You can't bring up an anecdote as a counterpoint then refuse to explain the anecdote. It's a bit unfair. Edit: someone posted the rules that says we should accept people's comments in good faith. I'll try to do that. Leaving this comment for posterity.
Sure they can, if: a) it might get them in legal hot water, or b) it is personal and they don’t want to get into it. You’re not owed anything by anyone here, and they did bring up an example about family court and link to an article about it. :)
Seems like a lame way to bring up an example to me.
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.
> 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. A lot of contracts people sign (NDAs and federal security clearance paperwork being the two examples that spring to mind) include clauses allowing a judge to issue a prior rest…
Civil law is a bit different.
Nobody ever goes to jail for violating an NDA. What you can have happen is be found to be in breach of contract and obligated to follow the consequences of that breach (including possibly restitution for damaging the aggrieved party).
The bar in civil law is lower because the penalties are generally money, and correction is simple if an error is later found (move that money back). Criminal law involves deprivation of liberty and other penalties that can't be reversed (can't give a person back the years in prison).
If you feel comfortable elaborating, can you explain broadly the purpose for the judge's order? I have heard stories of judges doing things like that during the time period of a divorce or custody battle.
I'm not going to elaborate other than to say my speech was restrained due to someone else's actions, but family court is definitely an area where common practice has strayed very, very far from anything resembling constitutionality. One such example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Yep, ex parte family law orders should be available for extreme situations, but they are widely abused, only need to meet a legal standard of preponderance of evidence, do not require underlying criminal conduct, and can deprive a person of constitutional rights for months or more. They were technically temporary orders pending a full hearing, but those hearings can be delayed for a variety of reasons. In one order based on allegations, a person can lose access to their property, children, and more, all without being able to defense themselves or even participate in the hearing. It’s messed up.
This is why it is so important to have wise judges that are held to a very high moral standard.
... and, in jurisdictions that allow it, for the public to bother to research judges and vote them in our out of office.
In an area where I can vote for judges, I do google searches on all the candidates and rarely get good information. If you’re lucky you can get some very rudimentary assessment of if they have any legal background at all.
But to really research a judge candidate I think would take access to a legal case database and a fairly sophisticated understanding of law, and far too much time.
can 2022 be the year we go back to being distrustful of multinational for-profit pharmaceutical corporations please
Indeed, you can never tell what those companies put in their Ivermectin and HCQ tablets these days.
Both (IVM/HCQ) are not patented so there is no reason to depend or trust on multinational pharmaceutical companies.
You can access interactive meta analysis of 310 studies for HCQ[1] and 78 studies for ivermectin[2] below, it gets updated when new studies published. They also keep track of other treatments (in total 480[3]). But unfortunately only some of those treatments get media coverage like cannabidiol[4] even when they are neither the best performers nor best studied.
I have seen several people talk personally about why they do not trust the vaccine from Johnson and Johnson on HN over the last year in various comments. Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder. Regardless of the direct correlation or none at all to the 'contaminated' talc they were selling as a product with baby in the name, and it verifiable contained asbestos. I think…
> Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder. As well they should be. Feeding vaccine FUD over an unrelated incident is dangerous at a time when trust in our institutions is so vital.
It is interesting how the prior comment you made was flagged and is dead. It does not share this direct stance.
I agree, trust in our institutions is a vital necessity, and it is very easy to lose and hard to gain. This can't be seen as unrelated since it shows the dictates of the company and the the level of coverup and legal maneuvering they use.
The only reason anyone was paid from the lawsuit with talc and asbestos contamination within the US, was because it does not fall under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. A legal vaccine indemnification program paid for by US citizens.
It would be hard for anyone to honestly trust in something they have no legal recourse in dealing with.
Presumably when inhaled, since the lawsuit talks about talc containing asbestos.
Asbestos is an extremely stable mineral fiber and sharp like glass. If you get it on your skin it may penetrate but it will eventually probably slough off. If it gets in your lungs, it has nowhere to go and can continue damaging tissue for the rest of your life. Similarly, if it gets inside your body through other routes, it has nowhere to go. The lawsuit is about the product being marketed for feminine hygiene.
Presumably if women put it on their privates every day, and it contains asbestos fibers, they will eventually have enough asbestos migrate internally to cause cancer, for example, in their ovaries - just like asbestos causes lung cancer when inhaled.
This same judge said something along the lines of "there are no limits on my ability to issue orders until an appeals court overturns them." 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.
This is why it is so important to have wise judges that are held to a very high moral standard.
No, this is why it's important to have checks and balances against unrestrained judicial power.
These checks and balances must include legal as well as practical costs and difficulties in having those orders implemented.
The system should assume malice on all parties, and work accordingly.
I have seen several people talk personally about why they do not trust the vaccine from Johnson and Johnson on HN over the last year in various comments. Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder. Regardless of the direct correlation or none at all to the 'contaminated' talc they were selling as a product with baby in the name, and it verifiable contained asbestos. I think…
> Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder. As well they should be. Feeding vaccine FUD over an unrelated incident is dangerous at a time when trust in our institutions is so vital.
Unrelated? Trust is earned. Companies are big, but senior leadership teams and boards are pretty small and wield an enormous amount of influence and power and since we can't predict future actions we can only look backwards. Not allowing people to speak out could end up being more dangerous in the long run.
Is there an article actually linked? All I see is the footer for more from routers...
Yes, in the opening sentence: > Johnson & Johnson tried to get a U.S. judge to block Reuters from publishing a story Story: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... Summary: > J&J's covert 'Project Plato' team crafted strategy to redirect cancer plaintiffs out of trial courts and into bankruptcy process > J&J documents show how it planned 'Texas two-step' maneuver to limit payouts for talc clai…
This is absolutely infuriating, and I'm glad Reuters was able to publish this.