castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

I figure to have several threads that feature a theme in the Chopping Block.

This is because certain subjects consistently generate controversy.


The rulings of judges certainly qualify.

We allow men to enterpret the law in order to keep the law from deviating from its intentions.

Good idea in principle.

The reality is something rather different.

[JuntaJoe]

We start this series off with something I heard on radio today.

Sadly, my usual penchant for a link or transcript is lacking as I could find it in my web news.

Perhaps the news is just to fresh too get more national coverage.

Just take my word that this is what I heard. :wink:



A Washington state appeals judge threw out several convictions of an armed robber.

The reason was that the evidence was taken from the crimminal's girlfriend's testimony.

It seems that the crimminal was a friendly with the girlfriend's daughter.

The girlfriend it seems was unaware of the crimminal's profession.

But the daughter was.

So one day, mom hears the phone ring and goes to pick it up.

But the phone was already answered by the daughter in another part of the house.

Mom decides to get curious and plays silent listening to the conversation.

It's her phone and her underage daughter, right?

So she hears a rather astounding story as the crimminal brags to her daughter about all the jobs he's done and planning.

Mom realizes her boyfriend is a foul crook and turns him in.

The police gathers corroborating physical evidence to go with mom's testimony and the prosecution nails the jerk to the wall with several convictions.


And then this appeals judge tosses it all out.

The judge's reasoning?

It seems that mom was violating her daughter's privacy rights by listening into the conversation without the daughter's permission!!!!

The logic then goes that had mom not listened in then the police would not have tied the evidence together and nailed the jerk.


What!?! Privacy rights? For a guardian's minor?

What kind of dumbasss New Age theory is this judge smoking?!

[jimmyreb]

Thats justice for you, stuff like that makes me so frustrated I don't even know what to say.

[NibbyCat]

We're discussing this on another forum. Let me get the link from there... Darn, it takes a registration. Let me see if there's a free site.

Clicky

Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law
Associated Press ^ | December 9, 2004

Posted on 12/09/2004 7:52:43 PM PST by RWR8189

SEATTLE - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation.

Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.

"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days," said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. "My daughter was out of control, and that was the only way I could get information and keep track of her. I did it all the time."

The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon's testimony against a friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen, who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due to the mother's testimony.

The case started with a purse-snatching four years ago that shocked the island town of Friday Harbor, population 2,000. Two young men knocked down an elderly woman, breaking her glasses, and stole her purse. Christensen, then 17, was a suspect.

Sheriff Bill Cumming asked Dixon, whose daughter was friends with Christensen, to be alert for any possible evidence. When Christensen called the Dixon house later, Lacey Dixon, then 14, took the cordless phone into her bedroom and shut the door. The mother hit the "speakerphone" button and took notes on the conversation — in which Christensen said he knew where the purloined purse was.

The ruling will likely not result in parents being prosecuted for snooping, Cumming said. But it forbids courts and law enforcement from using the fruits of such snooping.

Federal wiretap law has been interpreted to allow parents to record their child's conversations. But Washington privacy law is stricter. Washington is one of 11 states that requires consent from all parties involved before a conversation may be intercepted or recorded.

"The Washington statute ... tips the balance in favor of individual privacy at the expense of law enforcement's ability to gather evidence without a warrant," Justice Tom Chambers wrote.

That right to individual privacy holds fast even when the individuals are teenagers, the court ruled.

"I don't think the state should be in the position of encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites).

Lacey Dixon, now 18, graduated from high school and is attending a massage therapy school, her mother proudly reported. Christensen's whereabouts are unknown.

Dixon has a 15-year-old son still at home, whose phone conversations she sometimes secretly monitors. She said she'll stop that now.

"If it's illegal, I won't do it," she sighed.
------------------------------------------------------

Back to reality, if the kid had been dealing drugs using that phone and the mother didn't know, she'd STILL lose her house because she's supposed to monitor what her kids are doing...

[Che]

Based upon current Washington law, the judges made the correct ruling... even if it is stupid.

To have ruled otherwise... would have been judicial constructivism.

This is not a problem of the judiciary, but... of the legislative branch of government.

Washington voters should be asking... who were the idiots that wrote this piece of legislative crap.

Why was an exemption for minors not included in the current law?

[JuntaJoe]

I'm of the firm opinion that a person can record anything that comes over their phone line.

They paid for it. It should be theirs to do with as they see fit.

And when a person is talking to another person then they should expect that the owner of the other line has the right to record the call.

Basically, the two parties involved in a call have the right to record the call, imo.

The wiretap law should be used for third party recording.

Given that opinion, the mom should be allowed to record as she was not the third party being that she's the owner/leasor of the phone line.



Onto better news:

Judge Seeks to Stop Habitual Suer

December 11, 2004 9:14 AM EST
LOS ANGELES - A man who has filed hundreds of lawsuits accusing businesses of violating the federal Americans With Disabilities Act was running an extortion scam, says a judge who has barred him from bringing any more such actions without court permission.

Jarek Molski is a "vexatious litigant" who has been running a "scheme of systematic extortion," U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie ruled.

Molski, 34, who has used a wheelchair since being paralyzed in a motorcycle accident a decade ago, has filed 400 suits since 1998. Most have accused restaurants, wineries, bowling alleys, banks and other public facilities of violating his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In most cases, the judge said in Thursday's ruling, Molski seeks damages of $4,000 a day until the target of his suit is brought into compliance with the disabilities act, then agrees to a cash settlement.

The judge noted that in three suits last year, the Los Angeles man claimed to have suffered identical injuries at three different restaurants on the same day.

Rafeedie said his ruling "does not limit the right of a legitimately aggrieved disabled individual to seek relief under the ADA; it only prevents abuse of the law by professional plaintiffs, like Molski and their lawyers, whose priority is their own financial gain."

San Francisco attorney Thomas E. Frankovich, who represented Molski in many of the lawsuits, called the ruling a miscarriage of justice and said he would appeal if he can't persuade Rafeedie to lift the order.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press.

Note the home city of the lawyer of the guy in the wheelchair. :roll:

[Eddy]

Normally I am a privacy advocate (and a flaming liberal), but I have to go with the mom on this one. I'm a believer in the Golden Rule. He who has the gold, makes the rules, especially when it comes to minor children.

[jimmyreb]

I agree, however, if the person in question is not a minor, than I think it is implied that no matter who pays the bills, alowing some one to use your phone implies that you will give them privacy.

[Brf]

jimmyreb wrote: I think it is implied that no matter who pays the bills, alowing some one to use your phone implies that you will give them privacy.

No. Suppose someone used your phone to do a bomb-threat? If someone is using my phone, I am going to listen in on every second. There are federal laws against using a phone in certain ways, with a minimum $1000 fine. If you dont monitor how your phone is used, you are asking for it.

[JuntaJoe]

Very succinct, Brf.

Ownership implies both privileges and responsibilities.

Let's revisit the phone case again.

Say the woman wrote nothing down, but the federales were already listening in because they got a tip somewhere else.

And they had a spotter watching the house and saw mom listening in.

You can bet that a prosecutor could nail her for conspiracy after the fact.

She is breaking a law if she doesn't report the crime.

And there is no way to tell her that she can't answer her own phone.

This wiretap law effectively puts her in a Catch 22.

If laws conflict like that then a judge should defer to the more important law.

That's what they get paid to do. Enterpret the law.

In this case, not reporting a crime is more serious, is more universal in general law, and dates far back to ancient law.

The wiretap law should not have been given precedence over the law that requires all citizens to report crime when they discover it.

I'm no lawyer, but any pre-law student should be able to understand that legal philosophy.


Let's just hope their state Supreme Court has the sense to recognize that.

[Batchman]

Personally, I think these days we are giving kids entirely too many rights. Respect and trust have to be earned, especially from one's parents, yet we (as a nation) seem to be trying to legislate this.

