Trying Hard Not To Be Judgmental [suing Boeing, UA, AA etc over 9/11!]

Komo 1000 News (by way of KVI 570 AM website) ^ | September 11, 2003 | Ken Schram

[Eala]

Ken Schram Commentary: Trying Hard Not To Be Judgmental

SEATTLE - I'm trying hard not to be judgmental.

I'm trying hard to understand why some seem to think that tragedy, grief and loss should mean a shot at the big brass ring.

Earlier this week, a U.S. District Court judge gave the green light to a possible flood of lawsuits because of what happened on 9-11.

The judge decided that the hijacking and crashing of jetliners on 9-11 was a "foreseeable risk."

He also ruled that the owners of the World Trade Center property can be challenged on whether they provided a safe environment.

This is a big deal.

It means that families of 9-11 victims can sue Boeing, United Airlines, American Airlines and the New York/New Jersey Port Authority.

It means they'll have to choose between getting large sums of money from the victims compensation fund - tens of millions of dollars sent by people from all over the world - or, go for the really big bucks via lawyers and lawsuits.

That the judge thinks that 9-11 was "foreseeable", leaves me slack-jawed.

That families of victims think it's their shot at the big brass ring, leaves me disturbed.

Like I said, I'm trying hard not to be judgmental, but I don't think I'm succeeding.

Want to share your thoughts with Ken Schram? You can e-mail him at kenschram@komo4news.com

[Eala]

The judge decided that the hijacking and crashing of jetliners on 9-11 was a "foreseeable risk."

He also ruled that the owners of the World Trade Center property can be challenged on whether they provided a safe environment.

I dunno. Are the lawyers (and their plaintiffs) shooting too high? Just imagine for a second that it was foreseeable. We have an awful lot of buildings in this country built to various codes, standards and, well, possibilities like having a sizable airplane crash into them (after all, it has happened before).

But now we have a known possible threat and a realization that the planes are bigger than those factored into the original design. Do we send the economy into the toilet while we upgrade every single skyscraper in the country?

Maybe the lawyers here can tell us...

[baltodog]

I agree.
My wife shut off the TV today because all she could think about were the lawsuits.
These lawyers disgust me.
I cannot imagine a victim's relative coming up with this.

[Congressman Billybob]

It is also a "foreseeable risk" that on any given weekday, one of the 1,400+ US District Court judges will issue an opinion which is crazy as a coot and bears no relationship to either law or reality. I've seen it more than a few times. This nonsense should be straightened out on appeal.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Paying the Wrong Piper," discussion thread on FR. Article also on ChronWatch.

[NonValueAdded]

If the suit was filed against Osama, then maybe I could be supportive. This is someone looking for a pay day above the rather generous settlement we the people are offering. I would dearly love to see this either dismissed or award $1 to the greedy plantiffs and their sharks. These people are trying to finish the job on the economy that Osama started.

Concerning the judge's ruling, just because they can doesn't mean they should. Enough is enough.

[cyborg]

behind every unimaginable lawsuit is a rat trial lawyer

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Almost everything in America costs a lot more because lawyers feed off everyone else in the great legal lottery. Law schools should be declared unnecessary and closed. This country does not need a single additional attorney. In fact, all legal work should be outsourced to China or India.

[daveoverpar]

Or against Clinton!

[Always Right]

I cannot imagine a victim's relative coming up with this.

Maybe, but obviously a few are going along with it...

[WilliamofCarmichael]

I recall stories about years of ACLU suits against the airlines for "profiling." I recall stories that just maybe without the threat of hefty lawsuits the airline would have been a little more willing to take a closer look at these Arab-looking guys who met various profiles.

Just maybe the ACLU and others of their ilk should pay and pay dearly. They have deeeeeeeeeep pockets.

[Always Right]

I would dearly love to see this either dismissed or award $1 to the greedy plantiffs and their sharks.

A long drawn out trail with no award at the end might even be better.

[bert]

not nearly enough lawyers died

Is that judgemental

[boris]

I especially like the part about suing Boeing. See, if there were no airplanes, then nobody would get to crash them into World Trade Centers.

--Boris

[Centurion2000]

not nearly enough lawyers died

Stake the rest of them down for the ants.

[boris]

"Almost everything in America costs a lot more because lawyers feed off everyone else"

A professor of Economics at Texas A&M estimated that each new lawyer costs the economy $1 million per year in "lost opportunity costs".

I proposed a solution: charge each law-school graduate one million dollars to take the bar exam.

"Raise the bar" as it were.

--Boris

[Windcatcher]

This will never end until lawyers see unacceptable risks accompanying this behavior. Like having several hundred pounds of *physical* junk mail flood their mailbox every day, Jehovah's Witnesses knocking at their door, calls from $c!ento1ogy, crank calls, cars being keyed, etc. etc.

Not that *I* would *ever* perpetuate such things (certainly not), but I can't help but wonder what would happen if one of the lawyers' personal details made it onto Slashdot. >:)

(Why the obfuscated name above? Lawyers).

[autoresponder]

My NYC lib sister still lives and works in Manhattan.

She is appalled at this judge and the greedy families!

My daughter once worked in the WTC.

Pentagon victims did not get big lotto win that GW and the US Congress ponied up billions of our tax dollars to make the WTC victim's surviving families into multimillionaires for life without working even one day more.

One NYC victim's widow quickly bought a new $80,000 Mercedes as soon as she heard of the verified $1 to $3 million she will get.

Families with kids in late teens that will be guaranteed college expenses and new cars are demanding to keep their 4BR suburban homes and pay off the mortgages and the wives or husbands can then quit working (or not) in addition to their personal and business life insurance payoffs.

Only about 10% of NY and NJ families have signed on for the monster cash settlements guaranteed them by Uncle Sam.

Why are their lives worth more then a US soldier in Iraq or a military or civilian killed at the Pentagon on 9-11?

WTC families are beyond being greedy; they are bloodsucking grave robbers out to bankrupt airlines and NYC contractors.

Only massive injections of millions of more dollars will sooth and comfort them and cure their great loss!

They are becoming again the stereotype of all America has seen historically of the worst that NYC has been; no better ten a drug dealer or a mafia killer in my estimation.

This NYC federal judge needs to be impeached, convicted, and removed from his judgeship; losing his fancy fed pension in the process.

What was his name again?

Another stereotype reinforcing some truths......

Disgusting bunch of opportunists.

As far as NYC attorneys, over 33% of the damage and "loss of business" funds of multi billions of dollars has gone to NYC shyster lawyers!

Extorting your children's and grandchildren's future.

"You can't win if you don't play!"

The NYC motto........

[demkicker]

This title, "Trying Hard Not To Be Judgemental", really annoys me. I'm happy to be judgemental about this blatant attempt to harm our country and will gladly call a spade a spade. This is nothing but a money grab by lawyers and greedy relatives of the WTC victims, period. There, I said it and it didn't hurt one damn bit!

[Eala]

A professor of Economics at Texas A&M estimated that each new lawyer costs the economy $1 million per year in "lost opportunity costs".

But it sounds like he's averaging the costs. If it's a small few who are responsible for the major portion of the costs, this solution only takes out the (relatively?) innocuous ones while leavving the virulent ones full predatory rein.

[Eala]

You are correct. Ken Schram is an oldtime liberal Seattle commentator, TV program producer and demagogue, though recently he's actually been beginning to sound a little bit conservative -- a trend I hope to see continue. I'm (dare I say it?) beginning to like him.

[NJJ]

I would like to see a cost/benefits analysis on the value lawyers contribute toward our economy vs. the GNP% they detract from it.