Comments on: so, you say corporations have no advantage in the courts… http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/01/15/so-you-say-corporations-have-no-advantage-in-the-courts/ Politics of the People Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:50:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: admin http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/01/15/so-you-say-corporations-have-no-advantage-in-the-courts/#comment-43507 admin Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:41:44 +0000 http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/01/15/so-you-say-corporations-have-no-advantage-in-the-courts/#comment-43507 Thanks re the blog changes. :) Thanks re the blog changes. :)

]]> By: Aneurin http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/01/15/so-you-say-corporations-have-no-advantage-in-the-courts/#comment-43503 Aneurin Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:38:55 +0000 http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/01/15/so-you-say-corporations-have-no-advantage-in-the-courts/#comment-43503 Well well well. I worked for the corporate defense law firm on this very case back in the early <em>90's</em>, a long time ago. Numerous workers came down with lung, skin, and kidney cancers from exposure to toxic chemicals during the construction of the B-2 bomber. At the time, and this still is probably the case, the chemical industry had NEVER lost a toxic torts claim. The Lockheed case essentially created an entire office for the firm that I was working for at the time. What the Lockheed supervisors did during the required toxic chemicals handling training was to say something to the effect of "This is Agent X, it is safe to use", and then proceed to dip their forearms in the barrel of "Agent X", the real name of which couldn't be disclosed due to "national security reasons". When the case came to trial, Lockheed claimed that they couldn't train their workers the way OSHA demanded due to "national security reasons", so they weren't liable. Meanwhile, the B-2 is looked upon as somewhat of a white elephant, built for an opponent who no longer exists. Nice blog changes by the way -- looks great! Well well well.

I worked for the corporate defense law firm on this very case back in the early 90’s, a long time ago. Numerous workers came down with lung, skin, and kidney cancers from exposure to toxic chemicals during the construction of the B-2 bomber.

At the time, and this still is probably the case, the chemical industry had NEVER lost a toxic torts claim. The Lockheed case essentially created an entire office for the firm that I was working for at the time.

What the Lockheed supervisors did during the required toxic chemicals handling training was to say something to the effect of “This is Agent X, it is safe to use”, and then proceed to dip their forearms in the barrel of “Agent X”, the real name of which couldn’t be disclosed due to “national security reasons”.

When the case came to trial, Lockheed claimed that they couldn’t train their workers the way OSHA demanded due to “national security reasons”, so they weren’t liable. Meanwhile, the B-2 is looked upon as somewhat of a white elephant, built for an opponent who no longer exists.

Nice blog changes by the way — looks great!

]]> By: bushtool http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/01/15/so-you-say-corporations-have-no-advantage-in-the-courts/#comment-43476 bushtool Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:48:23 +0000 http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/01/15/so-you-say-corporations-have-no-advantage-in-the-courts/#comment-43476 Conflict of interest is an area that is often very difficult to sort out. Once I was on an arbitration panel for a NASD case where the plaintiff purchased a S&L stock that went south and was attempting to recoup his loss from the broker who sold it to him. About a third of the way into the arbitration, it all of a sudden occurred to me that this plaintiff was a principal in a construction company from whom my mother had purchased her townhouse several years earlier. Immediately I stopped the proceeding and disclosed this as a possible conflict of interest on my part. The plaintiff asked me a couple of questions including "Did my mother like her home and was she happy with her purchase?". I indicated that yes she was satisified with the home. The plaintiff decided that I had no apparent grudge against him and did not challenge me. He could have had me immediately removed from the arbitration panel. However, I still was a little uncomfortable proceeding as one of the arbitrators. There was no way the plaintiff could get inside my head and be absolutely sure my opinion of him was not biased in some way nor I could be completely sure myself that my opinion of my mother's home construction had somehow not tinged my view of him. Conflict of interest is an area that is often very difficult to sort out. Once I was on an arbitration panel for a NASD case where the plaintiff purchased a S&L stock that went south and was attempting to recoup his loss from the broker who sold it to him.

About a third of the way into the arbitration, it all of a sudden occurred to me that this plaintiff was a principal in a construction company from whom my mother had purchased her townhouse several years earlier.

Immediately I stopped the proceeding and disclosed this as a possible conflict of interest on my part. The plaintiff asked me a couple of questions including “Did my mother like her home and was she happy with her purchase?”. I indicated that yes she was satisified with the home.

The plaintiff decided that I had no apparent grudge against him and did not challenge me. He could have had me immediately removed from the arbitration panel.

However, I still was a little uncomfortable proceeding as one of the arbitrators. There was no way the plaintiff could get inside my head and be absolutely sure my opinion of him was not biased in some way nor I could be completely sure myself that my opinion of my mother’s home construction had somehow not tinged my view of him.

]]> By: Pat Campbell http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/01/15/so-you-say-corporations-have-no-advantage-in-the-courts/#comment-43474 Pat Campbell Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:18:27 +0000 http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/01/15/so-you-say-corporations-have-no-advantage-in-the-courts/#comment-43474 I really doubt that the judges had anything near a substantial interest in the companies involved. If any of them owned 1% or more of the stock in these companies, it might then be a conflict of interest. The real problems with conflict of interest are more like those described in David Cay Johnston's new book, Free Lunch. Get a copy and read it. Johnston has many examples including several from our home state, Washington. Interesting information re our current governor on page 66. It's a must read. I really doubt that the judges had anything near a substantial interest in the companies involved. If any of them owned 1% or more of the stock in these companies, it might then be a conflict of interest.

The real problems with conflict of interest are more like those described in David Cay Johnston’s new book, Free Lunch. Get a copy and read it. Johnston has many examples including several from our home state, Washington. Interesting information re our current governor on page 66. It’s a must read.

]]> By: bushtool http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/01/15/so-you-say-corporations-have-no-advantage-in-the-courts/#comment-43466 bushtool Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:06:04 +0000 http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/01/15/so-you-say-corporations-have-no-advantage-in-the-courts/#comment-43466 The court system today makes Darrow's sentiment as true as ever. "There is no such thing as justice — in or out of court." <em>Clarence Darrow</em> The court system today makes Darrow’s sentiment as true as ever.

“There is no such thing as justice — in or out of court.” Clarence Darrow

]]>