Class-Action Lawsuits (by Tim Cox)

I generally don’t watch much television, but I always make an exception during the NCAA tournament: I truly enjoy watching the West Virginia’s and Davidson’s knocking off the Duke’s and Georgetown’s while rooting for my Longhorns. On the down side, while watching, I am once again shocked and dismayed at not only the advertisements of ambulance chasing lawyers but also the ridiculous disclaimers that are now required in our society.

The little blue pill advertisement warns us of almost every ailment known to man, including the risk of going blind. A law firm (Lieff Cabraser) actually addressed an advertisement to those who have suffered or died from bleeding after heart surgery. A quick look at their site listed dozens of other class-action lawsuits including those against chain saw, nail gun, power drill and power saw manufacturers, as well as lawsuits against scores of others. The Reclast ad took ten seconds to talk about the benefits and twenty to warn you about side effects. Who really wins in all these lawsuits?

Alita Ditkowsky was part of a class-action suit against a company that made faulty televisions. When the case was settled in Madison County, Illinois, Alita's lawyer took home $22 million while she got a $50 rebate on another TV, built by the same company that had ruined the first TV. That is a small class-action suit.

Cobell v. Kempthorne is a big one, and you and I are going to pay for it. “Lawmakers are proposing an $8 billion conclusion to a decade-long class-action lawsuit that pits an estimated half-million American Indians against the federal government (i.e. you and me)… who allege longstanding Interior Department mismanagement of royalties collected from oil, coal and timber operations on Indian-owned lands the government holds in trust.” Lawyers representing the plaintiffs were seeking $27.5 billion. In 2002 it was estimated there were about 4.3 million American Indians and Alaskan Natives. I’m not sure which tribes are included in this particular lawsuit, but if it is anywhere close to all of them, then each native will get about $1,000. If it only applies to the 500,000 that have signed up so far, they’ll each get $8,000. Assuming they settle for $8 billion, the lawyers will take home just under $3 billion. Who really wins?

Ruiz v. Estelle was one of the longest running class-action lawsuits in Texas. It was filed on behalf of the prisoners in the Texas system for the way they were being treated. A prisoner suing the State for improper treatment feels oxymoronic to me. That is not the way I want to spend my tax dollars. I recently received an invitation in the mail to a join a class-action lawsuit against Honda, maker of my recently sold four-door Civic. I was promised the opportunity to have my warranty extended by up to 5,000 miles on a car that was already 16,000 miles past the limit. The lawyers stand to make tens of millions of dollars on this case.

President Bush, in a February 2005 speech said, “Class-actions can also be manipulated for personal gain. Lawyers who represent plaintiffs from multiple states can shop around for the state court where they expect to win the most money. A few weeks ago, I visited Madison County, Illinois, where juries have earned a reputation for awarding large verdicts. The number of class-actions filed in Madison County has gone from two in 1998 to 82 in 2004… Trial lawyers have already filed 24 class-actions in Madison County this year. We're in February, including 20 in the past week -- after Congress made it clear their chance to exploit the class-action system would soon be gone.”

The results: Two years later, in 2007, Madison County had risen from last to 4th from last according to the Judicial Hellhole report from the American Tort Reform Association. Looks like our government really showed them. Or did they just push the cases to a different locale?

If that’s not bad enough, look at the law suits brought by our own government. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was established to enforce provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Anyone who feels that he or she has suffered workplace discrimination because of his or her race, age, physical disability, religion, sex, or national origin is eligible to file a complaint with the EEOC… and they manage over 75,000 charges annually.” “Approximately, one out of every three lawsuits filed by the EEOC is a class action. In 2004, the EEOC filed 143 class suits on behalf of multiple alleged victims of discrimination. One such high profile lawsuit that settled in 2004 was against one of Wall Street’s premier investment banking and brokerage firms for $54 million…”

People often wonder why I have such a dislike for lawyers and the legal system. Has the American way become a synonym for the legal way? Is this what we want our country to be?

Politicians Calling the Kettle Black (by Tim Cox)

We’ve all heard the idiom about the pot calling the kettle black, but isn’t it embarrassing how often it applies to our congressmen? Consider the recent investigation into CEO pay by our esteemed House Oversight and Investigations Committee. Now that they have resolved the problem with Roger Clemens, steroids and baseball, I suppose they did need something new to work on. Heaven knows there is nothing for them to do regarding the deficit, earmarks, immigration, education, or the environment.

I’ll let others debate whether or not CEO pay is excessive, but take a look at a few of the quotes from the hearing. I replaced the word “executives” with a _______. Fill in the blank with the word "politicians" and see how true it reads. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, or perhaps more appropriately, congressman calling the turd brown?

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said, “There seem to be two economic realities operating in our country today. Most Americans live in a world where economic security is precarious and there are real economic consequences for failure. But our nation’s top ______ seem to live by a different set of rules.” He then added, “It seems like everyone is hurting except for ______.” He further offered, "Any reasonable relation between ______ compensation and the interests of shareholders appears to have broken down." Mr. Politiican, look in the mirror, please.

