Lawsuit blames gear in skydiver's death
Dan'l
morning.
With all sympathy for Kat and all respect for James, I don't see how
this
lawsuit benefits anyone but lawyers.
http://www.inlandempireonline.com/news/stories/050800/suit08.shtml
Blue skies and black death,
Dan'l
Copyrighted article by Guy McCarthy of the Press-Enterprise
Lawsuit blames gear in sky diver's death
Widow of the Hemet man who died in Perris jump last January
sues the parachute company.
James E. Martin Jr. had made more than 5,000 sky-diving jumps
since 1971. He took part in world-record jumps and sky-diving
competitions. He jumped off El Capitan in Yosemite. He
performed as a stunt extra in the 1994 action film "Drop Zone."
Martin knew the risks of what many view as a daredevil's sport,
but he never thought his gear would fail him.
That is what his widow, Kathleen Folger of Fallbrook, claims
happened when Martin fell to his death at Perris Valley
Skydiving Center in January. The 48-year-old Hemet dentist died
after one of his lines snagged on his brand-new parachute rig.
Folger claims the rig was defective, and she's suing the Lake
Elsinore maker, Fliteline Systems Inc. Officials at Fliteline
would not comment on the lawsuit. Folger also declined to
comment.
Fliteline Vice President Mick Cottle, the first person named as
a defendant in the suit, said only, "We are saddened by James'
death. He was a close friend."
Few lawsuits over sky-diving deaths ever reach judgment. Most
makers of sky-diving gear do not carry liability insurance,
which reduces the likelihood of plaintiffs gaining a
settlement. But that hasn't deterred Folger's attorney, Edward
Switzer Jr. of Vista. "Whether it's a car or a parachute, it's
the manufacturer's responsibility to make sure the product is
free of defects," Switzer said.
Regardless of the legal outcome, Martin's death and a similar
fatality in February in Arizona have caused parachute industry
officials to review their products and warnings on the Internet.
"Manufacturers are reviewing their procedures as we speak,"
Cliff Schmucker, president of the Parachute Industry
Association, said last week. "That's not anyone admitting there
was something wrong, or an implied admission there was
something wrong. That's just the industry wanting to learn from
what happened and to make things better, if possible."
In addition, Folger's lawsuit is bound to shake up the
tight-knit, local sky-diving community. Folger, an avid sky
diver herself, knows many of the people she is suing. The
couple jumped regularly at Perris and formed a sky-diving
demonstration team called "The Canopy Connection."
Martin's death and Folger's lawsuit, which was filed in April,
have caused some industry observers to raise the following
question: How can experienced sky divers sue a maker of
sky-diving gear after an accident?
"Lawsuits in this country don't surprise me any more,"
Schmucker said. "Sky divers know the risks, but we live in a
litigious society."
According to the lawsuit, Martin bought a Fliteline Reflex
parachute harness-and-container rig for $1,400 two days after
Christmas. On Jan. 8, he was making his fifth jump on the
equipment. He jumped from a plane at about 12,000 feet, and
tried to open his main parachute at 2,000 feet. But a line
attached to his main chute snagged under the edge of a grommet
-- a metal eyelet -- on the rig, investigators and Fliteline
officials said. Martin tried to clear his main chute to make
way for his reserve, but the line was still snagged and the
main chute remained in tow. When Martin opened his reserve
chute, it tangled with the main and did not open. He fell to
the ground with both chutes trailing uselessly above him, the
lawsuit said. A similar accident resulted in a sky-diver's
death in Eloy, Ariz., the following month. And several nonfatal
incidents involving grommet snags in the United States occurred
before the fatalities, according to Jan Meyer, of Sport
Parachutist's Safety Journal.
By early March, the Parachute Industry Association's Web site
carried a prominent notice. "THIS JUST IN! URGENT!" the notice
said, and directed Web site visitors to the association's
technical bulletin about grommets and lines. Fliteline already
had posted bulletins on its Web site recommending grommet
inspections. The bulletins advised inspecting all grommets to
ensure they were not loose and had no sharp edges, which could
make a snag more likely.
After the accidents, Meyer wrote that the likelihood of
parachute lines snagging on grommets was becoming more common
in the late 1990s. Contributing factors included
smaller-diameter parachute lines, Meyer wrote.
Fliteline officials have stated in a service bulletin, "(T)he
grommet in question was seated to specification, however, we
recommend that all grommets now be countersunk so any potential
snag points may be eliminated."
Whether the grommet on Martin's rig was properly seated is "the
bottom-line question," said Schmucker, president of the
Parachute Industry Association. But, he said, "I'm not sure if
there's any way to determine whether the grommet was properly
seated . . . It's a gray area at best." In the past
decade, about 32 sky-diving deaths occurred annually in the
United States. About five lawsuits from sky-diving deaths arise
each year, said author and sky diver Dan Poynter, who has been
called as a witness in more than 100 sky-diving lawsuits since
1974. Poynter estimates that since 1960, plaintiffs have won 1
percent to 2 percent of the lawsuits he has observed.
"Back in the '60s and '70s, people assumed if you were jumping
out of an airplane that the risks are obvious and you knew what
you're getting into," Poynter said. In recent years, courts
have been more receptive to arguments from both sides of the
issue -- corporations as well as individuals who have sued,
Poynter said.
Despite the odds against Folger of winning a settlement,
Switzer at least hopes to drive a point home in the lawsuit
against Fliteline. "Sky divers know the risks, but they don't
assume every risk under the sun," Switzer said.
Iain Firkins
> Martin knew the risks of what many view as a daredevil's sport,
> but he never thought his gear would fail him.
Hmmmmm ..........
> Most makers of sky-diving gear do not carry liability insurance,
> which reduces the likelihood of plaintiffs gaining a
> settlement. But that hasn't deterred Folger's attorney, Edward
> Switzer Jr. of Vista.
This also sounds dubious at best.
It's a shame it has come to this, but I think it would be a good idea that
we all reserve judgement until the full facts are known. The news report
probably wasn't as full or as complete as it could/should have been.
Blue Skies,
Iain
--
73 jumps - 50m 47s freefall - Last jump: 07/02/00
A-100981
http://www.uwe.ac.uk/union/parachute/
"And once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes
turned skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return..." -
Leonardo Da Vinci
SPCEMNSPFF
>morning.
>With all sympathy for Kat and all respect for James, I don't see how
>this
>lawsuit benefits anyone but lawyers.
>
with extreme emphasis on :
>I don't see how
>this
>lawsuit benefits anyone but lawyers.
A lot of folks in our sport have been asking for it and here it is more
than ever before......."WELCOME TO THE MAINSTREAM, BABY!!!"
There are good things and bad things that come with that. We have been
reveling in the good for a while......more public acceptance, more student $,
more turbine jump aircraft in one state than the whole country used to have,
technological advances in gear, etc., etc.
When lawyers enter the picture as often and publicly as they have the last
few years........hang on for the ride. I've only been in the sport for 8 years
and have nowhere near the knowledge and experience of the "old timers" that
have brought our sport to the current level, but my prediction is that we are
in for some scary times in the next few years. Scary can be defined differently
from person to person, but I hope you get the general idea.
I have made hundreds of friends in this sport. There are also a few
jumpers out there that I don't care for and don't care for me, but we all can
see and agree that at a basic level, there are some sour times ahead. I still
love this sport and could never trade my skydiving experiences for anything,
I'm just disappointed with where we are right now.
Responses welcome via NG, e-mail, in person, or however you want to share
your thoughts. Blue skies to all.
C Ya,
Mikey Darden
PO Box 2423
DeLand, FL 32721
904-451-7823
Billy James
Mark_Harju
be much in the way of penalties or insurance payouts to collect, and the
PIA moved fast when this problem became prominent due to the fatalities,
so it's already being corrected. Grief causes people to do strange
things, including blaming others.
Enter the blood-sucking lawyers.
Someday, things will change.
"Sky divers know the risks, but they don't
> assume every risk under the sun," Switzer said.
Oh, yes they do. Consider the poor chap who had a main mal last week,
chopped it, had a good reserve, and landed, only to biff onto his
chest-mounted altimeter. He crushed his own larynx and asphyxiated. Is
his rig maker to blame? Is the altimeter manufacturer to blame?
Sometimes bad things happen to good people for absolutely no reason
whatsoever, and nobody is to blame.
There was an earlier Cypres thread about "assumption of risk". This
means if I get stupid and walk in front of a Caravan while it's running
and get Vegamatic-ized, it's nobody's fault but mine - not the DZO, not
the pilot, not the airfield, not Cessna - NOBODY. This seems to be lost
on some folks, in the same vein as the Cypres threads have expressed.
Lawyers disgust me. I think the goal here is to put gear makers out of
business, in the same way that Cessna had to seek relief from Congress
to get the lawyers off their backs.
Every time there's a tragedy, the blood-sucking lawyers come up from
their sewers, poisoning the world with their vile ways. Some day, like I
said, things will change.
--
Opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of the
Boeing Company. Please
remove "NO-SPAM" to
reply. Thanks!
Scratch
>
>I don't see how it benefits anyone, [..snip...]Grief causes people to do
>things, including blaming others.
Have you read or seen "The Sweet Hereafter"? (rare case where I thought the
movie is as good as the book) Great story about just this -- a schoolbus
accident kills a bunch of kids in a small town, and a lawyer comes on the scene
to incite the surviving parents to sue... and the ensuing struggle between
those who want to "find the fault" and those who want to keep the community
whole. It's got a great complex characterization of the lawyer behind the whole
thing, too, and some neat little sub-plots. Rent it or read the book for a nice
take on all this kind of sad craziness.
-- Scratch (responsible for my own actions, mistakes and errors)
Marc
>I don't see how it benefits anyone, including lawyers, since there won't
>be much in the way of penalties or insurance payouts to collect,
Agreed.
and the
>PIA moved fast when this problem became prominent due to the fatalities,
>so it's already being corrected.
Remedial measures can sometimes be pointed to as indication that there was, in
fact, a defect.
>Grief causes people to do strange things,
Yes, it does.
>including blaming others.
Yes, this is true. In some cases, however, others DO deserve blame. I'm not
commenting on *this* case, mind you.
>Enter the blood-sucking lawyers.
What "blood-sucking lawyers?" You've already stated, and I've agreed, that
there probably isn't much "blood" to suck in this case.
>Someday, things will change.
Change is inevitable. What's your point?
>"Sky divers know the risks, but they don't
>> assume every risk under the sun," Switzer said.
>
>Oh, yes they do. Consider the poor chap who had a main mal last week,
>chopped it, had a good reserve, and landed, only to biff onto his
>chest-mounted altimeter. He crushed his own larynx and asphyxiated. Is
>his rig maker to blame?
It wouldn't seem so. There is zero indication that the rig was defective.
That is not true in this case.
>Sometimes bad things happen to good people for absolutely no reason
>whatsoever, and nobody is to blame.
This is true. And sometimes bad things happen to good people for a reason, and
somebody *is* to blame. Again, I'm reserving comment on this case -- my
comments are of a general nature.
[snip]
>Lawyers disgust me.
People who bitch about the symptoms yet fail to recognize the underlying
illness disgust me.
>I think the goal here is to put gear makers out of
>business, in the same way that Cessna had to seek relief from Congress
>to get the lawyers off their backs.
I think you're reading *way* too much into this. You're also comparing apples
and oranges. The tort reform to which you refer does *not* relieve
manufacturers of liability for defective products. It merely limits the time
in which the suit can be brought. Once the aircraft is "x" number of years
old, it's too late to sue on the grounds that it is defective and that those
defects caused harm. I must confess that I'm not aware of the details here,
but that's the basic gist of it. An injured party can still bring a product
liability claim for Cessnas (or what have you) that are less than "x" years
old. The rig in question here was brand new. It appears to have been
defective, although that will probably be up to the jury to decide now (*if*
the case goes to trial).
>Every time there's a tragedy, the blood-sucking lawyers come up from
>their sewers, poisoning the world with their vile ways.
You're wrong of course, and on so many levels:
1. Lawyers don't get involved "every time."
2. Again, we've determined that there's probably not much blood to suck here,
so which "blood sucking lawyers" are you referring to?
3. Is it the lawyers who "poison the world with their vile ways?" Keep in
mind that lawyers, generally speaking, don't sue people. People sue people.
4. People in society create and perpetuate the demand for lawyers. If our
society weren't litigious and constantly looking to assign blame, then there
would be no work for the lawyers. You're no better. You see a lawsuit and
blame supposed "blood sucking lawyers" instead of blaming the person who
brought the suit.
Again, you should focus on the illness -- not just the symptoms.
> Some day, like I said, things will change.
And, like I said, what's your point? Change is inevitable. The question is,
what will change, and how?
If you don't like living in a society with too many lawyers then I suggest you
move to a society with too few. Several come to mind, but I'm not sure how
much skydiving they do there.
Blue Skies,
Marc
ynot...@my-deja.com
frefa...@aol.com (Marc) quoted and wrote some stuff.
...
Very, very well put, Marc. Allow me to say I have a low tolerance for
arm-waving stereotypes, such as the post you responded to.
Once again, some concise, lucid, plain-language discussion on your part
of some complicated topics.
- tony
________________________________________________________________
Il brilgue: les toves libricilleux
- Se gyrent et frillant dans le guave,
Enmimes sont les gougebosquex,
- Et le momerade horgrave.
- -- Lewis Carrol, "Through the Looking Glass"
-
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
CRWMike
with Kathleen Folger is contributing to this problem.
I would also advise Jay Meyer to evaluate the intent and effect of her
publications.
BSBD,
Michael
D-6139
CRWMike
ynot...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <20000509155755...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
> frefa...@aol.com (Marc) quoted and wrote some stuff.
> ...
>
> Very, very well put, Marc. Allow me to say I have a low tolerance for
> arm-waving stereotypes, such as the post you responded to.
>
> Once again, some concise, lucid, plain-language discussion on your part
> of some complicated topics.
>
Excellent sarcasm.
Jan Meyer
>
> Well, for starters, I would say that any skydiver who continues to jump
> with Kathleen Folger is contributing to this problem.
Kat is my friend and has suffered a great loss.
Kat and James were deeply in love. It showed every day they were at the
DZ.
