John Edwards a shyster bought by more shysters - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 01-26-2004, 02:19 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0401260836.asp

Quote:

The Iowa caucus results showed the fluidity of politics, as Howard Dean's foregone-conclusion candidacy was whisked away as if by the fierce winter winds that howl across the Land of the Rolling Prairie. Back from the dead were the Johns of the Senate, Kerry, and Edwards, who now carry their Hawkeye hype to the Granite State.

Though Iowa represented a remarkable turnaround for the stately Kerry, the story of the caucuses was perhaps that of his fellow Senate multimillionaire, former trial attorney John Edwards. With his boyish good looks and affable manner, Edwards appealed to many caucus-goers just as he had to many a juror. For Edwards's ability to connect with everyday people was honed by courtroom success; while Kerry amassed his fortune the old-fashioned way, by marrying über-wealthy heiress Teresa Heinz, Edwards won his estimated net worth of $12 to $60 million through a series of successful personal-injury lawsuits.

The untold story of Edwards's candidacy is that Edwards may have built his fortune in part by relying on the very sort of "junk science" medical-malpractice lawsuits that have created a health-care crisis in no fewer than 19 states. Some of Edwards's biggest wins — including a jury verdict of $6.5 million (reduced to $2.75 million on appeal) and a settlement of a reported $5 million — came from cases suing doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies over infant cerebral palsy allegedly due to botched deliveries.

Yet as my Manhattan Institute colleague Walter Olson has documented in the Wall Street Journal and on his website overlawyered.com, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in a comprehensive study released last year, determined that delivery problems were not to blame for cerebral palsy in the "vast majority" of cases. Cerebral palsy is instead typically caused by factors beyond the doctor's control, such as maternal thyroid problems, genetic abnormalities, or prenatal infection. The ACOG report was peer reviewed and endorsed by, among others, the Centers for Disease Control and the United Cerebral Palsy Research and Education Foundation.

Of course, Edwards's own cases may have been legitimate, but given jurors' difficulty in making scientific determinations and the trial bar's record in this area, there is certainly reason to be suspicious. Why then, in an era in which candidates are so subject to public scrutiny, has Edwards been given such a pass?

Presumably, Edwards's rivals have been loath to attack his unsavory accumulation of wealth at least in part because of their fear of — and ultimate dependence on — cash contributions from the litigation industry. Plaintiffs' attorneys, whom we dubbed "Trial Lawyers, Inc." in a report on the industry last fall, have poured funds into the coffers of their political allies to gain unprecedented influence at the national and state levels. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America routinely ranks among the top five donors to federal campaigns; in the last full political cycle, ATLA was the largest PAC contributor to the Democratic party.

ATLA's PAC contributions are merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Trial Lawyers, Inc.'s political influence. Through individual and soft-money contributions, as well as PAC donations, the lawsuit industry has surpassed all others in political giving in every electoral cycle since 1990. All told, the litigation industry has contributed a half billion to federal campaigns since 1990. Some of this money of course came from defense firms who split their contributions between the parties. But the largest givers have consistently been plaintiffs' firms; in the last political cycle, each of the seven firms giving over $1 million to federal campaigns was a plaintiffs' firm, and each gave at least 99 percent of their money to Democrats.

Edwards himself has been particularly dependant on his fellow trial attorneys' largesse. When first campaigning for the Senate in 1998, Edwards received more than half his total outside contributions from his friends in the lawsuit industry. The sprightly senator began his 2004 presidential run by topping all Democratic candidates in fundraising for the first quarter, with almost two-thirds of his take coming from trial lawyers, their families, and their staffs. As noted by the Wall Street Journal, "even political professionals seem[ed] stunned by the degree to which his candidacy ha[d] become a wholly owned financial subsidiary of the national tort bar."

