| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Apr 2004 : 19:52:09
|
The Threat from Lawyers is No Joke
Many of us have wondered over the years what the difference is between satire and reality in the American legal system. I now have the answer: one year, 11 months, and ten days. Let me explain.
It was on August 3, 2000, that The Onion – America’s favorite satirical newspaper – published an article entitled, “Hershey’s Ordered to Pay Obese Americans $135 Billion.” This piece of comic fiction reported that the chocolate company had been sued by state attorneys general in a class action over the lack of warnings on its product, over its marketing of products to children, and over its having – most insidiously of all – artificially spiked its products with nuts and crisped rice to keep people addicted. The jury, by this satirical account, had responded by granting an enormous award. “This is a vindication for myself and all chocolate victims,” said one of the plaintiffs. In addition, the company was ordered to place a warning on all of its products reading: “The Surgeon General has determined that eating chocolate may lead to being really fat.”
Well, on July 24, 2002 – less than two years later – the wire services reported that Mr. Caesar Barber of the Bronx, New York, was filing a lawsuit against McDonald’s. (He was soon joined by various other plaintiffs suing Wendy’s, Burger King, and other fast food chains.) Mr. Barber had for years been wandering into McDonald’s restaurants, apparently under the impression that they served health food, and had been receiving hamburgers and French fries instead of celery stalks. He had no idea that you could get fat from such products, and sure enough he developed heart problems and other medical conditions associated with obesity.
In its entirety at:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/newimprimis/
Understanding that those pesky critters are not "the fourth branch" but all three branches which defile the "body-poli-tics," here is a little excerpt from article above:
"What are the differences between this newly contrived fourth branch of government and the three branches that the founders established in the Constitution? The differences begin with the manner of selection. Those in the fourth branch don’t have to worry about those pesky things called elections – or even about getting confirmed by the Senate, as federal judges do. Nor do they have to worry about the safeguards of transparency that are built into our political system. Much of their activity takes place behind the scenes. Indeed, these cases nearly always are meant to be settled instead of tried, and the public is not admitted into the negotiation room. And if the public doesn’t like the results, there is, frankly, not much the public can do about it. This is highly ironic: The proclaimed goal of trial lawyers is to hold every profession and industry accountable for their actions, yet they have created a litigation-based policy-making process in which they themselves are almost entirely unaccountable."
|
Edited by - Manuel on 04 Apr 2004 20:01:59 |
|
|
FleeBabylon
Junior Member
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2004 : 10:04:14
|
That's what happens when we have both a populace and a legislature that no longer believes in personal responsibility and unlimited liability.
It's the same sort of "logic" that a jury uses to award someone $100,000 because they tripped over their own two feet on someone elses property.
It is proof that the majority of our citizens are no better than the politicians.
By such "logic" we would have to conclude that every property owner and business owner is obliged to create a perfect environment, where it is impossible for anyone to ever injure themselves...whether their visitor/customer be drunk, stupid, insane, irresponsible....makes no difference....we must provide them (say they) with an environment in which no action of theirs can result in any harm- and if they are harmed, we pay and jeopardize our property!
Could you imagine if McDonalds (et al) had refused to serve these people that are suing?! Could you imagine if they said "Sorry, you're getting pretty fat- we do not want to contribute to your obesity."?! -Then they'd be sued for "discrimination"!
The above paragraph showcases the ultimate logic of such actions though: If someone can be sued, i.e. be held legally responsible for the actions and choices of another, while they have no ability to control the actions and choices that the person makes, then they are a victim of pure robbery.
The only other alternative, in such an absurd system, would be to give them control over the actions and choices of others! How scary is that?! Should McDonalds have the authority or the responsibility to determine who eats the food which it offers? Must they then do a medical check-up on every customer to determine if their food would be detrimnental to them?
These are just some of the absurdities that such legal nonsense imply- and ultimately, how this sort of garbage is being used to destroy our freedom.
Imagine what God would think of such nonsense!
I can't wait for the day when there will be true justice and judgement in this world!
FleeBabylon.
(formerly "PopeSquasher"- was unable to log-in under that name anymore)
"The right to life is the source of all rights--and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."
-Ayn Rand |
 |
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2004 : 13:13:50
|
Greetings In His name, My Father, The Life Giver,
FleeBabylon, His Light be upon you and all In His House.
Those uncoordinated slip-and-fallers are part of what is written of on the following article:
http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=291
Recently I wrote a little memo here regarding the campaign the BAR is pushing. Even by their own words they mention, boasting on one of their articles that it is a "branding-campaign" supposedly to take the negative image away from them. I mean... how can anyone/thing be made positive when in fact it is negative? In this civil world, there is a purpose and principle called separation of powers of which the intent is for 'checks and balance.' If the same-hands-faction has not followed that cornerstone, how can there be balance? Any government manipulated by these sorts of things cannot stand.
Another thought would also be: Should priests or attorneys manage the government? My answer is, at this time - noone.
I tell you, there is only one true separation which is as One - In Our Father which Is In Heaven.
FleeBabylon, I almost made the mistake on calling you FreeBabylon.
El Padre esta con vosotros,
Manuel |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Meanwhile, back on the ranch (animal farm)
