Recently, the Utah Judiciary Committee completed a survey which
anecdotally indicated that the general public believes that the Utah Judicial System is infused with bias and is unresponsive to the public's needs. In reaction thereto Senator Hatch, Justice Zimmerman and others seem to opine that this public perception, though troubling, is incorrect. To these leaders and others, I would warn and hope that they do not disregard these "anecdotal perceptions." As an attorney, I believe this perception to be true, but I will be branded a whiner. Whether correct or not, it is often the masses' collective perception that is the catalyst to reformations, riots and revolutions.
We live in an era in which our legislators, judges and attorneys are enamored with legal complexity and are seduced by the legal process. They've never met a problem that could not be made worse with a cascade of undecipherable legislation. In the name of legal reform, powerful interest groups representing big business and big government have created innumerable special laws and layer upon layer of legal processes and procedures that are little more than the structural pyramids of old and the fraudulent pyramid schemes of today--monumental tombs for the powerful, built upon the backs of the common man, smothering justice, equity and fairness under their weight and offering benefits to their creators but offering nothing but false hope to the rest of us.
These legal pyramid schemes, only impressive because of their sheer volume and fraudulent ingenuity, provide no utility. They are structured upon a proliferation of documentation requirements, statutes of limitations, notice procedures and pre-litigation proceedings. They are justified by snake-oil sales pitches. They are attended to by ranks upon ranks of priests and priestesses we call law enforcement officers, investigators, attorneys and judges. They do nothing to resolve legal disputes, nor simplify the process but merely add expense, time and complexity thereto. Such legal pyramids include the Utah Governmental Immunity Act and the Medical Malpractice Act. As a result of these Acts and others, the ranks of priestly lawyers must explode to act as our spiritual tour guides among the tombs and new governmental investigative, regulatory and adjudicative agencies must be created, swelling government bureaucracies. The Utah Industrial Commission with its many divisions, including but not limited to the Anti-Discrimination Division, is a crowning jewel to these legal pyramid schemes.
Our High Priests--our Justices--chosen to administer these legal pyramids schemes, who should be chosen because of their diverse legal backgrounds, experience and ability to act objectively, are selected almost wholly from the ranks of attorney technocrats or politicians who have spent their careers financing, supporting and building such legal pyramids on behalf of their clients, the privileged, the rich and the powerful. As a consequence, whether consciously or unconsciously, they do their best to gut, by their parsimonious interpretations, any laws protecting the rights of working, middle-class Americans. Having never had to see legal issues from both sides or to have litigated on a shoe string for poor clients, such Judges are often arrogant, rude and impatient with attorneys and litigants whose cases do not involve momentous issues, have millions at stake or have unlimited litigation budgets. If ever remiss in their duties, accountable to no one, our Judges would probably cause those that appear before them to faint in surprise if they ever apologized.
Because of the vague laws or because of having been granted broad judicial discretion by these legal pyramids, when these same Judges are confronted with difficult decisions that could arguably be determined either way, they usually apply the following rules: (1) Whatever decision allows them to get to the golf course sooner on Friday afternoon is the right one, (2) when a dispute arises between parties of unequal economic or political strength, then the more powerful party should prevail, (3) when a dispute is being presented by lawyers or law offices of unequal prominence, then the more prominent lawyer or law office should prevail, (4) if a party can be forced into giving up his or her position, or if a difficult and lengthy evidentiary hearing or trial can be avoided by ordering the parties to undergo expensive evaluations (like custody evaluations) or engage in other procedures that they must pay for and cannot afford, then the Judge should so order, (5) if a technicality arises allowing a favorable decision for big government or big business then it should be summarily used, (6) if a technicality arises allowing a favorable decision for a politically or economically unimportant individual or a criminal defendant, then it’s a damn poor mind that can't think of some reason or excuse not to allow use of the technicality (Judge's don't have damn poor minds), (7) evidentiary rules should always be interpreted in criminal cases to benefit the government (unless the defendant is wealthy and politically connected) and in civil cases to benefit the economically or politically powerful–even if doing so creates a double standard when the same rule is being applied to a criminal case as compared to a civil case (i.e., the rules involving other bad acts); and lastly such Judges should always keep in mind that (8) the process and procedure is more important than the substance of a legal problem.
Another reason for the public's perception of bias are the double standards that have been created in our legal system. We view as unfair the Federal and State governments' unlimited access to information about our personal lives and its enormous power to prosecute its citizens without reimbursement when it is wrong, thus bankrupting both economically and spiritually thousands of innocent people.
We view as unfair the governments' power to collect money from its citizens without the fear of bankruptcy and through innumerable seizure methods with little due process. To the contrary, to collect a judgment from a judgment debtor, we must go through a lengthy series of hearings and court filings to collect a judgment that could be relieved by all too easy bankruptcy filings. We view as unfair, that to seek redress from our government for a civil or legal wrong, we often can't even get a government representative to answer the phone.
We further can't understand why if big business or big government asks the criminal justice system to prosecute an employee for stealing a $1 pencil set (which should not be tolerated), it will go after him with unfettered zeal, yet if we ask this same criminal justice system to prosecute a business when the evidence is conclusive that it is intentionally robbing its employees of thousands of dollars of wages or to require a governmental agency to perform its regulatory requirements, you will not see blanker stares on a milking cow. This is not justice.
Utahns should clamor for true legal reforms that do not become legal pyramid schemes, offering benefits for special interest groups but false hope and broken promises for the rest of us. Laws should have universal application and take into consideration all members of our society. If a special law for the medical industry cannot be applied to others, look for the dead bodies buried under its gleaming facade and you will find them. True legal reform should infuse the legal system with simplicity, fairness, and cost effectiveness. Here are just a few recommendations:
(1) Except for murder and other similar heinous crimes, irrespective of the parties in an action (whether governmental, individuals or businesses) there should be one statute of limitations for all criminal cases and one statute of limitations for all civil cases whether involving conduct that is intentional or negligent (this would include the elimination of special notice requirements for lawsuits against the government or medical health providers, etc).