Edwards may be the trial bar's "favorite son," but their ultimate power as Democratic kingmakers has kept his leading opponents in line. Kerry, like Edwards, has opposed measures in the Senate to rein in class actions that give national economic power to corrupt local "magnet courts," asbestos lawsuits that have already bankrupted over seventy industrial companies, and medical malpractice suits such as those Edwards championed.

Meanwhile, suits like Edwards's have driven up malpractice-insurance rates exponentially, over 400 percent in his home state of North Carolina in the last three years. In 2002, the St. Paul Companies, then the largest medical-malpractice insurer, exited the business entirely after toting up nearly $1 billion in losses. And faced with potential bogus "botched delivery" suits, many obstetricians are limiting their practices to gynecology, forcing women in some areas to travel hours for prenatal care and delivery.

Faced with the ominous power of Trial Lawyers, Inc., the main Democratic contenders are likely to continue to avoid confronting these facts and their obvious link to Edwards's courtroom history. But should Edwards continue to confound expectations and emerge as the Democratic standard-bearer, as many pundits hope, we should not expect the Bush team to be so kind.

Not only is this how Edwards made his millions, but due to the donations from trial lawyers you will NEVER see any improvement in the insane litigations until the democrats are out of power in the house, senate and white house. Right now with senate rules nothing can be done even though they are not a majority.

Tomservo · 01-26-2004, 03:08 PM

What a retarded jump in logic.

"Of course, Edwards's own cases may have been legitimate, but given jurors' difficulty in making scientific determinations and the trial bar's record in this area, there is certainly reason to be suspicious. Why then, in an era in which candidates are so subject to public scrutiny, has Edwards been given such a pass?"

How about... BECAUSE THE CASES MAY HAVE BEEN LEGITIMATE??

The answer is right in front of your eyes- if the doctors were negligent, they were responsible. How can you color Edwards' plaintiffs as anything but legitimate without knowing the facts of the cases? Certainly they were found to have been wronged- isn't that the point?

Argue all you like about our legal system, but blaming John Edwards for representing people against corporations is sad commentary. That's the whole point of the legal system, to represent those who don't have the expertise to represent themselves... would you rather Edwards be a corporate attorney, turning away claims by legitimately wronged families?

nanofever · 01-26-2004, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomservo
What a retarded jump in logic.

"Of course, Edwards's own cases may have been legitimate, but given jurors' difficulty in making scientific determinations and the trial bar's record in this area, there is certainly reason to be suspicious. Why then, in an era in which candidates are so subject to public scrutiny, has Edwards been given such a pass?"

How about... BECAUSE THE CASES MAY HAVE BEEN LEGITIMATE??

The answer is right in front of your eyes- if the doctors were negligent, they were responsible. How can you color Edwards' plaintiffs as anything but legitimate without knowing the facts of the cases? Certainly they were found to have been wronged- isn't that the point?

Argue all you like about our legal system, but blaming John Edwards for representing people against corporations is sad commentary. That's the whole point of the legal system, to represent those who don't have the expertise to represent themselves... would you rather Edwards be a corporate attorney, turning away claims by legitimately wronged families?

Tomservo you are new to the TFP so you might not know but we usually let blatant trolls, like this thread, fall to the bottom without a single reply.

Lebell · 01-26-2004, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
Tomservo you are new to the TFP so you might not know but we usually let blatant trolls, like this thread, fall to the bottom without a single reply.

Point of clarification.

Blatant trolls will be removed, as they have been in the past.

A classic example is the old, "Conservatives/Liberals Suck!"

Ustwo has posted an article and it does not look like a troll to me, nor apparently to any other mod.

So if you want to ignore it, fine.

If you want to try to refute it, fine.

But to brush it off as a "troll" strikes me as disingenious.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

filtherton · 01-26-2004, 03:53 PM

So, like, dude, you're saying that this guy, this edwards guy, has skeletons in his closet? OMG. I guess that makes him a politician.

