Greta Hounds Value Jet Families
Anne
bhay (bh...@usa.net) wrote:
: Families of the victims of the Value Jet crash are complaining about the
: number of calls they are receiving from "ambulance chasing attornies" ..
: In particular they are critical of Greta Van Susskren <sp> who is
: especially aggressive in drumming up business.
: Who among us can forget this is the same "Greta" who, after all of her
: criticism regarding others not asking "tough" questions, treated Butch
: like a long lost relative when he called into her show....
: The longer this goes on - the sicker it gets!
: Bill
And this is the same Greta Von Sustern who is a
$cientologist, as is her husband. I guess the ethics
of $cienos are different than the ethics of the rest
of the world....but what can one expect from a clam?
Anne ... <anne...@panix.com>
SP-3 & counting
Tilman Hausherr
>And this is the same Greta Von Sustern who is a
>$cientologist, as is her husband. I guess the ethics
>of $cienos are different than the ethics of the rest
>of the world....but what can one expect from a clam?
Ethics in scientology is about "removing counter-intentions". In Greta's
case, it means to get rid of the competing lawyers (for example Mr. van
Gelderen, see message containing UPI news), and getting "bodies in the
shop", i.e. "getting clients" in scieno-speak.
What is especially weird is that after the crash, I immediately thought
about Greta's lawfirm (because her earlier unethical action was also
about a disaster), but didn't say anything, because I thought it might
be distasteful to the memories of the victims. My error. If I had said
something, I could now say that I'm a psychic.
Tilman
P.S.: Here definitions about "ethics"
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Pay Attention! (Was: == CHANGES CAN HAPPEN ==)
From: ref...@ibm.net (Diane Richardson)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 19:34:44 GMT
kor...@jovanet.com (Cory Brennan) wrote:
>Lynn, it sounds like you are confusing what we are talking about with your
>bad experiences with another religion. Scientology teaches that you _do_
>need to care for this world, and that potentially everybody and everything
>in it is linked to your own survival to some degree or another - if you
>don't understand that, then you don't understand Scientology.
You're absolutely right, Cory. Insuring your own survival -- and
more importantly insuring the "Church's" survival -- is
fundamental to your cult's philosophy. That's why your ethical
system demands that all criticism of the "Church" be suppressed
brutally. That's why your cult is willing to go as far as even
breaking the law in an effort to silence anyone who appears to be
a threat to your "Church's" survival. We've witnessed your
cult's "applied religious philosophy" in action right here.
>> You know, I owe $cientology a kick in the teeth for something that
>> hadn't yet occurred to me until Cory dug up this particular piece of
>> dung. I've always hated the term "morals" because it carries such
>> religious connotations for most people; now I have the $cienos to blame
>> for sullying the more humanistic term "ethics" as well.
[snip]
>That's not what was said here. You are fighting another argument. And you
>don't know how Scientologists define ethics either. If you did, you may
>even agree with it.
Let's examine your statement a little more closely, Cory. How DO
Scientologists[tm] define ethics? Here's L. Ron Hubbard's
definition of the term, taken from the glossary of the 1976
edition of "The Volunteer Minister's Handbook":
Ethics, 1. ethics actually consists, as we can define them
now in Dianetics and Scientology, of rationality toward the
highest level of survival for the individual, the future race,
the group and mankind and the other dynamics taken
collectively. Ethics are reason. The highest ethic level
would be long-term survival concepts with minimal destruction,
along any of the dynamics. 2. the term used to denote ethics
as a subject, or the use of ethics, or that section of a
Scientology church which handles ethics matters.
Here's what L. Ron Hubbard has to say about the purpose of ethics
in his HCO PL 18 June 1968:
The purpose of ethics is:
TO REMOVE COUNTER-INTENTIONS FROM THE
ENVIRONMENT. And having accomplished that, the
purpose becomes TO REMOVE OTHER INTENTIONNESS
FROM THE ENVIRONMENT. Thus progress can be made
by all.
[caps in original]
Let's take a look at what Hubbard means by "counter-intentions."
Back to the glossary:
Counter-intention, a determination to follow a goal which is
in direct conflict with those known to be the goals of the
group.
Okay. Now, let's see how Hubbard defines "other intentionness":
Other-intentionness, see OTHER-INTENTIONEDNESS.
All right. Let's take a look at "other-intentionedness":
Other-intentionedness, a state of mind of wanting to follow
a different goal than those know to be the goals of the
group (either a big or little goal).
Well, Cory, Hubbard makes it crystal clear. The purpose of
Scientology[tm] "ethics" is to insure the survival of
Scientology[tm] by eliminating anything that does not advance the
goals of Scientologists[tm].
That's why it's perfectly all right for you to spread lies about
those your "Church" deems are its enemies. That's why you can
violate all the rules of civility when it comes to destroying
anyone who appears to threaten your "Church".
That's why Scientology[tm] "ethics" are totally unethical, Cory.
Diane Richardson
ref...@ibm.net
========
From: Jeff Jacobsen <cul...@primenet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: wog v. Co$ definition of "ethics"
Date: 25 Apr 1996 13:52:01 -0700
I've read now about Scientology attorney Van susterwhat'shername that
works for CNN and Earle Cooley that they like Scientology because of
their "ethics." Just what do they mean by this?
Webster's New World Dictionary has this definition; #3; "the system
or
code of morals of a particular person, religion, group, profession,
etc." "Moral" is defined as "relating to, dealing with, or capable of
making the distinction between right and wrong in conduct."