Can they not see how dangerous this is for the stability of the nation, when we curtail a parents' ability to actually raise their children properly?

Time to start removing and cleaning up the law. What do you bet we could remove about 90% of the laws in this country and improve things greatly?

(And yes, I am speaking as an American. My appologies to anybody reading this who is upset because 'this' country isn't this country to them. No offense meant.)

[Morticcia]

I'm all for privacy laws and believe no one should listen in on my conversations made from my phone in my home. That does not apply to my calls in someone elses' home, nor does it apply to my own dependents.

The courts taking away the rights of the parent is wrong in my opinion, especially when and if parents can be legally responsible for their bad behavior. It's illogical, really.

As far as the ADA suer what point were you making in regard to where the plaintiff and his attorney reside, Junta?

[JuntaJoe]

San Francisco is the home for "creative" judicial shennanigans.

Interpreting the law should be about finding the intent of the lawmakers who crafted the law.

Not seeing how far it can be twisted and still conform to the wording somehow.

Law makers pass a law and the courts immediately review the "legality" of it.

After that initial judicial review hurdle, the courts should try to use the law as it was intended.

[Che]

Joe, should not the same standards apply to the Dept. of Justice and Presidential Legal Counsels?

[Morticcia]

hee hee....

[JuntaJoe]

Yes we should.

And don't think I don't know what you are saying.

My hometown is about to saddle the country with its next Attorney General.

Imagine John Ashcroft without his religious moral streak.

That's Gonzales.

I'm no religion fan, but it's a fine brake on power in certain jobs.

Religion might have made Ashcroft insist on the tools in the Patriot Act to "protect" us.

But he actually believed he was protecting us. That drew a mental line in the sand with him on where he could exercise his power. Note that for all the dangers to liberty in the Patriot Act that Ashcroft never really abused the law. By and large it was used carefully under him.

But Gonzales was the man who was in charge of torture spin for the administration during the first few months after 9/11.

The guy is just a smart lawyer with an apolitical and amoral philosophy.

I'm scared to death that we are giving my "homey" all this juice.

I'm hoping every Democratic senator drags this guy through the muck and scares him off.

Democrats do have their occasional uses. :wink:

[Che]

Quote: I'm hoping every Democratic senator drags this guy through the muck and scares him off.


I had jury-duty last Thursday and was able to watch some of the confirmation hearing.

I was greatly surprised to see that some of the sharpest questioning of Gonzales was coming from Rep members of the committee.

A few were kissing his fundio, but others were coming down hard on him.

I also liked how Spector used it as an opportunity to distance himself from the WH.

[JuntaJoe]

The courts have done it again!

Jury Awards Widow $253.4M in Vioxx Trial

Aug 19, 7:46 PM EDT
ANGLETON, Texas (AP) -- A Texas jury found pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. liable Friday for the death of a man who took the once-popular painkiller Vioxx, awarding his widow $253.4 million in damages in the first of thousands of lawsuits pending across the country.

A seven-man, five-woman jury deliberated for 10 1/2 hours over two days before returning the verdict in a 10-2 vote. But the damage award is likely to be drastically cut to no more than $26.1 million because Texas law caps the punitive damages that made up the bulk of the total.

Plaintiff Carol Ernst began to cry when the verdict was read while her attorneys jumped up and shouted, "Amen!"

Jurors in the semi-rural county rejected Merck's argument that Robert Ernst, 59, died of clogged arteries rather than a Vioxx-induced heart attack that led to his fatal arrhythmia. Ernst, a produce manager at a Wal-Mart store, ran marathons and taught aerobics classes on the side.

The case drew national attention from pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, consumers, stock analysts and arbitrageurs as a signal of what lies ahead for Merck, which has vowed to fight the more than 4,200 state and federal Vioxx-related lawsuits pending across the country. Merck said it plans to appeal.

Ernst called the verdict a "wake-up call" for pharmaceutical companies. "This has been a long road for me," she told reporters later. "But I felt strongly that this was the road I needed to take so other families wouldn't suffer the same pain I felt at the time."