I'll jump with Kat any day. That does not endorse or condone the
lawsuit.
Mick and Dave are also my friends. They have suffered a great loss too.
They aren't deeply in love with each other, but I'm pretty sure they
like each other a lot. I'll jump with Mick and Dave any day. That does
not endorse or condone the lawsuit.
>
> I would also advise Jay Meyer to evaluate the intent and effect of her
> publications.
The name is Jan Meyer.
SPSJ:
"Dedicated to enhancing sport parachuting safety
by disseminating information about equipment,
environments and human factors. "
The stuff is written to prevent injuries and fatalities, not to provide
fuel for a lawsuit.
It was a surprise to me that I was even mentioned in the article.
Someone sent me the link for it and that's when I first learned of the
lawsuit. Dan Poynter told me he was mis-quoted. The article is a whuffo
writing about skydiving. We know how accurate those articles are?
--
Jan Meyer
mailto:Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com
http://www.MakeItHappen.com
http://www.DiveMaker.com
Flyincamra
>publications.
Let's see how she likes not getting her name right! ;-P
Jan Devil
CRWMike
are about.
Flyincamra wrote:
> >I would also advise Jay Meyer to evaluate the intent and effect of her
> >publications.
>
bil...@qualcomm.com
Billy James <bill...@earthlink.com> wrote:
> i heard the rigger is being sued too.
this seems to be the popular thing to do when it comes to
skydiving lawsuits - sue everyone involved. that maximizes chances of a
good settlement. sue the pilot, since the FAA says that the skydive is
at least partly his responsibility. sue everyone on the dive, since
they no doubt influenced his exit position, breakoff and pull altitude,
any of which may have had an impact on rig function or reaction to a
mal. of course this is problematic if the suer is on the dive, but i'm
sure they could still sue the other 8 if that's the case. sue the
fabric manufacturer, the grommet manufacturer, the manufacturer of the
canopy, and the manufacturer of the line. sue his instructors, even
if he learned to skydive years ago. you never know when someone will
panic and settle for $10K just to avoid the whole issue.
-bill von
sangiro
Jan Meyer <Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com> wrote in message
news:391890C5...@MakeItHappen.com...
> CRWMike wrote:
> >
> > Well, for starters, I would say that any skydiver who continues to jump
> > with Kathleen Folger is contributing to this problem.
>
> Kat and James were deeply in love. It showed every day they were at the
> DZ.
> I'll jump with Kat any day. That does not endorse or condone the
> lawsuit.
>
> Mick and Dave are also my friends. They have suffered a great loss too.
> They aren't deeply in love with each other, but I'm pretty sure they
> like each other a lot. I'll jump with Mick and Dave any day. That does
> not endorse or condone the lawsuit.
I didn't know James, nor do I know Kat, Mick, Dave, Michael or Jan - but
this I know, Jan Meyer stands by her friends. Next.
Safe swoops
Sangiro
Square One
place, any time. I am also VERY proud to have called James Martin my
friend, and I miss him greatly, but not near as much as Kat does every
minute of every day.
My friends are also Mick and Dave of Fliteline, and I know that they miss
James also.
While I do not endorse this (or any) lawsuits, I recommend that you do not
condemn a person you do not know based on what you have read in a newspaper
account.
The old adage "walk a mile in my shoes" might be applicable here. Since I
have not lived Kat's life, or sufferred her losses, I will not and can not
comment on the "right or wrong" of this lawsuit. I will, however, continue
to treasure her as a friend, and I will continue to miss James. I will
also keep (and treasure) the rest of my friends, whether involved directly
or indirectly in this event.
Peace
Kate Cooper
stuDent
sangiro wrote:
>
> Jan Meyer <Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com> wrote in message
> news:391890C5...@MakeItHappen.com...
> > CRWMike wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, for starters, I would say that any skydiver who continues to jump
> > > with Kathleen Folger is contributing to this problem.
> >
> > Kat is my friend and has suffered a great loss.
> > Kat and James were deeply in love. It showed every day they were at the
> > DZ.
> > I'll jump with Kat any day. That does not endorse or condone the
> > lawsuit.
> >
> > Mick and Dave are also my friends. They have suffered a great loss too.
> > They aren't deeply in love with each other, but I'm pretty sure they
> > like each other a lot. I'll jump with Mick and Dave any day. That does
> > not endorse or condone the lawsuit.
>
> I didn't know James, nor do I know Kat, Mick, Dave, Michael or Jan - but
> this I know, Jan Meyer stands by her friends. Next.
>
> Safe swoops
> Sangiro
On
04/25/2000
As Jim Bozarth <sb...@aol.com> wrote:
(in reference to a lawsuit involving skydivers)
<snip>
"TK ,no matter how this all comes out...you backed your buddy in front of
the NG
and the world. Loyalty is a something to be proud of....hes lucky to have
you for a
friend."
A premise in reference to the statement posted by Sangiro that I agree with.
Next.
james@pahokee
CRWMike
to this? Are you saying that there are absolutely no set of circumstances
that would motivate you to turn your back on a friend and walk away?
Let's leave the current situation and wax hypothetical for a moment. What if
someone you love is found to have raped, mutilated and murdered children in
their secret basement torture chamber? What if they deliberately set about
to fuck you out of everything you have earned and saved? What if they do
this to someone else you love?
So, if there are limits, then what is at issue here is, are Kathleen's
actions sufficient to justify walking away from that friendship.
If you do not have such limits, then a significant degree of pathology exists
in how you view friendships.
Finding solutions to problems is not so tough, Jan. Having the strength and
integrity to follow the paths to those solutions is the hard part.
Her loss is a grievous and heart breaking one. Given her choice to seek
money and fuck over other skydivers however, I will not jump with her.
I have another question for you. Given the close, personal relationship you
have with Kathleen and the fact they are quoting your publication, are you a
party, before the fact, in this lawsuit?
Michael
D-6139
Jan Meyer wrote:
> CRWMike wrote:
> >
> > Well, for starters, I would say that any skydiver who continues to jump
> > with Kathleen Folger is contributing to this problem.
>
> Kat is my friend and has suffered a great loss.
> Kat and James were deeply in love. It showed every day they were at the
> DZ.
> I'll jump with Kat any day. That does not endorse or condone the
> lawsuit.
>
> Mick and Dave are also my friends. They have suffered a great loss too.
> They aren't deeply in love with each other, but I'm pretty sure they
> like each other a lot. I'll jump with Mick and Dave any day. That does
> not endorse or condone the lawsuit.
>
> >
> > I would also advise Jay Meyer to evaluate the intent and effect of her
> > publications.
>
DB TECH
Release of liability:
Buyer/user beware; Seller is not responsible for injuries or
death, resulting from use, misuse or abuse of this
device/devices. Seller also claims no specific purpose in mind
or out of mind whatsoever for this device/devices. Seller
proclaims; No warranties or guaranties of any kind expressed or
implied for this device/devices.
Describe the
device/devices:________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
I,_____________________________________________________________
the buyer, agree to all of the above declarations.
Seller:________________________________________________________
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
CRWMike
independent of who you happen to know, like or love.
Apparently you are unable to do this given your previous post where you
stated:
"All I know is that I won't get on the same plane with the one who walked
away Saturday. Maybe if enough people refuse to board the same aircraft
as him, the appropriate action will take place."
So, you didn't happen to like this person ...and that is the deciding factor
for you? Nothing wrong with that ...if you are in the 3rd grade.
It's pretty easy to determine right from wrong. Where it gets tough is
having to choose the wrong that is less wrong.
Kat may be a good person, but she has chosen a course of action with far
reaching harmful effects for skydiving. Perhaps it is her way of grieving
...it is still wrong and I will not be a part of it in any way. All she has
to do is stop this dishonorable action. She made here choice, and I made
mine.
BSBD,
Michael
D-6139
jkl wrote:
>
> What a cold, callous, rude and ignorant thing to say.
> You really have no idea what you're talking about.
> I echo the sentiments of both JaN and Kate.
> I love Kat dearly and will never hesitate to jump with her.
> I feel the same about Mick and Dave.
> This is a huge loss that all the jumpers feel over James,
> but it will never compare to the loss Kat is suffering.
> And, she sure as hell doesn't have to explain her reasons
> for doing what she needs to do to you.
>
> You read a stupid wuffo-written piece of garbage filled
> with misquotes and inaccuracies and took it verbatim.
> You, being a jumper, should know better.
> That report was no different than the typical news story
> that says "Jumper fell 13,000 feet to his death when his
> parachute failed to open." Blanket statements made by stupid
> news editors are just to grab readers. They never let the
> facts interfere with a good story.
>
> If you read Jan Meyer's Safety Journal with as much attention
> as you gave that so-called piece of journalism (for lack of
> a better term), then maybe you would have some accurate
> knowledge about what she actually did write.
> At least you might know the proper way to address her.
>
> jkl
USPA Skydiver
YOU PACK YOUR CHUTE, IF YOU DON'T PACK IT, THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE
MISSED IT.
IT STARTS LIKE THIS - WARNING - BLA BLA dadada bla....
THE DISCLAIMER, DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
USPA Skydiver
bil...@qualcomm.com wrote in message <8fa6qc$b2p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <3918371B...@earthlink.com>,
> Billy James <bill...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
>> i heard the rigger is being sued too.
>
> this seems to be the popular thing to do when it comes to
>skydiving lawsuits - sue everyone involved. that maximizes chances of a
>good settlement. sue the pilot, since the FAA says that the skydive is
>at least partly his responsibility. sue everyone on the dive, since
>they no doubt influenced his exit position, breakoff and pull altitude,
>any of which may have had an impact on rig function or reaction to a
>mal. of course this is problematic if the suer is on the dive, but i'm
>sure they could still sue the other 8 if that's the case. sue the
>fabric manufacturer, the grommet manufacturer, the manufacturer of the
>canopy, and the manufacturer of the line. sue his instructors, even
>if he learned to skydive years ago. you never know when someone will
>panic and settle for $10K just to avoid the whole issue.
>
>-bill von
>
>
USPA Skydiver
>Geezzz, find a real life.
Nuh - DZ SCUMBIE - I mean, SCUM BAG!!
THE DISCLAIMER, IT'S THERE FOR A REASON DUMMY!!
USPA Skydiver
DZ SCUBIE wrote in message <20000510001721...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
>>SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE FORGOT ABOUT THE DISCLAIMER THAT YOU SEEEEEEE
EVERYTIME
>>YOU PACK YOUR CHUTE, IF YOU DON'T PACK IT, THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE
>>MISSED IT.
>>IT STARTS LIKE THIS - WARNING - BLA BLA dadada bla....
>
>>SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE FORGOT ABOUT THE DISCLAIMER THAT YOU SEEEEEEE
EVERYTIME
>>YOU PACK YOUR CHUTE, IF YOU DON'T PACK IT, THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE
>>MISSED IT.
>>IT STARTS LIKE THIS - WARNING - BLA BLA dadada bla....
>
>
>Sean
>"The flying neon green machine"
bil...@qualcomm.com
Mark_Harju <mark.a...@NO-SPAM.boeing.com> wrote:
> Lawyers disgust me. I think the goal here is to put gear makers out of
> business, in the same way that Cessna had to seek relief from Congress
> to get the lawyers off their backs.
generally, it's not the lawyers who are the problem, it is the
get-rich-quick mentality of the people involved. if no one wanted to
sue anyone else, no personal-injury lawsuits would occur.
lawyers are at best an attractive nusiance. they are like the gun
under the seat of the car, the free beer at the picnic with highway
access only. those things may lead to tragedy, but in both cases it's
the person's fault - not the beer or the gun. people have to take
responsibility for their own actions, whether it's during a skydive or
while they are hiring a lawyer.
> Every time there's a tragedy, the blood-sucking lawyers come up from
> their sewers, poisoning the world with their vile ways.
many years back my sister broke her leg in many places, resulting
in about six months of surgery, pain, rehab etc. my parents asked a
lawyer about a possible lawsuit. he looked at the case, talked to the
mountain, talked to the doctor, then told my parents the mountain wasn't
really at fault, but they could pursue it if they wanted to. he
said they stood at least a small chance of winning, though. they said
no.
that's how it's supposed to work. had my parents said yes, i'm
sure you would have characterized that lawyer as bloodthirsty. but it
would have been my parents, not the lawyer, at blame for the resulting
frivolous lawsuit.
cptp...@my-deja.com
so vocal about the Rob L. Jerry Dick suit. I wonder who will end up
with all the money.
jkallend
> In article <39183026...@NO-SPAM.boeing.com>,
> Mark_Harju <mark.a...@NO-SPAM.boeing.com> wrote:
>
> > business, in the same way that Cessna had to seek relief from Congress
> > to get the lawyers off their backs.
>
> get-rich-quick mentality of the people involved. if no one wanted to
> sue anyone else, no personal-injury lawsuits would occur.
>
> lawyers are at best an attractive nusiance. they are like the gun
> under the seat of the car, the free beer at the picnic with highway
> access only. those things may lead to tragedy, but in both cases it's
> the person's fault - not the beer or the gun. people have to take
> responsibility for their own actions, whether it's during a skydive or
> while they are hiring a lawyer.
>
What if "their own actions" result in injury or death to another
individual?
Hiding behind a "no sue" tradition seems cowardly to me.
SNIP
>
> -bill von
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.on
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
jk
Un petit d'un petit s'itonne aux Halles
Un petit d'un petit Ah! degris te fallent
Indolent qui ne sort cesse
Indolent qui ne se mene
Qu'importe un petit d'un petit tout Gai de Reguennes.
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
jkl
>
> Well, for starters, I would say that any skydiver who continues to jump
> with Kathleen Folger is contributing to this problem.
>
> I would also advise Jay Meyer to evaluate the intent and effect of her
> publications.
>
> BSBD,
>
> Michael
> D-6139
Gary Allman
I'm sure Jan's intent was to inform and to prevent injuries.
She certainly did the former, and possibly the latter.
When gear fixes/improvements are needed, they should be
publicized and made as soon as practicable.
Gary Allman
In article <3918878E...@Bellsouth.net>,
CRWMike <CRW...@Bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Well, for starters, I would say that any skydiver who continues to jump
>with Kathleen Folger is contributing to this problem.
>
>I would also advise Jay Meyer to evaluate the intent and effect of her
>publications.