The Scientology Tech. dictionary has this for "ethics"; "2. ethics
actually consist... of rationality toward the highest level of survival
for the individual, the future race, the group, and mankind... the
highest ethic level would be long-term survival concepts with minimal
destruction, along any of the dynamics." In Introduction to Scientology
Ethics, p. 64, Hubbard states "Scientology is the only workable system
man has" for the road out of man's problems and shortcomings.
So, my take on Scientology's definition of "ethics" is; that which
contributes to the survival of Scientology. Applying the wog definition
of ethics, it would be that "right" is protecting Scientology, while
"wrong" is that which hinders Scientology.
This follows very well with HCOPL 1 September AD 15, "Ethics
Protection" in which Hubbard states "In short a staff member can get
away with murder so long as his statistic is up and can't sneeze without
a chop it it's down. To do otherwise is to permit some suppressive
person to simply Ethics chit every producer in the org out of
existence. When people do start reporting a staff member with a high
statistic, what you investigate is the person who turned in the report."
So, for a Scientologist, ethics means that which contributes to the
survival and expansion of Scientology. When a Scientologist says he or
she likes their ethics, now you know what they're talking about.
Scientology and wog definitions of "ethics" are incompatible.
--
I'm Spartacus ///// Jeff Jacobsen SP4, Scientology
critic
PO Box 3541 http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/index.htm
Scottsdale AZ 85271 cul...@primenet.com
USA
--- Tilman Hausherr [KoX] http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/
Tom Marcellus is a Holocaust denier (IHR-director for 14 years until 1995)
and is also a $40,000 "Patron of the IAS". Question: would Marcellus dare
to tell a scientologist who lost a family member in a gas chamber that it
didn't happen ?
Jean Lyles
anne...@panix.com (Anne) said:
>>And this is the same Greta Von Sustern who is a
>>$cientologist, as is her husband. I guess the ethics
>>of $cienos are different than the ethics of the rest
>>of the world....but what can one expect from a clam?
>>Anne ... <anne...@panix.com>
I watched her today on Burden of Proof. Man, "me thinks thou
does't (sp?) protest too much" certainly does apply here. She
was having a fit. CNN choose to do the program with Greta
sitting with the guests and Roger conducting the interview. She
interrupted and did all sorts of stuff (shaking her head,
changing questions, etc). I was, excuse the expression,
embarassed for her. I have known ambulance chasers. My hat is
off to CNN for this program. IMO Greta looked pretty foolish.
Did anyone else see this? Opinions?
--
Jean Lyles
jea...@nando.net
Anne
Jean Lyles (jea...@nando.net) wrote:
: anne...@panix.com (Anne) said:
: >>Anne ... <anne...@panix.com>
: --
: Jean Lyles
: jea...@nando.net
I'm glad you caught Burden of Proof today, Jean. I tuned
in and caught the very end.. Greta looked a tad
enturbulated, I thought.....
BTW, did you get the previous reply, from Tilman , with
all that good information about $cientology's definition
and their use of their definition of "Ethics?" Good,
solid information, and insight into the mind of a clam,
in action, IMO.
Anne ... <anne...@panix.com>
Paul G
Greta is so But Ugly it's hard to watch the show for more than
a few seconds......Paul G
Tilman Hausherr
>Greta is so But Ugly it's hard to watch the show for more than
>a few seconds......Paul G
It depends of camera angles. I have a few samples here, in the
GretaGallery:
syd
On 23 May 1996 21:21:45 -0400, anne...@panix.com (Anne) wrote:
>bhay (bh...@usa.net) wrote:
>: Families of the victims of the Value Jet crash are complaining about the
>: number of calls they are receiving from "ambulance chasing attornies" ..
>: In particular they are critical of Greta Van Susskren <sp> who is
>: especially aggressive in drumming up business.
>
>: Who among us can forget this is the same "Greta" who, after all of her
>: criticism regarding others not asking "tough" questions, treated Butch
>: like a long lost relative when he called into her show....
>
>: The longer this goes on - the sicker it gets!
>
>: Bill
>
>And this is the same Greta Von Sustern who is a
>$cientologist, as is her husband. I guess the ethics
>of $cienos are different than the ethics of the rest
>of the world....but what can one expect from a clam?
>
>Anne ... <anne...@panix.com>
> SP-3 & counting
$cientologist are trying to recruit rich blacks Lisa Presley is into
$cientology.
syd
Jean Lyles
anne...@panix.com (Anne) said:
>>Jean Lyles (jea...@nando.net) wrote:
>>: anne...@panix.com (Anne) said:
>>: >>And this is the same Greta Von Sustern who is a
>>: >>$cientologist, as is her husband. I guess the ethics
>>: >>of $cienos are different than the ethics of the rest
>>: >>of the world....but what can one expect from a clam?
>>: >>Anne ... <anne...@panix.com>
>>: I watched her today on Burden of Proof. Man, "me thinks thou
>>: does't (sp?) protest too much" certainly does apply here. She
>>: was having a fit. CNN choose to do the program with Greta
>>: sitting with the guests and Roger conducting the interview. She
>>: interrupted and did all sorts of stuff (shaking her head,
>>: changing questions, etc). I was, excuse the expression,
>>: embarassed for her. I have known ambulance chasers. My hat is
>>: off to CNN for this program. IMO Greta looked pretty foolish.
