The ultimate legal nightmare for America
Posted: October 04, 2010
By Judson Phillips © 2010
There are many laws out there that make up the Lawyers' Full Employment Act.
Many of these laws seem to have only one purpose: That is, to put lawyers to work. Now, there is one proposal that puts all of these to shame. A group of liberal lawyers in Wisconsin has filed a petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court for implementation of what is called "civil Gideon."
Gideon refers to the Gideon v. Wainwright, the 1963 case that established that if someone who is charged with a crime is indigent then the government must provide them with a lawyer. Since Gideon the cost of criminal cases has exploded. In many jurisdictions, lawyers actively seek out these appointments, as they are very lucrative.
Now, these liberal lawyers in Wisconsin want the Wisconsin Supreme Court to order that in certain civil cases if someone is "indigent" they have the right to a court-appointed lawyer. These cases involve issues of "sustenance, shelter, clothing, heat, medical care, safety, child custody and placement." What does this mean? If you can't afford clothing from Banana Republic, you get a lawyer to sue someone so you can afford it? If the Wisconsin Supreme Court grants this petition, the voters of Wisconsin are not even going to get a vote on the matter. They are going to get stuck with a tab that will start at $50 million to $80 million!
One thing we know about government programs is they never come in under budget. And if this program is approved, it will be copied in other states. At a minimum, this could cost taxpayers nationwide $3 billion to almost $5 billion. And that is if the costs are kept within budget. We know how often that happens with government programs.
Realistically, this is simply the beginning of the nightmare. First, there are no restrictions in the plan on who can receive these services. In other words, illegal aliens and their aiders and abettors will be lining up. Under the Gideon rule in criminal courts, a defendant gets an attorney, regardless of immigration status. Imagine you are a landlord and you do not want to rent to an illegal alien. Since this law provides for lawyers on issues of "shelter," your tax dollars are going to go to the lawyer so he can be paid to represent the illegal alien who is going to sue you.
For years, conservatives have complained about the Legal Services Corporation. This "corporation" was created by Congress to offer legal services to the poor. Instead, it has been used to advance left-wing issues through litigation. When Republicans control Congress, restrictions are put in place to keep it from being used for political purposes. If "civil Gideon" is enacted in all 50 states, any such regulation will be impossible. This will be the ultimate legal litigation nightmare for America.
The bad news is, this will cost billions of dollars America cannot afford. The good news is, if this goes through, at least the unemployment rate for lawyers will drop.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=211285
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label lawyers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawyers. Show all posts
Friday, October 8, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
The Dodd-Frank Financial Regulation Bill.....Securing Jobs for Lawyers and Lobbyist
The Dodd-Frank Financial Regulation Bill.....Securing Jobs for Lawyers and Lobbyist
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A2379360&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A2379360&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Prescriptions for Disaster Now Covered Under Obamacare
Prescriptions for Disaster Now Covered Under Obamacare
by Ann Coulter
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
On the "Today" show this Tuesday, President Obama claimed the massive government takeover of health care the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote was a "middle of the road" bill that incorporated many Republican ideas.
One Republican idea allegedly incorporated into the Democrats' health care monstrosity is "medical malpractice reform." Needless to say, the Democrats' idea of malpractice reform is less than nothing. Until trial lawyers are screaming bloody murder, there has been no medical malpractice reform.
The Democrats' "malpractice" section merely encourages the states to set up commissions to "study" tort reform, in the sense that frustrated mothers "encourage" their kids not to slouch. By "study," the Democrats mean "ignore."
So we get more taxpayer-funded government workers under the Democrats' "medical malpractice reform," but not one tittle of actual reform.
Democrats manifestly do not care about helping Americans get quality health care. If they did, they could not continue to support trial lawyers like John Edwards making $50 million by bringing junk lawsuits against doctors who are saving people's lives. (At least Edwards has not done anything else to publicly disgrace himself since then.)
At a minimum, any health care bill that purports to improve Americans' health, rather than trial lawyers' bank accounts, must include a loser-pays rule and a restriction on damages to actual losses -- as opposed to punitive damages, which mostly serve to enrich the John Edwardses of the world, and their mistresses.
The Democrats also lyingly claim their health care reform includes the Republican ideas of competition across state lines.
I know they're lying because -- well, first because I read the bill -- but also because Democrats are genetically incapable of understanding the free market. You might say it's a pre-existing condition with them.
True, you can buy insurance across state lines under the new health insurance law -- but only after the Democrats have created a national commission telling all insurance companies what they are required to cover.
That's not as bad as the current patchwork of state mandates -- it's worse!
At least before the passage of ObamaCare you could move to states such as Idaho or Kentucky, where all insurance plans aren't required to cover fertility treatment, restless leg syndrome and social anxiety disorder.
Under federal mandates, there will be no escape.
That's right, a single, one-size-fits-all, jammed-down-your-throat national plan is what the Democrats mean when they say their plan includes "competition across state lines."
How much do you want to bet that the national commission in Washington will mandate coverage for every form of shopping addiction treatment, body image therapy and sex-change operations with mandatory mental health counseling, but not injuries from hunting accidents or smoking-related illnesses?
The Democrats compare their new health care bill to entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. But those are welfare, not health care. They may go to deserving welfare recipients, but they are a government-enforced gift from the young to the old (Medicare), and from the middle class to the poor (Medicaid).
There's no reason why most Americans shouldn't be able to buy our own medical insurance the same way we buy our own cell phones, hair care and cars.
And just incidentally, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to go bankrupt slightly before the United States of America is projected to go bankrupt. So turning all of health care into a larger Medicare program may need a little more thinking through.
These programs will have to be reconfigured at some point, but how society takes care of the old and the poor should be put in a separate box from how the non-elderly and non-poor should obtain health care.
Democrats want to turn the entire citizenry into welfare recipients.
A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an editorial noting the amazing fact that, by the middle of this year, there will be an estimated 6.8 billion people on Earth -- and 5 billion will have cell phones! (Even more astounding, at least one of them is seated directly behind me every time I go to the movies.)
How did that happen without a Democrat president and Congress using bribes, parliamentary tricks and arcane non-voting maneuvers to pass a massive, hugely expensive National Cell Phone Reform Act?
How did that happen without Barney Frank and Henry Waxman personally designing the 3-foot-long, 26-pound, ugly green $4,000 cell phone we all have to use?
How did that happen without Obama signing the National Cell Phone Reform bill, as a poor 10-year-old black kid who couldn't afford to text-message his friends looked on?
The reason nearly everyone in the universe has a cell phone is that President Reagan did to telephones the exact opposite of what the Democrats have just done with health care.
Before Reagan came into office, we had one phone company, ridiculously expensive rates and one phone model. Reagan split up AT&T, deregulated phone service and gave America a competitive market in phones. The rest is history.
If you can grasp how inexpensive cell phones in a rainbow of colors and wonders like the iPhone could never have been created under a National Cell Phone Reform Act, you can understand what a disaster ObamaCare is going to be for health care in America.
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
by Ann Coulter
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
On the "Today" show this Tuesday, President Obama claimed the massive government takeover of health care the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote was a "middle of the road" bill that incorporated many Republican ideas.
One Republican idea allegedly incorporated into the Democrats' health care monstrosity is "medical malpractice reform." Needless to say, the Democrats' idea of malpractice reform is less than nothing. Until trial lawyers are screaming bloody murder, there has been no medical malpractice reform.
The Democrats' "malpractice" section merely encourages the states to set up commissions to "study" tort reform, in the sense that frustrated mothers "encourage" their kids not to slouch. By "study," the Democrats mean "ignore."
So we get more taxpayer-funded government workers under the Democrats' "medical malpractice reform," but not one tittle of actual reform.
Democrats manifestly do not care about helping Americans get quality health care. If they did, they could not continue to support trial lawyers like John Edwards making $50 million by bringing junk lawsuits against doctors who are saving people's lives. (At least Edwards has not done anything else to publicly disgrace himself since then.)
At a minimum, any health care bill that purports to improve Americans' health, rather than trial lawyers' bank accounts, must include a loser-pays rule and a restriction on damages to actual losses -- as opposed to punitive damages, which mostly serve to enrich the John Edwardses of the world, and their mistresses.
The Democrats also lyingly claim their health care reform includes the Republican ideas of competition across state lines.
I know they're lying because -- well, first because I read the bill -- but also because Democrats are genetically incapable of understanding the free market. You might say it's a pre-existing condition with them.
True, you can buy insurance across state lines under the new health insurance law -- but only after the Democrats have created a national commission telling all insurance companies what they are required to cover.
That's not as bad as the current patchwork of state mandates -- it's worse!
At least before the passage of ObamaCare you could move to states such as Idaho or Kentucky, where all insurance plans aren't required to cover fertility treatment, restless leg syndrome and social anxiety disorder.
