Where is the outrage over this?

Maybe its because we are supposed to be patriots or maybe it would be un-PC to speak out, but I couldn't hold back my incredulous thoughts after reading about this "lawsuit" that the 600 families filed against everyone they could think of. First of all, is the media so jaded that they just let their ridiculous claim go unmentioned. These people are asking for over $110 TRILLION. Think about it, the US is a $10 trillion economy, over 11 times that. The government of Sudan is being sued for $100 trillion alone, as "punitive damages". Imagine that, what do the victims families want, reinstitution of slavery for generations in Sudan??? It got worse. One of the family members said "were not doing it for the money, we just feel helpless..." Hmmm, anytime someone says I am not doing it for the money I assume its for the money. After all, $100 billion against Sudan and you would pretty much wipe the country off the map...why make it that outrageous if its not about the money? Another said "we have to make sure that these people can never have the capacity to do this again". Hmmm, so you think you have found the only sponsors of terrorism and if you just get their money the world is going to be safe and peaceful, is that it? Yeah, right keep wishing. Then I found out the lawyer behind it (and there is always an asswipe lawyer behind it) was also heavily involved in the states tobacco settlement. Another beauty, the old tobacco settlement where states officially proved instead of passing real laws against tobacco, they are addicts of the money, much in the way people complain states are addicts of lottery money. This wondeful attorney re-asserted that the issue is to punish and prevent terrorism. Uh, kinda like you wanted to punish and prevent smoking deaths there buddy? Well didn't work that way did it? The states got most of the money and squandered it for the most part, many are so in hock right now they have to raise taxes or cut services so that money is almost all gone. The people that were punished? You got it, the people that are still smoking today that pay for it by higher taxes and prices. Not that I am a fan of smokers, but come on, the whole "point" of the settlement was to cause pain for tobacco companies and all they did is pass the whole cost along like anyone would have guessed. That is the problem here. If the lawsuit succeeds even modestly, its not terrorists that are going to get hurt. Its the people of these countries, 95% of them never would commit a terrorist act or condone it. The 5% who do get their money outside of the "system" and will continue to get money, maybe even more from sympathetic folks that will be outraged by any decision made about this case. Add to that plenty of recruits from societies that will suffer if these families get money. So tell me, where is all the outrage over this? Am I the only one who sees these obvious points or does the media just like to gloss over them? Families deserve a day in court, but this lawsuit deserves some very big trash cans.


One last thought, and its a scary one. Imagine if a man lost his wife and kids in an auto accident. It turns out the driver was sober and no one was really all that at fault, just a chain reaction. Problem was the woman is driving a small car and the guy who hit her due to the chain reaction accident is driving an Expedition or an F350 (or whatever big car you want to use). Well man gets this wonderful lawyer fresh off his successes and the lawyer comes up with a plan. Lets sue Ford because the accident was purely the cause of this monstrosity on the road. They damn well should have known that lives were in danger just due to the sheer size of this vehicle, after all any crash test would have shown what it would do to a small car. You know what, lets not just sue Ford, lets sue Wells Fargo because they did the auto loan and without it the guy couldn't buy his vehicle. We need to punish them for putting all these lives in danger in their push for profits so we will try to win $1 trillion. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Well not if this lawsuit gets the time of day in court, there isn't a whole lot that could stop something like this from happening. If Wells Fargo and Ford take the brunt of a lawsuit, who ends up paying? Yep, you got it...my point about how ridiculous this lawsuit is and how it could end up costing every American at the benefit of the families who "aren't in it for the money."

but the lawyers get paid...usually 13% of settlement money actually goes to "victim"...but who writes the laws...lawyers...who judges .. lawyers////shakespeare had this one right...jmho...gl

i agree with you completely...very good post.

You're right on. I think the most pernicious example of this is in "shareholders' rights" lawsuits. Lawyers organize these class action lawsuits (often of their own initiative) becuase a stock tanks. So if the company if found liable all the shareholders get cut a check from the company, i.e. the money comes out of the shareholders' own equity, i.e. the value they gain from the checks is discounted from the stock price. 'Cept there's one catch - those hefty fees also come out of shareholders' equity.


Think about it. You're a DYN shareholder (no particular reason I picked this example... grrr....). Management engages in questionable activities causing the stock to slide. You take a hit. Then these high-minded lawyers with no connection to the company enter the picture and soak you for legal fees. Oh, but you get a settlement check. Whopee!


Head to law school - it's a money machine!

Yes, its just another reminder that idiotic people think the stock market is like a bank. Put money in it and get great returns. If not, go sue someone. Amazing to think that all these lawmakers are out boasting about how they protected our rights to do this, since we would have no recourse against the Enron's of the world. I have news for them, you still ain't got no recourse against the Enrons of the world! These lawsuits did drive safe-harbor provisions that were in direct response to these very lawsuits so actually quite a few were pretty much cut off, but that doesn't stop lawyers from trying.


As for the suit itself, the problem always was there was no risk in it for anyone. The shareholders didn't pay a dime unless money was won and the lawyers know that companies will sue before they will spend months or years in court defending a drop in a stock price (just think how ridiculous that is). I was surprised that in the go-go 90s that lawyers didn't start suing companies with stock prices that went up, just not as much as those of their competition or peer groups. Surely lost opportunities are worth as much as to a shareholder as the costs are of a bad decision aren't they? Simply put, go to law school and print money...just don't expect anyone to respect you because you truly will become the scum of the earth that everyone assumes you are if you get into these types of lawsuits.

let me say most shareholder lawsuits are bogus. sometimes they are legit though. lets see what happens with enron in a court of law. those deals that jpm and c had with enron seem fishy to me. it seems like the offshore entities created by the big banks were created to facilitate round trip trading only. lets see if the govt can make a case. if enron is guilty shareholders gotta gripe. also big banks hyping enron and gettin huge investment banking fees. arthur anderson is showin up at enron shreddin docs at wcom where $7 bill in bogus accounting q which has accounting issues and has imploded. if its all one big scam where the company execs investment banks and accountants are working together thats clearly wrong. i find it kind of interestin lookin in the rearview mirror that the big banks wanted glass-steagull repealed so bad and lobbied so hard to get it. repealing glass-steagull definitely makes the scam much easier to do. im reserving judgement until i see em go to court and a case is made. theres a lotta smoke.

yeah, but have you seen the amazing amounts of cash going to lawyers ....??