Hooray for Exxon. This is what America is all about
AKA gray asphalt
still has not paid the punitive damages it owes to the victims of the spill.
The oil spill destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of Alaskan fishermen
and others and decimated the wildlife.
Instead of paying what it owes, ExxonMobil has dragged more than 30,000
people through 13 years of litigation by appealing every guilty verdict it's
been given since 1994! During this time 6,000 people have died waiting for
compensation.
BAR
Complain to the legislature, they are the only people who can change the
laws.
Jack Hollis
<goodid...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>Instead of paying what it owes, ExxonMobil has dragged more than 30,000
>people through 13 years of litigation by appealing every guilty verdict it's
>been given since 1994! During this time 6,000 people have died waiting for
>compensation.
Exxon is just doing what any company would do in their position. Why
on earth would a company agree to pay damages before all the appeals
allowed by law have been exhausted? As a stockholder, I support their
efforts completely.
BigPurdueFan
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:17:21 -0700, "AKA gray asphalt"
>
> >Instead of paying what it owes, ExxonMobil has dragged more than 30,000
> >people through 13 years of litigation by appealing every guilty verdict it's
> >been given since 1994! During this time 6,000 people have died waiting for
> >compensation.
>
> Exxon is just doing what any company would do in their position. Why
> on earth would a company agree to pay damages before all the appeals
> allowed by law have been exhausted? As a stockholder, I support their
> efforts completely.
Yes, God forbid they should take resposibility for their actions. As
I human being, I condemn their actions completely.
A Brick in the Wall
"BigPurdueFan" <bigp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174697458.6...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Jack does not believe in accountability for his kind -- it is what makes him
what he is. You can fill in that blank.
sfb
for clean-up and compensatory damages.
The 9th Circuit which is by far the most liberal of the Circuit Courts has
thrown put the punitive damages as excessive. If you were sentenced to
prison for life for running a stop sign, would you go docilely to jail or
appeal the sentence as excessive?
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodid...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
news:IpYMh.95613$907....@newsfe13.phx...
sfb
"BigPurdueFan" <bigp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174697458.6...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
David
>The key word in your post is "punitive." Exxon has paid more than $3 billion
>for clean-up and compensatory damages.
>
>The 9th Circuit which is by far the most liberal of the Circuit Courts has
>thrown put the punitive damages as excessive. If you were sentenced to
>prison for life for running a stop sign, would you go docilely to jail or
>appeal the sentence as excessive?
I think that your analogy is excessive.
David
Bear
>The key word in your post is "punitive." Exxon has paid more than $3 billion
>for clean-up and compensatory damages.
>
>The 9th Circuit which is by far the most liberal of the Circuit Courts has
>thrown put the punitive damages as excessive. If you were sentenced to
>prison for life for running a stop sign, would you go docilely to jail or
>appeal the sentence as excessive?
They ran the stop sign while drunk and took out a whole ecosystem. Now
I know that the chances are that you live thousands of miles away from
there and probably don't care that thousands of birds, fish and
mammals died or that coastal communities that rely on the sea for
their livelihood were shut down but wtf running a stop sign?!?!? Here
is hoping a multinational comes and shits in your yard and... fuck
this is off topic and asshats like you aren't worth the time.
Miss Anne Thrope
Until then, you're still the problem.
annika1980
> Exxon took responsibly to the tune of $3 billion dollars.
Which for Exxon is the equivalent of "tip money."
A Brick In The Wall
"Miss Anne Thrope" <High_C...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29713-46...@storefull-3155.bay.webtv.net...
> Yeah, but are you enraged enough to trade your SUV for a Schwinn?
>
> Until then, you're still the problem.
>
If you would shut your trap -- GW would be a thing of the past.
bill-o
On 24-Mar-2007, "A Brick In The Wall" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
> > Yeah, but are you enraged enough to trade your SUV for a Schwinn?
> >
> > Until then, you're still the problem.
> >
>
> If you would shut your trap -- GW would be a thing of the past.
talk about giving too much credit!
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
A Brick in the Wall
"bill-o" <assim...@borg.org> wrote in message
news:4605cb57$0$8351$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> On 24-Mar-2007, "A Brick In The Wall" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
>
>> > Yeah, but are you enraged enough to trade your SUV for a Schwinn?
>> >
>> > Until then, you're still the problem.
>> >
>>
>> If you would shut your trap -- GW would be a thing of the past.
>
> talk about giving too much credit!
>
True -- she would have to tighten her spincter also.
bill-o
On 25-Mar-2007, "A Brick in the Wall" <NoS...@NoThanks.com> wrote:
> >> > Until then, you're still the problem.
> >> >
> >>
> >> If you would shut your trap -- GW would be a thing of the past.
> >
> > talk about giving too much credit!
> >
>
> True -- she would have to tighten her spincter also.
badda bing
Carbon
I am impressed by your tolerance for injustice. As long as it doesn't
apply to you.
And...@aol.com
Oh, big Pud the sTUD...you are a human being?
And...@aol.com
Can you say " Blind Trust"?
Jack Hollis
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Exxon is just doing what any company would do in their position. Why on
>> earth would a company agree to pay damages before all the appeals
>> allowed by law have been exhausted? As a stockholder, I support their
>> efforts completely.
>
>I am impressed by your tolerance for injustice. As long as it doesn't
>apply to you.
Actually, the idea of courts and the appeals process is to administer
justice. Exxon will pay what the courts order it to pay. The fact
that this process takes so long has nothing to do with Exxon.