(2) The elimination of special laws protecting the government or other interest groups. Laws should have universal application or should not be passed. (For instance, if constitutionally viable caps on damages are set, they should apply to all individuals and legal entities, not just to the government or particular industries).
(3) If the government pursues a criminal or civil suit against a business or an individual and loses, it should reimburse them for their legal expenses.
(4) Except for perhaps the Worker's Compensation Division of the Utah Industrial Commission, all of its Divisions and other such governmental bureaucracies should be eliminated and their enforcement authority should be turned over to the private sector.
(5) Creating judgment collecting procedures that: (a) start immediately following the Court or Jury's pronouncement of a money award and, (b) require the court's active involvement in ensuring payment of the judgment. (This is of more interest to middle-class Americans than perhaps any other legal reforms).
(6) Giving all businesses, whether corporations, partnerships, etc. the same legal immunities and protection from suit. (This would better ensure universal application of tort laws to businesses).
(7) Requiring insurance company's to allow their insureds to select their own attorneys and allowing defendants who are eligible to have a court appointed attorney to have their choice of attorney so long as the privately chosen attorney accept the same contractual rate paid by the insurance companies and governments to their own attorneys.
(8) If caps on damages that are constitutional are passed that still allow
punishment of malicious conduct and reimburse those with catastrophic injuries;
then, short of proving medical malpractice against the health care practitioners,
insurance companies, judges, and juries should be prohibited from second guessing the treatment choices and expenses incurred by an individual's own health care practitioner. (In other words, provide caps for the insurance industry and big businesses but then provide assurance that medical bills will always be paid--this adds fairness to both sides of this issue).
Loren M. Lambert
2001 ©
Saturday, July 7, 2001
Thursday, July 5, 2001
ERISA: The Federal World-Is-Flat Act
There are two dirty little secrets that insurance providers use to bilk the American public out of millions of dollars, while keeping their CEOs driving Mercedes Benzes and living in million dollar mansions. The first is that some legislators are addicted to insurance money and, to protect this source of campaign revenue, will pass ill conceived laws. These laws often have the effect of creating legal barriers to lawsuit that the rest of us do not enjoy and are another form of corporate welfare. The second is that there are professional medical experts who call themselves "Independent Medical Examiners," who, when provided with a small fee (usually $500 to $2,500) will, regardless of the honest facts, contrive a medical opinion supporting an insurance companies’ denial of benefits. It is well known that these "Medical Examiners," (who are accountable to no one but the insurance industry that pays them), pump out millions of questionable, misleading and sometimes patently false medical reports.
ERISA (Employment Retirement Income Security Act) is an example of one of these ill conceived laws that the insurance industry has muscled through the U.S. Legislature. ERISA allows the insurance industry to use with impunity these questionable medical examinations to deny disability benefit due to thousands of disabled American workers. How does this work and why should you care?
If, under ERISA, you had to prove that the world was round to obtain disability benefits, all the insurance company would have to do to defeat your application would be to find one or two credentialed persons, no matter how disreputable, corrupt, or scientifically questionable, to render an opinion that the world was flat. Once it had done this it would win, ipso facto, closed case, chop chop, over, done, no more questions asked, go suck on a raw lemon--the world is flat and you don’t get benefits, period, despite any and all evidence to the contrary! This is so because under ERISA you could not take the issue to court. If you did, unless you were lucky enough to draw a Judge who championed justice over systemic idiocy, the typical I’ve-got-my-eyes-on-a-Supreme-Court-nomination Federal Court Judge would have to side with the insurance company and declare the world to be flat. Why? Because ERISA requires the Judge to do so.
Case in point. Betty Roach worked for Bank One for 18 years and paid premiums to Prudential for disability benefits. She became chronically and seriously ill and had to leave her work. She presented extensive medical evidence to Prudential demonstrating her disability. Her own doctors (who are accountable to their Medical Associations and their patients to provide competent care or go out of business) and an Administrative Law Judge for the Social Security Administration found her to be completely disabled. Even her Bank One co-workers corroborated her pleas for disability. Despite this, Prudential denied her benefits.
For backing, Prudential purchased two medical evaluations from two doctors well known for supporting insurance company denials. Interestingly, its alleged experts, instead of listening to Ms. Roach’s complaints of severe pain, condemned her for complaining about it. Later, Ms. Roach’s own doctor found through objective neurological testing that she had severe nerve damage to the nerves in her arms, wrists and hands.
With no other recourse, Ms. Roach sued Prudential for her benefits. Prudential moved to dismiss the case under ERISA’s provisions that bar Ms. Roach from presenting her evidence of disability at trial. Federal District Court Judge Dee Benson, in reviewing Prudential’s request to dismiss the case stated, ". . . I may be tempted in a case like this to find that [Ms. Roach] in my view is disabled, candidly. It seems like there is a pretty good case here to be made for her disability, but in light of this standard . . . my job is only to see if there was some rational basis to support this even if I don’t agree with it. . . . [I]t seems like this system is harsher than our judicial system . . . [I]t would be nice in an ideal world if someone could go back to Prudential and say do you want to take another look at this? I don’t think she is faking it here."
So, although Judge Benson honestly believed Ms. Roach was disabled and that it was harsh and unfair, under ERISA, he had to confirm Prudential’s denial of benefits. One may question, "But the Judge did say Prudential had to have ‘some rational basis,’ and using the flat world analysis it is not rational by today’s standards to state that the world is flat." This is true, but ERISA bars Ms. Roach from presenting any evidence in court showing that by "today’s standards", just as it is irrational to state that the world is flat, it would be equally irrational to state that Prudential’s purchased doctors’ opinions are irrational. In essence, just as it is rational for an uneducated man to declare the world flat, under ERISA, no matter how baseless, erroneous or even fraudulent, these purchased medical opinions become by law irrefutable because the courts cannot be educated to the contrary. Hence, using the flat-world analysis, under ERISA, despite all the evidence to the contrary, it would be legally rational for a U.S. Court to decree the world to be flat.
Prudential’s own attorney, Mr. Jon C. Martinson, of Fabian & Clendenin, stated, "[W]e need to remember that under [ERISA’s] arbitrary and capricious standard the Court affords the administrator’s discretion in their review based on the administrative record. We are not here to determine whether [Ms. Roach] was disabled under our understanding. . . . I don’t think any of us does not sympathize with [Ms. Roach]. . . The law requires us to make a counterintuitive decision in this case. . . It is not our call and it is not the District Court’s call and it is not the Tenth Circuit’s call. . . . [T]he way [ERISA] is now we’re going to have to trade unfortunate and hopefully rare situations like this for overall efficiency."
In Plain English Prudential’s attorney, Mr. Martinson, stated that since Prudential’s denial was "rational", however scurrilous, doubtful, or "counterintuitive", under ERISA the Court had to confirm Prudential’s denial of benefits. He further stated that, under ERISA, it was and is irrelevant that Mr. Martinson, Judge Benson, and the Court of Appeals all knew and know that Ms. Roach was and is disabled. Consequently, under ERISA, despite Ms. Roach’s, "unfortunate and hopefully rare" plight, the Judge was required, "for overall efficiency", "to make a counterintuitive", or in other words, a completely wrong, decision.
So why should you care? Ms. Roach, by purchasing disability through her labor at Bank One, tried to do the right thing so that if she became disabled she could be independent. Currently, she receives $900 a month from Social Security. Without the additional disability income from Prudential, she is unable to even subsist and is about a year away from homelessness, about one year away from joining what Prudential knows to be a politically insignificant and powerless group of people. Knowing this, Prudential, its attorneys, the U.S. Congress, and the Federal Courts "for overall efficiency" do not give a hoot about this "unfortunate" group of people. However, you should, because we as a humane society have long since abandoned the creed that those who cannot work must be turned loose on the ice flows of life with a single blanket to drift away and die.
Prudential is banking on this. It is hoping that instead of taking action to change laws like ERISA, that the detrimental and rippling effects of Ms. Roach’s plight and that of millions of others will be felt by all of us who truly care and we, instead of Prudential’s CEO’s, will pick up the tab so that Prudential’s CEO’s will be able to keep Ms. Roach’s premiums to make their Mercedes payment next month. History has shown that, in the name of "overall efficiency," it is the nature of the powerful to slowly but surely erode our civil rights. Today it is Ms. Roach, tomorrow it will be you.
There has been and presently are cries to reform our system of civil justice. Most of these reform efforts start off with the principled goal to make our system of justice fairer for all of us but usually end up being highjacked by the powerful, again in the name of "overall efficiency," to take away or limit your rights to seek redress in the courts--the only place where there is an honest effort (not always achieved) to level the playing field between the powerful and the meek. Such is the case under ERISA. Beware of these attempts or you, like Ms. Roach, may find yourselves spreading your flat bedroll, under a flat overpass, beside a flat highway, filled with Prudential-CEO-driven Mercedes, roaring by on their way to the flat courts in your very, very flat world.
Loren M. Lambert
© May 20, 2002
ERISA (Employment Retirement Income Security Act) is an example of one of these ill conceived laws that the insurance industry has muscled through the U.S. Legislature. ERISA allows the insurance industry to use with impunity these questionable medical examinations to deny disability benefit due to thousands of disabled American workers. How does this work and why should you care?
If, under ERISA, you had to prove that the world was round to obtain disability benefits, all the insurance company would have to do to defeat your application would be to find one or two credentialed persons, no matter how disreputable, corrupt, or scientifically questionable, to render an opinion that the world was flat. Once it had done this it would win, ipso facto, closed case, chop chop, over, done, no more questions asked, go suck on a raw lemon--the world is flat and you don’t get benefits, period, despite any and all evidence to the contrary! This is so because under ERISA you could not take the issue to court. If you did, unless you were lucky enough to draw a Judge who championed justice over systemic idiocy, the typical I’ve-got-my-eyes-on-a-Supreme-Court-nomination Federal Court Judge would have to side with the insurance company and declare the world to be flat. Why? Because ERISA requires the Judge to do so.
Case in point. Betty Roach worked for Bank One for 18 years and paid premiums to Prudential for disability benefits. She became chronically and seriously ill and had to leave her work. She presented extensive medical evidence to Prudential demonstrating her disability. Her own doctors (who are accountable to their Medical Associations and their patients to provide competent care or go out of business) and an Administrative Law Judge for the Social Security Administration found her to be completely disabled. Even her Bank One co-workers corroborated her pleas for disability. Despite this, Prudential denied her benefits.
For backing, Prudential purchased two medical evaluations from two doctors well known for supporting insurance company denials. Interestingly, its alleged experts, instead of listening to Ms. Roach’s complaints of severe pain, condemned her for complaining about it. Later, Ms. Roach’s own doctor found through objective neurological testing that she had severe nerve damage to the nerves in her arms, wrists and hands.