Under federal mandates, there will be no escape.
That's right, a single, one-size-fits-all, jammed-down-your-throat national plan is what the Democrats mean when they say their plan includes "competition across state lines."
How much do you want to bet that the national commission in Washington will mandate coverage for every form of shopping addiction treatment, body image therapy and sex-change operations with mandatory mental health counseling, but not injuries from hunting accidents or smoking-related illnesses?
The Democrats compare their new health care bill to entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. But those are welfare, not health care. They may go to deserving welfare recipients, but they are a government-enforced gift from the young to the old (Medicare), and from the middle class to the poor (Medicaid).
There's no reason why most Americans shouldn't be able to buy our own medical insurance the same way we buy our own cell phones, hair care and cars.
And just incidentally, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to go bankrupt slightly before the United States of America is projected to go bankrupt. So turning all of health care into a larger Medicare program may need a little more thinking through.
These programs will have to be reconfigured at some point, but how society takes care of the old and the poor should be put in a separate box from how the non-elderly and non-poor should obtain health care.
Democrats want to turn the entire citizenry into welfare recipients.
A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an editorial noting the amazing fact that, by the middle of this year, there will be an estimated 6.8 billion people on Earth -- and 5 billion will have cell phones! (Even more astounding, at least one of them is seated directly behind me every time I go to the movies.)
How did that happen without a Democrat president and Congress using bribes, parliamentary tricks and arcane non-voting maneuvers to pass a massive, hugely expensive National Cell Phone Reform Act?
How did that happen without Barney Frank and Henry Waxman personally designing the 3-foot-long, 26-pound, ugly green $4,000 cell phone we all have to use?
How did that happen without Obama signing the National Cell Phone Reform bill, as a poor 10-year-old black kid who couldn't afford to text-message his friends looked on?
The reason nearly everyone in the universe has a cell phone is that President Reagan did to telephones the exact opposite of what the Democrats have just done with health care.
Before Reagan came into office, we had one phone company, ridiculously expensive rates and one phone model. Reagan split up AT&T, deregulated phone service and gave America a competitive market in phones. The rest is history.
If you can grasp how inexpensive cell phones in a rainbow of colors and wonders like the iPhone could never have been created under a National Cell Phone Reform Act, you can understand what a disaster ObamaCare is going to be for health care in America.
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, March 29, 2010
'Representing' al-Qaeda
'Representing' al-Qaeda
by Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Online, March 29, 2010
Does Helping Jihadists Lie, Plot, and Identify CIA Agents Demonstrate Patriotism -- or Material Support to Terrorism?
Bravely entering the lion's den -- delivering a speech in praise of left-wing, "pro bono" lawyering to a group of left-wing, pro bono lawyers -- Attorney General Eric Holder recently declared that "lawyers who provide counsel for the unpopular are, and should be, treated as what they are: patriots."
Sure they are. After all, Holder explained, they "reaffirm our nation's most essential and enduring values" -- like the value we place on coming to the aid of our enemies in wartime. And let's not forget the value we place on advocating for the release of those enemies who, as night follows day, then return to the business of killing Americans. Sure, the nation somehow missed these essential and enduring values in the two-plus centuries between the Revolutionary War and the War on Terror, but hey, who's counting? ...
For The Public Good?
In reporting Holder's remarks, the press defined "pro bono" as if it meant "voluntary." Although the term describes no-fee legal work that lawyers do voluntarily, that is not what it means. "Pro bono" is short for pro bono publico, "for the public good." That is, it is supposed to reflect the public's values, not the profession's. And the two are very much out of sync.
The attorney general's pep rally occurred just as the public was getting its first glimpse of the peculiar notions of "representation" shared by several Gitmo Bar veterans. Thanks to dogged investigative work (here and here) by Debra Burlingame and Tom Joscelyn (of, respectively, Keep America Safe and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), we now know a good deal about several of these volunteer lawyers. To take just a few examples, they provided al-Qaeda detainees with a brochure that instructed them on how to claim falsely that they had been tortured; fomented a detainee hunger strike that disrupted security and precipitated fabricated reports that prisoners had been tortured and force-fed; provided the detainees with other virulently anti-American propaganda (for example, inform ing them about the Abu Ghraib scandal, comparing U.S. military physicians to Josef Mengele, and labeling DOJ lawyers "desk torturers"); gave the enemy-combatant terrorists a hand-drawn map of Gitmo's layout, including guard towers; helped the enemy combatants communicate messages to the outside world; informed the detainees of the identities of other detainees in U.S. custody; and posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet in a transparent effort to identify U.S. security personnel.