>
>BSBD,
>
>Michael
>D-6139
>
--
jkallend
jOn Tue, 09 May 2000 19:23:56 -0700 DB TECH
OK for helmets and such - kind of hard in the case of a container or
harness or reserve for which you have sought and obtained a TSO
stating that it IS suitable for said application, I would imagine.
DZ SCUBIE
>YOU PACK YOUR CHUTE, IF YOU DON'T PACK IT, THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE
>MISSED IT.
>IT STARTS LIKE THIS - WARNING - BLA BLA dadada bla....
>SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE FORGOT ABOUT THE DISCLAIMER THAT YOU SEEEEEEE EVERYTIME
>YOU PACK YOUR CHUTE, IF YOU DON'T PACK IT, THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE
>MISSED IT.
>IT STARTS LIKE THIS - WARNING - BLA BLA dadada bla....
Are you truly this stupid??? I really find it hard to believe that you are.
Geezzz, find a real life.
Sean
Mark_Harju
it would be nice to have a section of the US Code that mandates a
"Lawyer Cooling-off Period" where the blood-sucking, ambulance-chasing,
sewer-dwelling vermin can't approach a potential client until after a
year has passed, or something.
Lawyers make me sick, but if you're ever accused of criminal wrongdoing
(as I once was - the lawyer got the case placed on admin hold for later
automatic dismissal - *whew!*), they're very handy to have around.
That's about all they're good for.
Check out http://www.overlawyered.com
--
Opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of the
Boeing Company. Please
remove "NO-SPAM" to
reply. Thanks!
Scratch wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 May 2000 15:35:02 GMT, Mark_Harju says...
> >
> >I don't see how it benefits anyone, [..snip...]Grief causes people to do
> strange
> >things, including blaming others.
>
Mark_Harju
sea to be flogged because a landing operation had been aborted due to
rough surf. It's the culture (or lack of it, rather) that drives all
this, and the lawyers are just making the most of the opportunity. That
doesn't mean I have to respect them; Having had a brush with the law, I
was appalled at how sharklike even my own lawyer was towards me, and he
was defending me, fer cryin' out loud.
Makes me wonder whether other civilizations that collapsed were first
overrun by litigation...
--
Opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of the
Boeing Company. Please
remove "NO-SPAM" to
reply. Thanks!
bil...@qualcomm.com wrote:
>
> In article <39183026...@NO-SPAM.boeing.com>,
> Mark_Harju <mark.a...@NO-SPAM.boeing.com> wrote:
>
> > Lawyers disgust me. I think the goal here is to put gear makers out of
> > business, in the same way that Cessna had to seek relief from Congress
> > to get the lawyers off their backs.
>
> generally, it's not the lawyers who are the problem, it is the
> get-rich-quick mentality of the people involved. if no one wanted to
> sue anyone else, no personal-injury lawsuits would occur.
>
> lawyers are at best an attractive nusiance. they are like the gun
> under the seat of the car, the free beer at the picnic with highway
> access only. those things may lead to tragedy, but in both cases it's
> the person's fault - not the beer or the gun. people have to take
> responsibility for their own actions, whether it's during a skydive or
> while they are hiring a lawyer.
>
> > Every time there's a tragedy, the blood-sucking lawyers come up from
> > their sewers, poisoning the world with their vile ways.
>
> many years back my sister broke her leg in many places, resulting
> in about six months of surgery, pain, rehab etc. my parents asked a
> lawyer about a possible lawsuit. he looked at the case, talked to the
> mountain, talked to the doctor, then told my parents the mountain wasn't
> really at fault, but they could pursue it if they wanted to. he
> said they stood at least a small chance of winning, though. they said
> no.
>
> that's how it's supposed to work. had my parents said yes, i'm
> sure you would have characterized that lawyer as bloodthirsty. but it
> would have been my parents, not the lawyer, at blame for the resulting
> frivolous lawsuit.
>
Mark_Harju
I agree completely with Marc. It's the root causes of the situation we
should be looking at (cultural decay and the inherent disassocation of
personal integrity and repsonsibility), rather than the symptom
(blood-sucking lawyers).
This doesn't assuage my contempt for the subhuman class of vermin, the
tort lawyers. I have no more respect for them than I would for a medical
quack, and for the same reasons. However, I do have respect for those
who practice law, and those who practice medicine, with commitment and
integrity.
Interesting how things can turn. Remember the city in Illinois, I
believe it was, about 10 years ago, where all the physicians, dentists,
etc. banded together and refused to provide any medical services
whatsoever to the ambulance chasers and their families? I wonder what
became of that...
I've unfortunately been allowing my personal feelings about the content
of the thread (BSV lawyers) intrude on the topic (a tragedy involving a
grommet on a rig). My apologies to all.
--
Opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of the
Boeing Company. Please
remove "NO-SPAM" to
reply. Thanks!
> - tony
>
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> Il brilgue: les toves libricilleux
> - Se gyrent et frillant dans le guave,
> Enmimes sont les gougebosquex,
> - Et le momerade horgrave.
> - -- Lewis Carrol, "Through the Looking Glass"
>
> -
>
Mark_Harju
clean house, because I haven't been so anxious to see an organization go
out of business since the Gestapo.
--
Opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of the
Boeing Company. Please
remove "NO-SPAM" to
reply. Thanks!
bil...@qualcomm.com wrote:
>
> In article <3918371B...@earthlink.com>,
> Billy James <bill...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
> > i heard the rigger is being sued too.
>
> this seems to be the popular thing to do when it comes to
> skydiving lawsuits - sue everyone involved. that maximizes chances of a
> good settlement. sue the pilot, since the FAA says that the skydive is
> at least partly his responsibility. sue everyone on the dive, since
> they no doubt influenced his exit position, breakoff and pull altitude,
> any of which may have had an impact on rig function or reaction to a
> mal. of course this is problematic if the suer is on the dive, but i'm
> sure they could still sue the other 8 if that's the case. sue the
> fabric manufacturer, the grommet manufacturer, the manufacturer of the
> canopy, and the manufacturer of the line. sue his instructors, even
> if he learned to skydive years ago. you never know when someone will
> panic and settle for $10K just to avoid the whole issue.
>
> -bill von
>
Michael
> lawyers are at best an attractive nusiance. they are like the gun
> under the seat of the car, the free beer at the picnic with highway
> access only. those things may lead to tragedy, but in both cases it's
> the person's fault - not the beer or the gun. people have to take
> responsibility for their own actions, whether it's during a skydive or
> while they are hiring a lawyer.
No, the difference is that the gun or the beer just sits there. The
lawyer is active. Calling them hired guns is disingenuous - they
are people too, and responsible for their actions.
When I broke my leg in a parachuting accident something like 8
years ago, the ambulance took me to the local hospital. They
looked at me, gave me a shot of Toradol, and shipped me off to
the hospital in the town where I lived.
By the time I got there, a lawyer was waiting, You only THINK
ambulance chasing is a figure of speech - it's real. He wanted to
talk to me about how I got hurt. It took me about five minutes to
realize he was a lawyer - I thought at first he was a doctor or
hospital employee or something.
When I figured out what he was, I told him to get out of my sight,
or I'd figure out a way to sue him for the pain and suffering he was
causing me now. Could I have sued and won? Almost certainly.
I was a student, and the jump was made in violation of BSR, and
the manner in which BSR's were violated directly contributed to
the accident. Did that make it right to sue? Not by a long shot.
And if you don't understand why, then there's no point in explaining
it - because you just don't get it.
Encouraging people to do something that is wrong is in itself wrong.
Lawyers as a whole encourage people to not take responsibility
for their own actions. Legal and right are not related concepts,
and neither are illegal and wrong.
Michael
tuckh...@my-deja.com
If the manufacturer of any product designs a product which increases
your risk of accident due to a manufacturing failure then you have the
right to take issue. The fact that what we do is basically dangerous
does not permit a more lax attitude in the construction of our
equipment.
But you come right on back to me USPA cause im just sure you are gonna
take issue with this.
Tuck
In article <O0VR53ju$GA.226@cpmsnbbsa03>,
"USPA Skydiver" <ceo_ter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Are you truly this stupid??? I really find it hard to believe that
you are.
> >Geezzz, find a real life.
>
> Nuh - DZ SCUMBIE - I mean, SCUM BAG!!
> THE DISCLAIMER, IT'S THERE FOR A REASON DUMMY!!
>
> USPA Skydiver
>
> DZ SCUBIE wrote in message <20000510001721.19178.00001948@ng-
ci1.aol.com>...
> >>SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE FORGOT ABOUT THE DISCLAIMER THAT YOU SEEEEEEE
> EVERYTIME
> >>YOU PACK YOUR CHUTE, IF YOU DON'T PACK IT, THERE IS NO WAY YOU
COULD HAVE
> >>MISSED IT.
> >>IT STARTS LIKE THIS - WARNING - BLA BLA dadada bla....
> >
> >>SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE FORGOT ABOUT THE DISCLAIMER THAT YOU SEEEEEEE
> EVERYTIME
> >>YOU PACK YOUR CHUTE, IF YOU DON'T PACK IT, THERE IS NO WAY YOU
COULD HAVE
> >>MISSED IT.
> >>IT STARTS LIKE THIS - WARNING - BLA BLA dadada bla....
> >
> >
> >Sean
> >"The flying neon green machine"
>
>
Marc
>When I broke my leg in a parachuting accident something like 8
>years ago, the ambulance took me to the local hospital. They
>looked at me, gave me a shot of Toradol, and shipped me off to
>the hospital in the town where I lived.
>
>By the time I got there, a lawyer was waiting, You only THINK
>ambulance chasing is a figure of speech - it's real.
Yikes! This ain't kosher....
> He wanted to talk to me about how I got hurt.
Next time, talk to him. Pretend like you're interested. Get his name and his
business card. Then report his sorry ass to the state bar association. They
won't approve of his actions one little bit. Based upon what I know sanctions
will be almost a given (although I'm not claiming to be an expert here....).
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
frefa...@aol.com (Marc) wrote:
> Mark Harju wrote:
[snip]
> and the
> >PIA moved fast when this problem became prominent due to the
fatalities,
> >so it's already being corrected.
>
> Remedial measures can sometimes be pointed to as indication that there
was, in
> fact, a defect.
So if Macy D's had turned down the temp of the coffee,
they would STILL have been guilty, but if they don't, they
are guilty.
>
> >Grief causes people to do strange things,
>
> Yes, it does.
Like listening to ads by Morgan, Colling and Gilbert.
They have a charmer right now telling folks that if their
loved one dies in a nursing home they should "explore the
relationship between their loved ones death and the
nursing home". They offer to help. They mention they
have a staff of medical professionals and investigators
ready to advise them.
Grief wants explanations. These guys are prewired
to provide it.
[snip]
> >Every time there's a tragedy, the blood-sucking lawyers come up from
> >their sewers, poisoning the world with their vile ways.
>
> You're wrong of course, and on so many levels:
>
> 1. Lawyers don't get involved "every time."
You're agruing the hyperbole, not the point.
[snip]
> 4. People in society create and perpetuate the demand for lawyers.
If our
> society weren't litigious and constantly looking to assign blame, then
there
> would be no work for the lawyers. You're no better. You see a
lawsuit and
> blame supposed "blood sucking lawyers" instead of blaming the person
who
> brought the suit.
>
> Again, you should focus on the illness -- not just the symptoms.
It was a bacteria that caused the illness. It was the
fleas that carried the bacteria. It was the rats
that fed the fleas. Burning the rats was a good idea. It
killed the fleas which destroyed the bacteria.
We can't burn the lawyers. But it does seem like
we should be able to give 'em a good flea bath.
Kevin O'Connell
TY
truly think that is the basis behind what's wrong with America today. So
many people try to blame others for everything that goes wrong. Everyone
continually comes up with excuses of why they did or did not do something
they should have. Ultimately we all make our own decisions and we are stuck
with the consequences of those decisions. I have always believed in this
and have always lived by this rule.
All of this makes me think of Jan and her dad. I learned about
responsibility from my dad. He was a wonderful man and would do most
anything for me that he could... EXCEPT step in and save me from
consequences of my decisions. If I left my bike out in the rain and it got
rusty I knew I wasn't going to ever be getting another one from him. If I
used his tools and didn't take care of them I wouldn't be allowed to use
them again. If I did something crazy and I got hurt he'd be there for
me.... but I also clearly knew it was my own fault. The word "sue" was not
even allowed in our household. Neither was hate. He didn't believe in
either. (It was OK to dislike someone or something. just not hate. He
thought it too strong a word). He was also very honest. I'll never forget
the day a clerk forgot to charge him for a $20 ham and he went back and paid
for it. We didn't have a lot of money and I was floored that he didn't just
keep the ham for free. He said somethings were more important than money
and honor was definitely one of those things.
It's just too bad that more people in today's society can see some of these
things.....
Mark_Harju wrote:
> I don't see how it benefits anyone, including lawyers, since there won't
> be much in the way of penalties or insurance payouts to collect, and the
> PIA moved fast when this problem became prominent due to the fatalities,
> so it's already being corrected. Grief causes people to do strange
> things, including blaming others.
>
> Enter the blood-sucking lawyers.
>
> Someday, things will change.
>
> "Sky divers know the risks, but they don't
> > assume every risk under the sun," Switzer said.
>
> Oh, yes they do. Consider the poor chap who had a main mal last week,
> chopped it, had a good reserve, and landed, only to biff onto his
> chest-mounted altimeter. He crushed his own larynx and asphyxiated. Is
> his rig maker to blame? Is the altimeter manufacturer to blame?
> Sometimes bad things happen to good people for absolutely no reason
> whatsoever, and nobody is to blame.
>
> There was an earlier Cypres thread about "assumption of risk". This
> means if I get stupid and walk in front of a Caravan while it's running
> and get Vegamatic-ized, it's nobody's fault but mine - not the DZO, not
> the pilot, not the airfield, not Cessna - NOBODY. This seems to be lost
> on some folks, in the same vein as the Cypres threads have expressed.
>
> Lawyers disgust me. I think the goal here is to put gear makers out of
> business, in the same way that Cessna had to seek relief from Congress
> to get the lawyers off their backs.