With no other recourse, Ms. Roach sued Prudential for her benefits. Prudential moved to dismiss the case under ERISA’s provisions that bar Ms. Roach from presenting her evidence of disability at trial. Federal District Court Judge Dee Benson, in reviewing Prudential’s request to dismiss the case stated, ". . . I may be tempted in a case like this to find that [Ms. Roach] in my view is disabled, candidly. It seems like there is a pretty good case here to be made for her disability, but in light of this standard . . . my job is only to see if there was some rational basis to support this even if I don’t agree with it. . . . [I]t seems like this system is harsher than our judicial system . . . [I]t would be nice in an ideal world if someone could go back to Prudential and say do you want to take another look at this? I don’t think she is faking it here."
So, although Judge Benson honestly believed Ms. Roach was disabled and that it was harsh and unfair, under ERISA, he had to confirm Prudential’s denial of benefits. One may question, "But the Judge did say Prudential had to have ‘some rational basis,’ and using the flat world analysis it is not rational by today’s standards to state that the world is flat." This is true, but ERISA bars Ms. Roach from presenting any evidence in court showing that by "today’s standards", just as it is irrational to state that the world is flat, it would be equally irrational to state that Prudential’s purchased doctors’ opinions are irrational. In essence, just as it is rational for an uneducated man to declare the world flat, under ERISA, no matter how baseless, erroneous or even fraudulent, these purchased medical opinions become by law irrefutable because the courts cannot be educated to the contrary. Hence, using the flat-world analysis, under ERISA, despite all the evidence to the contrary, it would be legally rational for a U.S. Court to decree the world to be flat.
Prudential’s own attorney, Mr. Jon C. Martinson, of Fabian & Clendenin, stated, "[W]e need to remember that under [ERISA’s] arbitrary and capricious standard the Court affords the administrator’s discretion in their review based on the administrative record. We are not here to determine whether [Ms. Roach] was disabled under our understanding. . . . I don’t think any of us does not sympathize with [Ms. Roach]. . . The law requires us to make a counterintuitive decision in this case. . . It is not our call and it is not the District Court’s call and it is not the Tenth Circuit’s call. . . . [T]he way [ERISA] is now we’re going to have to trade unfortunate and hopefully rare situations like this for overall efficiency."
In Plain English Prudential’s attorney, Mr. Martinson, stated that since Prudential’s denial was "rational", however scurrilous, doubtful, or "counterintuitive", under ERISA the Court had to confirm Prudential’s denial of benefits. He further stated that, under ERISA, it was and is irrelevant that Mr. Martinson, Judge Benson, and the Court of Appeals all knew and know that Ms. Roach was and is disabled. Consequently, under ERISA, despite Ms. Roach’s, "unfortunate and hopefully rare" plight, the Judge was required, "for overall efficiency", "to make a counterintuitive", or in other words, a completely wrong, decision.
So why should you care? Ms. Roach, by purchasing disability through her labor at Bank One, tried to do the right thing so that if she became disabled she could be independent. Currently, she receives $900 a month from Social Security. Without the additional disability income from Prudential, she is unable to even subsist and is about a year away from homelessness, about one year away from joining what Prudential knows to be a politically insignificant and powerless group of people. Knowing this, Prudential, its attorneys, the U.S. Congress, and the Federal Courts "for overall efficiency" do not give a hoot about this "unfortunate" group of people. However, you should, because we as a humane society have long since abandoned the creed that those who cannot work must be turned loose on the ice flows of life with a single blanket to drift away and die.
Prudential is banking on this. It is hoping that instead of taking action to change laws like ERISA, that the detrimental and rippling effects of Ms. Roach’s plight and that of millions of others will be felt by all of us who truly care and we, instead of Prudential’s CEO’s, will pick up the tab so that Prudential’s CEO’s will be able to keep Ms. Roach’s premiums to make their Mercedes payment next month. History has shown that, in the name of "overall efficiency," it is the nature of the powerful to slowly but surely erode our civil rights. Today it is Ms. Roach, tomorrow it will be you.
There has been and presently are cries to reform our system of civil justice. Most of these reform efforts start off with the principled goal to make our system of justice fairer for all of us but usually end up being highjacked by the powerful, again in the name of "overall efficiency," to take away or limit your rights to seek redress in the courts--the only place where there is an honest effort (not always achieved) to level the playing field between the powerful and the meek. Such is the case under ERISA. Beware of these attempts or you, like Ms. Roach, may find yourselves spreading your flat bedroll, under a flat overpass, beside a flat highway, filled with Prudential-CEO-driven Mercedes, roaring by on their way to the flat courts in your very, very flat world.
Loren M. Lambert
© May 20, 2002
Tuesday, July 3, 2001
George W. Bush's Regressive Legal Plan
Earth to President Bush, carping HMO CEOs–the Patient’s Bill of Rights is not about whether a small handful of lawyers make more money than you and I could ever dream of. Nor is it about "unnecessary and expensive litigation." It’s about whether or not we the people have a right to seek redress in a court of law before a jury of our peers and be fully compensated for damage that is knowingly and sometimes maliciously committed against us.
So why do the fat cats of the insurance and medical industries and their politicians always want to artificially cap damage awards to persons they injure and decry any argument against such caps as "padding lawyers’ pockets?"
As I have learned, the answer is that the few lawyers and law firms that have reaped huge profits in contingency fees cases necessarily need huge capital reserves to fight and win against ruthless corporate opponents that are much more well-endowed than most lawyers and law firms. The damage-capping insurance and medical industry forces know this and therefore when they are rightfully sued, they don’t want an opponent worthy of their stature. They want to be the Nazi Panzer Battalion in a blitzkrieg against the Polish Cavalry. They know that without the right to go to court, patient’s rights are meaningless. (A law without a penalty and the ability to enforce the penalty in court is not a law but a wish). So by capping damage awards and barring access to the courts, they disarm their opponents and are free to hurt, maim and kill with impunity.
