If I Were Dictator (Part 9)

Posted on Mon 06/27/2011 by


By Marlin6

On 02/05/2008, I authored a post “Benevolent Dictators Make Good Government”. Examples are King David – Israel – (1010 BC –970 B.C.) in ancient times and General Douglas McArthur – Japan – (1945 –1947) in modern times. I started musing about what I would do if I were absolute dictator of the United States to fast track our country back to a position of greatness and prosperity. Therefore I am submitting a series of posts to PA Pundits (many controversial) about how I would provide solutions to the major issues facing our nation.


I would issue an order that no lawyers will be permitted to run for any national elective office. In the present U.S. Congress, there are 132 lawyers in the House (32%) and 60 lawyers in the Senate (60%). That is why we have legislation that no one understands, with parsing of words to confuse the citizenry. With 307,000,000 people, we can find enough capable non-lawyer candidates to run for federal offices. I would also issue an order that attornies will not be allowed to advertise on television, radio, internet, or newspapers. No class action lawsuits will be permitted, and lawyers will not be involved in any medical malpractice, product liability, or accident suits. There will be panels of doctors and/or qualified “experts” in each city and juristiction who will determine malpractice or damage awards, with national caps of $500,000. for pain and suffering. Who do you trust most, a panel of doctors or a panel of trial lawyers? I will also institute a loser pay system as they have in all of Europe and most other nations. These are true tort reforms that will save Americans hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

On October 24, 2004, I wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper about John Edwards, the poster boy for trial lawyers. They wouldn’t publish it because it was too close to the election and they have a liberal bias, but in retrospect my words have been completely vindicated. Didn’t he turn out to be a prince of a fellow? Here is the letter:

The presidential election on November 2 is a referendum on a struggle between doctors and trial lawyers.  If President Bush is re-elected, the doctors win.  He has made medical liability reform a priority in his next administration.  If Senator Kerry is elected, the trial lawyers win.  He has selected as his vice presidential nominee Senator John Edwards, one of the most successful personal injury lawyers in North Carolina history. Trial lawyers are our one of our highest paid professions.  Mr. Edwards won 31 medical malpractice suits against doctors and hospitals with awards over $1 million, including one $23 million settlement in 1995.  Linking complications during childbirth to cerebral palsy became his specialty.

Dr. Craig VanDerVeer, a Charlotte neurosurgeon said, “John Edwards crushed obstetrics, gynecology, and neurosurgery in North Carolina.  As a result, thousands of patients lost their health care.”

Trial lawyers have driven some of the largest companies in the United States into bankruptcy, including Dow Chemical and Johns-Manville, costing tens of thousands of jobs.

In Luke 11:46, Jesus said, “Woe to you lawyers also; for you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.”  His words are still true today.

In a handbook for trial lawyers, people who actually believe in our Nation’s Founding Values are identified as being not desirable for juries because they are biased towards personal responsibility. We’ve all heard of race bias, gender bias, class bias, sexual orientation bias, et cetera. But maybe only a psychotherapist turned trial lawyer could come up with something called “personal responsibility bias.” Apparently this affliction is especially pronounced among strange people with “traditional family values” and “strong religious beliefs”. There are many men and women who have chosen to be a lawyer and devoted their professional lives to equity and justice. There is a greater number of the lawyer fraternity however, who have different motives and have not been so noble. In fact, as a general culture and class, lawyers are destroying America, turning this nation and American justice into a financial and political self-serving game.

Plea bargain, bonding and judicial politics offer a revolving door justice system for criminals. There are two standards of justice for criminals: the rich walk, and the poor go to bankruptcy court or prison. Over 100,000 formal complaints are filed annually against lawyers and lawyer judges with only 2% formally prosecuted. Over 80% of low to middle income Americans cannot afford to pay the lawyer ransom for justice in America. Lawyer monopoly of the legal services profession now constitutes the most blatant illegal monopoly in America. Lawyers are robbing their clients through over billing and outright theft, conspiracy and fraud. Lawyer-judges have created class discrimination against non-lawyer pro se litigants nationwide. How lawyers and lawyer-judges have become a closed member country club with the masses picking up the tab. The American jury is being manipulated by the lawyers to get the verdict they want. America has become a giant law factory of self-interest laws hurting law-abiding citizens. Lawyers criminalize Americans, attempting to assist citizens with generic legal procedures.

