The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Well, well , well, the award winning Hot Coffee Movie has hit a sensative spot. The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform has put their propaganda machine to work. They have a new website, which I refuse to post here given its obvious bias; however, it is funny what they post at the bottom:

The views expressed in this (these) videos are solely those of the panelists, and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.

A public affairs project of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.

Really? The views are of the panelists and not the Insitute for Legal Reform? Do they really expect the public to believe this? The views of the Hot Coffee movie are biased, and they are biased in favor of individual citizens and rights. Susan Saladoff, the producer, does not hide the fact that she is an attorney. She is proud of it.

This is typical of this institution. Maybe they should read Joanne Doroshow's article on The Pop Tort. Victor Schwartz said what he said in the Hot Coffee movie. No one had a gun to his head. Now, he's mad that he came off in the movie like he did, and he's trying to save face.

With respect to their arbitration claim that personal injury suits are not affected by arbitration, arbitration prevents nursing home abuse & neglect from being litigated before juries in Alabama. Last I checked, nursing home abuse & neglect was a personal injury.

They miss the point in NE (AND VA – Recent case) medical malpractice caps. The issue is the cap legislation which continues to proliferate, not how many states currently have such caps. While Nebraska and Virginia are two of the few states with such strict laws, it will not be long before other states follow, or attempt to follow.?

On Judges, yes, Plaintiff attorneys contribute to campaigns, but their contributions pale in comparison to the money infused by Fortune 500 companies. Instead of saying that there are two sides giving money to judicial campaigns, why not show the public the amounts of money given? In addition, who is opposing the appointment of judges in Alabama? The Republican party. Why? They know they can get their candidates elected by giving large sums of money.

Finally, on the movie, Hot Coffee, the panelists fail to acknowledge that the jury system and judicial system worked. Apparently, contrary to their "trial" on Youtube, the actual Judge and jury who heard the case believed McDonalds acted wrongly and ruled against them. That is the whole point. We have a judicial system, and those people decided through the system we have, and it worked. Are the panelists suggesting that the Judge and jury were wrong? Hmmmmm! Makes you wonder.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest