Posted 7:08 PM by Creditwrench

FEDERAL JUDGE OVER RULES A PEOPLES JURY

THINKS HE`S ABOVE THE LAW

Health verdict tossed
By BARBARA HOBEROCK World Capitol Bureau
8/26/2003


A new trial is ordered in the lawsuit filed by mental health care providers. OKLAHOMA CITY -- U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton tossed out a multimillion-dollar verdict Monday against two current and one former Oklahoma Health Care Authority administrators and ordered a new trial.
A federal jury earlier this year agreed with a group of mental health care providers that the officials had retaliated against them for exercising their right to free speech.

The jury awarded damages of $34.4 million, which Heaton later reduced to nearly $31.9 million.

The suit was brought by mental health care providers against Oklahoma Health Care Authority Chief Executive Officer Mike Fogarty; Behavioral
Health Services Director Terrie Fritz; and former Government Relations Director Dana Brown.

The plaintiffs said they were retaliated against when they sought information and began asking questions about funding and policy at the state Capitol.

Heaton ruled Monday that the jury award was not supported by the evidence and law and must be set aside.

"Where the trial judge believes the jury's verdict to be contrary to the weight of the evidence, or that the damages awarded by the jury are
excessive, or that the ends of justice otherwise require it, the verdict may be set aside and a new trial ordered," Heaton wrote.

Evidence of retaliation by the plaintiffs is "extraordinarily thin," the judge wrote.

Relying on circumstantial evidence is appropriate and in some cases the only way to prove certain facts, Heaton wrote.

"Here, however, much of the evidence offered to establish retaliatory activity bordered on pure speculation and, in some instances, was based on little more than proof that the particular defendant was a supervisor of some activity at OHCA," the judge wrote.

He also ruled that the evidence supporting the awarding of damages was not sufficient, thus warranting a new trial.

Heaton found fault with how the jury awarded damages to corporate plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs.

"The damages awarded to the individual plaintiffs, being based largely, if not exclusively, on recovery for emotional or mental anguish, are plainly excessive," Heaton wrote.

An attorney for the authority said he was pleased with the ruling.

"Mike Fogarty, Terrie Fritz and Dana Brown have performed their jobs admirably for the people of Oklahoma, especially our poor and vulnerable citizens," Andrew Tevington said.

The agency looks forward to presenting its case to a new jury, he said.


"The judge noted the evidence of any wrongdoing by any defendant was extraordinarily thin," Tevington said. "The judge also noted the awarded damages were excessive, and the jury's decision shocked the judicial conscience."

Steven E. Holden, a Tulsa attorney representing the plaintiffs, said Tevington predicted that the judge would throw out the damages.

He said his office recently received very disturbing information.

Holden, who would not elaborate, said he expects to present the information to the judge soon.

"We will be asking the court to reconsider the decision on damages because the process has been tainted by improper influences that were never disclosed," he said.

Tevington said Holden's allegation of new information is innuendo, which has been characteristic of this case. He said he has no idea about the content of the information Holden allegedly received.

If a new trial is held, Holden said, he will ask that the issue be on damages only.

"There definitely will be an appeal," Holden said. "The judge, in our opinion, did not find (that) the OHCA did not commit the acts charged. He didn't say these folks didn't do it. He talked about the evidence of damages."

Holden said an appeal would go to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

"This case has been an uphill battle for the plaintiffs," he said. "The state has tried to silence them. Additional hurdles will not break them. These are the little people that are in a day-to-day struggle with a corrupt governmental agency. They will not give up the fight. This is America. Justice will prevail."

Click here for the rest of the story


Barbara Hoberock (405) 528-2465
barbara.hoberock@tulsaworld.com

Posted 8:18 AM by Creditwrench

Juli, etc:

I received the 'infomercial' of Ron Branson patting himself on the back (with J.A.I.L.).

It saddens me that he has the gall to say "Give me your wealth, and I will give you America" - Ron Branson

As I am a former J.A.I.L.4JUDGES 'follower', and have broken free of the Ron Branson trappings; I believe his statement shows exactly what this man's intent is.

J.A.I.L.4JUDGES is NOT the ONLY Answer; it is but One; there are Many dedicated organizations doing great work on the issues of government/judicial accountability.