>
> Every time there's a tragedy, the blood-sucking lawyers come up from
> their sewers, poisoning the world with their vile ways. Some day, like I
> said, things will change.
> --
> Opinions expressed are not
> necessarily those of the
> Boeing Company. Please
> remove "NO-SPAM" to
> reply. Thanks!
>
> Dan'l wrote:
> >
> > I was surprised and saddened to read this article in the paper this
> > morning.
> > With all sympathy for Kat and all respect for James, I don't see how
jkallend
SNIP
>
> When I broke my leg in a parachuting accident something like 8
> years ago, the ambulance took me to the local hospital. They
> looked at me, gave me a shot of Toradol, and shipped me off to
> the hospital in the town where I lived.
>
> By the time I got there, a lawyer was waiting, You only THINK
> talk to me about how I got hurt. It took me about five minutes to
> realize he was a lawyer - I thought at first he was a doctor or
> hospital employee or something.
>
> When I figured out what he was, I told him to get out of my sight,
> or I'd figure out a way to sue him for the pain and suffering he was
> causing me now. Could I have sued and won? Almost certainly.
> I was a student, and the jump was made in violation of BSR, and
> the manner in which BSR's were violated directly contributed to
> the accident. Did that make it right to sue? Not by a long shot.
>
> And if you don't understand why, then there's no point in explaining
> it - because you just don't get it.
>
Does it occur to you that by your inaction you implicity
condoned an unsafe practice. With no negative
consequences for their actions, whoever it was
that supervised your
jump under such conditions would almost
certainly repeat the violation. Students, by definition,
are not considered fully capable of self-jumpmastering
which is why they are required to jump under the supervision
of a rating holder.
> Encouraging people to do something that is wrong is in itself wrong.
> Lawyers as a whole encourage people to not take responsibility
> for their own actions. Legal and right are not related concepts,
> and neither are illegal and wrong.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
jk
------------------
Un petit d'un petit s'etonne aux Halles
jkallend
> My favorite expression is "TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS!" I
> truly think that is the basis behind what's wrong with America today. So
> many people try to blame others for everything that goes wrong. Everyone
> continually comes up with excuses of why they did or did not do something
> they should have. Ultimately we all make our own decisions and we are stuck
> with the consequences of those decisions. I have always believed in this
> and have always lived by this rule.
>
> All of this makes me think of Jan and her dad. I learned about
> responsibility from my dad. He was a wonderful man and would do most
> anything for me that he could... EXCEPT step in and save me from
> consequences of my decisions. If I left my bike out in the rain and it got
> rusty I knew I wasn't going to ever be getting another one from him. If I
> used his tools and didn't take care of them I wouldn't be allowed to use
> them again. If I did something crazy and I got hurt he'd be there for
> me.... but I also clearly knew it was my own fault. The word "sue" was not
> even allowed in our household.
But what if you did something crazy and SOMEONE ELSE
got hurt as a result. Did your Dad claim it was their fault
for being there and that you should weasel out of it?
Or were you expected to make it right?
BIG SNIP
TY
jkallend wrote:
>
> But what if you did something crazy and SOMEONE ELSE
> got hurt as a result. Did your Dad claim it was their fault
> for being there and that you should weasel out of it?
> Or were you expected to make it right?
>
I was definitely expected to come forth and admit my mistakes and take full
responsibility and do what I could to right the situation... AND to hopefully
learn a lesson from it.
John Kallend
Exactly. Now put it in reverse. Why would you expect someone who
injures you as a result of a crazy/reckless/illegal act not
to be expected to take full responsibility for their action and do
whatever is needed to make it right? If they always get off the hook, then
what is to stop them doing it again and again?
jk
TY
John Kallend wrote:
>
>
> Exactly. Now put it in reverse. Why would you expect someone who
> injures you as a result of a crazy/reckless/illegal act not
> to be expected to take full responsibility for their action and do
> whatever is needed to make it right? If they always get off the hook, then
> what is to stop them doing it again and again?
>
> jk
I think we are talking about 2 different things here. I agree with what you just
said. People should take responsibility for their own actions and accept the
consequences and be held accountable.
But that doesn't mean I think people should be suing others. I got into this
thread which was about the makers of the gear and possibly the rigger being sued
for the skydiver's death. I don't think that is right. We all know skydiving is a
dangerous sport and things can go wrong and the price for that can be our lives.
The rigger and the gear maker certainly didn't want anyone to die. I believe if
they thought there was a problem ahead of time they would have taken steps to fix
it. Deaths are NOT good for their business. (Maybe I'm wrong here... maybe the
company did know. If so, we should all not buy their products any more. Who would
want to deal with a company who did not take our safety seriously.)
All I'm saying is nobody is making us jump out of a plane. That is a decision we
make ourselves. We know the risks involved. If something goes wrong we should not
be looking for someone else to take the blame.
Will Packard
<snip>
> We can't burn the lawyers. But it does seem like
> we should be able to give 'em a good flea bath.
Whoa! Wait a minute, Kevin. Don't dismiss that idea so quickly.
:-)
Will
Marc
> frefa...@aol.com (Marc) wrote:
>> Mark Harju wrote:
>[snip]
>> and the
>> >PIA moved fast when this problem became prominent due to the
>fatalities,
>> >so it's already being corrected.
>>
>> Remedial measures can sometimes be pointed to as indication that there
>was, in
>> fact, a defect.
>
> So if Macy D's had turned down the temp of the coffee,
>they would STILL have been guilty, but if they don't, they
>are guilty.
I haven't forgotten our offline conversation. This is still in my "in box."
I'm hoping to get to it today, in fact.
>> >Grief causes people to do strange things,
>>
>> Yes, it does.
>
> Like listening to ads by Morgan, Colling and Gilbert.
>They have a charmer right now telling folks that if their
>loved one dies in a nursing home they should "explore the
>relationship between their loved ones death and the
>nursing home". They offer to help. They mention they
>have a staff of medical professionals and investigators
>ready to advise them.
>
>
> Grief wants explanations. These guys are prewired
>to provide it.
This doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not saying that you're making it up or
anything, but the death of a person in a nursing home isn't likely to result in
a big payout. It wouldn't hold a candle to the death of a 28 year-old
professional who is the father of three and has (would have had) years of high
salary ahead of him and people depending on him to pay for a nice house and
three college educations. Trying to get money for the deaths of nursing home
patients just sounds dumb, generally speaking.
On the other hand, nursing homes have long been criticized for blatant
mistreatment of patients. My great-grandmother spent 8 long years in a nursing
home. She died at the ripe old age of 101, so I'm not suggesting that the
nursing home had anything remotely to do with contributing to her death, but
while she was there a lot of bullshit did occur. My grandmother was the
primary family member who was checking in on my great-grandmother. According
to my grandmother (who is a retired nurse) the nursing home frequently failed
to give my great-grandmother her medication on time (if at all) and in the
proper dosages. My great-grandmother was totally blind during the last years
of her life and, in hindsight, almost certainly suffered from Alzheimer's. She
depended on the nursing home almost 100%, and there were *many* times when they
did not deliver the proper care.
Another great-grandmother of mine was in a different nursing home (actually two
different ones, iirc) before she died. The same grandmother (the retired
nurse) dealt with the same issues of non-existent and/or improper care at those
nursing homes. I can certainly see how this type of stuff could result in the
untimely demise of residents. Perhaps the awareness that a law firm is
targeting nursing homes will provide a needed incentive for such shoddy
operations to render the proper care. My great-grandmothers never could count
on it.
>> You're wrong of course, and on so many levels:
>>
>> 1. Lawyers don't get involved "every time."
>
> You're agruing the hyperbole, not the point.
Right. Hyperbole was the first level. I *did* say there were many levels.
;-)
>[snip]
>> 4. People in society create and perpetuate the demand for lawyers.
>If our
>> society weren't litigious and constantly looking to assign blame, then
>there
>> would be no work for the lawyers. You're no better. You see a
>lawsuit and
>> blame supposed "blood sucking lawyers" instead of blaming the person
>who
>> brought the suit.
>>
>> Again, you should focus on the illness -- not just the symptoms.
>
>
> It was a bacteria that caused the illness. It was the
>fleas that carried the bacteria. It was the rats
>that fed the fleas. Burning the rats was a good idea. It
>killed the fleas which destroyed the bacteria.
>
> We can't burn the lawyers. But it does seem like
>we should be able to give 'em a good flea bath.
Go for it. I won't stop ya.
Blue Skies,
Marc
air...@home.com
attacks on individuals by rec.skydiving groupies. Does anyone besides
me wonder why Lew Sanborn's 50 years in the sport draws 5 or 6 posts and
yet every 100 jump wonder claims to have personal knowledge of any
incident within 1000 miles of them?
This newsgroup should be a forum for skydivers that enhances, not
denigrates the sport. Ever wonder why the public looks at us the way
they do? Perhaps we have more visitors to this group than we realize!
I understand that most of the individuals posting the most have the
fewest jumps, but people need to understand that this forum is not the
place for personal attacks. I don't know the individuals involved in
this accident personally, but I do know that none of the criticism
leveled at them in this group has helped this situation. Show a little
compassion!
Elaine Demme
D-7863
Michael
> > Could I have sued and won? Almost certainly.
> > I was a student, and the jump was made in violation of BSR, and
> > the manner in which BSR's were violated directly contributed to
> > the accident. Did that make it right to sue? Not by a long shot.
> >
> > And if you don't understand why, then there's no point in explaining
> > it - because you just don't get it.
> >
>
> Does it occur to you that by your inaction you implicity
> condoned an unsafe practice.
Skydiving is an unsafe practice. The rest is mostly details. If you
don't understand that, you need to rethink your participation in the
sport.
> With no negative
> consequences for their actions, whoever it was
> that supervised your
> jump under such conditions would almost
> certainly repeat the violation.
That's fine. He made a judgment call, and at the time I thought it was
a good one. In retrospect, I'm still not sure it was a bad one. Yeah,
it went sour. But I could sue, and encourage everyone to practice
slavish obedience to a bunch of rules instead of personal judgment.
Maybe that's the sort of environment you want, but it certainly isn't
for me.
> Students, by definition,
> are not considered fully capable of self-jumpmastering
> which is why they are required to jump under the supervision
> of a rating holder.
Nonetheless, they are skydivers. A student skydiver is still a skydiver,
and takes full responsibility for his own life. In the days of static line
training this was painfully obvious from the first jump onward. The
line has been blurred with the advent of AFF and tandem as a first
jump, and IMO that is not an improvement.
Further, the supervision of a rating holder is not a guarantee of safety.
It exists to reduce (not eliminate) the risks and help the student learn
faster. In this particular case the rating holder made a decision that
the particular student (in this case, I) would be able to safely make
the jump under the prevailing conditions. Yes, this was in violation of
BSR's. We all knew that. I thought I could make the jump safely
too. We were both wrong. Just because the fucked up legal system
would allow me to collect money in this case would not make it right.
Rules are not the be-all and end-all of life, and you don't sue people
for making an honest mistake. If you don't understand that, I'm not
sure what you will understand.
Michael
Marc
>As much as I despise over-arching Federal solutions to petty problems,
>it would be nice to have a section of the US Code that mandates a
>"Lawyer Cooling-off Period" where the blood-sucking, ambulance-chasing,
>sewer-dwelling vermin can't approach a potential client until after a
>year has passed, or something.
It's been done with regard to certain deaths (although not for a year). Check
out 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1136 (g)(2):
http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=8917720354
+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
The version of this code section listed on the GPO website is actually
outdated. When Clinton signed AIR-21 into law on April 5th the time period on
"unsolicited communications" was increased from 30 days to 45 days.
>Check out http://www.overlawyered.com
This has been posted here many times in the past.
CRWMike
Marc wrote:
Come down to Miami, Marc. Millions awarded each year, TV flooded with ads
prompting people to seek legal advice for 'nursing home neglect'.
>
>
> On the other hand, nursing homes have long been criticized for blatant
> mistreatment of patients. My great-grandmother spent 8 long years in a nursing
> home. She died at the ripe old age of 101, so I'm not suggesting that the
> nursing home had anything remotely to do with contributing to her death, but
> while she was there a lot of bullshit did occur. My grandmother was the
> primary family member who was checking in on my great-grandmother. According
> to my grandmother (who is a retired nurse) the nursing home frequently failed
> to give my great-grandmother her medication on time (if at all) and in the
> proper dosages. My great-grandmother was totally blind during the last years
> of her life and, in hindsight, almost certainly suffered from Alzheimer's. She
> depended on the nursing home almost 100%, and there were *many* times when they
> did not deliver the proper care.
>
> Another great-grandmother of mine was in a different nursing home (actually two
> different ones, iirc) before she died. The same grandmother (the retired
> nurse) dealt with the same issues of non-existent and/or improper care at those
> nursing homes. I can certainly see how this type of stuff could result in the
> untimely demise of residents. Perhaps the awareness that a law firm is
> targeting nursing homes will provide a needed incentive for such shoddy
> operations to render the proper care. My great-grandmothers never could count
> on it.
Nor their family ...apparently.
Life in nursing homes is indifferent at best. Family members follow the advice of
their lawyers, rob them of any assets they might have, stick them in nursing homes
with medicare reimbursement only, bitch about "proper care" and stand in line to
see who they can sue. Where was her family when she needed them, Marc?
TY
judgements about any individuals. And I don't know enough about any case to
be commenting on it specifically. That was not my intent. I got off-track
from responses I got back that took me where I had not meant to go.
My original post was just about the need for people to take responsibility
for their own actions... and that was not specifically related to skydiving
but to life in general.. and it goes for everyone.... from skydivers to
spectators ...to gear makers... to instructors ...to friends ... to
students... to McDonalds...whomever...
bil...@qualcomm.com
"USPA Skydiver" <ceo_ter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE FORGOT ABOUT THE DISCLAIMER . . . .
i thought you weren't going to post any more. isn't there some top
secret, extremely dangerous, critical-to-national-defense mission you
should be on?
-bill von
Marc
>> I wrote:
>Nor their family ...apparently.
You know nothing of my family nor of the the situation except for what I have
stated above, and yet you stoop so low as to imply (under the pretext of asking
a question) that the family of these women (and my grandparents in particular)
"robbed them," neglected them, and stood "in line to see who they could sue."
