codhead Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 "lol, it's "Shih-Tsu" Oh, Shih-T! Now I've gotta go re-take "Lap Dogs 101". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codhead Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Stupid lawsuits... http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_collection.asp?wacky=0 There's some good ones here... "A Little Too Much Booty Meredith Berkman, seeking $50 million, filed one of the first anti-fat lawsuits against the manufacturer of a snack food named Pirate's Booty. It looks like eating too much Pirate's Booty had added too much booty to Ms. Berkman's booty. In December, 2001, the Good Housekeeping Institute tested Pirate's Booty, which is basically flavored puffed rice, and found that it contained 147 calories and 8.5 grams of fat, while its label said it contained only 120 calories and 2.5 grams of fat. The manufacturer, Robert's American Gourmet Foods (a subsidiary of Keystone Foods), blamed the problem on a change in its manufacturing process and immediately recalled the product from store shelves. Nearly four months after the recall, Berkman filed a $50 million class-action lawsuit against Robert's Foods, claiming "emotional distress" and "weight gain...mental anguish, outrage and indignation." The complaint claims to represent all consumers who ruined their diets and had to spend more time at the gym because they ate mislabeled Pirate's Booty." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Stupid lawsuits... http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_collection.asp?wacky=0 There's some good ones here... "A Little Too Much Booty Meredith Berkman, seeking $50 million, filed one of the first anti-fat lawsuits against the manufacturer of a snack food named Pirate's Booty. It looks like eating too much Pirate's Booty had added too much booty to Ms. Berkman's booty. In December, 2001, the Good Housekeeping Institute tested Pirate's Booty, which is basically flavored puffed rice, and found that it contained 147 calories and 8.5 grams of fat, while its label said it contained only 120 calories and 2.5 grams of fat. The manufacturer, Robert's American Gourmet Foods (a subsidiary of Keystone Foods), blamed the problem on a change in its manufacturing process and immediately recalled the product from store shelves. Nearly four months after the recall, Berkman filed a $50 million class-action lawsuit against Robert's Foods, claiming "emotional distress" and "weight gain...mental anguish, outrage and indignation." The complaint claims to represent all consumers who ruined their diets and had to spend more time at the gym because they ate mislabeled Pirate's Booty." What a fat load of...emotional distress and weight gain! No $**t,eating like a farm animal will not help anybody with keeping weight down. Outrage and indignation...[] Yes I am outraged after reading this comedy central lawsuit ! When a whale starts to eat all it sees no wonder the whale will get fatter. Jeff must love this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Over a month eating nothing but McDonald's! Did you watch Supersize Me? Go see a doctor and have your liver checked. [] lol, the movie was the whole reason I did it....such a bogus claim so I had to try it for myself. It didn't really become intentional until I realized I had already eaten mcdonalds for 2 weeks in a row. And the doc says me liver is fine...I know because I've spent way more than my fair share doing hospital time.... Speaking of which, I should get Jeff to go sue my old doctors and insurance company...it's a complicated story, but I'm sure you could categorize it as 10 years of malpractice that nearly got me killed (not to mention all the suffering). I actually plan to write a book one of these days...the entire story takes well over 13 hours to tell in its entirety (anyone up for a road trip?) []. Moral of the story, don't go ***... So is Jeff brave enough to go up against an insurance company? [] (for the record, I have no intention of suing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Jeff goes up against anybody. Brave has nothing to do with it. A good case is all it takes. BTW: I also think fast food doesn't get the credit it deserves. It has most, if not all, the basic food groups - okay, generally not much fruit. Now, on the cases that are made fun of in such a huge way, how many of the plaintiffs won? Next challenge: Post outrageous cases where the plaintiff won - not settled - won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
customsteve01 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Hey Jeff, My biggest beef with all of this is that most of these cases wheather they will loose or settle it cost the avarage guy. I mean if someone gets a totally ridiculos case to court and looses it still cost the big company money to fight it and where does the money to fight theses cases come from??? there customers thats where, and who is there customers? US I think they need to come up with a system that if you loose you pay the other guys Lawyer bills. Maybe this would stop some of this. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZAKO Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I think the loosing lawyer should be shot. (class action suits) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Hey Jeff, My biggest beef with all of this is that most of these cases wheather they will loose or settle it cost the avarage guy. I mean if someone gets a totally ridiculos case to court and looses it still cost the big company money to fight it and where does the money to fight theses cases come from??? there customers thats where, and who is there customers? US I think they need to come up with a system that if you loose you pay the other guys Lawyer bills. Maybe this would stop some of this. Steve Would you like some examples of where big companies bring frivolous lawsuits? I've never heard anybody criticize frivolous lawsuits brought by big companies. It seems that every time the phrase "frivolous lawsuit" is brought up, it engenders visions of an individual plaintiff - as opposed to big corporations being plaintiffs. Why is that? Everything that happens costs us - not just lawsuits. If a day goes by, it costs us in interest. If an employee gets a raise, the cost is passed on to consumers. If the CEO makes a stupid decision, it costs us consumers and/or the shareholders. If the government requires some action, levies a penalty, or does an investigation, it costs consumers. If an employee gets drunk and kills someone with the company truck, it costs cosumers. Do you think maybe the cheapest way of living is to allow corporations to engage in all the abuses they want? Let's go back to forced child labor; 80-hour workweeks with no overtime; unsafe, shoddy products. If we didn't expect corporations to exhibit "morality," life would be so much cheaper, right? What nobody understands is that corporations are run by people. These so-called CEOs are nobody special. They are screw-ups like anybody else. Don't believe me? Read all you can on the defenses of Scrushy and Lay to criminal prosection and how much compensation they received from their corporations to essentially be dumb-a$$es. The thing is, Scrushy and Lay are right. It is not a crime to be a dumb-a$$. That's why there still remain so many dumb-a$$es at the corporate helm. These idiots have idiots working for them, too. They do not run tight ships. They screw up things for consumers left and right. They sue consumers unnecessarily - and if you think it's bad for big corporations to get sued unnecessarily, well, at least corporations have the money to get a lawyer (if not 10). Yes, a "corporation" mentality is quite a dangerous thing. So many on this thread would love to readily jump to their defense and pity them, but the thing is corporations have no morality. They are fictions. The only morality that exists is from the people running them. Yet, studies have shown that people's morality can and does drastically wane when they do so as part of a larger cause (e.g. Nazi Germany). This, too, happens everyday in corporations. I have no faith in corporations as an investment. Insiders make the real profits. The officers and directors siphon all the profits out in terms of huge salaries and benefits packages. They take pretty much everything they can for themselves and their friends. The shareholders are certain to get as little as possible. That's why we still see $30 million salaries being paid to execs whose companies are losing money. What a joke. If it came down to policy (since not a one of you could fathom a rule any differently than we already have that would work better in all situations), I would definitely err on the side of individuals as opposed to corporations. Corporations do not have hearts, do not feel hunger, do not feel pain, etc. They are lifeless fictions for the purpose of commerce through a vehicle that provides certain incentives to business people - nothing more. If you can think of a better rule of law to get rid of these so-called frivolous lawsuits, speak up. I will, of course, shoot it down - because there is none. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
customsteve01 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Whoa, Whoa, Jeff, back the truck up. I never said that lawsuits were not justified. I mean if someone is really hurt or something is really damaged due to someone else's neglect or stupidity I agree that they should pay. What I was talking about was all this crap of pain and suffering cause they got fat eating a tun of lard a day and there was no warning on the label saying if you eat a ton of this $h!t your going to get some junk to your trunk. I am talking about suing cause you did something stupid like drying your hair in the bathtub and end up with a case of the frizzes and you can't get your hair to straighten out you think the blow dryer company owes you. I know your a smart man and you know what we are talking about it just seems we may have hit a sore spot with you. I don't know, I don't even know what type of lawyer you are. I just think it is crazy that someone can get rich by being a f--- up. Sorry end of rant. I do know you have to know where we are coming from. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 "I have no faith in corporations as an investment. Insiders make the real profits. The officers and directors siphon all the profits out in terms of huge salaries and benefits packages. They take pretty much everything they can for themselves and their friends. The shareholders are certain to get as little as possible. That's why we still see $30 million salaries being paid to execs whose companies are losing money. What a joke." I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's nice work if you can get it. There seems to be this insiders club of execs. These guys drive companies into bankruptcy, then get top jobs elsewhere because of their "experience?" Also executives who stay at firms during bankruptcies get BONUSES! yes bonuses just to stay because of the company can't "afford" to