Jake
--
Jake
"Jack Hollis" <xsle...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9u3d03po8iua6r4tk...@4ax.com...
norman mailer-daemon
wrote:
Had this happened three years later, you can bet a Clinton Justice
Dep't. would have had this mess cleaned up asap and Exxon would have
paid dearly for it. It would have been a no-brainer.
Unfortunatley it occurred during the "Corporations Are King" Reagan/
Bush era-- which accelerated the decay of this country in countless
ways (and I don't mean just environmentally).
Jack Hollis
It's true that the 9th Circuit is stacked against corporations so it
will be very hard for Exxon to get justice.
BTW, what's with the top posting?
Carbon
I am impressed by how completely you ignore morality in your reply. On the
other hand, this endless whoring after shareholder profit to the exclusion
of everything else will be the end of us all.
Michael Anselmo
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.26....@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
America has been ignoring morality since Roe Vs Wade.
sfb
http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/History/settlement.cfm
"The settlement among the State of Alaska, the U.S. government and Exxon
was approved by the U.S. District Court on Oct. 9, 1991. It resolved various
criminal charges against Exxon as well as civil claims brought by the
federal and state governments for recovery of natural resource damages
resulting from the spill. The settlement was comprised of criminal and civil
settlements with Exxon, as well as a civil settlement with Alyeska Pipeline
Service Company."
Note the date of October, 1991 which is a month before President Clinton was
first elected and three months before he took office.
Exxon has paid some $3 billion in compensatory damages and clean-up costs.
The issue is punitive damages.
"norman mailer-daemon" <calci...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
George Hibbard
>> justice. Exxon will pay what the courts order it to pay. The fact that
>> this process takes so long has nothing to do with Exxon.
The fact that the process can be dragged out a long time by lawyers whose
mandate is to maximize the return for their clients (cash yet unpaid out
earns interest [usage] for the possessor and denies interest [usage] for the
eventual beneficiary) is ignored in imagining that "it has nothing to do
with Exxon." Of course it does: the tactics used to delay and appeal and
make motions and nit-pick is not unlike "churning" by investment managers
who are paid the more transactions they create. Lawyers make fortunes by
billing excessive hours at unconscionable rates INTENTIONALLY postponing
finality, and justice delayed IS, of course, justice denied to those
damaged.
It is not necessarily known from what is posted here whether sufficient
actual compensation did GET TO the damaged parties. I serioiusly doubt that
the real value (vs. "book" or depreciated value) of their enterprises was
compensated. Like having a car totalled: you do not get what it costs you
to replace what you have in it and what it is really worth to you. Or the
value of a going business.
As Bret says, it's just pocket change to Exxon. Its life for the injured
parties who remain alive....
John B.
>
> >Instead of paying what it owes, ExxonMobil has dragged more than 30,000
> >people through 13 years of litigation by appealing every guilty verdict it's
> >been given since 1994! During this time 6,000 people have died waiting for
> >compensation.
>
> Exxon is just doing what any company would do in their position. Why
> on earth would a company agree to pay damages before all the appeals
> allowed by law have been exhausted? As a stockholder, I support their
> efforts completely.
Because they have a conscience? Exxon has unlimited access to legal
representation. The people whose lives it ruined don't. Exxon can just
file appeal after appeal, motion after motion, until the plaintiffs
run out of money. Exxon has made it clear for more than a decade that
it doesn't give a shit about what happened in Alaska. It has done only
the bare minimum that's required of it to mitigate the damage.
Meanwhile, Lee Raymond retires as CEO, takes a $985 million retirement
package with him and complains that he should have gotten more. And
you own stock in this company? You should be ashamed.
sfb
like more than the bare minimum.
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174919476.8...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
AKA gray asphalt
"sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:57SdneZFgbxOZprb...@comcast.com...
> The issue is punitive damages. $3 billion in compensatory damages sounds
> like more than the bare minimum.
Does anyone have an accounting of where the money went and how much of a
percentage of actual damage was reimbursed?
sfb
a creature of the federal and state governments that oversees restoring the
ecosystem.
Exxon Mobil's side of the story is here
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/Newsroom/NewsReleases/Corp_NR_Valdez.as
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodid...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
news:18TNh.10$EN...@newsfe07.phx...
John B.
> The issue is punitive damages. $3 billion in compensatory damages sounds
> like more than the bare minimum.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It sounds like a drop in the bucket compared to the extent of the
devestation and to Exxon's balance sheet.
Jack Hollis
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Actually, the idea of courts and the appeals process is to administer
>> justice. Exxon will pay what the courts order it to pay. The fact that
>> this process takes so long has nothing to do with Exxon.
>
>I am impressed by how completely you ignore morality in your reply. On the
>other hand, this endless whoring after shareholder profit to the exclusion
>of everything else will be the end of us all.
Let me see, this is a major corporation against trial lawyers. I'll
be damned if I can pick the moral side.
Jack Hollis
<g...@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>>> Actually, the idea of courts and the appeals process is to administer
>>> justice. Exxon will pay what the courts order it to pay. The fact that
>>> this process takes so long has nothing to do with Exxon.
>
>
>The fact that the process can be dragged out a long time by lawyers whose
>mandate is to maximize the return for their clients (cash yet unpaid out
>earns interest [usage] for the possessor and denies interest [usage] for the
>eventual beneficiary) is ignored in imagining that "it has nothing to do
>with Exxon." Of course it does: the tactics used to delay and appeal and
>make motions and nit-pick is not unlike "churning" by investment managers
>who are paid the more transactions they create. Lawyers make fortunes by
>billing excessive hours at unconscionable rates INTENTIONALLY postponing
>finality, and justice delayed IS, of course, justice denied to those
>damaged.