I could care less about edwards. He's meat as far as i'm concerned. But, if you're going to try to denounce a politician for his/her ties to a certain industry maybe you should be consistent and post something about bush's ties to the energy industry. Or every politician's ties to the insurance/pharmaceutical/timber/healthcare/oil/militaryindustrialcomplex.
Otherwise you just betray your biases and damage your own credibility.

Ustwo · 01-26-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomservo
What a retarded jump in logic.

"Of course, Edwards's own cases may have been legitimate, but given jurors' difficulty in making scientific determinations and the trial bar's record in this area, there is certainly reason to be suspicious. Why then, in an era in which candidates are so subject to public scrutiny, has Edwards been given such a pass?"

How about... BECAUSE THE CASES MAY HAVE BEEN LEGITIMATE??

Thank you, I was waiting for you.

First off its called CYA. They can’t SAY he is a shyster. Secondly read….

Quote:

Edwards has repeatedly told campaign audiences that he fought on behalf of the common man against the large insurance companies. But a political critic with extensive knowledge of Edwards' legal career in North Carolina told CNSNews.com a different story

"Edwards always helped the little guy as long as he got a million dollars out of it," said the source, who did not want to be identified.

The cause of cerebral palsy has been debated since the 19th century. Some medical studies dating back to at least the 1980s asserted that doctors could do very little to cause cerebral palsy during the birthing process. Two new studies in 2003 further undermined the scientific premise of the high profile court cases that helped Edwards become a multi-millionaire and finance his own successful campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Dr. Murray Goldstein, a neurologist and the medical director of the United Cerebral Palsy Research and Educational Foundation, said it is conceivable for a doctor's incompetence to cause cerebral palsy in an infant. "There are some cases where the brain damage did occur at the time of delivery. But it's really unusual. It's really quite unusual," Goldstein said.

"The overwhelming majority of children that are born with developmental brain damage, the ob/gyn could not have done anything about it, could not have, not at this stage of what we know," Goldstein added.

Quote:

But some of Edwards' critics say that as a trial lawyer, he relied more on his verbal skills than the latest scientific evidence to persuade juries that the doctors' mistakes had been instrumental in causing the cerebral palsy in the infants.

Edwards' trial summaries "routinely went beyond a recitation of his case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of injured children," according to a comprehensive analysis of Edwards' legal career by The Boston Globe in 2003.

The Globe cited an example of Edwards' oratorical skills from a medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell.

'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. "[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"

Edwards' emotional plea worked. Jennifer Campbell's family won a record jury verdict of $6.5 million against the hospital where the girl was born -- a judgment reduced later to $2.75 million on appeal. Edwards also settled with Jennifer's obstetrician for $1.5 million.

Legal expert Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book, The Rule of Lawyers, said Edwards' success in court was due in large part to his mastery of one important trait.

"Edwards was clearly very good at managing the emotional tenor of a trial and that turns out to be at least as important as any particular skill in the sense of researching the fine points of law," Olson told CNSNews.com .

"These are the skills that you find in successful trial lawyers. They can tell a story that produces a certain emotional response. It's a gift," Olson added.

However, Olson believes trial lawyers "have been getting away with an awful lot in cerebral palsy litigation," by excluding certain scientific evidence.

"[Trial lawyers] have been cashing in on cases where the doctor's conduct probably did not make any difference at all -- cases where the child was doomed to this condition based on things that happened before they ever got to the delivery room," Olson said.

Edwards is a typical shyster lawyer, out for a buck, and he doesn’t care who’s life he fucks with, as long as there is a big pay out. He has been bought by the trial lawyers of America, and has no place as the president. The highlighted text above makes one wonder WHICH John Edwards we're are talking about, but they are both con artists so I guess it doesn't mater.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics...20040120a.html

filtherton · 01-26-2004, 04:30 PM

So he would be a bad president because he was a talented lawyer. I guess i don't follow your logic.
Would MN supreme court justice alan page make a bad president because, in being a good football player, he was a very violent man onfield and didn't care who he fucked with as long as he got paid?