The “case law” jungle created by the lawyer culture leads away from the Constitutional law. Extortion is going after the deep pockets. Lawyers are destroying America! Put aside for the time being the lawyer contributions on the national character issue, the ethical and moral issues, the spiritual issues of the nation, put aside the issues caused by largest criminal culture on earth. Let’s just take the economic ground in this issue. Case histories reveal that lawyers will go after what they perceive to be the “deep pockets” even when there is not a shred of evidence that the deep pocket party should be in the lawsuit. Often the best way to correct a problem on anything is to go back to the drawing board, see if we have strayed from the pilot model and make adjustments. The drawing board in this case is thirteen tiny early American colonies from whence sprang the greatest governing document in the world – the U. S. Constitution! You may not know this but lawyers were absolutely forbidden in those colonies for many years – in fact Virginia held them off for over 100 years. Disputes were settled by the CHURCH. We now have a grim picture of a great nation in an unconstitutional takeover by a dominant lawyer culture. With lawyers making up 36% of the federal Congress, lawyers holding the office of American President 57% of the time and 100% lawyers in the judicial branch, the three branch of government concept has been breached! This constitutional nightmare now has lawyers making the laws, lawyers judging us in the laws, lawyers defending us in the laws, lawyers prosecuting us in the laws, lawyers interpreting the laws and lawyers administering the laws. Under this tyrannical monopoly of justice our freedoms, rights and privileges are under assault!

Trial lawyers’ misleading Internet solicitations pose risk to public health. A new report from the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest shows that Internet searches for medical information predominantly lead to trial lawyer-run Web sites designed to gin up lawsuits. The often inaccurate and misleading information offered on these sites, says the report, frightens some patients away from beneficial drugs and treatment and thus endangers public health. Since President Obama was inaugurated, there has been a proliferation of television commercials by law firms. Trial lawyers were major contributors to his campaign, and after January 20 they immediately started to troll for perceived victims of the medical industry or product manufacturers. As an example, there are constant daily TV appeals to contact an attorney if suffering from Mesothelioma because of exposure to asbestos decades earlier. President Obama says he wants health-care reform legislation to reduce medical costs. He was booed by doctors in a speech to the American Medical Association in Chicago on June 15, 2010, when saying he would not support caps on medical malpractice. Tort reform limiting outrageous jury awards is a legislative priority for the AMA. There are many categories listed on the internet as reasons for suing doctors, hospitals, or manufacturers, encouraging people to fill out a form if they have been injured by faulty medications, malfunctioning medical devices, or medical negligence. Doctors perform many unnecessary tests as protection against frivolous lawsuits, greatly increasing health care costs. It has been said, “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to sue and he will eat for a lifetime.”

America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward “making whole” its prevailing opponent. It’s long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is. As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people. In the United Kingdom, as throughout Europe, the general loser-pays principle enjoys strong support among social democrats and conservatives alike. In a 1999 debate in Britain’s House of Lords (January 21), in response to an objection that applying loser-pays in cases before employment tribunals might discourage workers from bringing claims against their employers, Lord Irvine, who serves as Lord Chancellor in the Labor government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, responds that “It can be argued that one should discourage weak cases. Very often applicants bring weak cases before employment tribunals inspired by animus against their employers arising out of their dismissal. If the effect of [a costs] rule were to deter weak claims and prevent employers being vexed by them there is a highly respectable argument in favor of that change.”

Just as liability insurance covers the risks of being a defendant in litigation, so nations with loser-pays have developed markets for what is called legal expenses insurance, which helps manage the financial risks of becoming a plaintiff including the chance of becoming liable for costs in the event of a courtroom loss. (This chance is in fact quite remote, since abroad, as in the United States, well over 90 percent of cases settle out of court before a final legal resolution; the primary influence of loser-pays is in the “shadow” it casts on the size and timing of this settlement.) Legal expenses insurance is typically available at quite modest cost, often as an added rider to homeowners’ or automobile policies. Its cost is modest in part because it can benefit from a self-financing fund: if the insurer correctly analyzes which cases brought in by its policyholder plaintiffs are worthy of being pressed, it will benefit from fee shifts paid by the defendants against whom it finances suits. A series of country-by-country reports from the European Commission indicate that legal expenses insurance is “almost universal in Denmark,” “very common in Norway,” and “widely available in the Netherlands,” while “Germany has the largest LEI market of any EU country”.

Credits- Sammy Sorrell – Walter Olson