If I were Exxon, I'd do my best to pay as little as possible as late
as possible. If the justice system allows that to happen, then I
don't blame Exxon for taking advantage of what the law allows.
the Moderator
>
> Let me see, this is a major corporation against trial lawyers. I'll
> be damned if I can pick the moral side.
That is because you are a Republican. It is the Democrats who treat trial
lawyers as if they were an endangered species.
Case in point all the fuss about firing the AG's.
Jack Hollis
>Because they have a conscience? Exxon has unlimited access to legal
>representation.
They have in-house lawyers who are paid very well. However, the wont
make nearly as much money as the lawyers representing the plaintiffs.
>The people whose lives it ruined don't.
Not one person represented in the current case before the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals has ever, or ever will pay a penny in legal fees. The
case is handled on a contingency basis by a group of California
environmental disaster lawyers. If it's a standard deal, the trial
lawyers get one third of the settlement.
Jack Hollis
>And
>you own stock in this company? You should be ashamed.
I'm ashamed that I didn't buy more. The stock has returned around 14%
a year over the past decade and that doesn't include dividends. When
each of my three kids were born, as soon as they got their SS#s, I
opened a stock account for them and the first thing I bought was
Exxon.
Jack Hollis
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>"Jack Hollis" <xsle...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:kdcg03dvdlc5i1lem...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Let me see, this is a major corporation against trial lawyers. I'll
>> be damned if I can pick the moral side.
>
>That is because you are a Republican. It is the Democrats who treat trial
>lawyers as if they were an endangered species.
That's what the trial lawyers pay the Democrats to do.
John B.
You are clearly an amoral creep.
AKA gray asphalt
Bless your soul. Free market greed. The American nightmare.
"Jack Hollis" <xsle...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5pdg0355jbvtn8afm...@4ax.com...
Carbon
> If I were Exxon, I'd do my best to pay as little as possible as late as
> possible. If the justice system allows that to happen, then I don't
> blame Exxon for taking advantage of what the law allows.
No doubt you would feel the same way if Exxon dumped a couple million
barrels of oil all over your coastline.
Oh I forgot, you're incapable of empathy. How about this:
A large development corporation decides to build a gated community in your
neighborhood. Their plans include new access roads, one of which will
require the destruction of your home. No problem: the corporation has many
connections in government and your property is seized via eminent domain.
You sue, but obviously the corporation has more money and more lawyers
than you. Meanwhile plans proceed on schedule and your home is eventually
flattened to make the new road. After spending a significant portion of
your home's equity on lawyers, the courts eventually decides in your
favor. However the corporation has a policy of appealing every legal
judgment against it, which naturally they do in your case as well.
If I were that company, I'd do my best to pay as little as possible as
late as possible. If the justice system allows that to happen, then I
don't blame them for taking advantage of what the law allows.
MnMikew
>
> Bless your soul. Free market greed. The American nightmare.
>
AKA gray asphalt
"MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:56ss19F...@mid.individual.net...
Of course, sound investing means high returns with little risk usually
contributing nothing to society or as corporate board members see it,
consumers, you know the ones whose boats are raised with the rising tide,
except they are pissed on by those in yachts while they struggle to keep
their rafts afloat.
S.D.
> Not one person represented in the current case before the 9th Circuit
> Court of Appeals has ever, or ever will pay a penny in legal fees. The
> case is handled on a contingency basis by a group of California
> environmental disaster lawyers. If it's a standard deal, the trial
> lawyers get one third of the settlement.
Glad you shared that... I was getting tired of reading all the
entitlement comments. You were also right about the plaintiff's
attorney's coming out the real winners:)
--
Hit'em long and straight:)
SDig
MnMikew
nothing to society?
S.D.
> I know that the chances are that you live thousands of miles away from
> there and probably don't care that thousands of birds, fish and
> mammals died or that coastal communities that rely on the sea for
> their livelihood were shut down but wtf running a stop sign?!?!?
Bear - your comments are bothersome. Empathy isn't going to help any
one in Alaska - or help starving and dying wild life in Alaska; or
elsewhere around the lower US... It's hunters like me and
hunter/farmers like my friend in NOCA who owns 5 thousand acre farm that
spends thousands of dollars per year to support and feed wild life.
I would like to hear from all the posters as to their contributions
other then empathy... That word is worn as a badge by to many doing
nada.
Oh, I live in SOCA, have spent thousands and live thousands of miles
away from the animals I help provide funds for.
S.D.
> You were also right about the plaintiff's
> attorney's coming out the real winners:)
I forgot to mention; even if they loose intermittently, all costs are
then written off against winnings from other cases. WIN WIN... :)
John B.
You're right about empathy being unhelpful to the people of southern
Alaska. What they need is for the perpetrator of the crime that
wreaked environmental havoc on their lives to be a decent,
conscientious corporate citizen and do everything it can to repair the
damage. There are corporations that have a conscience and a sense of
morality. Exxon ain't one of them.
Jack Hollis
>> If I were Exxon, I'd do my best to pay as little as possible as late
>> as possible. If the justice system allows that to happen, then I
>> don't blame Exxon for taking advantage of what the law allows.
>
>
>You are clearly an amoral creep.