>>: Did anyone else see this? Opinions?
>>: --
>>: Jean Lyles
>>: jea...@nando.net
>>I'm glad you caught Burden of Proof today, Jean. I tuned
>>in and caught the very end.. Greta looked a tad
>>enturbulated, I thought.....
>>BTW, did you get the previous reply, from Tilman , with
>>all that good information about $cientology's definition
>>and their use of their definition of "Ethics?" Good,
>>solid information, and insight into the mind of a clam,
My server didn't get that article. Could you either re-post it
or forward it to me? My server misses a lot of posts it seems.
The entire program, including an Legal Ethics Professor and a
representative of the ABA were definitely coming down on the
tactics Greta used with her firms telephone calls.
Roger mentioned that in her brochure she mentions "being a CNN
Legal Analyst and is she trying to profit from her association
with CNN". (slightly paraphrased). That one really got her.
>>in action, IMO.
>>Anne ... <anne...@panix.com>
--
Jean Lyles
jea...@nando.net
Mardy
I saw the show also and she was definitely ruffled. I don't think her
firm is out of hot water yet for the same thing in virginia. It's odd how
everyone that has befriended the butcher has had some kind of grief enter
into their lives. Also, I don't believe Roger was real happy about his
name being on the solicitation letter mentioning him as her co-host.
I wonder how Cnn feels about that little ploy...
Mardy
David M. Cook
In article <31a6e15b.51370775@news>, syd <s...@iquest.net> wrote:
>$cientologist are trying to recruit rich blacks Lisa Presley is into
>$cientology.
Your sentence doesn't parse. Are you saying Lisa Presley is black?
Dave Cook
doug haire
David M. Cook (dc...@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
Lisa Presley is the same color as her (future ex-)husband Michael Jackson.
green (like money)
Tilman Hausherr
(About the ambulance chasing of Greta Van Susteren's lawfirm)
In <31A855...@sprynet.com>, Mardy <Mar...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>I saw the show also and she was definitely ruffled. I don't think her
>firm is out of hot water yet for the same thing in virginia. It's odd how
>everyone that has befriended the butcher has had some kind of grief enter
>into their lives. Also, I don't believe Roger was real happy about his
>name being on the solicitation letter mentioning him as her co-host.
>I wonder how Cnn feels about that little ploy...
It is unexplainable to me that CNN has kept her so long and still keeps
her. The tactics of her Greta's "lawfirm" were already mentioned in an
article in the Washington Post in August of last year (the one in which
she praised scientology: "I like the ethics"). And as if this wasn't
already enough - "Greta's firm" did it again. It reminds me of her
fellow cult members who tried to cash in after the OKC Bombing.
Tilman
Cheryl McGonegal
Thanks Tilman for such an interesting post about scientology and it's
"goals." Cheryl
Greg Goss
Mardy <Mar...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>I saw the show also and she was definitely ruffled. I don't think her
>firm is out of hot water yet for the same thing in virginia. It's odd how
>everyone that has befriended the butcher has had some kind of grief enter
>into their lives. Also, I don't believe Roger was real happy about his
>name being on the solicitation letter mentioning him as her co-host.
>I wonder how Cnn feels about that little ploy...
That's interesting. A friend and I both commented partway through the
trial, G&R appeared on the same camera for a few days and seemed all
gushy and starry-eyed over each other for the rest of the trial. I
have only watched one or two Burdens, so I don't know if they still
project that.
Or does nobody agree with how I read body language?
syd
On 26 May 1996 11:13:05 GMT, dc...@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (David M.
Cook) wrote:
>In article <31a6e15b.51370775@news>, syd <s...@iquest.net> wrote:
>
>>$cientologist are trying to recruit rich blacks Lisa Presley is into
>>$cientology.
>
>Your sentence doesn't parse. Are you saying Lisa Presley is black?
>
>Dave Cook
>
Real funny, I'm saying they tried to recruit Michael Jackson
syd
Terry Hallinan
or...@mindlink.bc.ca (Greg Goss) wrote:
>Mardy <Mar...@sprynet.com> wrote:
Sadly my life has been short of bodies to read. :-) Hard enough to
read minds, let alone bodies IMO.
I have found Greta's explanations and predictions of the intrigues of
the court magnificent and Roger Cosack has bowed to the same abilities
(which has, not incidentally, made him a star for no apparent reason).
OTOH Greta's insistence that "justice was done" has become a smelly
piece of filth spread throughout the news business. What manner of
person celebrates the glorification of murder?
I mean besides Jon.
Best, Terry
"Positive - Being wrong at the top of one's lungs"
-The Devil's Dictionary
David M. Cook
In article <31a95573.212187754@news>, syd <s...@iquest.net> wrote:
>Real funny, I'm saying they tried to recruit Michael Jackson
A period makes all the difference.
Besides, the CoS was only interested in the color of Jackson's money.
Dave Cook
Linda and Cliff Griffith
In <31A6B6...@ix.netcom.com> Paul G <rome...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
>a few seconds......Paul G
I thought we had sworn off attacking people for physical attributes
beyond their control.
Linda and Cliff Griffith
In <31a6e15b.51370775@news> s...@iquest.net (syd) writes:
>$cientologist are trying to recruit rich blacks Lisa Presley is into
>$cientology.
>
>
Are those two ideas related?
TarlaStar
I believe he may have been referring to her soul.
***Reverend Mutha Tarla Star***
As long as men keep thinking with their dicks,
women will keep fucking with their heads.
