41–50 of 239 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anybody demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the vended product was the cause of ovarian cancer in the plaintiffs.
Since none of this is about criminal proceedings in the US, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a meaningless (quite literally; what do you mean?) standard.
Let's turn what you said around.
In a civil case, a jury can find a defendent guilty of something, but with inadequate evidence. This can lead to enormous fines, and potentially even make a large company go bankrupt. One imagines that if you're going to find somebody guilty, they actually have to be guilty. How does that look? Scientific studies. And scientific studies don't exist that show that people who consumed J*J talc got cancer at elevated rates with a significance level that meets any judicial standard.
So basically, what you are saying (which is true, and is exactly what bothers me) is that court cases can find a defendent guilty using a lack of scientific evidence, as long as the jury believes what was shown to them is a preponderance. That could just be erin brockovich walking around in court saying hexavalent chromium causes cancer (again, not enough data to conclude this).
here's the CA case. https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159609.PDF """ While none of this is disputed, whether asbestos was present in JBP during the six-decade exposure period is a matter of sharp dispute.
As further explained below, the trial court ruled that Dr. Compton’s and Dr. Fitzgerald’s declarations, to the extent they infer the presence of asbestos in milled, finished talcum powder from nothing more than positive tests for asbestos in raw talc ore used to manufacture it, are legally insufficient to create a triable issue of fact under applicable principles of causation
So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.
"you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something." You can't, in theory. In practice this sort of thing happens all the time. I had a judge issue a clearly unconstitutional order limiting my speech (there was no action on my part leading up to this, it was a broad order applying to more than just me). My lawyer's take was that while it was clearly not allowed, it wasn't particularly important…
Pharma companies get away with way too much. No other industry could you sell products that only slightly work as advertised for some people, some of the time. But charge everyone same, with no refunds when the product doesn't work. And you can't even sue if it causes you harm. The new development to use the power of the courts and government to mandate their use should give you pause. The absolute risk reduction (AR…
Gambling? Options trading? Do you get refunds from your weed dealer when it doesn't hit quite right?
> And you can't even sue if it causes you harm.
You can, it's just that you get damages paid by the Federal government, not the manufacturer. You also can't sue if the military fails to defend a U.S. city from attack, for what it's worth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something." You can't, in theory. In practice this sort of thing happens all the time. I had a judge issue a clearly unconstitutional order limiting my speech (there was no action on my part leading up to this, it was a broad order applying to more than just me). My lawyer's take was that while it was clearly not allowed, it wasn't particularly important…
That makes we wonder how many essentially invisible to the public cases this kind of restraint we have in the system. It seem like all it takes is a plausible legal theory that could be dragged out combined with enough financial clout to make the defendant give.
He was keenly aware that the issue wasn't significant enough to appeal and that his power was essentially unchecked.
Lawyers are very aware of this dynamic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this I wouldn't be surprised. My mother worked for the VP a company that was involved in a lawsuit that went on for decades. It was commonly known in the company that the lawsuit was being deliberately dragged out for the benefit of the opposition's lawyers, and that the case was even handed down as a kind of sick inheritance from father-to-son as people retired. I've on…
"I'm sure there are good lawyers out there, but they seem as rare as hen's teeth and well-intentioned social media companies. " It seems the incentive for lawers as a group is, make everything more complicated for everyone else, so everyone else is more dependant on lawers to do anything at all.
“On Friday, Reuters reported that J&J secretly launched ‘Project Plato’ last year to shift liability from about 38,000 pending Baby Powder talc lawsuits to a newly created subsidiary, which was then to be put into bankruptcy. By doing so, J&J could limit its financial exposure to the lawsuits.”
So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.
You can if you are the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#United_States
So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.
Reuters is a UK company and freedom of press is quite limited there. But a US federal judge of course would be the wrong party to turn to for leveraging this.
Could you please be more specific? Because I've lived here for a long time and I'd call this statement utter BS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anybody demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the vended product was the cause of ovarian cancer in the plaintiffs.
It’s a civil suit. If Johnson and Johnson was so confident that there was no harm caused by their products, why go through all this trouble?