After news of the late-afternoon decision, Merck shares fell 7.7 percent to close at $28.06, wiping away almost $5.2 billion in market capitalization.

Merck lawyer Jonathan Skidmore said the appeal would center on what he termed "unreliable scientific evidence."

"It'll be based on the fact that we believe unqualified expert testimony was allowed in the case; there were expert opinions that weren't grounded in science, the type that are required in the state of Texas," he said. "We don't believe they (plaintiffs) met their burden of proof."

The jury awarded $450,000 in economic damages for Robert Ernst's lost pay, $24 million for mental anguish and loss of companionship and $229 million in punitive damages.

But the punitive damage amount is likely to be reduced since state law caps punitive damages at twice the amount of economic damages - lost pay - and up to $750,000 on top of non-economic damages, which are comprised of mental anguish and loss of companionship.

That would give Ernst a maximum of $1.65 million in possible punitive damages, meaning her total damage award could not exceed $26.1 million.

"This case did not call for punitive damages," Skidmore said in a prepared statement. "Merck acted responsibly - from researching Vioxx prior to approval in clinical trials involving almost 10,000 patients - to monitoring the medicine while it was on the market - to voluntarily withdrawing the medicine when it did."

Juror Derrick Chizer, who voted for Ernst, said the 10 like-minded jurors believed a heart attack triggered the Texas man's fatal arrhythmia. "It could have been prevented," Chizer, 43, said. "That is the message (to pharmaceutical companies). Respect us."

But juror James Fruindenberg, one of the two who voted for Merck, said he "couldn't go with the probabilities" of what caused Robert Ernst's death. "I think there are a lot of good people there who care," he said of Merck.

Merck pulled Vioxx, a $2.5 billion seller, from the market in September 2004 when a long-term study showed it could double risk of heart attack or stroke if taken for 18 months or longer. By then, more than 20 million Americans had taken the medicine, which along with Pfizer Inc.'s Celebrex was one of a class of COX-2 inhibitor drugs once dubbed as super aspirin.

Another Vioxx trial is set to begin in New Jersey, where Merck is based, next month, and the first federal trial in New Orleans is slated for late November.

If Merck loses in those cases, experts predict it will open the floodgates for more lawsuits and could force the drug company to settle cases. Analysts have speculated Merck's liability could reach $18 billion. But if Merck prevails in future cases, lawsuits could fade away, easing some of the pressure on its stock.

Unlike many other pending lawsuits involving obvious heart attacks, the Ernst case centered on an autopsy that attributed his death to an arrhythmia secondary to clogged arteries. That autopsy - and the coroner who performed it - proved critical to the trial's outcome.

Merck pointed to the autopsy as proof that Vioxx could not have caused the death of Ernst, who ran marathons and taught aerobics.

However, Dr. Maria Araneta, the pathologist who performed Ernst's autopsy, testified for Ernst that a blood clot that she couldn't find probably caused a heart attack that triggered Ernst's arrhythmia. She also said the heart attack killed Ernst too quickly for his heart to show damage.

While Araneta couldn't say definitively that he had a blood clot and heart attack, she insisted they were the likely culprits in triggering an arrhythmia, which she said wouldn't happen on its own.

Araneta didn't blame Vioxx, however, noting she knew little about the drug when she performed Ernst's autopsy. But three plaintiff's experts in arrhythmia, cardiology and public health did.

Merck's experts agreed with Araneta's conclusions in the autopsy, but not her undocumented theory of what triggered the arrhythmia.

© 2005 The Associated Press.


A quarter of a BILLION dollars?! :shock:

Hey, life is valuable, but more valuable than the national debt of some 3rd world countries?

Can someone say TORT REFORM?! :roll:

Thank the Texas legistlature that they passed laws to cap off this monstrosity. Merck's appeal will be quickly settled and bring this down to 26 million. Still an ungodly sum, if you ask me. But the noise of the 253 million will now be a clarion call to all ambulance chasers in other states to see how much they can squeeze Merck in places without jury caps. Frankly, the judge should have announced the revised settlement number from the bench or instructed jurors about the award cap law and refused any award verdict that breached the law. The 253 million number should not have even been read to the public and press.

Another slacker judge. Good thing he will go up for election soon and his opponent will slam him with this. Texas may not be able to keep the court barn door properly closed, but we certainly know how to reign in the judicial horses when they sneak out.

[FrankyG888]

The jury did get quite carried away in this case, and they normally do when it comes to a case with a teary eyed widow.

I do however believe that the phymasudical company marketed the drug without properly showing it's risks.

What really gets me are the lawsuits against the tobacco companies. They place multiple warnings on every pack telling of the dangers of smoking, but people still do it and they still sue when they get cancer. Why, because they can.

If tobacco lawsuits are bad the fast food lawsuits are worse. This double quarter pounder made me fat, I wonder why??? Oh come on. America, wake up, if you keep attacking these companies they will go out of business and you won't be able to get that quick, cheap, lunch that you have come to depend on. If you are worried about your heath order the salad and baked potato, if not get the triple bacon cheese burger, and enjoy it, but don't whine to me when you become morbidly obease.

[JuntaJoe]

I do not intend to declare my knowlege of the inner workings of Merck or what they knew about Vioxx.

But I do have some observations as a layman outsider.

Of all the pharm companies, Merck tends to put out a much better researched product than its competitors, even though they are the biggest pharm company. It comes from the credo of the founder, Dr. Merck, himself. He was a real physician whose medical texts are still required reading and reference in hospitals and med schools. He made his company to really focus on finding cures and helping people. Dr, Merck is now gone, but some of his contemporaries are still running the show there. Perhaps in another generation, Merck will be like all the rest, but they still hold medicine as a higher standard than mere profits for the time being. So I'm not going to toss them into the sneaky greedy category just yet.

Next is that the drug is a Cox2 inhibitor. All of these drugs from various manufacturers were used for years before it was known about this side effect. Just like Tylenol was found to trash the liver and aspirin aggravating ulcers, these drugs needed a sheer volume of numbers to find the statistical anomaly of danger. Blaming Merck for hiding information presumes they actually knew about the problem. Only when a Cox2 inhibitor from another company showed these statistics did anyone really have a firm idea of the problem. At which point, Merck immediately ordered a statistical evaluation, come to a conculsion of risk, warned us and pulled the product immediately. That seems fairly responsible for a manufacturer. It wasn't like the tobacco companies hiding data for decades at all.

Last is the nature of the industry. The FDA already requires years and megamillions in testing before a medicine is released. Waiting for the slow evaluation and recording of millions of patients in blind test studies would make drugs only for the exceedingly rich as pills would skyrocket in price to cover upfront costs. It would also delay release by years. It already takes a decade to get a drug from the lab, through testing, and clinical trials before it hits the market. Want to add another decade? Can your sick mother wait that long? Don't forget that in clinical trials, half of these very sick people take a placebo. So they are living on false hope as well.

Face it. To get medicine that works in a reasonable amount of time and at a cost we can already just barely afford, society has to be the guinea pigs. Yes, America pays a steep price for good medicine, but we still have to take risks regardless. No matter how much altruism is injected into the process, there will be medication failures and mistakes that make it to the marketplace. Even with that risk and expense, it is still the only way the world gets good medicine.

If it wasn't for the US, there would be no low cost generics of any real medical value out there. We literally subsidize the planet. Imagine if all your medicine was invented and tested in China and then released on the world. The dead would multiply rapidly. And if we can't as a society realize these basic facts then the manufacturers will move to China and India to avoid these crazy lawsuits.

Don't think it will happen? Try to find an American manufacturer of small plane engines. Good luck as there isn't one. When idiots get drunk, hop in their private plane, and crash in a cornfield, then the wife sues and the company packs its bags. Now small plane manufacturers must buy their engines overseas. Those were some really nice manufacturing jobs that disappeared. Let's not have this happen in medicine.