//www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html
Anne
Linda and Cliff Griffith (grif...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
Yes, they are related. Allegedly, Lisa Marie was supposed to get Michael
Jackson involved in $cientology, along with a generous chunk of his
monies....
Anne ... <anne...@panix.com>
Frank Copeland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Linda and Cliff Griffith (grif...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <31A6B6...@ix.netcom.com> Paul G <rome...@ix.netcom.com>
: writes:
: >Greta is so But Ugly it's hard to watch the show for more than
: >a few seconds......Paul G
:
: I thought we had sworn off attacking people for physical attributes
: beyond their control.
In the immortal words of Tonto: "Who's we, white man?".
Frank Copeland <f...@wossname.apana.org.au>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQCVAwUBMauZV4BOXdsElwbdAQEjWQQAi3wIooE3r1oxDnukBZfBFYjrFv26IhQN
m7YtOA4K70WpmkpuG90CTehsICVA4vk2SxUp9XvQ8Biv21yzTIAXhLTji+S56RWQ
HtNfm6s9MQccJybOETVQYptM7ED6+0ETcR698+h2uyIjvJRnbMDqJi6vauuiYz3f
h0y23W/WU5U=
=0RgX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
(\__/) .~ ~. ))
/O O ./ .' They seek him here, they seek him there,
{__, \ { Those clams seek Nutty everywhere.
/ . . ) \
|NOTS-| \ } Scientology vs the Net :
.( _( )_.' http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
'---.~_ _ _&
David K. Bryant
>: >Lisa Presley is into $cientology.
>: >
>: Are those two ideas related?
>Yes, they are related. Allegedly, Lisa Marie was supposed to get Michael
>Jackson involved in $cientology, along with a generous chunk of his
>monies....
Along with his monkey.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <dbryantD...@netcom.com>, "David K. Bryant"
<dbr...@netcom.com> writes
>anne...@panix.com (Anne) writes:
>>Linda and Cliff Griffith (grif...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: In <31a6e15b.51370775@news> s...@iquest.net (syd) writes:
>>: >$cientologist are trying to recruit rich blacks.
>>: >Lisa Presley is into $cientology.
>>: >
>>: Are those two ideas related?
>
>>Yes, they are related. Allegedly, Lisa Marie was supposed to get Michael
>>Jackson involved in $cientology,
>
Surely YM 'money' (yes, I know MJ has a pet monkey;
I just don't think it was the monkey
Scn was interested in).
--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on (alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----, and on page (/x/clam/faq/woofglug.html
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : :http://www.demon.net/castle/x/clam/index.html
Jim Bianchi
Tilman Hausherr (til...@berlin.snafu.de) wrote:
> [snip]
> Let's examine your statement a little more closely, Cory. How DO
> Scientologists[tm] define ethics? Here's L. Ron Hubbard's
> definition of the term, taken from the glossary of the 1976
> edition of "The Volunteer Minister's Handbook":
>
> Ethics, 1. ethics actually consists, as we can define them
> now in Dianetics and Scientology, of rationality toward the
> highest level of survival for the individual, the future race,
> the group and mankind and the other dynamics taken collectively.
I got a question about the whole concept of "the greatest good for
the greatest number" being a valid goal for any ethical system. To illustr-
ate, I'll ask an old ethical question: "What if the 'millenium' could be
attained only through the torturing to death of a single infant?" (By the
'millenium' is meant world peace, no crime, no more illness, hunger or pov-
erty, etc -- all the Good Things for all people, IOW.)
According to the "greatest good for the greatest number" ethic, the
answer is an unequivocal "yes, off that li'l sucker!" Of course, this is
small comfort to the infants parents, or to the infant himself.
And not to introduce yet another "out point" of the scieno belief
system but as I recall, the christians put a fair amount of credence into
the parables of Jesus, esp the one having to do with the prodical son. He
also mentions something about lost sheep (i.e., a shepherd has 100 sheep,
of which 99 return; does he not drop everything to seek out the one that
is lost?). These examples (and more) indicate to me that this "greatest
good for the greatest number" philosophy is held in some disrepute as far
as an ultimate end goal is concerned.
Now the above question is admittedly hypothetical, but in order to
be considered valid, any ethical system should be able to answer such, as
well as "real world" questions, such as: "What ethical value can there
possibly be in an organisation whose founder felt it necessary to contin-
uously and deliberately lie to his current and future adherents in order
to attract them to the movement?"
---
ji...@sonic.net
Eclectic Garbanzo BBS, (707) 539-1279
Jean Lyles
or...@mindlink.bc.ca (Greg Goss) said:
>>Mardy <Mar...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I saw the show also and she was definitely ruffled. I don't think her
>>>firm is out of hot water yet for the same thing in virginia. It's odd how
>>>everyone that has befriended the butcher has had some kind of grief enter
>>>into their lives. Also, I don't believe Roger was real happy about his
>>>name being on the solicitation letter mentioning him as her co-host.
>>>I wonder how Cnn feels about that little ploy...
>>>Mardy
>>That's interesting. A friend and I both commented partway through the
>>trial, G&R appeared on the same camera for a few days and seemed all
>>gushy and starry-eyed over each other for the rest of the trial. I
>>have only watched one or two Burdens, so I don't know if they still
>>project that.
>>Or does nobody agree with how I read body language?
I saw exactly what you saw Greg. It was right after what I
believe was one of their first visits to Atlanta.