Rubbish. Exxon has already paid out more than enough. Now they have
to deal with parasite trial lawyers who attempt to milk as much money
out of the situation as they can. Trial lawyers, and the people that
support them, are the amoral creeps.
Jack Hollis
First, I'm against eminent domain being used for private development.
However, if I was in such a situation, I'd settle for around 20% above
market rate and move to a better house. Why not take advantage of the
situation. They need my house and I want a better one. If they didn't
want to give me enough money, I'd have my wife handle the case. I
have an unlimited supply of free legal services.
In any case, the chance of anything like that happening in my
neighborhood is zero. Where I live, there is no open land for
development.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
Exactly. Back when I ran my consulting business, I did a lot of work
for Exxon. I soon learned that Exxon was being run by people who know
what they're doing. You don't become the industry leader for nothing.
Accordingly, I began to buy Exxon stock and it's been a solid
performer, to say the least. Exxon is no different than any other oil
company only better.
It's as good an investment today as its ever been. My daughter is 6
months old and she own 200 shares. I bought it at 67 and it closed
today at 75. She's made over 12% in less than six months.
Bobby Knight
wrote:
<clip>
>
>First, I'm against eminent domain being used for private development.
>However, if I was in such a situation, I'd settle for around 20% above
>market rate and move to a better house. Why not take advantage of the
>situation. They need my house and I want a better one. If they didn't
>want to give me enough money, I'd have my wife handle the case. I
>have an unlimited supply of free legal services.
This is what America has come to be. Screw everyone else, I'll just
worry about myself. Heaven forbid that you would give a shit about
your neighbors.
>In any case, the chance of anything like that happening in my
>neighborhood is zero. Where I live, there is no open land for
>development.
It's the thought that counts.
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
“Someone likes every shot”
bk
Jack Hollis
<goodid...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>Of course, sound investing means high returns with little risk usually
>contributing nothing to society or as corporate board members see it,
>consumers, you know the ones whose boats are raised with the rising tide,
>except they are pissed on by those in yachts while they struggle to keep
>their rafts afloat.
And none of these boats, big or small, would be going anywhere without
gasoline. Oil is the life blood of industrial society. If you think
that Exxon contributes nothing to society, try doing without petroleum
products.
S.D.
> What they need is for the perpetrator of the crime that
> wreaked environmental havoc on their lives to be a decent,
> conscientious corporate citizen and do everything it can to repair the
> damage.
"Everything" is nothing short of extreme... as of 12/05 Exxon had paid
over $3 billion in cleanup costs, government settlements, fines and
compensation. Mind you I am not saying they should quit helping, but to
keep spending until all is perfect - will undoubtedly affect Exxon's
ability to spend in other energy areas which could if pushed to a limit
affect the lower states.
Yes, there was a drunk at the helm... I'll even concede others probably
knew of his drinking problem and Exxon should have done something
sooner. But, the surprise overwhelming multi-billion dollar punitive
punishment thrown at Exxon is nothing short of overt reaction like many
other settlements in recent years.
Some interesting reading.
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?20+Alaska+L.+Rev.+195
S.D.
> What they need is for the perpetrator of the crime that
> wreaked environmental havoc on their lives to be a decent,
> conscientious corporate citizen and do everything it can to repair the
> damage.
Another link for further clarification:
http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/MS-AL/Water%20Log/21.4exxon.htm
S.D.
> What they need is for the perpetrator of the crime that
> wreaked environmental havoc on their lives to be a decent,
> conscientious corporate citizen and do everything it can to repair the
> damage.
"Everything" is nothing short of extreme... as of 12/05 Exxon had paid
over $3 billion in cleanup costs, government settlements, fines and
compensation. Mind you I am not saying they should quit helping, but to
keep spending until all is perfect - will undoubtedly affect Exxon's
ability to spend in other energy areas which could if pushed to a limit
affect the lower states.
Yes, there was a drunk at the helm... I'll even concede others probably
knew of his drinking problem and Exxon should have done something
sooner. But, the surprise overwhelming multi-billion dollar punitive
punishment thrown at Exxon is nothing short of overt reaction like many
other settlements in recent years.
Some interesting reading.
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?20+Alaska+L.+Rev.+195
Bear
I live south of Alaska and north of the rest of the states. I live on
the coast and have the animals in my backyard. You do not buy food to
feed wildlife as wildlife lives in the wild. What animals need for
support is habitat and that around these parts is parks and crown
land. A farm for wildlife?!? Let me guess it is for canned hunts.
Exxon made the mess and Exxon should be responsible for restoring the
area to what it was before they made the mess. If that takes $1 or
many billions that should be the cost of doing business. Why should
there be a cap on cleaning up their mess?
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>>First, I'm against eminent domain being used for private development.
>>However, if I was in such a situation, I'd settle for around 20% above
>>market rate and move to a better house. Why not take advantage of the
>>situation. They need my house and I want a better one. If they didn't
>>want to give me enough money, I'd have my wife handle the case. I
>>have an unlimited supply of free legal services.
>
>This is what America has come to be. Screw everyone else, I'll just
>worry about myself. Heaven forbid that you would give a shit about
>your neighbors.
I didn't make up the hypothetical. If getting involved in an
expensive and futile lawsuit is your definition of giving a shit about
your neighbors, then I don't give a shit. However, if some developer
wanted to give me $200,000 more than my house is worth, I'd be happy
to take it. Especially if I had no choice.