And that's not the worst of it -- not by a long shot. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has uncovered the Gitmo Bar's shocking effort to identify CIA interrogators. The lawyers -- from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, perversely calling themselves "the John Adams Project" -- actually had investigators stalk U.S. intelligence officers, surveilling them near their homes and photographing them with or near their loved ones. The photos were then smuggled into Gitmo and shown to top terrorists to determine whether they recognized which intelligence agents had questioned them. Interestingly, the attorney general claimed that al-Qaeda's volunteer lawyers deserve the public's "respect" because they "accept our professional responsibility to protect the rule of law." All of the above-described activities not only violated the law; they occurred in flagrant contravention of court-ordered conditions that were placed on the lawyers' access to their "clients." Evidently, violating statutes and contemptuously flouting court orders protects the rule of law in the same way that coming to the enemy's aid exhibits patriotism. That's "our values" for you. ...
Follow this link to continue reading "'Representing' al-Qaeda."
http://article.nationalreview.com/429623/representing-al-qaeda/andrew-c-mccarthy
by Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Online, March 29, 2010
Does Helping Jihadists Lie, Plot, and Identify CIA Agents Demonstrate Patriotism -- or Material Support to Terrorism?
Bravely entering the lion's den -- delivering a speech in praise of left-wing, "pro bono" lawyering to a group of left-wing, pro bono lawyers -- Attorney General Eric Holder recently declared that "lawyers who provide counsel for the unpopular are, and should be, treated as what they are: patriots."
Sure they are. After all, Holder explained, they "reaffirm our nation's most essential and enduring values" -- like the value we place on coming to the aid of our enemies in wartime. And let's not forget the value we place on advocating for the release of those enemies who, as night follows day, then return to the business of killing Americans. Sure, the nation somehow missed these essential and enduring values in the two-plus centuries between the Revolutionary War and the War on Terror, but hey, who's counting? ...
For The Public Good?
In reporting Holder's remarks, the press defined "pro bono" as if it meant "voluntary." Although the term describes no-fee legal work that lawyers do voluntarily, that is not what it means. "Pro bono" is short for pro bono publico, "for the public good." That is, it is supposed to reflect the public's values, not the profession's. And the two are very much out of sync.
The attorney general's pep rally occurred just as the public was getting its first glimpse of the peculiar notions of "representation" shared by several Gitmo Bar veterans. Thanks to dogged investigative work (here and here) by Debra Burlingame and Tom Joscelyn (of, respectively, Keep America Safe and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), we now know a good deal about several of these volunteer lawyers. To take just a few examples, they provided al-Qaeda detainees with a brochure that instructed them on how to claim falsely that they had been tortured; fomented a detainee hunger strike that disrupted security and precipitated fabricated reports that prisoners had been tortured and force-fed; provided the detainees with other virulently anti-American propaganda (for example, inform ing them about the Abu Ghraib scandal, comparing U.S. military physicians to Josef Mengele, and labeling DOJ lawyers "desk torturers"); gave the enemy-combatant terrorists a hand-drawn map of Gitmo's layout, including guard towers; helped the enemy combatants communicate messages to the outside world; informed the detainees of the identities of other detainees in U.S. custody; and posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet in a transparent effort to identify U.S. security personnel.
And that's not the worst of it -- not by a long shot. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has uncovered the Gitmo Bar's shocking effort to identify CIA interrogators. The lawyers -- from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, perversely calling themselves "the John Adams Project" -- actually had investigators stalk U.S. intelligence officers, surveilling them near their homes and photographing them with or near their loved ones. The photos were then smuggled into Gitmo and shown to top terrorists to determine whether they recognized which intelligence agents had questioned them. Interestingly, the attorney general claimed that al-Qaeda's volunteer lawyers deserve the public's "respect" because they "accept our professional responsibility to protect the rule of law." All of the above-described activities not only violated the law; they occurred in flagrant contravention of court-ordered conditions that were placed on the lawyers' access to their "clients." Evidently, violating statutes and contemptuously flouting court orders protects the rule of law in the same way that coming to the enemy's aid exhibits patriotism. That's "our values" for you. ...
Follow this link to continue reading "'Representing' al-Qaeda."
http://article.nationalreview.com/429623/representing-al-qaeda/andrew-c-mccarthy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