Waxman, on a downhill roll, went on to say, "It seems that ______ hit the lottery as their companies collapse," and “When companies fail to perform, should they give millions of dollars to their ______?” Perhaps he should read these with “our government” in place of “companies.”

I don’t mean to pick solely on Waxman; most politicians are guilty. Consider Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD) who complained, “We’ve got ______ drifting off to the golf course but have people I see every day who are losing their homes and wondering where their kids will do their homework.” This was said while Waxman and his colleagues went on vacation instead of voting on the Terrorism Surveillance issue. Almost 30% of our kids fail to graduate from high school yet Cummings et.al. debate steroids and CEO pay. What color is that kettle?

Our representatives need to worry about their own job. Shareholders could do a better job of managing their Board of Directors and CEOs, and the baseball union should do a lot more to control steroids and such, but Congress has far bigger and immensely more important problems to worry about, like the future of our country.

I would support GOOOH but ______ (by Tim Cox)

We have heard from thousands of people who say they love GOOOH, but we are also hearing from a few who say, "I would support GOOOH, but __________." This article is for those who have filled in the blank.

We don’t claim the system is perfect and we hope you won’t allow an issue or two prevent you from supporting a system that addresses more than a hundred others. Recognize the challenge of trying to get every person to agree with every item, particularly when politics are involved: it's not likely.

Some have said they don’t agree with term limits. Others don't like that we have proposed excluding practicing lawyers and men of "excessive" wealth. A few don't like our exclusion of ACLU supporters. I have yet to hear anybody voice a concern that we are excluding politicians…

There are those who don't like that we ask questions about amending the Constitution, wonder why we ask about the FairTax instead of a flat tax, or don’t believe the Commitment Agreement is viable. A few even say the agreement is a bad idea. Some have complained I am shamelessly trying to sell books. And of course there are those who can’t believe we would be doing this for the right reason and go as far as falsely accusing us of running a get-rich-quick scheme.

There are those who, without even understanding how the system works, feel obligated to explain why it will fail, what should be done differently, why they don't like it, or the most incredulous of all, that they can't support the system because it also opposes Ron Paul’s single seat. Some say they don’t want “everyday” Americans in office, not recognizing that the people who rise to the top of this process will be anything but a “common” man. Others have already concluded that our newly elected representatives will be no better than the politicians in power today. And then there are those who simply ignore what we are doing because they don’t care about their children or the future of our country.

I can only sigh. Long and loud. As an aside, I laughed out loud when a member suggested we also exclude those whose more appropriate blogging name would be Eyeore, but I truly appreciate the sentiment of her thought.

But what I haven’t heard is a question about the need for what we are doing. We take with a grain of salt those who complain, accuse, or fail to offer alternatives, but we continue to listen and search for ways to improve. We are confident we have built a system that will achieve its stated goal: to put accountable representatives of the people in office without the influence of special interest groups or political parties.

To those who do not understand how the system works, please recognize that we are not proposing to change the Constitution just because we ask questions about changing it. We are not saying a FairTax is better than a flat tax, or even that either is preferred, simply because we ask if you support the FairTax. We are not saying that there should be a limit on the money a person can inherit because we ask such a question. The goal is for each candidate to declare what they believe so their peers can determine who they favor. Taken together, the questions will provide a thorough voting profile of each participant.

To those who object to the Commitment Agreement, or argue it won't hold up in court, look at it from a different perspective. Do you not want your representative to vote as he said he would? Consider the impact such an agreement will have on a candidate who says he'll vote one way, in writing, and then votes the other. The point is not merely can we legally force a candidate to resign from office (and we think we can), it is whether or not we can get candidates to do what they promise. There are also a few who have called the $1,000 “liar fee” silly or unenforceable, but I wonder who would intentionally lie knowing they would be in the wrong in small claims court.

We are not saying the wealthy or lawyers are bad people, but we are saying they are over-represented today, or in some cases, have a clear conflict of interest. These groups make up less than 1/2 of 1% of the population, yet they hold 50% of the seats. We want change, and if we continue to elect nothing but lawyers, multi-millionaires and members of political families, we fear we will get the exact same results we get today. That is not what we are after. Further, how many times do we have to watch Representatives like Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, a lawyer, slide a pharmaceutical bill through Congress at 2 a.m. then go to work for the very lobbyist or law firm that benefitted from the legislation? Here’s a link to the story if you haven't read it before. We’re not saying these people can’t run for office, we’re simply suggesting we give others a chance.

We do ask that every American compare the existing system with GOOOH. Consider the results of the current system. Would GOOOH change things? Absolutely!

GOOOH is not a perfect system, on that we can agree. But it has a chance to take the money out of politics and put accountability back in. It has a chance to fix some very important things the politicians can or will not. For those who want to support us but find something they dislike about the system, we hope you will look at the bigger picture. Offer suggestions for improving where you can, and give thought to how your words will impact others. Ask yourself, “Do I want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?”