How to buy the Michigan Courts

Too Poor for Justice

Vox Populi — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:15:51 +0000

Too Poor To Sue

November 21, 2011

The Michigan Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, denied hearing a case that calls into question an indigent person’s right to sue for medical malpractice. By doing so, the High Court has accepted the status quo where an individual’s Constitutional right to seek judicial redress for injuries will be denied if that person is too poor to pay the court entrance fee.

The case, Rebecca Williams Jackson v. Mecosta County Medical Center, et. al., went to the Michigan Supreme Court on August 30, 2011. In a unanimous response, the court beat its average time by half in returning a terse “considered and denied” refusal to hear the case. Where the average is 5 months, the Williams Jackson ruling was returned in a mere 83 days (counting weekends)—two and half months. With that ruling, the High Court reaffirms that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case must submit with the complaint a doctor’s note stating that the case, in his view, has merit. But it cannot be just any doctor, or just any note. It must be a physician of equal qualifications (including minor certifications) who performs those duties at least half of his time. This note also must be a sworn statement. The logistics of obtaining such a note is daunting to an established firm with large on-hand cash (the going rate for such a statement runs from $1,500–$5,000, depending on speciality, for EACH defendant). For an indigent litigant, this simple doctor’s note becomes an absolute barrier to accessing the court. In a medical malpractice situation, suing is the only recourse to confront the physician and the only means of obtaining remediation for the injuries. If this is taken away, then the injuries are compounded by injustice.

With the Court’s refusal to hear Williams Jackson’s case, they have institutionalised economic discrimination in the violation of one of the most basic rights a US citizen has—the right to justice.

Constitutional Rights For Sale in Michigan: Michigan Supreme Court Denies Access to the Poor (unaskedadvice.wordpress.com)
There is No Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Crisis, Says Arizona Attorney (prweb.com)

ProPublica’s Podcast: The Shrouded Role of Special Interest Groups in Influencing Election

Vox Populi — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:44:59 +0000

If you would like more information on how big money is being funnelled int

o the election machine, give this podcast a listen. You may also find the transcript here.

ProPublica defines itself as “journalism in the public’s interest.”

Check out this representative quote:

The Supreme Court has a really mixed record on partisan gerrymandering. There are definitely Supreme Court justices who think that it’s totally unconstitutional, and that it’s really appalling that most redistricting that happens in the United States is done on a partisan basis, and ends up really benefitting particular politicians and particular parties, but not benefitting voters.

But it’s a little bit tricky because there is no Voting Rights Act for partisan politics and there are Supreme Court justices who just really don’t think that the 14th Amendment and equal protection of the laws applies to Democrats and Republicans as separate citizens. That’s the first thing that’s tricky about partisan gerrymandering.

Another Tort retort

Vox Populi — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:53:15 +0000

I have previously posted about writing a comment on a defense-attorney led site defending the documentary Hot Coffee.

I did it again. My thoughts are too good to only post once , so here they are:

I think, by denigrating the main use of the Liebeck case in popular culture, that you are missing the point of both its use in the documentary and in political discourse. For just the very reasons you cite (it was, duh, coffee–nothing to sue over), that case has a special power. For those of your ilk, it embodies the over-reaching of those out for a free ride, meal ticket, or the like. In short, an abuse or misuse of the court.

For others, it is an example of how the courts act as a corrective agent against abuse, corruption, and incompetence (especially medical personnel). Without the correction of a good tort case, industry and business may well still be employing 10 year olds to pull the coal carts, attend segregated schools and the like.

Back to my point…the hot coffee case, suing for being stupid, is the distillation of talking points: until one learns more about it. Point is, the tort in that case worked. McDonald’s altered its practice (which had hurt 900 others to varying, shall I say it, degrees) to the point that such “accidents” (one of McDonald’s arguments–echoed here–was that with such a high number of servings that the accident rate was statistically insignificant: until it happens to you or to one you love) have been reduced.

What you fail to point out is that “tort reform” does nothing to mitigate such suits. Caps on damages, reduced statutes of limitations, affidavits of merit, pre-suit notices, witness requirements, etc., these work to bias a case toward the defense.

“Tort reform,” rather, provides defense with a ready stable of tactics and defences which to attack a case, shielding their clients from a frontal assault. It is defensive jujitsu.

So, with that, I wonder why, as defense counsel, you should complain so much… Nothing could be better for business than more examples of suing for being stupid.