In any case, I'm very active in my neighborhood civic association and
so is my wife. Nothing goes on around here that the residents don't
have a say in. All the neighborhood associations in the area meet
with each other regularly and they stick together on most issues. We
have the local politicians and the school board completely cowed. A
few years back the school board came up with this ridiculously
expensive school expansion plan. The community voted it down and the
next election, every school board member who voted for the plan was
replaced.
Jack Hollis
>Exxon made the mess and Exxon should be responsible for restoring the
>area to what it was before they made the mess. If that takes $1 or
>many billions that should be the cost of doing business. Why should
>there be a cap on cleaning up their mess?
None of the current lawsuits pending have anything to do with the
clean up.
S.D.
> I live south of Alaska and north of the rest of the states. I live on
> the coast and have the animals in my backyard. You do not buy food to
> feed wildlife as wildlife lives in the wild. What animals need for
> support is habitat and that around these parts is parks and crown
> land. A farm for wildlife?!? Let me guess it is for canned hunts.
First - I said nothing insulting to you other then disagree with your
comments; and ask who's actually doing something. I don't like being
called a liar by someone that apparently is unaware of how the wild game
support programs work in his own state - there are plenty such programs
that seek funds to care for game in Alaska; and I know many hunters,
like myself that send large sums to help. Habitats are not what they
use to be. Example - you're living in or on the peripherals of their
feeding area; making it increasing harder for them to find food.
Here's one wildlife center providing care and seeks funds to help.
http://www.farthernorth.com/biggamealaska/alaska_wildlife_center.htm
As for my buddies dairy farm, no hunting; so your sarcastic assumption
was wrong. It's located in an area in NOCA where bear, cats and the
like in their search of food work their way down to lower farm lands and
kill animals. To prevent that and unneeded hunts, many hunters and
farmers setup and deliver food, in some cases to the timberline or
tundra.
Carbon
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:41:50 -0400, Carbon
> <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
[ snip more evasive literalism ]
One last try: A big company screws you over and they win because they have
the money to outlast you in court.
Would you still say "if I were that company, I'd do my best to pay as
little as possible as late as possible. If the justice system allows that
to happen, then I don't blame them for taking advantage of what the law
allows"?
AKA gray asphalt
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.28....@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
What is the definition of profiteering? How about predatory business
practices? Is there such a thing as monopoly? They all maximize profits and
they are all thing a corporation would do under your logic, no?
AKA gray asphalt
When large corporations have as much influence over the media and the
government, there is little risk. Halliburton moves to the middle east, the
savings and loan companies get deregulated, usuary laws are abolished,
credit card companies can charge penalties that were never done and collect
from those too timid or careless to contest them, ... I don't want to
depress anyone, so I'll stop.
Investors usually contribute nothing to society, the way it's done now. IPOs
for a special few that get special rates. Insider trading that is seldom
uncovered ... this isn't something I care much about but if I did the list
would be long, very long.
One thing I do care about and as I was thinking today (most investors can
shove the monetary system up their asses and they and their money can burn
together at cremation time as far as I'm concerned, but I am worried that
there isn't enough money to do criminal checks of foster parents or
investigat cases of child abuse, and that social workers are the victims of
attacks by those who know that this country won't allow big tax breaks while
children are being killed, seriously injured, and psychologically damaged
for life, while big businessmen get severance packages for more money than
they can ever spend the interest on from companies that many times use phony
bookkeeping practices such as backdating stock options ... ) You know all
this stuff and I don't blame you for trying to make enough money to secure
the lives of you and your family but this is ridiculous and
maybe be helping to destroy most of the people in this country.
AKA gray asphalt
I said investors, not corporations. At least that's what I meant to say.
General Motors killed the streetcars, apparently, or was it Ford? And the
oil companies killed the electric car, according to reports. Can a
corporation exist without doing some good, no. Does that excuse the bad that
they do, no. Do you think drug companies could sell 1 pill if if id didn't
help one person? That doesn't excuse the high prices and their interferece
with those who want to require medicare to bargain for fair prices. Any
company that figures human life as an expendable comodity on a balance in
terms of what it's going to cost a corporation for every death should be
tried as murderers.
AKA gray asphalt
God bless us, one and all.
Bear
>On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 23:25:34 GMT, Bear wrote:
>
>> I live south of Alaska and north of the rest of the states. I live on
>> the coast and have the animals in my backyard. You do not buy food to
>> feed wildlife as wildlife lives in the wild. What animals need for
>> support is habitat and that around these parts is parks and crown
>> land. A farm for wildlife?!? Let me guess it is for canned hunts.
>
>First - I said nothing insulting to you other then disagree with your
>comments; and ask who's actually doing something. I don't like being
>called a liar by someone that apparently is unaware of how the wild game
>support programs work in his own state - there are plenty such programs
>that seek funds to care for game in Alaska; and I know many hunters,
>like myself that send large sums to help. Habitats are not what they
>use to be. Example - you're living in or on the peripherals of their
>feeding area; making it increasing harder for them to find food.
Huh?! what are you babbling about? One I never called you a liar. Two
I don't live in a state. Three the animals around here don't need
feeding as we have lots of the habitat and rehab for animals is not
feeding them it is treating them for problems that in most cases are
caused by man.
>
>Here's one wildlife center providing care and seeks funds to help.
>http://www.farthernorth.com/biggamealaska/alaska_wildlife_center.htm
>
>As for my buddies dairy farm, no hunting; so your sarcastic assumption
>was wrong. It's located in an area in NOCA where bear, cats and the
>like in their search of food work their way down to lower farm lands and
>kill animals. To prevent that and unneeded hunts, many hunters and
>farmers setup and deliver food, in some cases to the timberline or
>tundra.
Didn't realize that California has tundra. What do ya know I learnt
something new.
bill-o
On 27-Mar-2007, "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What they need is for the perpetrator of the crime that
> wreaked environmental havoc on their lives to be a decent,
> conscientious corporate citizen and do everything it can to repair the
> damage.
As has been repeated Exxon has paid the compensatory damages. This is the
part that is handed down to make the injured party whole, to "repair the
damage."
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
John B.
Well, I guess we all need somebody to hate. You can't hate black
people anymore, at least not openly. Can't hate Jews, Hispanics, gay
people. So, who's left? Trial lawyers! Yeah, that's it! They're all
the same -- greedy bastards who don't care about anything but their
own enrichment.
That's a really intelligent argument, Jack. Please regale us with more
of your insights. We're all better people for them.
John B.
> > "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> >news:CpeOh.79851$ZA5....@newsfe15.phx...
>
> >> "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>news:56ss19F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:rd1Oh.91279$Ko5....@newsfe08.phx...
>
> >>>> Bless your soul. Free market greed. The American nightmare.
>
> >>> Greed? Looks like good sound investing to me.
>
> >> Of course, sound investing means high returns with little risk usually
> >> contributing nothing to society or as corporate board members see it,
> >> consumers, you know the ones whose boats are raised with the rising tide,
> >> except they are pissed on by those in yachts while they struggle to keep
> >> their rafts afloat.
>
> > One rarely gets high returns with little risk. So corporations contribute
> > nothing to society?
>
> When large corporations have as much influence over the media and the
> government, there is little risk. Halliburton moves to the middle east, the
> savings and loan companies get deregulated, usuary laws are abolished,
> credit card companies can charge penalties that were never done and collect
> from those too timid or careless to contest them, ... I don't want to
> depress anyone, so I'll stop.
>
> Investors usually contribute nothing to society, the way it's done now. IPOs
> for a special few that get special rates. Insider trading that is seldom
> uncovered ... this isn't something I care much about but if I did the list
> would be long, very long.
I don't know who you're talking about when you say "investors," but
the vast majority of investors in this country are regular people like
you and me with money in a 401k or an IRA. If you have one of these,
then you're an investor.
>
> One thing I do care about and as I was thinking today (most investors can
> shove the monetary system up their asses and they and their money can burn
> together at cremation time as far as I'm concerned, but I am worried that
> there isn't enough money to do criminal checks of foster parents or
> investigat cases of child abuse, and that social workers are the victims of
> attacks by those who know that this country won't allow big tax breaks while
> children are being killed, seriously injured, and psychologically damaged
> for life, while big businessmen get severance packages for more money than
> they can ever spend the interest on from companies that many times use phony
> bookkeeping practices such as backdating stock options ... ) You know all
> this stuff and I don't blame you for trying to make enough money to secure
> the lives of you and your family but this is ridiculous and
> maybe be helping to destroy most of the people in this country.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Carbon
In addition to which, mass torts is such a mess because the American
Association for Justice, formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association,
has such a powerful lobby in Washington and has worked tirelessly to
prevent tort reform. Naturally their efforts include extensive campaign
contributions and et cetera to various big name Republicans in Washington.
Jack is right. It is all the Democrats fault.
Jack Hollis
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>One last try: A big company screws you over and they win because they have
>the money to outlast you in court.
>
>Would you still say "if I were that company, I'd do my best to pay as
>little as possible as late as possible. If the justice system allows that
>to happen, then I don't blame them for taking advantage of what the law
>allows"?
In the situation that Exxon is in, namely trying to reduce an
outrageous punitive damage amount, I'd do exactly what Exxon is doing.
I support their effort 100%.
S.D.
> Two I don't live in a state.
You must be Canadian or live in a territory... nothing further.
Jack Hollis
>Well, I guess we all need somebody to hate. You can't hate black
>people anymore, at least not openly. Can't hate Jews, Hispanics, gay
>people. So, who's left? Trial lawyers! Yeah, that's it! They're all
>the same -- greedy bastards who don't care about anything but their
>own enrichment.
You hate big corporations and I hate trial lawyers. Trial lawyers are
bottom feeders, the lowest form of life.
Jack Hollis
>> Investors usually contribute nothing to society, the way it's done now. IPOs
>> for a special few that get special rates. Insider trading that is seldom
>> uncovered ... this isn't something I care much about but if I did the list
>> would be long, very long.
>
>I don't know who you're talking about when you say "investors," but
>the vast majority of investors in this country are regular people like
>you and me with money in a 401k or an IRA. If you have one of these,
>then you're an investor.
And, investors, big and small, provide capital for business to invest.
Jack Hollis
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>In addition to which, mass torts is such a mess because the American
>Association for Justice, formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association,
>has such a powerful lobby in Washington and has worked tirelessly to
>prevent tort reform. Naturally their efforts include extensive campaign
>contributions and et cetera to various big name Republicans in Washington.
>
>Jack is right. It is all the Democrats fault.
Not entirely. Don't forget that a lot of Republican politicians are
lawyers and the trial lawyer lobby has enough of them to prevent any
legislation damaging to their cause even when the Republicans
controlled Congress. Now that the Democrats are in control, the trial
lawyers are safe. One group of parasites taking care of another group
of parasites.
John B.