Edwards did what good lawyers do, he won cases for his clients. And your angry because he wanted big payouts? It doesn't sound very pro-free market of you to look down on someone for getting the most money possible out of doing their job. Would you be happier if defended puppy dogs and homeless kids?
You do realize that you are trying to hold edwards to a higher standard than any other politician out there, including your president, don't you?

Rekna · 01-26-2004, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Thank you, I was waiting for you.

First off its called CYA. They can’t SAY he is a shyster. Secondly read….

Edwards is a typical shyster lawyer, out for a buck, and he doesn’t care who’s life he fucks with, as long as there is a big pay out. He has been bought by the trial lawyers of America, and has no place as the president. The highlighted text above makes one wonder WHICH John Edwards we're are talking about, but they are both con artists so I guess it doesn't mater.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics...20040120a.html

So Edwards is good at missrepresenting the truth to play on peoples emotions to get what he wants. Maybe he should be Bush's running mate.

Ustwo · 01-26-2004, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rekna
So Edwards is good at missrepresenting the truth to play on peoples emotions to get what he wants. Maybe he should be Bush's running mate.

When Bush starts 'channeling' the spirit of dead children to make money, you will have a point. Until then its just a flame.

Rekna · 01-26-2004, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
When Bush starts 'channeling' the spirit of dead children to make money, you will have a point. Until then its just a flame.

Isn't that what he did by using 9/11 to justify everything?

Ustwo · 01-26-2004, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rekna
Isn't that what he did by using 9/11 to justify everything?

Yes a terrorist threat to the security of this country and someone playing mind games with juries to get rich is the same level.

Lebell · 01-26-2004, 06:47 PM

mmkay.

I've been lenient on you guys (as it's been pointed out.)

Thread locked.

And moderate yourselves or the warnings are next.

01-26-2004, 06:47 PM	#12 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	mmkay. I've been lenient on you guys (as it's been pointed out.) Thread locked. And moderate yourselves or the warnings are next. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-26-2004, 03:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
Tomservo Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	What a retarded jump in logic. "Of course, Edwards's own cases may have been legitimate, but given jurors' difficulty in making scientific determinations and the trial bar's record in this area, there is certainly reason to be suspicious. Why then, in an era in which candidates are so subject to public scrutiny, has Edwards been given such a pass?" How about... BECAUSE THE CASES MAY HAVE BEEN LEGITIMATE?? The answer is right in front of your eyes- if the doctors were negligent, they were responsible. How can you color Edwards' plaintiffs as anything but legitimate without knowing the facts of the cases? Certainly they were found to have been wronged- isn't that the point? Argue all you like about our legal system, but blaming John Edwards for representing people against corporations is sad commentary. That's the whole point of the legal system, to represent those who don't have the expertise to represent themselves... would you rather Edwards be a corporate attorney, turning away claims by legitimately wronged families?

01-26-2004, 03:53 PM	#5 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	So, like, dude, you're saying that this guy, this edwards guy, has skeletons in his closet? OMG. I guess that makes him a politician. I could care less about edwards. He's meat as far as i'm concerned. But, if you're going to try to denounce a politician for his/her ties to a certain industry maybe you should be consistent and post something about bush's ties to the energy industry. Or every politician's ties to the insurance/pharmaceutical/timber/healthcare/oil/militaryindustrialcomplex. Otherwise you just betray your biases and damage your own credibility.

01-26-2004, 04:30 PM	#7 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	So he would be a bad president because he was a talented lawyer. I guess i don't follow your logic. Would MN supreme court justice alan page make a bad president because, in being a good football player, he was a very violent man onfield and didn't care who he fucked with as long as he got paid? Edwards did what good lawyers do, he won cases for his clients. And your angry because he wanted big payouts? It doesn't sound very pro-free market of you to look down on someone for getting the most money possible out of doing their job. Would you be happier if defended puppy dogs and homeless kids? You do realize that you are trying to hold edwards to a higher standard than any other politician out there, including your president, don't you?