Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: anyer who wrote (79805)	11/22/2000 6:13:07 PM
From: isopatch	Respond to of 95453

A well supported post. Thanks. Will defer to Doug & K.B., on what dynamics could reasonably develop that might be required to prompt legal reform. My only guess is that reform, if it occurs at all, is more likely to be piece meal as specific issues raise enough of a public outcry to influence lawmakers. Isopatch

To: anyer who wrote (79805)	11/22/2000 6:16:46 PM
From: que seria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

OT Anyer: your facile dismissal of "trial lawyers" detracts from the remainder of your off topic post. Anyone who watched the Fla. Sup. Ct. hearing saw that all parties were well represented. No one lied. No lawyer took an oath or gave evidence. Taking issue with the judges doesn't reflect on the lawyers. "Trial lawyers," spat out or printed derisively, is a sort of modern day epithet against a very large group of persons, most of whom have nothing to do with (or even actively oppose!) what the lawyer bashers are criticizing. The lawyers you may have seen on your TV this past Monday, "trial lawyers" or not, were vindicating the rights that keep this process off the streets and out of the hospitals, where it would be in most other nations in the world. I don't have to like algore to recognize that. Now politicians, on the other hand . . .