Your innuendos are uninformed and insulting at best. Pathetic and callous seem
to be more appropriate terms to use.
You know next to nothing of the situation. You have no clue as to the whole
story, yet that doesn't stop you from uttering disparaging drivel.
You really are a piece of work.
Jan Meyer
>
>snip but I am tired of all of these personal
> attacks on individuals by rec.skydiving groupies. snip
>
> This newsgroup should be a forum for skydivers that enhances, not
>
> I understand that most of the individuals posting the most have the
> fewest jumps, but people need to understand that this forum is not the
> place for personal attacks. I don't know the individuals involved in
> this accident personally, but I do know that none of the criticism
> leveled at them in this group has helped this situation. Show a little
> compassion!
Personal attacks???
I thought they were trolls, posted for their *entertainment value*.
Some folks have strong beliefs about whether any lawsuit is justified.
Some folks (I believe the trollers) have intolerance towards anyone that
does not completely 100% align with their beliefs. These trollers may
express hostility that may come across as a personal insult. That only
works if the intended recipient takes it that way. (I got quite a
chuckle reading the last 2 good trolls.)
Some folks have never heard of unconditional love. (I learned it from my
dogs.)
Some folks think I'm involved with a lawsuit. I am not. I learned about
it this past Monday by reading the same article all of you have read.
Some folks realize that newspaper reporters gather information from the
internet and may not have the latest copy of Parachutist or Skydiving
around.
--
Jan Meyer
mailto:Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com
http://www.MakeItHappen.com
http://www.DiveMaker.com
CRWMike
Marc wrote:
So let's see, McDonalds can be held responsible for ignoring previous coffee burns
but you family has no responsibility despite your family's awareness that "She
>> depended on the nursing home almost 100%, and there were *many* times when
>they
>> did not deliver the proper care."
This is a most common problem I deal with every day, Marc.
I stand by my comment that their families were not there for them when they most
needed them.
The' robbing them of their assets' part was a summation of what I frequently see
here in Miami (God's waiting room) and in no way was meant to imply I have certain
knowledge that your family did the same.
bil...@qualcomm.com
"jkallend" <kal...@minna.iit.edu> wrote:
> What if "their own actions" result in injury or death to another
> individual?
then they should go to jail. that's why there are laws against
shooting into a crowd and driving drunk.
> Hiding behind a "no sue" tradition seems cowardly to me.
i don't think no one should sue, or press charges against someone
else. i just think that, in product liability cases, people should be
held to their original agreements as delineated in the waivers they sign
and the warnings they are shown.
DJ Mike
>his
>business card. Then report his sorry ass to the state bar association.
Come on Marc....you expect us to believe that will have an effect on how
Lawyers conduct themselves, or consequences would come to those using unethical
tactics????
My wife works in the Medical Proffession...and has told me numerous horror
stories about Doctors who shouldn't be, and their actions/inactions that are
almost criminal. From my questioning her about possible consequences facing
these butchers...it has become apparent to me that the AMA is a "good ole boy"
network that covers up for their own.
I have no doubt that the ABA is just as guilty when it comes to "covering your
ass"!!!
Think about it Marc.....too many people in this country despise Lawyers. There
is a reason for that....and don't try to give us the ole "you just don't
understand" crap.
You may very well be a good and ethical Lawyer...one the general public could
respect. That does not change the fact that you chose to associate yourself
with scum. Live with it...and if you can't live with it...stop trying to
explain it to us, and do something about it within your own ranks.
ABA my ass !!!!
You earned the title "Esquire"...if you don't like how the public percieves
your proffession...then start cleaning house...rather than wasting energy on
trying to convince us that you guys really aren't that bad. The general public
will change it's mind about Lawyers, when the general public starts seeing a
change for the better.
About this Law suit against Fliteline....I'm not a big fan of their product,
and have expressed that fact many times. With that said....I must side with
Mick and his Company. As a Skydiver who fully understands and accepts any and
all risks inherent within this activity (known or unknown)....I see absolutely
no benefit in this, and consider it frivolous. This suit will open a "pandora's
box" that will never be able to be closed...and will do nothing more than
personally hurt all of us.
For all of you sitting on the fence about this suit being right or wrong...and
all of you that think this law suit is justified...you are wrong and you know
it!! Either grow some balls or get the fuck out of the sport. If you can't
accept the fact that we live within an unknown beyond our control...then you
don't belong in the activity of falling out of Airplanes.
This suit is going to do a lot of damage...and all of us will suffer.
It's a crying shame that my sig was originally meant to drive home the truth
about Skydiving to students. I expanded it's use for the benefit to low-timers
that have entered into this sport in an era when many past dangers have been
reduced to almost non-existent. It's a shame that now it seems many well
accomplished, and well-to-do Skydivers need to be re-reminded of the cold hard
fact. READ BELOW!!!
Blue Skys and Godspeed,
DJ Mike
The only guarantee in Skydiving is...you WILL land !
bil...@qualcomm.com
"Michael" <cre...@flash.net> wrote:
> No, the difference is that the gun or the beer just sits there. The
> lawyer is active. Calling them hired guns is disingenuous - they
> are people too, and responsible for their actions.
quite true. however, society _needs_ lawyers who will defend
people, even if they think they are probably guilty. we are better off
as a society that a jury sees both sides of an argument, to better make
an informed decision. yes, we all know that that system sometimes
fails, but it is far better than the alternative - trial by public
consensus.
to use a more parallel example, prostitutes do not cause husbands
to be unfaithful to their wives. it is the fault of the husband. sure,
prostitutes make it easier, and they actively go out and try to recruit
customers. but to blame someone's infidelity on a prostitute, rather
than on the person himself, is absurd.
are lawyers like prostitutes? some personal-injury lawyers
certainly are. they encourage you to do the "wrong" thing. but it is
still the fault of the person who sues, not the mechanism they use to
initiate the suit.
DJ Mike
>for making an honest mistake. If you don't understand that, I'm not
>sure what you will understand.
>
>Michael
The Proffessor is a Socialist that only understands increased Government
control, because he is convinced that the population is incapable of making
decisions for themselves. Additionally, he can't grasp the concept that the
majority of human beings can and will make decisions (right or wrong), and
endure the consequences of their own decisions.
The proffessor, and his kind are dangerous to the level of freedom we enjoy in
Skydiving....and the dwindling freedom, we have in this society.
Now he will come back with some tired old qoute about who talks about who...who
does what and so forth. Thats all fine and dandy, because I don't see him doing
much more than continually pointing the finger(blame) on someone else.
USPA Skydiver
<bil...@qualcomm.com> wrote in message news:8fcj9e$ai$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <u942#Gju$GA.295@cpmsnbbsa04>,
> "USPA Skydiver" <ceo_ter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE FORGOT ABOUT THE DISCLAIMER . . . .
>
> i thought you weren't going to post any more. isn't there some top
> secret, extremely dangerous, critical-to-national-defense mission you
> should be on?
>
Jennifer Powers
skydive with Kat, Dave and Mick. They are each one, amazing individuals.
Twelve years ago when I began skydiving I watched Kat and James, they way
they so obviously loved each other and I held them as an example of a
wonderful relationship. Every time I saw them it was plane to see how much
they loved each other. When last I saw them in Thailand, these qualities
not only remained, they seemed if anything stronger. How many examples of
true love are there? There was also something else, thoughtfulness. I
cannot dream of the pain that loosing your soul mate causes. Nor will I
underestimate what a difficult choice it was for Kat to file this suit. I
can only imagine. These things being the case who am I to condemn such a
choice? This does not by any means mean that I am condoning this or any
other lawsuit. I am saddened for all involved.
Blue Sky Thoughts
Jennifer Powers
CRWMike wrote:
> Well, for starters, I would say that any skydiver who continues to jump
> with Kathleen Folger is contributing to this problem.
>
> I would also advise Jay Meyer to evaluate the intent and effect of her
> publications.
>
> BSBD,
>
> Michael
> D-6139
Rich
reasons you describe. I thought this group was to be a forum to better our
sport by being able to gain valuable "skydiving" information from each
other. When I post questions about equipment,or other aspects of the sport
I may not be familiar with I'm lucky to get one or two responses. Must be
there's only one or two skydivers on this ng interested in doing anything
but "slamming" anybody that posts. Too bad there's a lot of valuable
knowledge and experience being wasted on posts that do nothing to help our
sport.
Sue
D-21315
air...@home.com wrote:
> Okay, slam me if you will, but I am tired of all of these personal
> attacks on individuals by rec.skydiving groupies. Does anyone besides
> me wonder why Lew Sanborn's 50 years in the sport draws 5 or 6 posts and
> yet every 100 jump wonder claims to have personal knowledge of any
> incident within 1000 miles of them?
>
> This newsgroup should be a forum for skydivers that enhances, not
> denigrates the sport. Ever wonder why the public looks at us the way
> they do? Perhaps we have more visitors to this group than we realize!
>
> I understand that most of the individuals posting the most have the
> fewest jumps, but people need to understand that this forum is not the
> place for personal attacks. I don't know the individuals involved in
> this accident personally, but I do know that none of the criticism
> leveled at them in this group has helped this situation. Show a little
> compassion!
>
> Elaine Demme
> D-7863
Joseph Walther
"DB TECH" <dbtekN...@juno.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1b3aae80...@usw-ex0104-032.remarq.com...
> Proposed Release of liability?
>
> Release of liability:
>
> Buyer/user beware; Seller is not responsible for injuries or
> death, resulting from use, misuse or abuse of this
> device/devices. Seller also claims no specific purpose in mind
> or out of mind whatsoever for this device/devices. Seller
> proclaims; No warranties or guaranties of any kind expressed or
> implied for this device/devices.
Walther responds...
Once again, there is a BIG misconception regarding what waivers protect
against. No waiver, regardless of how express and explicit, will protect you
against provable culpable negligence. It does not matter which lawyer
constructs the waiver. You may take the case to any court in the nation. The
bottom line is that if your actions or inactions cause a loss or some other
damage to another person's physical well-being or their property or any
other collateral loss AND it is provable, there most certainly can be a
civil action to recover and, depending on the circumstances, a criminal
action.
The waivers that a skydiver signs prior to a jump will hold up in any court
in the nation as long as the DZ/DZO took all reasonable steps to protect
against loss.
This applies to any waiver that you may sign for any reason. Every time your
children go on a school trip, you sign a waiver exonerating and holding
harmless all school officials for anything that could possibly happen. It
reads, in some cases, like you have no recourse no matter what. This is not
true. If your child is injured because the bus had to stop suddenly and the
driver of the bus had been following all of the standard driving procedures,
the waiver will hold up. On the other hand, if it is found out that the
driver was intoxicated at the time, all bets are off.
Regards
Walther
>
> Describe the
> device/devices:________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> I,_____________________________________________________________
>
> the buyer, agree to all of the above declarations.
>
> Seller:________________________________________________________
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
Joseph Walther
"Mark_Harju" <mark.a...@NO-SPAM.boeing.com> wrote in message
news:39198062...@NO-SPAM.boeing.com...
> As much as I despise over-arching Federal solutions to petty problems,
> it would be nice to have a section of the US Code that mandates a
> "Lawyer Cooling-off Period" where the blood-sucking, ambulance-chasing,
> sewer-dwelling vermin can't approach a potential client until after a
> year has passed, or something.
Walther responds...
You don't need one. There is not a state bar association in this country
that condones this. If you find yourself on the receiving end of such a
solicitation, you go along until you get the name, preferably a business
card, of the offending lawyer. A better way is to have a witness. You then
get the address of the state bar association ethical group and then file a
written complaint.
All of these complaints are investigated and if found to be genuine, the
offending lawyer is dealt with through whatever action deemed appropriate.
This could be anywhere from a fine to a disbarment.
> Lawyers make me sick, but if you're ever accused of criminal wrongdoing
> (as I once was - the lawyer got the case placed on admin hold for later
> automatic dismissal - *whew!*), they're very handy to have around.
> That's about all they're good for.
Walther responds...
Was this lawyer retained by you or was he assigned by the court?
Regards
Walther
Joseph Walther
> Tony:
>
> I agree completely with Marc. It's the root causes of the situation we
> should be looking at (cultural decay and the inherent disassocation of
> personal integrity and repsonsibility), rather than the symptom
> (blood-sucking lawyers).
>
> This doesn't assuage my contempt for the subhuman class of vermin, the
> tort lawyers. I have no more respect for them than I would for a medical
> quack, and for the same reasons. However, I do have respect for those
> who practice law, and those who practice medicine, with commitment and
> integrity.
Walther responds...
Not all tort lawyers are vermin. There are some very legitimate complaints
about tort lawyers and there are more tort lawyers, as a percentage of the
profession, who are shady, but not all are.
As for your respect for those who practice law or medicine with commitment
and integrity, that is a bit tough to follow given your statments regarding
lawyers. Twenty years ago, had you committed a crime in my jurisdiction, I
would have been the one to prosecute you and had I succeeded, I would be
considered by some to be a "blood-sucking lawyer". The problem with criminal
law is the fact that the constitution assures your right to legal counsel
even if you can't afford one.
On the civil side, it is just as much a matter of integrity to inform
someone that they have a legitimate actionable cause as it takes to inform
them that they do not. Again, it does not matter which action you take,
there will be those who call you a "blood-sucking lawyer". I have been
called a lot worse by some of the most vile criminals you could possibly
imagine.
Regards
Walther
Joseph Walther
> That's what the blood-sucking lawyers count on. The ABA really needs to
> clean house, because I haven't been so anxious to see an organization go
> out of business since the Gestapo.
Walther responds...
The ABA has absolutely no governing authority over any lawyer. The ABA is
nothing more than a support function. Anyone. lawyer or otherwise may join.
Governance is the function of each state's bar association. All bar
associations have a group charged with the disciplining of its members. They
can't do much if people do not lodge complaints. They do plenty when the
complaints are legitimate.
Regards
Walther
Joseph Walther
> I am in agreement here. It's just like the Roman despot that ordered the
> sea to be flogged because a landing operation had been aborted due to
> rough surf. It's the culture (or lack of it, rather) that drives all
> this, and the lawyers are just making the most of the opportunity. That
> doesn't mean I have to respect them; Having had a brush with the law, I
> was appalled at how sharklike even my own lawyer was towards me, and he
> was defending me, fer cryin' out loud.