--
Jean Lyles
jea...@nando.net
Reverend Tweek
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
><dbr...@netcom.com> writes
>>anne...@panix.com (Anne) writes:
>>>Yes, they are related. Allegedly, Lisa Marie was supposed to get Michael
>>>Jackson involved in $cientology,
>>Along with his monkey.
> Surely YM 'money' (yes, I know MJ has a pet monkey;
> I just don't think it was the monkey
> Scn was interested in).
What? Are you forgetting OT7-48?
Maybe they wanted Michael's money, only in exchange for learning
how to talk to the monkey... You're not trying to imply that
Co$ is a money grubbing, not care about life as long as they get
their money type of religion, are you?... Oh.
Jeanne
jea...@nando.net (Jean Lyles) wrote:
>or...@mindlink.bc.ca (Greg Goss) said:
>--
>Jean Lyles
>jea...@nando.net
I watch them quite a bit and had not picked up on it. I know she is
married and he is not (not that that has any bearing on such things
today). He seems to have a profound respect for her intellect and has
commented how often she can one-up him. Quess I'll start watching
more closely.
Jeanne
Jean Lyles
djm...@why.net (Jeanne ) said:
>>jea...@nando.net (Jean Lyles) wrote:
>>>or...@mindlink.bc.ca (Greg Goss) said:
>>>--
>>>Jean Lyles
>>>jea...@nando.net
>>Jeanne
I noticed it last year during the trial. I definitely don't notice it
these days. In fact, sometimes I feel like Roger looks at Greta a
little disdainfully lately. Though I could be projecting my own
feelings about Greta. I just wish she would quit screeching and
interupting people.
--
Jean Lyles
jea...@nando.net
Hugh
Paul G <rome...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> : I watched her today on Burden of Proof. Man, "me thinks thou
>> : does't (sp?) protest too much" certainly does apply here. She
>> : was having a fit. CNN choose to do the program with Greta
>> : sitting with the guests and Roger conducting the interview. She
>> : interrupted and did all sorts of stuff (shaking her head,
>> : changing questions, etc). I was, excuse the expression,
>> : embarassed for her. I have known ambulance chasers. My hat is
>> : off to CNN for this program. IMO Greta looked pretty foolish.
>>
>
>Greta is so But Ugly it's hard to watch the show for more than
>a few seconds......Paul G
Greta looked foolish throughout the trial and now that she shows that
she is another example of a greedy lawyer chasing any business that
she can catch(value jet crash), I find her even more sickening.
Another example of a small talent who is prostituting herself in the
world of ProJ's.
Tilman Hausherr
I have found the transcript on CNN's site:
http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/proof/proof052496+000.html
You will notice that 1. Greta is incredibly arrogant, 2. she uses
scientology "ethics" (removing "counter-intentions", i.e. competing
lawyers), 3. she considers the behaviour of her lawfirm as "free
speech".
Tilman
====================================================================
BURDEN OF PROOF
Aired May 24, 1996 12:30 pm
ANNOUNCER: [voice-over] In the movie The Verdict, Paul Newman plays a
lawyer who scans obituary pages and haunts funeral parlors for clients.
PAUL NEWMAN, Actor: [in character] It's just a shame what happened to
your husband, Mrs. Dee. I knew him vaguely at the lodge. He's a
wonderful man. It's a crime what happened to him. If I can help in any
way-
ANNOUNCER: [voice-over] In real life, all 50 states prohibit lawyers
from soliciting clients in person, but sending a letter is a different
story. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld a Florida rule barring
attorneys from writing to accident victims or their families until 30
days after an accident. Since then, at least five other states have
passed similar laws. Whenever tragedy strikes, as it did most recently
in the Florida Everglades, there will be lawyers lurking. Do they help
survivors get the financial and other support they need, or do they
intrude and prey upon grieving families? Today on Burden of Proof,
lawyer solicitation. Is it legal? Is it ethical? This is Burden of Proof
with Roger Cossack and Greta Van Susteren.
ROGER COSSACK, Co-Host: Welcome to Burden of Proof! The crash of a
jetliner in the Florida Everglades nearly two weeks ago focused
attention on the safety of air travel in this country. The tragedy also
focused attention on the issue of attorney solicitation of accident
victims and their relatives, commonly and derisively called ambulance
chasing. My co-host, Greta Van Susteren's law firm, Coale and Van
Susteren, has been named in news reports as having contacted families of
ValuJet crash victims. Today, Greta joins our panel of attorneys and
ethicists.
Greta, what did your law firm do?
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, Co-Host: OK, first, Roger, let's get the facts
right. When you talk about my law firm, what you're talking about is the
firm that I co-founded with my husband, and which I'm not a partner, but
I'm of counsel, which is a very different beast. But nonetheless, what
my firm did, and what dozens of other firms do in this country is when
there is an accident, is they call up the families and say, `Look, would
you like to see some brochures about the firms and see what your legal
rights may be?' And the people either answer yes or no. If they answer
yes, the material is sent. Dozens of firms do it around the country, and
on every major aviation case, all the major aviation firms do it. And
the reason they do it is because aviation lawyers have experience, and
presumably, the people want experienced lawyers.
ROGER COSSACK: OK, now, when did your firm do this contacting? How soon
after the accident?
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: That, I don't know, because, you know, Roger, I'm
here every day with you. I don't know that. I assume, I assume, and I'm
just guessing, it was done probably a week after the accident. But
frankly, I have no clue.