Trying to limit attorney’s fees by capping damages and limiting access to the courts is like trying to stop the spread of AIDS and limit the profit the medical industry makes from this fight by limiting the amount of treatment given the victims. Under both scenarios, it’s not the lawyers or the doctors who lose, it’s the victims, and it’s the wrong approach.
Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, all litigation is always "unnecessary and expensive" in the eyes of the wrongdoer. President Bush and his lackeys, many a wrongdoer among them, want to take your rights away. Don’t stand for it. Don’t allow the rich to artificially limit your access to the courts, nor limit your right to be paid 100% for the damages caused to you. If you think your lawyer’s contingency arrangement is too high, don’t sign the contract. Shop around. It’s the American way, whereas the regressive legal system the Bush administration wants is the Communist way.
Loren M. Lambert
July 3, 2001 ©
So why do the fat cats of the insurance and medical industries and their politicians always want to artificially cap damage awards to persons they injure and decry any argument against such caps as "padding lawyers’ pockets?"
As I have learned, the answer is that the few lawyers and law firms that have reaped huge profits in contingency fees cases necessarily need huge capital reserves to fight and win against ruthless corporate opponents that are much more well-endowed than most lawyers and law firms. The damage-capping insurance and medical industry forces know this and therefore when they are rightfully sued, they don’t want an opponent worthy of their stature. They want to be the Nazi Panzer Battalion in a blitzkrieg against the Polish Cavalry. They know that without the right to go to court, patient’s rights are meaningless. (A law without a penalty and the ability to enforce the penalty in court is not a law but a wish). So by capping damage awards and barring access to the courts, they disarm their opponents and are free to hurt, maim and kill with impunity.
Trying to limit attorney’s fees by capping damages and limiting access to the courts is like trying to stop the spread of AIDS and limit the profit the medical industry makes from this fight by limiting the amount of treatment given the victims. Under both scenarios, it’s not the lawyers or the doctors who lose, it’s the victims, and it’s the wrong approach.
Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, all litigation is always "unnecessary and expensive" in the eyes of the wrongdoer. President Bush and his lackeys, many a wrongdoer among them, want to take your rights away. Don’t stand for it. Don’t allow the rich to artificially limit your access to the courts, nor limit your right to be paid 100% for the damages caused to you. If you think your lawyer’s contingency arrangement is too high, don’t sign the contract. Shop around. It’s the American way, whereas the regressive legal system the Bush administration wants is the Communist way.
Loren M. Lambert
July 3, 2001 ©
Friday, June 15, 2001
Conversion Ain't For Woozies
Suppose you're in the prime of your life, have obtained great power, prestige and position within some highly structured demi-religious organization and then you realize that you're out of place. Several events and a set of sincere, intelligent and wise missionaries have convinced you that you need to leave and join a different group. You realize that this new group more closely resembles what you believe. You realize that in joining it, you will possibly be vilified, hated and abandoned by your family, friends and supporters, but you convert anyway. You leave the Republican party and become an Independent (or worse, a Democrat)!
At least 70% of Utahns should understand that such a decision takes great courage, but apparently the majority of Utahns believe Senator Jim Jeffords is a traitor to his Country.
I say hooray for Senator Jeffords. I mean, outside of Utah1, what does it really mean these days to be a Democrat or a Republican? Answer: Little more than whether you prefer the retreating view of a donkey or an elephant. Does it therefore surprise anyone that a single senator decided to shift loyalties and thereby channel the rivers of power to his door? Does it mean that Senator Jeffords went to bed a gun-toting, love-it-or-leave-it isolationist, far-right-wing religious-zealot and woke up the next morning a pinko, socialized-medicine-supporting, big-government-loving liberal? No. What he gave up was a suffocating, powerful support structure, but his ideals, philosophies and votes will remain the same.
Although I see the practical need of the support of one or the other side of our entrenched two-party-system, I would bet that a lot of Americans feel like I do--we don't feel comfortable with the zealots hanging out in either party and sometimes feel like we're choosing between the party of Mussolini or the party of Lenin instead of between the party of Lincoln and the party of FDR.
What is surprising is that more politicians on both sides of the isle don't jump ship. They don't because politics isn't about innovation, doing what's right for everyone; it's about, well, politics. You scratch our backs and we'll scratch yours. So if you find yourself wearing your fingers to the bones but with a back-load of itches, (like Senator Jeffords), or the doormat of a honey dipper, (like Senator Jeffords), what are you going to do? You are going to move.
What Americans should understand is that because of the way "We The People" vote, all politics is local and the only citizens Senator Jeffords is accountable to are the citizens of the State of Virginia. Hence, only when Virginians have the opportunity to vote him in or out will it be known from a political standpoint whether or not Senator Jeffords is a genius or a fool. Regardless, whatever they decide, from a human standpoint Senator Jeffords should still go down in history as a very clever, courageous man--perhaps foolish--but still courageous.
1 To be Republican means you at least say that, "I attend The Church, I'm pro family and pro education but I'm anti-big government and anti-crime (Duh, who isn't? Answer by some Utahns: A Democrat)
Loren M. Lambert
June 15, 2001 ©
At least 70% of Utahns should understand that such a decision takes great courage, but apparently the majority of Utahns believe Senator Jim Jeffords is a traitor to his Country.
I say hooray for Senator Jeffords. I mean, outside of Utah1, what does it really mean these days to be a Democrat or a Republican? Answer: Little more than whether you prefer the retreating view of a donkey or an elephant. Does it therefore surprise anyone that a single senator decided to shift loyalties and thereby channel the rivers of power to his door? Does it mean that Senator Jeffords went to bed a gun-toting, love-it-or-leave-it isolationist, far-right-wing religious-zealot and woke up the next morning a pinko, socialized-medicine-supporting, big-government-loving liberal? No. What he gave up was a suffocating, powerful support structure, but his ideals, philosophies and votes will remain the same.