It's hard to believe how full of shit you are. I don't hate big
corporations. I hate Exxon and for good reason. In these posts, I
confine myself to facts. I don't always get them right, but at least I
try. You offer nothing but inanities. I bet you've never even met a
trial lawyer.
Joe
Johnnie,
Your image man, your image!
"In these posts, I confine myself to facts. I don't always get them right, "
You really surprised me with that admission that you don't know what you
are talking about. Now I don't know what to think of you.
Joe
Otto
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175105947.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
All the suits are liars, stealers, and cheats.
Lawyers, executives, and politicians seem to float to the top of the lying,
stealing, and cheating suits.
Otto
John B.
the Moderator
"Joe" <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
news:460ab40b$0$17217$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> You really surprised me with that admission that you don't know what you
> are talking about. Now I don't know what to think of you.
>
> Joe
Surely you remember a few weeks back, his loud and defiant claim that he
only posts on topics he knows about.
<snicker>
Joe
I'm beginning to think that news groups are a lot like golf...you just
can't hide who you are and everyone gets to see the real person.
Joe
AKA gray asphalt
Corporate greed and that ridiculous corporate mentality depend on the
rationalization that it is moral to look out for the the bottom line, so as
to care for the investors. If there weren't so many layers of beauracracy
between the investors and the actual practices of the business and if
investors had more say in business practices and were informed about what
the corporations were actually doing, and if the criminal corporate shield,
which allows corporations to engage in horrendous acts, eg Union Carbide in
India, ... if the ridiculous corporate shield were repealed, then maybe we
could be spared the corporate white collar atrocities that exist.
As for investors who actually know where their money is and who and what it
is supporting, that is another story.
Bear
>On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 05:16:21 GMT, Bear wrote:
>
>> Two I don't live in a state.
>
>You must be Canadian or live in a territory... nothing further.
Wow what was your first clue. Was it when I wrote "I live south of
Alaska and north of the rest of the states." Now I am pretty sure with
your razor sharp mind you could narrow it down a little more... Canada
or a territory...let see what else I wrote... ahhh here is another
clue that was with the first one "I live on the coast..." Ok lets see
what we have here. Between Alaska and the rest of the states and on
the coast....hmmmm... what do ya figure maybe Puerto Rico or Guam...?
Good to see they teach readin' and ritin' down thar.
AKA gray asphalt
One reason punitive damages are so high is because the public is outraged by
the every day injustices, greedy nickel-and-diming practices, and lack of
attention to the basic needs of people. Every time someone has to push 3 or
4 or 10 numbers to talk to somone instead of listening to a recording, every
time someone has to be on hold for 15 mins or 1 hr to report a case of child
abuse, every time they get a 3 or 4 page letter from their credit card
company in 4 point type hiding rate increases and adding new penalties,
every time they read about Canadians paying 30% of their cost for
perscription drugs, every time they hear about Halliburton ripping off the
troops in Iraq, every time they remember about tire manufacturers selling
dangerous tires, every time they see that pet food manufacturers have been
selling dangerous foods to their pets for the last 3 months ... we get
pissed and take it out on whoever is in front of us while we are in the jury
box. And the bad will won't go away for decades, even if big business is
brought under reasonable control. They've blown the American Dream for us
... it's the global corporate dream and US citizens are consumers and
irritating ones at that who dare to expect fairness and some sense of
community responsibility. The thing that makes me wonder the most is that
American corporation that had to apologize to Japan for its business
practices, the same ones that it continues in the US every day.
Who was that anyway? I need to hear that again.
Bear
See I knew there was something that we could agree on.
sfb
and the oil spill. The Supremes have ruled that the jury may only assess
punitive damages for the specific acts at issue. A jury may not access
punitive damages just because they don't like a company or companies or
think a company is evil incarnate.
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodid...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
news:S_zOh.83333$7g3...@newsfe14.phx...
Jack Hollis
>It's hard to believe how full of shit you are.
There's no need to be rude.
>I don't hate big
>corporations. I hate Exxon and for good reason.
I, however, love Exxon for good reasons.
>In these posts, I confine myself to facts. I don't always get them right, but at least I
>try.
I agree that you often get your facts wrong. I would suggest that you
check them before you put them down in writing. I suppose this is due
to laziness rather than lack of ability.
>I bet you've never even met a trial lawyer.
My wife started out as a trial lawyer but went over to the other side
by taking a job at a large insurance company. You should hear her
talk about trial lawyers who spend their entire career shaking down
businesses. It's a type of organized crime in my opinion. Parasites
the lot of them.
S.D.
> Good to see they teach readin' and ritin' down thar.
I had no ider that CA folks coulb be so rud seenz yall liv n out in the
twolies, and a nal to one boot.
Bear
Wow you are sooo funny yukyuk....what is with the abbreviations SOCA,
NOCA and CA? And what the fuck is that last bit even suppose to mean,
a nal to one boot?!? Your into anal? with a boot?
As far as being rude whatever. At least you finally figured out what
country I live in... Bravo.
TTFN Gotta go feed all the wild animals so they don't starve...
Bwahahahaa
yeah I know what your abbreviations are but the Southern California
guys I know usually write and say SoCal and well the northern NoCal.
S.D.
> Gotta go feed all the wild animals so they don't starve...
Make sure you don't give them cheerio's... even though bears will chow
down on them:)
Jack Hollis
<goodid...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>> In the situation that Exxon is in, namely trying to reduce an
>> outrageous punitive damage amount, I'd do exactly what Exxon is doing.
>> I support their effort 100%
>
>One reason punitive damages are so high is because the public is outraged by
>the every day injustices, greedy nickel-and-diming practices, and lack of
>attention to the basic needs of people.