ROGER COSSACK: All right, is it necessary to contact these victims so
soon after the accident, Greta?
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Sure, because I'll tell you what happens is,
otherwise, a local lawyer will get in there, and once there's a local
lawyer in there, then you can't talk to the people. And what happens is,
the local lawyers are good lawyers, and these are the types of cases
that they probably could learn to do it, but the truth is that the big
law firms that do it, like the Kreinlers [sp?] in New York, Coreboy
[sp?] in Chicago, the people who really have experience, who will get
top dollar and have economic muscle with the insurance companies can't
get in there if there's a local lawyer there.
ROGER COSSACK: Now what's wrong with a local lawyer? Why can't someone
go to their own local lawyer?
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Well, actually, I could teach a local lawyer how to
do this in about two hours, how to do these cases, but the real problem
is that they don't have the economic muscle. For instance, if a local
lawyer and, for instance, I go to the insurance company, since I have a
history of getting large verdicts against airline insurance companies,
or negotiating settlements - I have large verdicts in other cases - is
that in all likelihood, I'm more apt to get a fuller compensation for
the person, not necessarily true. But, you know, I could teach a local
lawyer how to do it.
ROGER COSSACK: Now, the criticism- There was an article in the Atlanta
newspaper, and the criticism was that someone received a brochure from
your law firm that didn't want it. Is that possible?
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: That's not true. What happened was is a business
partner, not the family receiving the brochure, and the local lawyer,
who wanted to represent the family, who obviously knows that this is a
very lucrative case, got mad. This wasn't a dispute with the family.
This is lawyers fighting over money, basically.
ROGER COSSACK: All right, now, there's also the criticism, Greta, that
you are trading off your celebrity status in using your name to get
clients, or to get these victims of the ValuJet crash. True or not?
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: False, and I'll tell you why, Roger. I have won
several multi-million dollar verdicts. I have negotiated millions of
dollars in settlements for people. I'm a very good, talented lawyer. I
went to a very law school. I have two law degrees. I'm very proud of my
work. No one is so foolish as to think that television has ever, ever
promoted anyone's business. I know that's a myth. But, Roger, let me ask
you, since you've been here, and you've been here with me for over a
year and a half, have you ever gotten one case from being on Burden of
Proof or CNN? All we get is the poor soul who is receiving
communications through fillings from the CIA, and who desperately needs
help, or someone who's on death row has exhausted every other avenue.
Roger, have you ever gotten a case?
ROGER COSSACK: No, I haven't, Greta, but now one more question. You do
put CNN after your name, that you work with me at CNN, we work together
at CNN in your brochure. Isn't that correct?
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it is listed that I am the co-host of Burden
of Proof, but that's certainly no secret. And it's not something that I
have ever thought would attract business. In fact, you know, some people
may say that the media is not a particularly flattering place to be. We,
in the media, are not necessarily held in such high regard. You know,
I've talked to a lot of people. I've had lots of clients over 17 years
of being a lawyer, and people are really smart when they choose lawyers.
You know, it's not usually the actual, you know, widow who chooses, but
it's the family. And this is a long process. They interview several
lawyers. In fact, one of the advantages of solicitation is that you do
get to see a whole choice of possible law firms, you know, to interview.
And the fact that I'm on CNN, frankly, you know, we may be proud of it
here at CNN, that we're on CNN, but to the ordinary person, what they
care about is the product: What kind of lawyer are you? Can you deliver
full and fair compensation? Do you get the good jury verdicts that are
full and fair? Can you negotiate the settlement? Not being famous.
ROGER COSSACK: All right, let's go to Victoria Cummock. Victoria, you
are down in Florida at this very time working with the ValuJet crash
victims, and you are also, unfortunately, you are a- your husband was
killed in another plane crash. What's your experience with the lawyers
who solicited?
VICTORIA CUMMOCK, Victims' Advocate: Well, my experience has been one of
shock and disbelief and man's inhumanity to man. With all due respect to
Greta's perspective, I think she shares in the perspective of all the
vultures currently are sharing in. You have to realize that they keep
talking- the lawyers keep talking about their needs and their wants and
their background and what they can bring to the party. No one is looking
out for the family members. And you have to understand where they're
coming from. Unless you're a lawyer involved in a disaster, you don't
think in legal terms. As a regular person, which 95 percent of the
people aboard the airplanes are coming from, they are in total shock and
in total disbelief that their family member can be involved in something
so horrific.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask you this, Victoria. And I understand that
horrible plight. If I, as a lawyer, had a magic wand and could restore
life, that would be my greatest dream. But in recognition of the fact
that I can never, ever do that, every time anybody has had a tragedy in
the family, there are financial matters that have to be handled. If
there's a mistake, if there are bills coming in, if-
VICTORIA CUMMOCK: Greta, believe me, my children were 3, 4, and 6 years
old, and before my husband was dead 24 hours, there was a lawyer in my
bedroom, and I had not even confirmed what was going on. And he was not
a lawyer. He was one of the ambulance chasers that were not qualified.
And he was going through and pulling at all my emotional strength as far
as, you know, can you pay your mortgage, can you rise your children. The
focus of a family member during the outset of an air disaster that is of
such great magnitude, their minds are totally fragmented. All they want
to know is, `Where is my loved one? If he's alive and injured, I want to
go to him and take care of him. If he's dead, I want to take care of
him, get his body, bury it, or whatever my family ritual is.' And to
have an intrusive factor like a bunch of lawyers, whether they're the
qualified ones or the nonqualified ones is appalling. You are
emotionally raping someone at their most vulnerable time, and that's why
it needs to be held off.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Victoria, I don't disagree with you-
ROGER COSSACK: Victoria, did you ever contact a lawyer at any time?