Although I see the practical need of the support of one or the other side of our entrenched two-party-system, I would bet that a lot of Americans feel like I do--we don't feel comfortable with the zealots hanging out in either party and sometimes feel like we're choosing between the party of Mussolini or the party of Lenin instead of between the party of Lincoln and the party of FDR.
What is surprising is that more politicians on both sides of the isle don't jump ship. They don't because politics isn't about innovation, doing what's right for everyone; it's about, well, politics. You scratch our backs and we'll scratch yours. So if you find yourself wearing your fingers to the bones but with a back-load of itches, (like Senator Jeffords), or the doormat of a honey dipper, (like Senator Jeffords), what are you going to do? You are going to move.
What Americans should understand is that because of the way "We The People" vote, all politics is local and the only citizens Senator Jeffords is accountable to are the citizens of the State of Virginia. Hence, only when Virginians have the opportunity to vote him in or out will it be known from a political standpoint whether or not Senator Jeffords is a genius or a fool. Regardless, whatever they decide, from a human standpoint Senator Jeffords should still go down in history as a very clever, courageous man--perhaps foolish--but still courageous.
1 To be Republican means you at least say that, "I attend The Church, I'm pro family and pro education but I'm anti-big government and anti-crime (Duh, who isn't? Answer by some Utahns: A Democrat)
Loren M. Lambert
June 15, 2001 ©
Wednesday, May 16, 2001
Decriminalize Spying
The recent spying scandals rocking the U.S.A. have led me to wonder–is there anyone out there who, like me, finds the business of spying just a bit odd? If so, please raise your hand. I mean, on the one hand, in the name of national security, we use money, sex, ideology, addiction, power and promised fame to recruit spies to spy for us in every country on, and possibly off, the planet1. On the other hand, we zealously seek to deport, prosecute and sometimes fry spies recruited by money, sex, ideology, addiction, power and promised fame to spy on us.
Besides the fact that we, as a nation, are infallible (not because we are, but because our military and religious leaders say we are), and besides the fact that spying, especially during wartime, can lead to the loss of life, property and liberty, isn’t it all just a bit petty?
To put an end to this whole sordid, hypocritical business, we should take the profit out of spying by decriminalizing it between countries that are willing to adopt an "open spying policy," kind of like the old "open skies policy" attempted during the Cold War. If we caught an alien spying on us we could send him to Disneyland for a month, and if we caught one of our own spying on us, we could send him to visit Lenin’s tomb for a month, and vice versa.
This makes as much sense and decriminalizing illegal drugs. In fact, why don’t we just go on a decriminalization frenzy. Think of the money we’d save!
Loren M. Lambert
May 16, 2001 ©
1. So I’m told by my friends from Roswell, New Mexico.
Besides the fact that we, as a nation, are infallible (not because we are, but because our military and religious leaders say we are), and besides the fact that spying, especially during wartime, can lead to the loss of life, property and liberty, isn’t it all just a bit petty?
To put an end to this whole sordid, hypocritical business, we should take the profit out of spying by decriminalizing it between countries that are willing to adopt an "open spying policy," kind of like the old "open skies policy" attempted during the Cold War. If we caught an alien spying on us we could send him to Disneyland for a month, and if we caught one of our own spying on us, we could send him to visit Lenin’s tomb for a month, and vice versa.
This makes as much sense and decriminalizing illegal drugs. In fact, why don’t we just go on a decriminalization frenzy. Think of the money we’d save!
Loren M. Lambert
May 16, 2001 ©
1. So I’m told by my friends from Roswell, New Mexico.
Hypocritical Utah
Recently, I successfully litigated a whistle blower, free speech, privacy claim on behalf of Debbie Youren against Tintic School District and its officials. Although not a victim of polygamy itself, she was a victim of a misguided culture that has resulted from the societal and self-imposed isolation of the polygamists and their sympathizers.
Ms. Youren should be praised by State Government Officials for the concerns she has raised in her whistle blower action. She should be invited by Governor Leavitt to the Capitol and given a medal. Instead, prior to the trial, during the trial and now, she has been mocked, denigrated and belittled by attorneys from the Governor’s Attorney General Office and the wrongdoers from the District. Coddle by the State’s attorneys who are fishing for any technicality to escape liability or at least make Ms. Youren’s life as miserable as possible, the wrongdoers continue to deny any responsibility for their illegal conduct.
Similarly, I have successfully represent others that have had legitimate complaints against Utah State Government officials. The reaction by the Attorney General’s Office has always been, and continues to be, to metaphorically kill the messenger of such legitimate complaints and to bury the bad news. The Utah State Government’s policy towards incompetent, corrupt or bad officials seems to be the same as one of Richard Nixon’s foreign policies–"He [or she] may be [a rear body part] but at least he’s [or she’s] our [rear body part]."
In view of Debbie Youren’s treatment by the State, it is therefore ironic that the State has gone after Tom Green with such zeal. While, because of the age of his consorts, I do not condone Tom Green’s lifestyle, his most fatal failing is that he was not working for the State as a State official when his misdeeds were discovered by some disgruntled employee, and that he is not one of the more secretive, well-thought-of, wealthier and high-placed polygamists1. If he had been so fortunate, he would not have been prosecuted. To the contrary, the whistle blower that had complained about him would have been vilified, terminated and then asked to quietly disappear into some far off place–lik, say, the West Desert.