No they're so high because the people who serve on juries tend to
award excessive damages against large corporations because they have a
lot of money. This is exactly what happened to Exxon. Luckily, the
US Supreme Court has ruled that excessive damages violate the due
process clause of the 14th Amendment. Accordingly, the corporations
have more recourse in the appeals process.
Jack Hollis
>You have hit on the entire issue of punitive damages with regards to Exxon
>and the oil spill. The Supremes have ruled that the jury may only assess
>punitive damages for the specific acts at issue. A jury may not access
>punitive damages just because they don't like a company or companies or
>think a company is evil incarnate.
Or because the company has a lot of money.
My wife started her legal career working for a NY law firm that made a
considerable amount of their income by extorting money from insurance
companies. They knew, as did the insurance companies, that juries in
Brooklyn and the Bronx always sided with the plaintiff no matter what
the merits of the case. It became well known that the insurance
companies would always settle out of court because then could never
win in court. The trial lawyers knew they many of their cases had no
legal grounds to stand on, but the also knew that the insurance
companies would settle anyhow to avoid the possibility of a huge
settlement from a jury. This still goes on today.
The shame is that this doesn't hurt the insurance companies as much as
it hurts the consumers. Part of every insurance premium is to pay for
the scumbag trial lawyers.
Carbon
I did not ask you about Exxon. I asked you:
George Hibbard
Finally an underlying root issue is clarified: extortion here; and
stonewalling on the part of Exxon, in cahoots with the lawyers who will not
allow for a reasonable settlement OF punitive damages - clearly something
negotiable as is any other part of monetary elements of a trial. Since
lawyers obtain obscene percentages of monies due to the injured, they have
billions of dollars waving in their faces. Power [money] corrupts; absolute
power corrupts absolutely.
Their sin and the sins of all those who live this way will not go
unpunished. "As you.do to others, so will it be done to you."
Otto
> No they're so high because the people who serve on juries tend to
> award excessive damages against large corporations because they have a
> lot of money.
Shame on the little people.
Otto
Otto
> My wife started her legal career working for a NY law firm that made a
> considerable amount of their income by extorting money from insurance
> companies.
Another suit with no morals.
> They knew, as did the insurance companies, that juries in
> Brooklyn and the Bronx always sided with the plaintiff no matter what
> the merits of the case. It became well known that the insurance
> companies would always settle out of court because then could never
> win in court. The trial lawyers knew they many of their cases had no
> legal grounds to stand on, but the also knew that the insurance
> companies would settle anyhow to avoid the possibility of a huge
> settlement from a jury. This still goes on today.
The suits have distorted the system.
> The shame is that this doesn't hurt the insurance companies as much as
> it hurts the consumers. Part of every insurance premium is to pay for
> the scumbag trial lawyers.
And the price tag goes to pay for the lying, cheating, and stealing suits.
The suits take all forms. Ceos, lawyers, judges, politicians, clergy,
businessmen(women), etc.
The suits are all the same. Anything for an edge. Anything for an advantage.
Anything to exploit.
Anything to make them worth more. That is what the suit thinks.
They are all the same.
Otto
Jack Hollis
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>One last try: A big company screws you over and they win because they
>>>have the money to outlast you in court.
>>>
>>>Would you still say "if I were that company, I'd do my best to pay as
>>>little as possible as late as possible. If the justice system allows
>>>that to happen, then I don't blame them for taking advantage of what the
>>>law allows"?
It's an irrelevant hypothetical for the Exxon situation. Exxon is up
against an army of scumbag trial lawyers working on contingency. Exxon
isn't going to outlast anyone.
Of course there are situations where big corporations use their
resources to outlast the small guy. But this isn't one of them.
What Exxon is trying to do is to get the $5 billion punitive damage
award reduced. Last I heard, they're down to $2.5 billion, which is
still absurd. Naturally, one third of this will go to the trial
lawyers.
Jack Hollis
<g...@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>Finally an underlying root issue is clarified: extortion here; and
>stonewalling on the part of Exxon, in cahoots with the lawyers who will not
>allow for a reasonable settlement OF punitive damages - clearly something
>negotiable as is any other part of monetary elements of a trial. Since
>lawyers obtain obscene percentages of monies due to the injured, they have
>billions of dollars waving in their faces. Power [money] corrupts; absolute
>power corrupts absolutely.
Yes, the trial lawyers in the Exxon case could end up splitting up
over a billion dollars. That kind of money will make some people do
almost anything.
Exxon isn't really stonewalling, they're just taking the appeals
process to the end. And why shouldn't they?
Bear
wrote:
It would seem to me that they are stonewalling. How flipping long is
this stuff supposed to go on? I mean the Valdez ran aground in March
of 1989 and yet it still goes on and on and on and on and on....
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/wbh_exxart.htm
This was the first site that appeared when a googling. Now I don't
know much about American courts but it would seem to me that they have
been ordered to pay damages and yet they appeal and appeal and
appeal... I guess they will keep going until they get it down to the
$25mil they want.
Pay the damages, don't hire drunks to run tankers and let everyone get
on with their lives.
bill-o
On 28-Mar-2007, "AKA gray asphalt" <goodid...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> Investors usually contribute nothing to society,
Showing your econ ignorance again.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
AKA gray asphalt
Who can tell an informed jury what to do? Jury nullification applies here
too.
"sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:PLCdnbYaUpu3Upfb...@comcast.com...