Walther responds...
I wonder how you were towards him?
If your feelings came through to him the way the come through on this NG, I
don't blame him at all.
sier...@my-deja.com
> DJ Mike
>
> The only guarantee in Skydiving is...you WILL land !
>
Well said! We are always looking for someone to blame. Whatever
happened to that "Final Frontier" concept were skydivers accept
responsibility for themselves?
heads...@my-deja.com
"Joseph Walther" <tig...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Twenty years ago, had you committed a crime in my jurisdiction, I
> would have been the one to prosecute you and had I succeeded, I would
be
> considered by some to be a "blood-sucking lawyer".
Just wondering Joeseph, Do you believe that when most prosecuting
attorneys go into a courtroom they are more concerned with finding the
truth and justice than "winning " the case and furthering their career?
Or would you characterize most prosecuting attorneys as somewhat
egotistical and looking for the "win" regardless of the truth? As
you've been there I am interested in your take on the system.
> The problem with criminal
> law is the fact that the constitution assures your right to legal
counsel
> even if you can't afford one.
Why do you see this as a problem?
Regards,
"Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY
Joseph Walther
<heads...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8fd69r$l03$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8fcuda$b...@journal.concentric.net>,
> "Joseph Walther" <tig...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> > Twenty years ago, had you committed a crime in my jurisdiction, I
> > would have been the one to prosecute you and had I succeeded, I would
> be
> > considered by some to be a "blood-sucking lawyer".
>
> Just wondering Joeseph, Do you believe that when most prosecuting
> attorneys go into a courtroom they are more concerned with finding the
> truth and justice than "winning " the case and furthering their career?
> Or would you characterize most prosecuting attorneys as somewhat
> egotistical and looking for the "win" regardless of the truth? As
> you've been there I am interested in your take on the system.
Walther responds...
I have been on both sides. The prosecution side is much easier. Let's talk
about your typical, real-life prosecutor as opposed to the ones you see on
television.
First of all, the average salary for one out of law school, prior to passing
a bar exam, runs between $25,000 and $32,000 and they do most of the leg and
research for the case. Passing the bar and moving into a deputy status gets
them a raise to between $30,000 and $45,000 and they slowly move from minor
cases to the more serious ones. The top salary for a deputy after 25 to 30
years, if one stays that long, is between $75,000 and $120,000 (The top end
here may be a bit high.) but, since it depends on locality, I will stay with
it. You can add about $10,000 for the top dog or the chief prosecutor.
There really isn't much of a career to further on the state side. The only
ones that would really be interested in this would be the ones looking to
get into politics by running for District Attorney or a state's Attorney
General slot and then using this as jump point to bigger and better things.
The average, run of the mill, prosecutor is not interested in politics and
has virtually no chance of being appointed to any of the federal slots.
The prosecution likes to go into court with the "truth" pretty much in hand,
arrived at by good, sound investigative work on the part of all state
parties. Most of the time they do just that. The average grunt prosecutor (I
mean this in a respectful sense.) is interested in the truth and, in most
cases, gets it. They are certainly not in it for the money and, for most of
them, there are no higher positions on the state side. They represent the
interests of the victims and they believe very much in what they are doing.
I never once prosecuted a case that I did not believe with every fiber of my
being that the accused was guilty as sin based on the evidence that I was
able to produce. I prosecuted everything from petty larceny up to and
including capital murder. I have had nine capital cases and have nine
capital convictions with no doubt whatsoever that the defendents were
guilty.
This is not to say that there are no renegade prosecutors out there who have
no regard for the truth. They are far from the rule, however. As far as ego
is concerned, you can't be a prosecutor or any kind of criminal lawyer
without an ego. Anyone who deals in the public limelight has to have some
ego to survive. There is plenty of ego in criminal law but there is plenty
of ego in many other professions, even skydiving, as shocking as this is to
hear!
I believe that there are people in prison right now who should not be there.
There just are not as many as people would like you to believe. I also
believe, and we have facts to support it, that there have been innocent
people executed. While I am not anti-capital punishment, I would not be at
all upset if we did away with it and went to life in prison without chance
of parole. No prosecutor wants to find out that he or she was instrumental
in the execution of an innocent person. I know of one who committed suicide
as a result.
> > The problem with criminal
> > law is the fact that the constitution assures your right to legal
> counsel
> > even if you can't afford one.
>
> Why do you see this as a problem?
Walther responds...
I see it as a problem because a criminal defense lawyer does not always have
a say in who he or she defends. It has never stopped me from doing my job
and I don't mean it to sound as though it is an absolute. Anyone going into
criminal defense knows that there will come a time when a court will assign
a case. It is all part of the Constitution. Also, I have reached a stage of
my life where courts don't order me to take cases any longer, they ask me.
There is a popular misconception that a criminal defense lawyer's job is to
get the client "off". This is just a lot of overly dramatic crap. A criminal
defense lawyer has one job and that is to FORCE the state to prove its case
beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state does this, the defendant is
convicted. If not, the defendant is acquitted. Most defendants are convicted
and this is because they are guilty not because the proscutors were able to
pull a fast one and, for most cases, not because a defense lawyer was less
than competent and not because the defendant is a minority. Seven out of the
nine capital convictions I was involved with were white males, one was black
and one was American Indian.
There are certain crimes I detest defending against. Child molestations,
child murders, and rape are at the top of my list. Sometimes, however, I
have no choice. Men are sometimes falsely accused of rape. Men are commonly
accused of molesting their own children during divorce fights. I once
defended a young black fellow (22 years old) because my mother asked me to
look into it. The young man was accused of raping a 48-year old white woman.
My mother knew his mother and was convinced that this young man did not do
it. His own mother was devestated. I was not so convinced but I agreed to
look into it.
I interviewed the man and after about a week of going over his profile with
a fine tooth comb, I, too, became convinced that he was innocent. As it
turned out, the charges were dropped. Not because of anything I did but
because the prosecutor was not convinced of his guilt and was able to
finally get the victim to admit that she really could not identify the young
man as her attacker. About three weeks after the charges were dropped, the
police were able to pull in the real rapist.
There is a big difference between the law you watch on television and the
law in real life. Sometimes things work out and sometimes they do not. You
give it your best shot.
I will answer any questions you have in email. There have been enough lawyer
threads here lately and I am not interested in another one. I have no
problems answering questions from people who are interested. There are,
however, the usual rash of IQ deprived individuals who love to flame.
Regards
Walther
Jim Walker
to represent them. Statements such as "lawyers disgust me" should be
carefully considered before they are made. Remember, there are defending
lawyers fighting the good fight in every frivolous lawsuit. The
contributions that "lawyers" such as Fred Morelli have made to the skydiving
comunity should not be discounted with such lip service. This is a nation
of laws; if you don't like the way they are administered, you have the right
to change them through your vote, your congressman, and your personal
involvement.
Personal injury laws were originally intended to protect consumers like you
and I from getting screwed by businesses in their quest for the almighty
dollar. Clearly, the greed of unethical plaintiffs has led to rampant abuse
of these laws. What can we do to minimize our exposure as a community to
these abuses? Fight them vigorously, just as USPA, PIA, and skydiving
lawyers are generally doing. Every fight we win is a deterrant to the next
blood-sucking plaintiff. It's a shame that our society has sunk to this
level, but that is the way it is.
Lawyers don't screw people... people screw people.
Blue Skies,
-Jim W.
> Mark_Harju wrote:
>
> > I don't see how it benefits anyone, including lawyers, since there won't
> > be much in the way of penalties or insurance payouts to collect, and the
> > PIA moved fast when this problem became prominent due to the fatalities,
> > so it's already being corrected. Grief causes people to do strange
> > things, including blaming others.
> >
> > Enter the blood-sucking lawyers.
> >
> > Someday, things will change.
> >
> > "Sky divers know the risks, but they don't
> > > assume every risk under the sun," Switzer said.
> >
> > Oh, yes they do. Consider the poor chap who had a main mal last week,
> > chopped it, had a good reserve, and landed, only to biff onto his
> > chest-mounted altimeter. He crushed his own larynx and asphyxiated. Is
> > his rig maker to blame? Is the altimeter manufacturer to blame?
> > Sometimes bad things happen to good people for absolutely no reason
> > whatsoever, and nobody is to blame.
> >
> > There was an earlier Cypres thread about "assumption of risk". This
> > means if I get stupid and walk in front of a Caravan while it's running
> > and get Vegamatic-ized, it's nobody's fault but mine - not the DZO, not
> > the pilot, not the airfield, not Cessna - NOBODY. This seems to be lost
> > on some folks, in the same vein as the Cypres threads have expressed.
> >
> > Lawyers disgust me. I think the goal here is to put gear makers out of
> > business, in the same way that Cessna had to seek relief from Congress
> > to get the lawyers off their backs.
> >
> > Every time there's a tragedy, the blood-sucking lawyers come up from
> > their sewers, poisoning the world with their vile ways. Some day, like I
> > said, things will change.
> > --
> > Opinions expressed are not
> > necessarily those of the
> > Boeing Company. Please
> > remove "NO-SPAM" to
> > reply. Thanks!
MikeTJumps
Thank you for taking the time to write it out.
Blue Skies & Safe Dives from Mike Turoff,
Co-author (with Dan Poynter) of
Parachuting, The Skydivers Handbook
and numerous other publications
Instructor and Tandem Examiner, Jump Pilot
Marc
>So let's see, McDonalds can be held responsible for ignoring previous coffee
>burns
>but you family has no responsibility despite your family's awareness that
>"She
>>> depended on the nursing home almost 100%, and there were *many* times when
>>they
>>> did not deliver the proper care."
You ASSume too much. The family *did* take responsibility once it became clear
that the nursing home wasn't doing its job. If the family had not been
visiting on a regular basis and keeping an eye on things then the family would
not have even discovered the problems. These women weren't stuck in homes
against their will, nor were they forgotten and abandoned by their family. The
family picked up the slack when the nursing homes failed to meet their
obligations.
At no time did I ever suggest that the family took "no responsibility" as you
state. All I said was that the nursing homes didn't do what they were supposed
to do. How you then ASSume that the family took "no responsibility" is
unfathomable.
>This is a most common problem I deal with every day, Marc.
You ever met MY family? No? Gee, I didn't think so. Look, if you want to say
"I see it all the time," then say it that way, in *general* terms. Don't point
the finger at a *specific* family that you know next to nothing about, and
insinuate that you, in your infinite experience, somehow "know" their story.
You don't know them. You don't know what they did or didn't do. All you know
is that I said that the nursing homes didn't do *their* part. That's ALL you
know. The rest is mere speculation on your part. It may be based on things
you have witnessed involving other families, but it is still nothing more than
speculation with regard to my family. Admit it.
>I stand by my comment that their families were not there for them when they
>most
>needed them.
And I stand by my comment that your innuendos are uninformed and insulting at
best, and that pathetic and callous seem to be more appropriate terms to use.
>The' robbing them of their assets' part was a summation of what I frequently
>see
>here in Miami (God's waiting room) and in no way was meant to imply I have
>certain
>knowledge that your family did the same.
ALL of your comments were a "summation of what you frequently see in Miami."
Again, you know next to nothing of this *specific* situation. ALL I said was
that the nursing homes failed to do their part. From there you ASSumed that
the family took no responsibility. That's a false ASSumption. Like I said,
you know next to nothing of the situation. You have no clue as to the whole
story, yet that doesn't stop you from uttering disparaging drivel.
Like I said, you're a real piece of work.
Peanut4040
>the finger at a *specific* family that you know next to nothing about, and
>insinuate that you, in your infinite experience, somehow "know" their story.
giggle,, w hat did he due? talk about yer mamma or something?
jkallend
<skywal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Correction. Enter the bloodsucking PLAINTIFFS and the lawyer(s) they hired
> to represent them. Statements such as "lawyers disgust me" should be
> carefully considered before they are made. Remember, there are defending
> lawyers fighting the good fight in every frivolous lawsuit. The
> contributions that "lawyers" such as Fred Morelli have made to the skydiving
> comunity should not be discounted with such lip service. This is a nation
> of laws; if you don't like the way they are administered, you have the right
> to change them through your vote, your congressman, and your personal
> involvement.
>
> Personal injury laws were originally intended to protect consumers like you
> and I from getting screwed by businesses in their quest for the almighty
> dollar. Clearly, the greed of unethical plaintiffs has led to rampant abuse
> of these laws. What can we do to minimize our exposure as a community to
> these abuses? Fight them vigorously, just as USPA, PIA, and skydiving
> lawyers are generally doing. Every fight we win is a deterrant to the next
> blood-sucking plaintiff. It's a shame that our society has sunk to this
> level, but that is the way it is.
>
Just curious - do you consider every personal injury lawsuit to be
frivolous?
For instance - the plaintiffs in the Pinto gas tank cases; were they
being
frivolous? How about
my neighbor's son, whose 6 children were incinerated when his van was
hit by a poorly maintained truck driven by a guy who had obtained
his trucker's license by bribery? Was his lawsuit frivolous?
How about the plaintiffs in a case where a jump plane crashed
due to proven negligent maintenance in violation of the FARs?
jk
------------------
Un petit d'un petit s'etonne aux Halles
Un petit d'un petit Ah! degris te fallent
Indolent qui ne sort cesse
Indolent qui ne se mene
Qu'importe un petit d'un petit tout Gai de Reguennes.
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Mark_Harju
crawl, and he didn't come cheap. Then again, I dodged a possible
misdemeanor conviction due to his efforts.
--
Opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of the
Boeing Company. Please
remove "NO-SPAM" to
reply. Thanks!
Joseph Walther wrote:
>
> "Mark_Harju" <mark.a...@NO-SPAM.boeing.com> wrote in message
TY
Peter Phillips wrote:
> For some reason I have this sudden urge to fall to my knees in front of your
> dad and bless the day he was born.
>
> It must be fun to live in such a righteous family.
>
>
hey... I really don't think that was called for. I NEVER said we were perfect.
Far from it. All I was doing was reflecting upon the fact that I had a caring,
loving father who tried his best to set a good example for his kids. And I am
very grateful for the fact that I had him for the few years that I did. It kind
of offset the verbal abuse and feelings of worthlessness my mother installed.