Loren M. Lambert
May 16, 2001 ©
1. The reality is that in this State, illegal consensual sexual crimes, such as sodomy, are mostly only prosecuted against the poor and minorities.
Ms. Youren should be praised by State Government Officials for the concerns she has raised in her whistle blower action. She should be invited by Governor Leavitt to the Capitol and given a medal. Instead, prior to the trial, during the trial and now, she has been mocked, denigrated and belittled by attorneys from the Governor’s Attorney General Office and the wrongdoers from the District. Coddle by the State’s attorneys who are fishing for any technicality to escape liability or at least make Ms. Youren’s life as miserable as possible, the wrongdoers continue to deny any responsibility for their illegal conduct.
Similarly, I have successfully represent others that have had legitimate complaints against Utah State Government officials. The reaction by the Attorney General’s Office has always been, and continues to be, to metaphorically kill the messenger of such legitimate complaints and to bury the bad news. The Utah State Government’s policy towards incompetent, corrupt or bad officials seems to be the same as one of Richard Nixon’s foreign policies–"He [or she] may be [a rear body part] but at least he’s [or she’s] our [rear body part]."
In view of Debbie Youren’s treatment by the State, it is therefore ironic that the State has gone after Tom Green with such zeal. While, because of the age of his consorts, I do not condone Tom Green’s lifestyle, his most fatal failing is that he was not working for the State as a State official when his misdeeds were discovered by some disgruntled employee, and that he is not one of the more secretive, well-thought-of, wealthier and high-placed polygamists1. If he had been so fortunate, he would not have been prosecuted. To the contrary, the whistle blower that had complained about him would have been vilified, terminated and then asked to quietly disappear into some far off place–lik, say, the West Desert.
Loren M. Lambert
May 16, 2001 ©
1. The reality is that in this State, illegal consensual sexual crimes, such as sodomy, are mostly only prosecuted against the poor and minorities.
Tuesday, February 13, 2001
Defining Tort Reform
Now, with Mr. "Tort Reform" himself ensconced firmly into the Oval Office, over the upcoming years you are going to be hearing the term "tort reform" tossed around like pork rinds at a Bush family reunion. Consequently, the public should know what this term means. For starters, although similar, a "Tort" is not an Olestra-enhanced, fat-free pastry, but, simply put, an act that causes harm.
When "Tort" is paired with "reform," by a Republican, it means the following:
Tort Reform \tórt ri-fórm\ vb. 1: When powerful entities such as corporations, governments and large industries negligently or accidentally cause harm, it’s partially okay 2: When these same powerful entities knowingly or maliciously cause harm, it’s mostly okay 3: When these same powerful entities cause harm to the environment, it’s completely okay 4: Whatever the insurance company, HMO or IRS decides is written by the finger of God or Justice Rehnquist, and cannot be questioned, and 5: Any harm caused by corporations, governments, and large industries to individuals or the environment should be accepted as the result of one’s bad karma or inferior evolution.
syn immunity for millionaires
"Tort reform" by a Democrat means the following:
Tort Reform \tórt ri-fórm\ vb. 1: Every human problem can and should be resolved by passing, at a minimum, a million-word regulation 2: Every million-word regulation must be enforced by a million-manned governmental regulatory agency 3: Every governmental regulatory agency must be filled with Democrats 4: So long as someone in a governmental regulatory agency agrees, whatever the insurance company, HMO or the IRS decides is okay and 5: Any harm caused by corporations, governments and large industries to individuals or the environment should, by a governmental regulatory agency, be analyzed, categorized, computerized, cauterized, mesmerized, homogenized and then quietly archived.
syn bureaucrats know best
Do not fall for either form of "Tort reform;" both spell trouble for the majority of Americans.
Loren M. Lambert
© February 13, 2001
When "Tort" is paired with "reform," by a Republican, it means the following:
Tort Reform \tórt ri-fórm\ vb. 1: When powerful entities such as corporations, governments and large industries negligently or accidentally cause harm, it’s partially okay 2: When these same powerful entities knowingly or maliciously cause harm, it’s mostly okay 3: When these same powerful entities cause harm to the environment, it’s completely okay 4: Whatever the insurance company, HMO or IRS decides is written by the finger of God or Justice Rehnquist, and cannot be questioned, and 5: Any harm caused by corporations, governments, and large industries to individuals or the environment should be accepted as the result of one’s bad karma or inferior evolution.
syn immunity for millionaires
"Tort reform" by a Democrat means the following:
Tort Reform \tórt ri-fórm\ vb. 1: Every human problem can and should be resolved by passing, at a minimum, a million-word regulation 2: Every million-word regulation must be enforced by a million-manned governmental regulatory agency 3: Every governmental regulatory agency must be filled with Democrats 4: So long as someone in a governmental regulatory agency agrees, whatever the insurance company, HMO or the IRS decides is okay and 5: Any harm caused by corporations, governments and large industries to individuals or the environment should, by a governmental regulatory agency, be analyzed, categorized, computerized, cauterized, mesmerized, homogenized and then quietly archived.
syn bureaucrats know best
Do not fall for either form of "Tort reform;" both spell trouble for the majority of Americans.
Loren M. Lambert
© February 13, 2001
Friday, February 2, 2001
Not-A-Drop Law
Are there any drinkers, from future Presidents of the United States1 to future Presidents of the Ex-Convicts Jubilee Club, who before an incident of drunk driving, started out by thinking, "Hey, I think I'll go get blasted, then drive until I get a DUI, pass out at the wheel or kill somebody?" Just what I thought--none. 99% of drunk drivers start their journey into infamy the same way all drinkers do. First, while sober and as rational as they are going to be over the course of the evening, they decide that they could use a drink. Second, to get to their favorite watering hole, they hop into a car. On the way they reassure themselves that despite prior stupidity, they've read the little card that tells them how much they can drink before blow a .082 blood alcohol level and promise themselves, just to be safe, to cut the amount in half. "Yep, two beers and then straight home to mama."