lose this critical "talent?" at such an important time. These are people who share a common talent, they got where they are by backstabbing their way to the top and/or taking credit from the people who actually do the work. If they were judged the way musicians are, by their actual performance, they would be dumpster diving for their daily bread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Right on, Oldie! Steve, I wasn't offended, and I do know where you are coming from. Here's the issue I have: Most people translate their frustration with seeing these lawsuits into a quick jump onto the tort-reform wagon. Tort-reform hurts legitimate victims. It does nothing to reduce frivolous lawsuits. Aside from just the effect of frivolous vs. non-frivolous, there is always the damages issue. People freak because someone gets pegged for $100 million+ in a verdict, so they enact a law to cap non-economic damages in med-mal cases to $750k. Come on. I don't even do med-mal, but I know B.S. when I see it. If the cap was $5 million, I could see it. But let's face it.... $750k over a lifetime is not alot of money for life's beauty when the victim has to spend the next say 20-40 years having people switch out bed pans, wipe his/her a$$, spoon-feed him/her, or whatever. That cap is just way too low for a one-size fits all limit. Also, why was it so important to dole out these government benefits to docs? If it wasn't obvious, the benefits of tort-reform are indeed, a form of welfare to docs. I could think of many, many other people who I'd rather see benefit from these types of welfare packages.... like plumbers, electricians, mechanics, etc. Why docs? Anybody think they have a strong lobby? [] I know. I know..... Doc: "Boo Hoo! I'm seeing my premiums go up. With my $300k/yr. salary, it chaps me that my premiums went from $12k - 20K/yr. Boo Hoo! If the government won't help me, I'll just quit. Boo Hoo! All my buddies will quit, too!" B.S. Quit.... Ha! What are they gonna do next? Drive a UPS truck? And the bad thing about it is that its the middle class that votes in favor of this crap. So, when people snap to judgment and jump on the bandwagon against "lawsuit abuse," I seem to react because these same folks usually get brainwashed into voting in favor of things that actually harm themselves and people like themselves. As we all know, for example, many just rush to judgment and say "I know what will help. Let's enact laws that make the loser pay attorney fees." Here's the problem - which is a HUGE danger. Corporations have the benefit of amassing huge sums of money from thousands (or at least multiple) shareholders/investors, as well as creditors. They can afford to defend a lawsuit. Suppose you are a victim of something terribly bad the corporation did. What we be the likelihood of your bringing your case if you had to consider that in the event the jury came back against you, in the event the corporation won on a technicality, or something of the like, you had to pay the bill for the corporation's attorney fees? That's a very scary thought. I think the balance in society would shift so greatly against the individuals, we might as well not have a court system open to all, anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codhead Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Retired doctor blows 14 million in Vegas, sues claiming meds made him do it ... http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/22casinosuit.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Retired doctor blows 14 million in Vegas, sues claiming meds made him do it ... http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/22casinosuit.html The doc plays victim here,the joker knew very well what he was doing.Sure he is a doctor and does not know the side effects of the pills he takes,what an IRRESPONSIBLE man. I would send him to Fidel Castro for a permanent vaccation. Jeff will of course cry and claim the poor little man was a victim of Pet Meds and false publicity. A doc who blames it on meds for wasting his own money...himself! LOL I will sue the next store I walk into and claim they used invisible rays to force me to buy and use my cards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 This is an interesting, related read: http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2005-rst/2925.html It seems that the class of drug involved is the subject of clinical studies for such little-reported effects. I do think it is an interesting combination if the following are the facts: (1) retired doctor does not know about this recently-discovered side-effect of this class of drug, that is now shown to cause irresistible compulsions, like serious gambling - even to people who never had a gambling habit before taking the drug. (2) Casinos were made aware of the side effect. (3) Retired Doctor is diagnosed with Parkinsons, takes the drug, and the old "chums" at the casino are aware of Doctor's susceptibility. (4) Rather than helping the poor, old doctor to keep his fortune he worked all his life to save, they feed him caviar and send him on cruises as presents in exchange for his rather conspicuous patronage, as they help him to fork $14 million down into their coffers. Hey! If this drug causes this side effect, who can ridicule the man for something he had no control over? Here he is, trying to treat his Parkinson's, and who'd have thunken it would lead to this? If this is true science, I feel pity for the man and think he should get his money back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.