United We Stand, Divided We Will Fall, remember that.

Yes, money is needed to make anything happen, but judicial accountability is one of the 'very rare' projects where a little goes a long way. We don't need everybody's wealth, we just need everybody to pitch in a little.

Idaho is gathering signatures for it's Initiative for 2004 law change; what is your state doing?

May God bless and protect all right and all right change.

Rose Johnson, for IJAA 2004
The Idaho Judicial Accountability Act of 2004 A.D.

WWW.IJAA.Net

Judges unfairly biased towards plaintiffs

Article reports that a recent study by the Defense Trial Counsel of West Virginia “alleges the state’s civil justice system is made up of judges and justices with election-driven priorities” who “unfairly” favor plaintiffs in civil cases. In addition, a recent West Virginia Chamber of Commerce report blamed the state Supreme Court for “a negative state economy.” The Defense Trial Counsel’s report suggests appointing judges, or at least selecting them through nonpartisan elections, arguing that “there is a general perception that state Supreme Court decisions in civil cases are based on party-oriented issues or ‘with an eye toward popular perception.’” The report is available online at http://www.dtcwv.org. Charles Shumaker, Plaintiffs Unfairly Favored, Group Says, Charleston Gazette, August 27, 2003. http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/Other+News/2003082620

Plaintiffs unfairly favored, group says

By Charles Shumaker
STAFF WRITER

A report from a group of state defense trial lawyers alleges the state’s civil justice system is made up of judges and justices with election-driven priorities and that the state Supreme Court is favorable toward some.

In its yearlong study, which included anonymous interviews with at least a dozen state and federal judges, the Defense Trial Counsel of West Virginia said, among other things, that the state’s judicial community unfairly favors plaintiffs in civil cases.

The report’s Tuesday release comes after the state Chamber of Commerce released findings of its own blaming the state Supreme Court for a negative state economy.

One of the purposes of the study was to help West Virginians realize some of the influence the state’s judicial system has on daily life, said William Galeota, the group’s president.

For example, he said media accounts of state Supreme Court decisions likely don’t illustrate the overall meaning of some rulings.

“They [the public] may not see the implications it has on the entire state,” Galeota said during a Tuesday press conference.

The report’s release came several months after group members were given the chance to look over preliminary results.

Since last summer, forums were held at several locations statewide and the group’s membership was polled on numerous subjects to make up the study.

Information from several organizations and sources, including media reports, was also reviewed for the report.

Galeota and several other group members who spoke Tuesday emphasized that the reports shouldn’t be an indictment of any particular judge.

“If this was used to attack an individual, that person would have been named,” said Marc Williams, co-chairman of the committee that produced the report. “There is not one person responsible.”

Also among the 69 findings reported in the trial lawyers’ report:

· There is a general perception that the state’s civil justice system is unfair toward some civil case defendants and is unbalanced.

· Judges and justices who are appointed, not elected, would better serve West Virginia’s judicial system. Or at least, the state should have a nonpartisan election for judges.

· West Virginia’s judicial system is the subject of out-of-state criticism because it has “a very unfavorable legal climate for employers and product manufacturers and sellers.”

· “There is a general perception that certain members of the judiciary turn a blind eye toward conflicts of interest, and engage in improper ex parte contacts and communication both with lawyers and other members of the judiciary.”

· There is a general perception that state Supreme Court decisions in civil cases are based on party-oriented issues or “with an eye toward popular perception.”

· West Virginia juries are generally viewed as being made up of unemployed, uneducated and unsophisticated citizens. “This problem is due in part to the unwillingness of certain educated and employed people to serve and their inclination to avoid jury duty as well as jury selection process weighted in favor of excusing any prospect who may have an opinion or the ability and inclination to form one,” the report states.

“We’re trying to shed light on this subject,” Galeota said. “We expect our report may be cast as an attack. We don’t intend that.”

A copy of the report is available online at www.dtcwv.org.

To contact staff writer Charles Shumaker, use e-mail or call 348-1240.

Posted 8:17 AM by Creditwrench

Lawyer Sent Back to School as Sanction for Frivolous Lawsuit

Charles Toutant
New Jersey Law Journal
08-26-2003


A lawyer's attempt to save a time-barred malpractice suit by wrapping it up as a federal RICO and civil rights case has drawn an unorthodox sanction: Rather than dock the lawyer for fees, the judge ordered him to take courses in federal practice and procedure, professionalism and legal ethics.

U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Orlofsky noted in his Aug. 15 ruling that he imposed sanctions only after giving the lawyer written notice of a potential violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (b)(2), which requires lawyers to ascertain that their claims are "well-grounded in fact and law."

Frank Branella, a Marlton solo practitioner, had botched a state-court medical malpractice suit on behalf of Enez Balthazar of Ocean City, whose ureter was severed during a hysterectomy. Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee dismissed the suit in May 2001 for failure to submit a timely affidavit of merit. The Appellate Division affirmed last March and the Supreme Court denied certification in June.

In 2002, Branella filed the federal suit, Balthazar v. Atlantic City Medical Center, 02-1136, charging the hospital and three doctors with covering up their negligence, falsifying records and conspiring to deny the plaintiff's rights in violation of federal and state RICO laws.

Orlofsky spotted the ploy. "Balthazar is dissatisfied with the dismissal of her state court claims. As a result of this dissatisfaction, she has simply recast her state law claims as violations of federal civil RICO and Sec. 1985," he wrote.

Orlofsky dismissed the federal suit on March 30 for failure to state a claim but granted Branella leave to amend his complaint. The second attempt was no better, as Branella's amended complaint contained "essentially the same federal claims" as the original and its "rambling narrative ... is organized and drafted so poorly that it is often difficult to comprehend," Orlofsky wrote.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the appropriate Rule 11 sanction is one that "is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Punishment can consist of nonmonetary measures, such as an order to attend educational programs, as well as fines or orders to pay all or part of opposing counsel's fees," Orlofsky wrote.

After taking the courses from an accredited law school or other reputable provider of continuing legal education within the next 12 months, Branella must file an affidavit with the court attesting that he completed them satisfactorily.

"As a result of attending these continuing legal education courses, hopefully Mr. Branella will become familiar with the legal principles that have apparently escaped him during the course of this litigation," Orlofsky wrote.

Branella declines to comment on the case other than to say he will appeal the dismissal of the District Court case and the imposition of sanctions.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1061487933540

Posted 10:46 AM by Creditwrench

J-accuse meeting this Thursday
at our meeting hall

There will be a regularly scheduled bi-weekly J-accuse meeting this Thursday evening starting at 7:00 P.M.

Mr. Richard Cornforth presiding.

Our meetings are held at 225 N. Virginia Ave in Oklahoma City.

Come one, come all. The meeting is free, of course and free drinks will be served as usual.

Posted 10:14 AM by Creditwrench

Congress targets frivolous lawsuits

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Instead, Mr. Coale blamed a "nation of incompetent judges" who already have "all the tools they need to throw a lot of these cases out."
"There are nutty judges and nutty juries out there," he said. "And when you get them in the same room, you sometimes come up with nutty verdicts."


Lawmakers have embarked on a new strategy to curb the lawsuits they blame for skyrocketing medical prices, insurance rates and other costs.
Instead of finding one fix-all solution, a Republican-led group in Congress is introducing a broad array of smaller changes — such as blocking obese people from suing food companies — to rein in lawsuits.
"It's like taking lots of little bites out of the apple," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and sponsor of a bill to limit the fees trial lawyers take home.
"It's been put off way too long to protect one industry — trial lawyers — at the expense of many others," Mr. Stewart said.
Among the changes being sought are:
•The Patients First Act, that seeks to cap noneconomic damages in most cases at $250,000 in medical lawsuits. Democrats filibustered the bill last month, but more votes are expected on the Senate bill this year.
•The Class Action Fairness Act, that would prevent lawyers from shopping cases around to find judges or juries most likely to give them huge awards by directing more lawsuits into federal courts. The House bill passed in June and the Senate is still working on its version.
•The Intermediate Sanctions Compensatory Revenue Adjustment Act, that aims to cap the fees taken by lawyers in massive settlements such as the tobacco litigation. The Senate bill was turned back earlier this year, but sponsors hope to find another way to get it through.
•The Commonsense Consumption Act, that would protect food companies from lawsuits filed by fat people who blame their obesity on the companies. The House already passed the bill and the Senate version awaits action in the Judiciary Committee.
"Unfortunately, a personal-injury lawyer's desire for a big payday by any theory imaginable is never satisfied," Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican and majority whip, said last month when he introduced the "fatty suit" bill. "And so I come yet again to speak about tort reform — an issue I have worked on nearly every year that I've been in the Senate."
Washington attorney John P. Coale, one of the architects of the lawsuits against tobacco companies, scoffed at the proposed measures, calling them Republican giveaways to "corporate America" and insurance companies.
"All this does is give more advantages to corporate America," he said. "Do you want a jury to decide your case, or a bunch of politicians in Washington?"
He said deregulation of industries means "there's very little left anymore protecting consumers from corporate America."
Counters Mr. Stewart: "None of these bills take away the legitimate right to sue. Instead of barring the door to the courthouse, they unclog it so consumers with real injuries can get in to have their cases heard."
Mr. Cornyn's bill to rein in the fees lawyers get from massive settlements, for example, would still allow lawyers to go home with fees "five times their hourly rate for billable hours" meaning over $1,000 per hour.
"These reforms only seek to fix the extreme cases such as the multibillion-dollar settlements that pay only the lawyers and not the consumers," Mr. Stewart said.
Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, sponsored the bill to ban court shopping of class-action lawsuits. He cited a suit against Blockbuster Video in which, he said, lawyers earned $9.2 million while plaintiffs got $1 coupons off their next movie rental.
His favorite example, he said, was a case in which Chase Manhattan Bank was sued, resulting in $4 million for the lawyers. Each plaintiff was awarded a settlement check of 33 cents — but had to pay 34 cents in postage in order to claim the check.
Mr. Coale warned against "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
"Sure, I could find a dozen ridiculous awards," he said. "But I also could find thousands of reasonable ones. There simply aren't enough of the frivolous ones to throw out the whole system."
Instead, Mr. Coale blamed a "nation of incompetent judges" who already have "all the tools they need to throw a lot of these cases out."
"There are nutty judges and nutty juries out there," he said. "And when you get them in the same room, you sometimes come up with nutty verdicts."

Posted 1:19 PM by Creditwrench

They did the same thing to us on
the 10th Amendment issue too!

On July 23, 2003 Congressmen Lamar Smith and Steve Chabot announced the formation of the "House Working Group on Judicial accountability". More
information about the group can be found on the congressmens web page at the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congress will be in recess during the month of August.

Back in 1995 everybody was protesting about the Feds stepping on State toes and not abiding by the 10th Amendment and unfunded mandates and all of that. We were trying to get the feds out of States business via the 10th Amendment and so they did an end run around us by passing their own 10th Amendment legislation and said there would be no more Federal mandates without federal financing to enfore or comply with their mandates.

That didn't help a bit because that simply meant that we the taxpayers have to pay more taxes for the feds to finance their mandates. The whole point was to get the Feds out of state business and let the states run their own "mandates."

We did win in a way or at least got some recognition out of the deal but we failed miserably in that we didn't get the Feds out of our lives to the extent that we wanted to.

Now it looks like they are trying to do an end run around us again. IF it happens it probably won't be anything we wanted. It will most likely just ruin what we are complaining about.

We need to call our congresscritters and see what isgoing on here and get copies of this legislation and start doing something about it before it is too late.

Posted 3:46 AM by Creditwrench

J-ACCUSE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS BLOG

This is the Blog for J-accuse national headquarters in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

TULSA J-ACCUSE MEETING

Subject: Tulsa J'Accuse Meeting

J' Accuse - Tulsa Chapter Meeting

Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 at 7:00 PM.
New Hope Baptist Church
Auditorium of the Recreation Building
708 N. Atlanta
Owasso, Ok. 74055

[Hwy 169 to 76th St. exit, go west to one block west of Mail St.]

[turn north on Atlanta]

PURPOSE OF THE MEETING

COMES NOW, We the People, and/or all citizens of Tulsa and surrounding Counties are hereby put on Notice of this Grand Opportunity to be involved in an History Making Event! Discussion on the up comming "SECRETS OF THE LEGAL INDUSTRY" seminar schedualed for Oct. 25th & 26th right here at the New Hope Babtist Church. Come one come all to learn about your due process rights!

