Lawyers On Trial: Judge Reins In Silicosis Class Action Lawyers

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 3/10/2006 | Editor

[Isara]

...

...the lawyers signed up tens of thousands of "victims" for class-action lawsuits — picking up along the way some plaintiffs who had also filed claims as victims of asbestos. U.S. Silica, the country's largest sand maker, was flooded by more than 20,000 lawsuits in a short period that began in November 2002...

But some judges, notaly Clinton appointee Janis Jack of the Federal District Court in Corpus Christi, Texas, aren't letting the trial lawyers run freely with silicosis as they did with asbestosis. Lawsuits on behalf of people diagnosed with asbestosis (which isn't always the same thing as actually having it) have made some lawyers rich, left plaintiffs with just a few dollars and bankrupted an estimated 70 companies. Overall cost to the economy: $70 billion.

It was last year, while presiding over a silicosis case, that Jack stood athwart trial lawyer history and shouted, "Whoa." When she learned that nearly two-thirds of the plaintiffs had also filed asbestos claims, the former nurse became skeptical. She knew it would be rare, though not impossible, for a person to have both.

In a 250-page ruling, Jack bluntly said the 10,000 claims of silicosis before her were part of a "scheme" that was "manufactured for money." Since then, more than half of those 10,000 claims have been pitched out of court or voluntarily pulled by trial lawyers — a tacit admission, we'd say, that the claims were bogus to begin with.

Some doctors' shameful willingness to make questionable diagnoses of silicosis to fill up class-action lawsuits has caught the attention of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On Wednesday, the panel invited a few physicians in for a chat. Two were forced to testify by subpoena, and all three took the Fifth. The committee is also taking a look at some of the lawyers involved.

...

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Subsequent to consideration of the Amendment, the legislature passed Act 280 which included a mandate that the State publish the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments. The legislators knew very well that with their ratification the Amendment had been ratified. That’s why it was in the publication.

Hmm. If Virginia ratified the amendment, why do Virginia's legislative journals record that the state Senate rejected TONA on February 14, 1811? Strike one.

Which is an entirely specious argument, as the title at question, "esquire," is awarded by the several States (not the United States).

It is NOT awarded by any state; it is a self-awarded designator used by lawyers. Here's a hint: you can freely call yourself "esquire" without any restriction, even if you have not passed the bar. No civil or criminal penalty can be applied to you if you do so. Strike two.

The plain language of the Constitution effectively limits consideration of constitutional amendments to states in the union at the time approved by Congress.

No, it doesn't, and it never has worked that way. Strike three.