Thanks for trashing my warm memories.
Michael
> quite true. however, society _needs_ lawyers who will defend
> people, even if they think they are probably guilty.
Whoa, there. How did we all of a sudden cross over from civil
liability to criminal guilt? They're not at all the same, and in general
the criminal justice system works tolerably well in many places.
> to use a more parallel example, prostitutes do not cause husbands
> to be unfaithful to their wives. it is the fault of the husband. sure,
> prostitutes make it easier, and they actively go out and try to recruit
> customers. but to blame someone's infidelity on a prostitute, rather
> than on the person himself, is absurd.
It is equally absurd to consider the prostitute free of guilt here. I
think this time you picked a good example. Let's forget about the
financial angle for a moment and focus on the infidelity. If you
knowingly go out and seduce a married woman and she sleeps
with you and cheats on her husband, whose fault is it? Sure it's
her fault - you didn't force her. But you're not innocent here
either. Guilt is not a zero-sum game. Your guilt does not diminish
hers - nor does her guilt diminish yours.
> are lawyers like prostitutes? some personal-injury lawyers
> certainly are. they encourage you to do the "wrong" thing. but it is
> still the fault of the person who sues, not the mechanism they use to
> initiate the suit.
It's the fault of both.
Michael
TY
Peter Phillips wrote:
> For some reason I have this sudden urge to fall to my knees in front of your
> dad and bless the day he was born.
>
> It must be fun to live in such a righteous family.
>
Oh.... and he's been dead for 18 years so it might be a little hard to kneel in
front of him
Mark_Harju
having had to deal with the law before. He knew I was both a rube and in
a bind, so he stuck me for everything he could. Anyway, the misdemeanor
charge was completely bogus, and the fact that I showed up in court with
my Land Shark in tow made the detectives that brought the silly charge
compromise on "stat" meaning that the case was placed on admin hold, and
if I wasn't a bad boy for the next year, it would be automatically
dismissed. Since the infraction didn't occur in my home state, it was
highly unlikely I'd have a problem. The lawyer was a real dickhead and
he soaked me, but he got the job done - he got me in and out of the
courtroom in about fifteen minutes, and in the end, that's all that
really mattered to me. See, I worked for the Gov't at the time, and it
would have been difficult to explain during a security clearance
investigation just why I had a misdemeanor conviction in my history. As
it was, I still had to declare and explain it when I went to work for
Customs, but by then it was ancient history and dismissed, so I guess I
got my money's worth. Doesn't mean I liked or respected the bastard, but
he did the Land Shark bit for me, rather than against me, in hopes that
he could scare me into a quick settlement, which was where this thread
was going.
As for the grommet-induced mishap, I'm terribly sorry for the widow, but
I still fail to see how the suit will do anything to remedy the
situation that hasn't been done already. Yet as has been stated
elsewhere, we don't know all the facts surrounding the case. I wish it
weren't so.
On a lighter note, I know a lawyer back East who had a sense of humor
about it all. She always wore a t-shirt with the "Julius Caesar" quote,
and knew all the most _vicious_ lawyer jokes.
--
Opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of the
Boeing Company. Please
remove "NO-SPAM" to
reply. Thanks!
Joseph Walther wrote:
>
> "Mark_Harju" <mark.a...@NO-SPAM.boeing.com> wrote in message
Mark_Harju
Thanks for providing your unique perspective into the law. I have only
seen it from two angles: A) on the recieving end of a bogus misdemeanor
charge, and B) on the enforcement side at the Federal level some time
later.
By posting your remarks, you do us all a valuable service. As the
skydiving gear suit progresses, I hope that you will continue to weigh
in with your opinions. I'm sure we can all benefit from your experience.
--
Opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of the
Boeing Company. Please
remove "NO-SPAM" to
reply. Thanks!
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
"Michael" <cre...@flash.net> wrote:
> <bil...@qualcomm.com> wrote
[snip]
> > to use a more parallel example, prostitutes do not cause
husbands
> > to be unfaithful to their wives. it is the fault of the husband.
sure,
> > prostitutes make it easier, and they actively go out and try to
recruit
> > customers. but to blame someone's infidelity on a prostitute,
rather
> > than on the person himself, is absurd.
>
> It is equally absurd to consider the prostitute free of guilt here. I
> think this time you picked a good example. Let's forget about the
> financial angle for a moment and focus on the infidelity. If you
> knowingly go out and seduce a married woman and she sleeps
> with you and cheats on her husband, whose fault is it? Sure it's
> her fault - you didn't force her. But you're not innocent here
> either. Guilt is not a zero-sum game. Your guilt does not diminish
> hers - nor does her guilt diminish yours.
And to get the lawyers all excited, it seems there is
precedent for this. Seems like the one who offered the
apple was considered as guilty as the one who ate it. And
even the one which suggested the whole thing was punished.
Kevin O'Connell
Will Packard
<lengthy description of the lawyer world snipped>
Good explanation! We may have differing opinions about degrees of
personal responsibility, but I still respect you.
Thanks for taking the time to write this.
Will
Peanut4040
>personal responsibility, but I still respect you.
uhmmm,,, well, to be honest with you, i have already used that line many times,
AND,,,
NOPE,, aint a woman alive thats gonna fall fer dat one. If this line is to be
used properly, then This line should be followed up with rolling over and
trying to go to sleep.
CRWMike
Joseph Walther wrote:Walther responds...
>
> Not all tort lawyers are vermin. There are some very legitimate complaints
> about tort lawyers and there are more tort lawyers, as a percentage of the
> profession, who are shady, but not all are.
>
> As for your respect for those who practice law or medicine with commitment
> and integrity, that is a bit tough to follow given your statments regarding
> lawyers. Twenty years ago, had you committed a crime in my jurisdiction, I
> would have been the one to prosecute you and had I succeeded, I would be
> considered by some to be a "blood-sucking lawyer".
Surely you mean if you had been ACCUSED of committing a crime.
> The problem with criminal
> law is the fact that the constitution assures your right to legal counsel
> even if you can't afford one.
Yep, that's a real problem.
>
>
> On the civil side, it is just as much a matter of integrity to inform
> someone that they have a legitimate actionable cause as it takes to inform
> them that they do not. Again, it does not matter which action you take,
> there will be those who call you a "blood-sucking lawyer". I have been
> called a lot worse by some of the most vile criminals you could possibly
> imagine.
>
Integrity in the legal profession ...what an innovative concept!
CRWMike
of personal honor and integrity ...give it a few years.
Marc wrote:
> > CRWMike wrote:
>
> >So let's see, McDonalds can be held responsible for ignoring previous coffee
> >burns
> >but you family has no responsibility despite your family's awareness that
> >"She
> >>> depended on the nursing home almost 100%, and there were *many* times when
> >>they
> >>> did not deliver the proper care."
>
> You ASSume too much. The family *did* take responsibility once it became clear
> that the nursing home wasn't doing its job. If the family had not been
> visiting on a regular basis and keeping an eye on things then the family would
> not have even discovered the problems. These women weren't stuck in homes
> against their will, nor were they forgotten and abandoned by their family. The
> family picked up the slack when the nursing homes failed to meet their
> obligations.
>
> At no time did I ever suggest that the family took "no responsibility" as you
> state. All I said was that the nursing homes didn't do what they were supposed
> to do. How you then ASSume that the family took "no responsibility" is
> unfathomable.
>
> >This is a most common problem I deal with every day, Marc.
>
> You ever met MY family? No? Gee, I didn't think so. Look, if you want to say
> "I see it all the time," then say it that way, in *general* terms. Don't point
> the finger at a *specific* family that you know next to nothing about, and
> insinuate that you, in your infinite experience, somehow "know" their story.
Marc
>Your sense of outrage is typical of new lawyers who have not YET lost their
>sense
>of personal honor and integrity ...give it a few years.
This is a LAME response Mike. It's so pathetic I can't even begin to feel
insulted by what you've said here. I am, however, still insulted by your
previous comments and your failure to offer any sort of apology (or even a
retraction). Let's recap, shall we?
I criticized some nursing homes based upon problems my great-grandmothers
experienced.
Based upon my post, in which I made *zero* mention of how my family responded
to the problems my great-grandmothers were having, you concluded (wrongly) that
my family took "no responsibility" and "wasn't there when these women needed
them."
When I took issue with your disparaging drivel, and pointed out to that you
know *nothing* about my family's response to the nursing home problems I'd
mentioned, you could have just *admitted* that your rhetoric was based upon
general observations, and that you had *zero* information with regards to my
specific family. You could have done this, but you didn't. Instead, you said:
"I stand by my comment that their families were not there for them when they
most needed them."
So I pointed out that your insulting comments were based upon *zero* knowledge
of this specific family, but you chose "stand by" your callous drivel.
Amazing. But wait, there's more:
I took issue with you a *second* time, and your response is to change the
subject and infer that I'm pissed off because I have not "YET" lost my honor
and integrity?!?!?
What kind of bullshit cop out is that Mike? Do you think insulting my current
profession is going to distract me from the insulting innuendos you've made
about my family?
When I called you on your drivel a *second* time, thus presenting you with a
*second* chance to admit that you have *zero* information with regards to my
family's response to the problems, you still didn't admit it. Instead, you
chose to imply that *I* was bound to lose my honor and integrity. Simply
amazing....
What does this entire exchange say about YOUR honor and integrity Mike?
As I've said twice before, you're a real piece of work.
Your comments are based upon *zero* knowledge of my family. They're worthless,
and I'll take them as such. They certainly aren't worth me getting upset
about. At this point I don't even feel insulted by you any more. If anything,
I'm just disappointed. C'est la vie, I guess.
CRWMike
Marc wrote:
> CRWMike wrote:
>
> >Your sense of outrage is typical of new lawyers who have not YET lost their
> >sense
> >of personal honor and integrity ...give it a few years.
>
> This is a LAME response Mike. It's so pathetic I can't even begin to feel
> insulted by what you've said here. I am, however, still insulted by your
> previous comments and your failure to offer any sort of apology (or even a
> retraction). Let's recap, shall we?
Let's not.
>
>
> I criticized some nursing homes based upon problems my great-grandmothers
> experienced.
>
> Based upon my post, in which I made *zero* mention of how my family responded
> to the problems my great-grandmothers were having, you concluded (wrongly) that
> my family took "no responsibility" and "wasn't there when these women needed
> them."
>
I'm glad to hear that your G grandmothers were comforted by your daily visits.
>
> When I took issue with your disparaging drivel, and pointed out to that you
> know *nothing* about my family's response to the nursing home problems I'd
> mentioned, you could have just *admitted* that your rhetoric was based upon
> general observations, and that you had *zero* information with regards to my
> specific family. You could have done this, but you didn't. Instead, you said:
> "I stand by my comment that their families were not there for them when they
> most needed them."
>
> So I pointed out that your insulting comments were based upon *zero* knowledge
> of this specific family, but you chose "stand by" your callous drivel.
> Amazing. But wait, there's more:
>
> I took issue with you a *second* time, and your response is to change the
> subject and infer that I'm pissed off because I have not "YET" lost my honor
> and integrity?!?!?
>
> What kind of bullshit cop out is that Mike? Do you think insulting my current
> profession is going to distract me from the insulting innuendos you've made
> about my family?
I do not believe much of anything distracts you once you get all worked up like
this.
>
>
> When I called you on your drivel a *second* time, thus presenting you with a
> *second* chance to admit that you have *zero* information with regards to my
> family's response to the problems, you still didn't admit it. Instead, you
> chose to imply that *I* was bound to lose my honor and integrity. Simply
> amazing....
>
> What does this entire exchange say about YOUR honor and integrity Mike?
this exchange says little. I am about to walk out the door to spend another 12
hours caring for and providing some degree of comfort to patients who's contact
with their families has essentially been limited to seeking power of attorney to
divert their assets. I am pleased that your great grand mothers were surrounded by
loving, caring family members on a daily basis. That's one less person I have to
hold in the wee hours of the night while they cry in lonliness.
>
>
> As I've said twice before, you're a real piece of work.
You can take a polished public position of honor, Marc (I've watched you perfect
this act here for a few years...or you can do something to help others. What is
(will be) your choice? What was your personal involvement with you ggrandmothers?
Were YOU there when they cried in the night?
>
>
> Your comments are based upon *zero* knowledge of my family. They're worthless,
> and I'll take them as such. They certainly aren't worth me getting upset
> about. At this point I don't even feel insulted by you any more.
Yeah, I can see that.
Go out and learn something about the world, Marc. Hell, you might even want to get
involved with it. It's sometimes dirty and heart breaking but I have found it to
be a road worth travelling ...or you could just perfect your skills in defending
large corporations who deserve the right to legal counsel.
Peter Phillips
dad and bless the day he was born.
It must be fun to live in such a righteous family.
TY wrote in message <3919A53C...@net1plus.com>...
>My favorite expression is "TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS!" I
>truly think that is the basis behind what's wrong with America today. So
>many people try to blame others for everything that goes wrong. Everyone
>continually comes up with excuses of why they did or did not do something
>they should have. Ultimately we all make our own decisions and we are
stuck
>with the consequences of those decisions. I have always believed in this
>and have always lived by this rule.
>
>All of this makes me think of Jan and her dad. I learned about
>responsibility from my dad. He was a wonderful man and would do most
>anything for me that he could... EXCEPT step in and save me from
>consequences of my decisions. If I left my bike out in the rain and it got
>rusty I knew I wasn't going to ever be getting another one from him. If I
>used his tools and didn't take care of them I wouldn't be allowed to use
>them again. If I did something crazy and I got hurt he'd be there for
>me.... but I also clearly knew it was my own fault. The word "sue" was not
>even allowed in our household. Neither was hate. He didn't believe in
>either. (It was OK to dislike someone or something. just not hate. He
>thought it too strong a word). He was also very honest. I'll never forget
>the day a clerk forgot to charge him for a $20 ham and he went back and
paid
>for it. We didn't have a lot of money and I was floored that he didn't
just
>keep the ham for free. He said somethings were more important than money
>and honor was definitely one of those things.
>
>It's just too bad that more people in today's society can see some of these
>things.....
>> --
>> Opinions expressed are not
>> necessarily those of the
>> Boeing Company. Please
>> remove "NO-SPAM" to
>> reply. Thanks!