Hot Coffee, torts and the Greater Good

Vox Populi — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:01:21 +0000

It wasn’t until after I posted, what I thought was a rather eloquent comment, that I realized that the conversation over the documentary Hot Coffee over at the defense-attorney run site Abnormal Use had run itself out back in September and that, alas, my wise words were to go to waste.

So, I am reproducing them here:

I find both the initial “review” and especially the comments at times insight and always engaging.

A few items: a “review” turns to an apologetic when ideology intrudes. I fear this turns toward the latter.

The tort system, as one commenter has noted, works when a jury level-sets the community standard which, over time, settles into a remarkably fair system for recourse and redress. That is, if it is left to regulate itself. Already, at least in my state, there are court rules that define frivolous as well as the penalties for presenting one. Anything else is just biasing the judiciary, which helps no one.

But there it is, the communal tone that, yes, underlies my comments–the larger good should be noted. With “tort reform,” the right to redress malpractice (which is one of the only real means of eliminating harmful physicians) becomes harder, even to the point that rights are neglected, bad medicine continues and protective and beneficial policies and procedures go unaddressed.

Was the coffee too hot? No, the coffee, which is supposed to be “hot” was, actually, “scalding” (for those who work with the plain language of statute, this should not be too quickly overlooked).

I do not order scalding coffee, nor do I have a reasonable expectation of doing so. I have an expectation of getting hot coffee just as I have the reasonable expectation that when I see a physician I will receive care and aid. When this doesn’t happen, then my open avenue to recourse allows me, a single individual, to influence the system, however minute, toward a greater benefit for both myself and others.

Michigan Courts dead last in Judicial Independence

Vox Populi — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:18:31 +0000

I came a little late to this report

(WHICH STATES HAVE THE BEST (AND WORST) HIGH COURTS?)

Unfairness for All

(published in 2008), but the information and methodology presented (see below) probably has not changed in the ensuing years.

Taking to task the ranking put out each year by the Chamber of Commerce (the largest provider of republican court campaign money in Michigan), this study does NOT ask senior lawyers at large companies (Fortune 500) which states they like and don’t like (which are pro-business leaning and which are not). The CofC:

… surveys ask senior lawyers at corporations that earn more than $100 million per year in revenues to grade state court systems, from A to F, and aggregate their responses.

No, this survey tabulated independence on how often a judge, affiliated with a stated party, went along with or dissented from that stated party. That is, how much did they go along with their party (please note that a judge is SUPPOSED to vote as an independent arbiter of the law, NOT to be a representative of a political party).

According to the numbers, Michigan Justices vote in lock-step (I assume that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans on this).

Overall, it doesn’t make Michigan look good in a national survey…

At least the Parties are getting their monies worth.

mymicourt.com

Vox Populi — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:08:04 +0000

Hall of Justice

With a picture of the Hall of Justice (Justice League anyone?), David P. Schock, PhD has compiled (and hopefully will continue to compile) a nice list of Court activities.

The latest deals with Justice Corrigan’s attempts to disgrace/censor Justice Weaver (both retired). With a direct link to Justice Weaver (see her website here), Schock gives a nuanced account of a dissenting voice that is trying to be silenced.

Michlib Exclusive: Michigan Campaign Finance Network Exec. Dir. Rich Robinson (part 1 of 3)

Vox Populi — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:40:36 +0000

Rich Robinson, over at the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, presents some important reasons why the money in judicial politics makes for interesting justice.

Follow the courts at the Justice at Stake website

Vox Populi — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:08:57 +0000

Justice at Stake

I stumbled upon the Justice at Stake website, and I have found it to be a trove of helpful resources: from national courts to my own home state of Michigan.

Now I can track some of the PAC money that is being used to buy influence.

Yay.

What You Need To Know About Michigan Elections: Funded By National Groups (unaskedadvice.wordpress.com)
Supreme Court Justices Should Not! (current.com)
Michigan Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Custody Case Of Two Lesbians (lezgetreal.com)

Michigan supreme court races sure to draw big spenders, study says: Michigan Campaign Finance Network

Vox Populi — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:01:13 +0000

: Image via Wikipedia

Michigan supreme court races sure to draw big spenders, study says: Michigan Campaign Finance Network.

On Point with a Michigan judge

Vox Populi — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:23:24 +0000

: Image via Wikipedia

On Point with Tom Ashbrook, an NPR talk show out of Boston, featured not only an hour discussing the influence of campaign monies in judicial elections, it also featured a cameo from Justice Taylor (the only sitting Chief Justice to lose an election–scandal).

It’s time to end judicial elections (horsesass.org)