VICTORIA CUMMOCK: Yes, of course, I did. But I think that there's a time
when you must find out what's happened to your loved one. It's a time
that you have to grieve your loved ones. And then there's a time to sit
there and decide what is best for you and your family. And most people
are very smart and are not going to start dealing with insurance
companies or anyone. And to have the added pressure of a whole group of
people who are the lawyers that want to fill their needs during their
time, they have no respect for you-
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask you this, though-
ROGER COSSACK: Let me go to Stephen Gillers just for one moment.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Can I just ask Victoria one question? Victoria, let
me ask you this: Would it have made a difference to you- And I agree
with you; somebody coming into your bedroom is awful. I think that's
terrible. I think it's totally distasteful, unacceptable.
VICTORIA CUMMOCK: They did it when we were getting off the bus from the
Everglades.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: And you and I are in total agreement with that. Let
me ask you this, though. Suppose that a week or two later, when you
finally have, you know, your loved one buried, and then you do have to
make these very important decisions, would it make it easier if you had
a lot of information about different law firms who specialize in this,
and you know their fee structure, you know the history, you know who's
in the firm, so that in the privacy of your house, you can go over all
the material and decide who you want to interview? Would that have been
different?
VICTORIA CUMMOCK: Yes, but that was not the case here. You have to
realize that the nature of an air disaster is very different than a car
accident. It takes two to three weeks before you get pits and pieces of
your loved ones. The coping with that information and everything that
has happened to your loved one for a family is overwhelming. So then to
sit there and try to analyze who is a person that's trained in this
field, and who is the actual person that you should be looking at a
contract- Contracts are complicated enough for regular people to deal
with when they're not under stress, but when they are totally mentally
fragmented, all they are wanting right now, which every family member of
the ValuJet crash wants- There's 110 families that are waiting for
remains right now, and-
ROGER COSSACK: Victoria, I have to interrupt you at this time. We have
to take a break. More on solicitation in the ValuJet crash when we
return. Stay with us.
[on screen: Question: Prior to a state ban, how many direct
solicitations did lawyers mail to Florida accident victims or their
survivors annually? Answer: 280,0000. Source: Florida Bar]
[Commercial break]
ROGER COSSACK: We're back, talking about lawyer solicitation in the
ValuJet Crash. Stephen Gillers, is it ethical for attorneys to contact
victims of a plane crash and their family immediately after the event
happens?
STEPHEN GILLERS, Legal Ethics Professor: It is in most states. It
depends upon how the contact is made. Nearly everywhere, a contact by
mail, at least regular mail, is appropriate. In some states, you have to
wait 30 days, as a result of something the Supreme Court said last year.
Personal contact is not allowed. Calling on the phone, knocking on the
door is not allowed. That's too intrusive. The goal-
ROGER COSSACK: Is there anything wrong with calling up to determine
whether or not the person wants to receive mail?
STEPHEN GILLERS: Well, nearly every jurisdiction has said that you can't
make that call. People have a right to privacy, not to have lawyers
treat them as the magazine salesperson might treat them, by calling
during dinner. So you can't do it. Lawyers are particularly persuasive.
They might overbear the will of the recipient of that call, whereas a
piece of mail can be tossed in the box, tossed out in the garbage.
ROGER COSSACK: In other words, it's held that it would be better just to
send them the information cold rather than call them on the phone and
see whether or not they want it?
STEPHEN GILLERS: That's right. You can send the information cold, as you
say. The person can accept it or not. The goal is to provide
information. A letter provides information. The goal is to enable the
client, as a purchaser of legal services, to make an informed choice.
Calling or knocking on the door risks overbearing the will of the
recipient of that call. They can call you if they want to-
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Let me interrupt for one second.
ROGER COSSACK: Isn't there a difference between a phone call and a knock
on the door?
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Big difference.
STEPHEN GILLERS: Well, there is a difference, but a phone call is still
improper in every jurisdiction.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: That's absolutely not true, Steve.
STEPHEN GILLERS: Except for two.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: That's absolutely not true. In Washington, D.C., you
can actually do, in fact, in person solicitation. And they're even
considering it in other states. But the interesting thing, I think,
Steve, is that in the state of Florida, the case that you do bring up,
they have a rule you can't contact in Florida for 30 days, which is so
interesting, because it does not prevent the insurance companies from
going to the people and trying to get them to settle. It's very
interesting how the lawyers are worried about their particular image and
in essence, denying the consumer.
ROGER COSSACK: Greta, let me ask Ritchey, what's the ABA's position on
contacting?
RITCHEY HOLLENBAUGH, ABA Commission on Advertising: Well, as the
professor's indicated, the ABA's position with the model rules prohibits
direct solicitation either by phone or in person, any kind of direct
contact. It doesn't prohibit mail solicitation, so long as it's
appropriately marked with advertisement in bold letters on the outside
and on each page contained in the-
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: But you know what you're ignoring, though? And I
think- You're talking about the ABA.
RITCHEY HOLLENBAUGH: I'm talking about the ABA, and I'm also talking
about the regulations in the states across the country.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: You're failing to take into account the 1st
Amendment and commercial free speech. And what we have done on this
particular show is we have one victim who's had a horrible experience.