Second amendment:

"Chapters of J'Accuse are encouraged to meet regularly for fellowship and for the purpose of sharing information about legal help and reform and are also encouraged to invite guest speakers to speak of topics offecting due process rights. When inquires are made, J'Accuse members encourage to inform others that J'Accuse is a due process club."

Distributed by : J-Accuse Members
Contact Greg Phillips (acting chairman)
918-955-2492
spiritof1776@hotmail.com

Click for a map to the meeting

If you have announcements, meeting dates and info, articles that you
would like to have published on the blog or links that you find
interesting and would like to see on the blog send them to me and I will
put them up.

We do need to be careful with links however in that in order for the
blog to gain link popularity we really need to arrange link swaps with
other webmasters and blogs which carry information and themes relevant
to our mission and goals. Reciprical links are what count.

Of course, that does not hold true with links to court decisions and
other government type websites.
If you want to post an article that you have found on another website
you need to send me the URL for that website and a short description of
the article. First paragraph or two. That is because we do not want to
run into problems with copyright issues. So if it is copyrighted
material we need to use only a couple of paragraphs or so and then link
to the site with proper credit to the author.

Judicial authority

What gives the courts “authority” to ignore the law, prosecute and convict? What gives judges the authority to keep the law from the juries? Even the U.S. Supreme Court ignores the inconsistencies of the appeals and lower court systems. There is judicial anarchy afoot at every level of the system.
The system protects judges with the doctrine of “sovereign immunity” from being prosecuted by persons who have been injured by government wrongdoing. The system facilitates the official cover-up of government wrongdoing by protective orders to limit discovery and suppression of incriminating evidence. The corruption has settled in and the Citizen is endangered every time they are dragged screaming into these forums. This is Soviet justice, not American due process of law.

See description of “sovereign immunity” in Maryland Port Admin v. I.T.O. Corp. of Baltimore, 40 Md.App. 697, 395 A.2d 145, 149

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
American Law Resources

Admit the judicial tyranny of the court system, controlled by bar-licensed attorneys on all sides of the bench, violates due process on a daily basis and protects the income tax system with sanctions against attorneys who dare challenge the status quo. Pro se litigants are at a sizeable disadvantage by not understanding the convolutions of the legal process, definitions and procedures. But what are their options?

An act of truth seems at once to draw to itself...the sun as its candle.


Admit the status quo attorneys, judges, prosecutors and politicians are protecting the income tax system even if it has perpetrated a fraud against the American people to plunder their land, labor and property. After all the American Bar Association profits the most from the misapplication of income tax laws.

A majority of attorneys practice law in the income tax arena. The more property at stake, the higher the fees. So why would they want to argue against the income tax any more than the judges would dare to enforce the limited application of the laws? It’s against their self-interest to do so. Call it a judicial conspiracy to uphold the income tax.

So “patriot” attorneys, do not blame pro se litigants for bad precedent in the courts. This is because most, not all, bar-licensed attorneys don’t have the balls to make the required arguments for fear of sanctions.

And as the final kicker, politically incorrect and unpopular cases that win successfully in court for whatever reason are not published either for reference or for setting precedent.

The courts say the question of income taxes is a political question to be handled by the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Congress says it’s a legal question to be handled by the courts. Meanwhile thousands of Americans are being put into prison, robbed and plundered of their hard-earned property, and the country is in a tailspin.

La verdad nunca se esconde en los rincones obscuros.
(Truth never hides in dark corners.)
–– Spanish proverb on Federal Courthouse in Portland, Oregon

This is a corrupt failure of judicial and congressional leadership and a blatant violation of due process. It is truly un-American. It's time to take America back!

Posted 11:11 AM by Creditwrench

Subject:

Paper deshredders

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:03:49 -0400

Businesses and governments use millions of paper shredders to guard their secrets, but the capability now exists of scanning the shredded bits into a computer and automatically reconstructing the document. The German government is now planning to "deshred" 16,000 bags of paper shredded by the former East German secret police (Stasi) in the last days of that regime. Or you can go to a commercial firm in Houston for deshredding services.

So shred, then BURN!

San Mateo County Times Online - Business News.url

Paper Deshredders