to pay $16 million for
selling a shotgun that was used in a murder. I may be crazy, but
wouldn't the man who pulled the trigger be responsible for that?
Then there's the lawfirm who pressed and then settled a class action
against Microsoft supposedly on behalf of 14 million California
consumers, demanding legal fees of $300 million. These insane class
action lawsuits might dress well in the media, but who makes out? $300
million for the lawyers and maybe the consumer will get back a portion
of what ever he paid for a product that he consciously chose and
evaluated before making the purchase. Just another blatant case of
legal extortion. The list goes on and on, and the most twisted part of
it all is that the victim in these unfair legal attacks must pay to
defend themselves whether right, wrong, win or lose. Where is the
justice in this? Have we evolved into a breed of humans that are too
stupid to be responsible for our own choices and actions?

As the avalanche of lawsuits grows stronger and stronger the concern
for humanity becomes less and less. Do these subhumans that call
themselves lawyers and judges realize that these businesses they are
destroying are run by people with families? This is not just
paperwork, this is mothers and fathers who are proud of their hard
work and success until the vultures pick apart their livelihood with
legal brutality and slander their names with media manipulation. What
has happened to our sense of humanity?
Are we now just a nation of self serving cut-throats with no
consciences? What will become of us if this self-destructing trend
continues?