Victoria, I agree. I think that is outrageous. But what we don't have on
the show- The one thing we don't have on the show are the many people
who but for having the information available, the are many sort of happy
people that- I have represented dozens of people over my career who
really want legal services, and we can-
ROGER COSSACK: Let's let Victoria respond. Victoria, go ahead.
VICTORIA CUMMOCK: I would like to tell you that I am a part of a
national alliance of air disaster victims covering every air disaster
domestically and internationally over the last 13 years. And if you all
really want to do something for the families and not at the expense of
the families, what the ABA or the trial lawyers of America all should do
is when there is a disaster, that there should be one phone number that
the families can contact to get briefed as to what their rights are and
where to find good information. Because I'll tell you something, I've
been sitting in the hotel with the ValuJet families, as this mail has
come in, and I've read a lot of lawyers' information, pamphlets that
they've said that they sat on the steering committee of-
ROGER COSSACK: Victoria, I'm sorry. Once again, I have to interrupt you.
We'll get back to you. More on lawyers, clients, and solicitation after
this. Stay with us.
[on screen: Legal Brief. An Oregon prosecutor has admitted he was wrong
to authorize tape recording a prisoner's jailhouse meeting with a
priest. The prosecutor says he will not use the tape in court against
the prisoner, a triple-murder suspect.]
[Commercial break]
ROGER COSSACK: We're back, talking about lawyer solicitation. Bill Fry,
you head up an organization. You're a legal advocate. How do we reform
this, or do we reform it?
WILLIAM FRY, Legal Reform Advocate: Well, I think we need a couple of
very basic reforms. The problem is that the victims, the minute of a
crash or an accident occurs, are inundated, not with valid, objective
information, but with a sales pitch. Greta mentioned the 1st Amendment
rights and the need for information, and that's true. But what they need
is objective information from a group or a body that will tell them what
their options are-
ROGER COSSACK: Isn't the problem that they get inundated by a whole lot
of people, many of whom aren't very qualified?
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Well, that's not true, Roger.
WILLIAM FRY: That's perfectly true. Some of the lawyers are not
qualified and seek to get the contract because it's so lucrative.
Victoria mentioned that there's a family group. That's one of the best
things that happened in the air crash disaster scene. A family group of
objective, experienced people, who have nothing to sell, and who the
victims of the survivors can go to and get information about their
choices.
ROGER COSSACK: Bill, what about the insurance companies? Nobody stops
them from coming over and trying to settle with these uninformed people.
WILLIAM FRY: We have not argued at my organization, which is HALT, to
put the brakes on lawyers because of that inequality. The insurance
companies go, the lawyers go, too. They're both selling something. The
problem is, the absence of the objective entity, and that's the reform
that's needed, Bar Association lawyers and victims could get together
and create such an entity, and there could be a phone number.
[crosstalk]
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: First of all, you've got to understand one of the
easiest-
STEPHEN GILLERS: I want to second what Bill Fry said, because I think
we're romanticizing lawyers in what Greta said. Lawyers see a deal. They
see dollar signs. People have grief. All right, we let them provide the
information, but we have to draw a line someplace, and we have to give
people space and time to make an intelligent decision. Calling up,
knocking on doors is just flatly wrong and shouldn't be allowed.
ROGER COSSACK: All right, Greta, respond. You got 20 seconds.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: I don't disagree knocking on doors is wrong, but
what I think everybody has missed, if you don't like your lawyer, you do
one simple thing, is you tear up the contract. It doesn't hurt you at
all. [crosstalk] Now wait a second, wait a second. Let me finish. The
one thing I have actually represented people-
ROGER COSSACK: Greta, I've got to cut you off. That's all we have for
today. That's it. Monday, we look at Megan's law. Are you safer if you
know a sex offender is moving into your neighborhood? Have a good
weekend!
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Letters: P.O. Box 740166, Atlanta, GA 30374-3578
Fax: 404-681-3578
The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However,
although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to
meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it has not yet been
proofread against videotape.
Linda and Cliff Griffith
In <4oek02$q...@ionews.ionet.net> bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar) writes:
>grif...@ix.netcom.com(Linda and Cliff Griffith) wrote:
>
>>In <31A6B6...@ix.netcom.com> Paul G <rome...@ix.netcom.com>
>>writes:
>>>a few seconds......Paul G
>
>>beyond their control.
>
>
TarlaStar
grif...@ix.netcom.com(Linda and Cliff Griffith) wrote:
>In <4oek02$q...@ionews.ionet.net> bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar) writes:
>>
>>grif...@ix.netcom.com(Linda and Cliff Griffith) wrote:
>>
>>>In <31A6B6...@ix.netcom.com> Paul G <rome...@ix.netcom.com>
>>>writes:
>>>>Greta is so But Ugly it's hard to watch the show for more than
>>>>a few seconds......Paul G
>>
>>>I thought we had sworn off attacking people for physical attributes
>>>beyond their control.
>>
>>I believe he may have been referring to her soul.
>>
>Sorry! Didn't realize God posted here.
If God were the only one who could see the soul, we'd never have
poets.
I am not God, though I DO speak for Hir.
--
Reverend Mutha Tarla, Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy,
A Proud Jism Schism of the Church of the SubGenius, Worshipping
"Connie" Dobbs and Juicy Retardo since 1986
//www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html