Third, upon arriving they order their first drink and their IQs start dropping like prices at Wal-Mart. Next they're thinking, "Darn this tastes good, maybe I'll just drink enough to blow a .06." Then, with alcohol induced confidence they surmise, "Dad blam it! I can hold my liquor better than anyone, so I could probably have another drink and only blow a .075." This enhances their vision and, spying the manatee at the far end of the bar, they think, "Hey, look at the flippers on that one. This Bud's for you, baby." After drinking this toast, before long it's, "Shoot, time to go home."
Now possessed with the discernment of a wadded-up dish rag, they fish for the keys in their pockets and ask, "Boy, how do I feel?" To answer this question, they use the "can-I-find-the-door?" sobriety test. Finally, upon reaching the door thirty minutes later, with occasional drinks along the way to wet their dry throats, they step out into the night and conclude that they only have a blood alcohol level of .079999. Hence, so long as they leave the car window down so the cold air blows their eyelids open, they can safely drive. The rest is history as the refrain, "I only had two beers," is slurred out all across the country.
So, where along this continuum between sentient, future-presidential being to wadded-up dish rag would it be best to change the outcome? As an attorney who was once admonished by superiors in the military not to publish an essay that was critical of alcohol use among officers, who has defended drunk drivers, and who had associated with a brilliant attorney who over two years ago was rendered disabled by a repeat drunk driver, I am convinced that the only solution to this plague is to pass and culturally assimilate a not-a-drop law.3
Despite wishful tinkering with our criminal justice system, or longer jail sentences between drinks, so long as we as a society defer to the individual the choice of whether he or she is capable of drinking, the carnage will continue. Wake up America! You drinkers have shown that each and every one of you, at some point in your drinking careers, are incapable of retaining your asserted constitutional right to drink and then individually decide if it is safe to drive. As a group, I urge you to realize that we can no longer afford you this libertine luxury.
The only countries that have low drunk-driving fatalities are those countries that either shoot drunk drivers, or render it legally and socially unacceptable to drink any quantity of alcohol and then drive. Although Al Gore probably wishes we would have started shooting drunk drivers years ago, I do not yet advocate capital punishment for drunk drivers. (As yet, I only propose the death penalty for those that pee on the toilet seat.) Nevertheless, it's just plain dumb to have bartenders and drinkers decide if they're too drunk to drive, but it is imminently smart to require drinkers to be escorted to and from their watering holes--Rocky Anderson be damned!
1. Would Bush be president if he had killed someone when he got his DUI?
2. Considered to be drunk at this level in most states.
3 This does not refer to how much water should be left in the Colorado River before crossing over into Mexican territory, but it means I should be illegal to drink any alcohol before driving.
Loren M. Lambert
Feb. 2, 2001 ©
Third, upon arriving they order their first drink and their IQs start dropping like prices at Wal-Mart. Next they're thinking, "Darn this tastes good, maybe I'll just drink enough to blow a .06." Then, with alcohol induced confidence they surmise, "Dad blam it! I can hold my liquor better than anyone, so I could probably have another drink and only blow a .075." This enhances their vision and, spying the manatee at the far end of the bar, they think, "Hey, look at the flippers on that one. This Bud's for you, baby." After drinking this toast, before long it's, "Shoot, time to go home."
Now possessed with the discernment of a wadded-up dish rag, they fish for the keys in their pockets and ask, "Boy, how do I feel?" To answer this question, they use the "can-I-find-the-door?" sobriety test. Finally, upon reaching the door thirty minutes later, with occasional drinks along the way to wet their dry throats, they step out into the night and conclude that they only have a blood alcohol level of .079999. Hence, so long as they leave the car window down so the cold air blows their eyelids open, they can safely drive. The rest is history as the refrain, "I only had two beers," is slurred out all across the country.
So, where along this continuum between sentient, future-presidential being to wadded-up dish rag would it be best to change the outcome? As an attorney who was once admonished by superiors in the military not to publish an essay that was critical of alcohol use among officers, who has defended drunk drivers, and who had associated with a brilliant attorney who over two years ago was rendered disabled by a repeat drunk driver, I am convinced that the only solution to this plague is to pass and culturally assimilate a not-a-drop law.3
Despite wishful tinkering with our criminal justice system, or longer jail sentences between drinks, so long as we as a society defer to the individual the choice of whether he or she is capable of drinking, the carnage will continue. Wake up America! You drinkers have shown that each and every one of you, at some point in your drinking careers, are incapable of retaining your asserted constitutional right to drink and then individually decide if it is safe to drive. As a group, I urge you to realize that we can no longer afford you this libertine luxury.
The only countries that have low drunk-driving fatalities are those countries that either shoot drunk drivers, or render it legally and socially unacceptable to drink any quantity of alcohol and then drive. Although Al Gore probably wishes we would have started shooting drunk drivers years ago, I do not yet advocate capital punishment for drunk drivers. (As yet, I only propose the death penalty for those that pee on the toilet seat.) Nevertheless, it's just plain dumb to have bartenders and drinkers decide if they're too drunk to drive, but it is imminently smart to require drinkers to be escorted to and from their watering holes--Rocky Anderson be damned!
1. Would Bush be president if he had killed someone when he got his DUI?
2. Considered to be drunk at this level in most states.
3 This does not refer to how much water should be left in the Colorado River before crossing over into Mexican territory, but it means I should be illegal to drink any alcohol before driving.
Loren M. Lambert
Feb. 2, 2001 ©
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)