>>
bil...@qualcomm.com
> It is equally absurd to consider the prostitute free of guilt here. I
> think this time you picked a good example. Let's forget about the
> financial angle for a moment and focus on the infidelity. If you
> knowingly go out and seduce a married woman and she sleeps
> with you and cheats on her husband, whose fault is it? Sure it's
> her fault - you didn't force her. But you're not innocent here
> either.
are you innocent of being a scumbag? no, that's a pretty scummy
thing to do. are you innocent of doing a bad thing? nope, most people
would consider that a bad thing to do.
but are you innocent of violating the agreement that the husband
and wife have? yes. you have no idea what kind of agreement they have,
nor do you have any responsibility to determine it within a shadow of a
doubt. you're on the hook to be honest with her, and hopefully your
morals will keep you from doing what is considered a bad thing. but
their relationship is purely their own responsibility. perhaps it's
open, perhaps it's not. they are solely responsible for deciding (and
upholding) that, and doing what they think is right.
lawyers do what their clients want them to do. sure, there are rare
cases where the client simply does not understand the issues, and the
lawyer is decieving them. that's wrong, and the lawyer is guilty of an
evil deception. but in the vast majority of the cases, it is the client
making the decision. sure, the lawyer may be a good one, and give good
advice, or be a bad one and give bad or self-serving advice. but as
long as it is solely the client's decision, it is solely the client's
responsibility to do the right thing.
-bill von
Tom Beals
>Walther responds...
>
And I, for one, am glad you did.
Thank you,
Tom Beals
Shop4Skydiving
many millions has Ford or other automobile manufactures had to pay because of
factory recalls. One mini van had a problem with a rear door latch so they all
had to be fixed at the Manufactures expense. Manufactures have to assume a
certian part of the responsibility for equipment they make. If not people quit
buying that product and they go out of business. I own a Reflex container and I
think if there is a problem with it it is the manufactors Financial
responsibility to fix it.
Blue ones
Tracy
Michael
> > If you
> > knowingly go out and seduce a married woman and she sleeps
> > with you and cheats on her husband, whose fault is it? Sure it's
> > her fault - you didn't force her. But you're not innocent here
> > either.
>
> are you innocent of being a scumbag? no, that's a pretty scummy
> thing to do. are you innocent of doing a bad thing? nope, most people
> would consider that a bad thing to do.
OK, then we're in agreement here.
> but are you innocent of violating the agreement that the husband
> and wife have? yes.
Absolutely. It was never your areement to violate.
> you have no idea what kind of agreement they have,
> nor do you have any responsibility to determine it within a shadow of a
> doubt.
Bullshit. You know what kind of agreement they have - marriages
are by default monogamous. If they have an open marriage and
sleeping with you is OK under the agreement they have, you ARE
innocent here, so let's not cloud the issue.
Bottom line - you are a scumbag and doing a bad thing because
you are actively encouraging someone else to do a bad thing
(violate marriage vows) even though those vows were never yours
to violate.
> lawyers do what their clients want them to do. sure, there are rare
> cases where the client simply does not understand the issues, and the
> lawyer is decieving them.
And there are common cases where the lawyer simply
encourages/persuades the client to do the wrong thing. Watch
the advertisements some time - the key phrase is "You may be
legally entitled to..." whatever. Not "You derve that money"
because you probably don't. Not "You want that money" though
you probably do. Legally entitled. Well, maybe. What these
lawyers (once again, looking at the advertising is certain proof
that these are NOT rare cases) are persuading their clients to
so is certainly not illegal - just wrong. And that's the rule, not the
exception. Is the final decision up to the client? Absolutely.
Does that make the lawyer any less of a scumbag? Of course not.
Michael
Marc
>And there are common cases where the lawyer simply
>encourages/persuades the client to do the wrong thing. Watch
>the advertisements some time -
[snip]
Point of fact. Only a *very* small percentage of lawyers advertise.
> (once again, looking at the advertising is certain proof
>that these are NOT rare cases)
Once again, only a very small percentage of lawyers advertise. You are looking
at ads placed by the few and inferring that the behavior of the few extends to
the many.
> And that's the rule, not the exception.
Actually, it's the exception, not the rule.
Blue Skies,
Marc
BlueSkyFlyer
>
>Once again, only a very small percentage of lawyers advertise. You are
>looking
>at ads placed by the few and inferring that the behavior of the few extends
>to
>the many.
This is true from the context that very few lawyers actually enter the
courtroom compared to the total that are members of the bar. Many lawyers
simply don't advertise because the particular type of law they practise doesn't
lend itself well to public contact i.e. Corporate lawyers, Govt. Lawyers,
Pataent Lawyers etc.
However I would venture to say it has been my observation that lawyers whose
specific fields of law which rely on a more public persona i.e. Criminal
Lawyers, Civil Lawyers, Divorce Lawyers etc.. constitute the majority of those
who advertise. These are the types the majority of the public comes in contact
with, and are normally what we are the type we are referring to when we talk
negativly of lawyers.
Michael
> Point of fact. Only a *very* small percentage of lawyers advertise.
> Once again, only a very small percentage of lawyers advertise. You are
looking
> at ads placed by the few and inferring that the behavior of the few
extends to
> the many.
Nor have I seen any indication that this is not true. If you're going to
try and argue that every single personal injury lawyer who advertises
is the exception and all the others are decent people and not scumbags,
you've got a tough row to hoe.
Michael
Marc
>Marc <frefa...@aol.com> wrote
>> Point of fact. Only a *very* small percentage of lawyers advertise.
>> Once again, only a very small percentage of lawyers advertise. You are
>looking
>> at ads placed by the few and inferring that the behavior of the few
>extends to
>> the many.
>
>Nor have I seen any indication that this is not true.
How many lawyers have you had a significant amount of contact with and what
areas of law did they primarily work within?
I work in D.C., which has more lawyers per capita than any other place on earth
(as far as I'm aware). Go to New York, Chicago, L.A., and you'll find
similarly high concentrations of lawyers. Most of these lawyers are in
government agencies, private firms that cater to big corporations, or in-house
counsel to big corporations or associations. Only a teeny tiny little fraction
of the lawyers in these markets do anything even close to "chasing ambulances."
Now, when you get outside of these huge legal job markets, and you get into
the smaller, less "international" cities and towns, well now you don't find so
many lawyers, and the ones you do find are less likely to be doing
government/corporate/association type work. A much higher percentage of these
lawyers (although still a minority) are going to be of the "ambulance chaser"
variety.
Perhaps this is why you haven't seen any indication to the contrary.
>If you're going to
>try and argue that every single personal injury lawyer who advertises
>is the exception and all the others are decent people and not scumbags,
>you've got a tough row to hoe.
I have not tried to argue that and I will not try to argue that. I'm just
suggesting that it is a mistake to infer that all (or even most) lawyers behave
similarly to (many of) those who advertise.
Blue Skies,
Marc
Dan'l
I own a Reflex too. I had it custom made by FliteLine, after visiting
their plant. Mick graciously showed me around and answered all my
questions.
When the rig was delivered, I inspected it carefully. So did the rigger
who assembled it with the new reserve. So it had at least three
inspections from people who were all eager to find any problems
before it was used.
After a couple of jumps, I decided to mention to the dealer (Square One)
that I thought the reserve handle wasn't held securely enough. They
took it back to FliteLine for me, and FliteLine made a fix with no
complaints or charges.
Everyone involved was responsible and gracious at all times.
I think your automobile analogy is imperfect, because the expectations
(not to mention legal contracts and waivers) are different. We would
likely have cars that could better withstand a low speed collision,
for example, if the manufacturers didn't have such a strong incentive
to deliver vehicles which just meet the Federal requirements.
Getting back to rigs, FliteLine is replacing the grommets at no charge.
They and riggers around the world have now replaced hundreds, if not
thousands, of perfectly good and safely installed grommets, just to
assuage everyone's feelings and to maintain their reputation.
In light of all this, I can't quite tell if you would still hold the
rig maker responsible for a freak accident. It sounds like maybe you
would. Would you? I would not.
Blue skies and home brews,
Dan'l
In article <20000512095721...@ng-fm1.aol.com>,
Michael
> How many lawyers have you had a significant amount of contact with and
what
> areas of law did they primarily work within?
Not very many. Some of my friends are lawyers, but they don't do personal
injury.
> I work in D.C., which has more lawyers per capita than any other place on
earth
> (as far as I'm aware). Go to New York, Chicago, L.A., and you'll find
> similarly high concentrations of lawyers.
Been there, don't want to go back. I consider those places basically
unlivable.
I certainly don't think lawyers are ENTIRELY responsible for that...
> Most of these lawyers are in
> government agencies, private firms that cater to big corporations, or
in-house
> counsel to big corporations or associations. Only a teeny tiny little
fraction
> of the lawyers in these markets do anything even close to "chasing
ambulances."
Now that I can agree with. Actually, most of those lawyers rarely (if ever)
see the inside of a courtroom either. I actually knew one (he and I jumped
together) who had joined a large in-house operation straight out of law
school and had spent about the first 7 years of his career looking through
papers and preparing supporting material for a case that had been in the
works since before he was hired. He eventually left for a better job with
another firm and the case still had not gone to trial, he still had not seen
the
inside of a courtroom, but his career was going just fine, he was making
good money and prospects for advancement were excellent.
Somehow I have a feeling his story was not unique. His first attempt at
CRW was pretty decent (gotta get some skydiving content in here).
This is not the person we're talking about. He may well be representative
of the majority of lawyers in the markets you mention, but they're not
really relevant to the discussion.
> Now, when you get outside of these huge legal job markets, and you get
into
> the smaller, less "international" cities and towns, well now you don't
find so
> many lawyers, and the ones you do find are less likely to be doing
> government/corporate/association type work. A much higher percentage of
these
> lawyers (although still a minority) are going to be of the "ambulance
chaser"
> variety.
That's all probably true - but SO WHAT? Does that make what they
do less wrong? I guess I just don't see your point. If your point is that
most lawyers don't cause any great harm because they spend their days
shuffling papers at large corporations and not having any real impact
on the lives of people, then I'll concede your point immediately. My
problem is with the ones who do personal injury. I still have not seen
you (or anyone else) say anything to convince me that they are NOT
mostly scumbags who encourage people to abdicate personal responsibility
and hold others responsible for their misfortunes just because the law
allows it.
> >If you're going to
> >try and argue that every single personal injury lawyer who advertises
> >is the exception and all the others are decent people and not scumbags,
> >you've got a tough row to hoe.
> I have not tried to argue that and I will not try to argue that. I'm just
> suggesting that it is a mistake to infer that all (or even most) lawyers
behave
> similarly to (many of) those who advertise.
Then let's narrow down the inference. I don't know what most of the
corporate lawyers do. I've had contact with some on patent matters,
and near as I can tell they spend most of their time doing pointless
paper shuffling, which, near as I can tell, does no particular good but
also no harm. But I think that as the inference applies to personal
injury lawyers, it remains valid.
Michael
Marc
[lot's snipped]
>Then let's narrow down the inference.
[snip]
> But I think that as the inference applies to personal
>injury lawyers, it remains valid.
I won't argue the inference if you're just going to apply it to personal injury
lawyers. My only complaint was that your earlier comments seemed to apply the
inference to *all* lawyers.
Blue Skies,
Marc
Martin Evans
Marc
having indulged himself in a lovers tiff with THE SHINING KNIGHT OF PURITY
in skydiving
our local psycho (logist)
> Michael
wrote:
>
> >And there are common cases where the lawyer simply
> >encourages/persuades the client to do the wrong thing. Watch
> >the advertisements some time -
>
> [snip]
>
> Point of fact. Only a *very* small percentage of lawyers advertise.
>
>
> > (once again, looking at the advertising is certain proof
> >that these are NOT rare cases)
>
> Once again, only a very small percentage of lawyers advertise. You are
looking
> at ads placed by the few and inferring that the behavior of the few
extends to
> the many.
>
>
> > And that's the rule, not the exception.
>
> Actually, it's the exception, not the rule.
>
> Blue Skies,
>
> Marc
Sometimes it's hard not laugh out loud at you guys (not that I make any
effort to control it)! **You reap what you sow!**
In England Lawyers & Doctors etc. aren't allowed to advertise and companies
can't mention their competitors by name in their promotions. I haven't been
back for a while so I can't quite remember but I believe they cannot even
suggest that their products are better than those of other nameless
competitors. Keeps life civilized you know old boy! If you sell a crab
sandwich in England it better consist of all real crabmeat not flavored
fishsticks or your in for a very hefty (thousands of pounds for a first
offence) penalty under the trade descriptions act, same with a pint of beer
it better be 20 Oz's of fluid (that's how much is in a REAL pint) with the
head above that and not be half a glass of froth!
You guys dived deep into the pool of dirty consumerism years ago and now
it's biting you in the ass! Some of you even have the nerve to berate this
poor English lad for trying to make an honest buck from degrading (by your
definition) the purity of skydiving! HaHaHaHaHaHaHa! You're all going to
drown in your own dirty deeds suckers!
;-)
Here's consumer tip for you all:
In Applebee's they sell a regular beer which they say is a pint but in fact
is only 13 fluid Oz's filled to the brim with no head, or a Brutus which
they claim is 23 fluid Oz's. Bullshit I say! Filled to the brim with no head
the Brutus holds 21 Oz's (barely more than a REAL pint, remember a REAL pint
is 20 fluid Oz's) by the time they've slopped it across the floor to your
table you're not even getting one of those weenie American pints! We would
hang, draw & quarter our landlords for trying this on us in England! But
then on the other hand I drank some American domestic beer once ONCE and
certainly wouldn't ever want a glass full of it! ;-)
Our beer glasses have a line to show where the beer needs to reach and the
head begins, there's no pulling the wool over our eyes buddy! Beer drinking
is a serious business!
I won't tell you how I conducted my little trades description experiment!
Try it for yourself though, you'll see I'm right!
Damn I'm bored today!
Blue ones,
Stay Safe.
Martin Evans.
--
For information about Sky-Eye Skydiving Services please visit our website
at:
http://www.skyeyeskydiving.com
after browsing please follow the links to Skydive Delmarva & Skydive
Sebastian.
"Never confuse movement with action". Ernest Hemingway