Just had to post this story, because we FINALLY get a sensible judge with a sensible judgement on these stupid types of lawsuits.

CARSON CITY -- Spilling a cup of hot coffee on one's self may cause injury, but the Nevada Supreme Court isn't going to require restaurants to post labels on coffee containers about the potential danger.

The court has dismissed the appeal of Lane Holmes, who sued the Turtle Stop in Las Vegas. Holmes had claimed a cup failed and caused him to suffer leg burns from dripping hot coffee.

The high court upheld the decision of District Judge Gene Porter who ruled, "The danger is open and obvious."

Thes case is reminiscent of the $2.9 million judgment awarded 81-year-old Stella Liebeck for the third-degree burns she suffered when she spilled coffee on her lap. The steaming beverage was purchased at a McDonald's restaurant in New Mexico and spilled when she tried to remove the cap from a cup. The judgment was reduced to $480,000 and an out-of-court settlement was reached.

In the Nevada case, Holmes purchased a cup of coffee to go in August 1995, and while he was getting into his car, the coffee seeped out of the container onto his fingers, which were burned, and then on to his leg.

Porter granted a pre-trial summary judgment in favor of the Turtle Stop, H&O Foods, which supplied the brewing equipment to the restaurant, and the Wilbur Curtis Co., which manufactured the equipment and the cups.

The Supreme Court, in a one-page order issued Friday, said Porter "did not err in granting summary judgment." It said there were no "genuine issues of material fact."

Holmes, through his lawyer Algimantas Bruzas, suggested there was a duty to post the warning.

Bruzas, in his brief to the Supreme Court, said there was a "failure to produce a warning on a product and Mr. Holmes was unaware that the coffee he purchased would cause a second-degree burn if it came in contact with his skin."

The hazard of suffering a burn "was not obvious," Bruzas said.

"Even though plaintiff testified the coffee was hot and he saw steam, it doesn't mean he was aware of or warned that he could suffer second-degree burns," he said.

Porter, in his decision, suggested that if warnings were posted on coffee cups, they might be required on knives and other utensils.

(Isn't that a great quote? He may as well as called the guy stupid, heh..)

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), July 16, 2000

Answers

Hmm...actually, there might be a use for warnings on some products. Several years ago my husband poured a cup of coffee from our coffee maker. Our toddler immediately grabbed it and sloshed some, producing third degree burns to most of one tiney upper arm. We had no idea the coffee was hot enough to do that. It never occurred to us to sue the manufacturer. We were just sick that the accident happened at all and to a baby so young.

-- helen (home@home.tired), July 16, 2000.

Aw, that is awful, Helen. My mother carries a scar on her arm from when she was burned as an infant. It was from a leaking hot water bottle they had put in her crib to help with colic. Accidents will happen. I think the idea here is that you should know that any hot liquid can potentially burn you, and take proper precautions with it. WE've ALL gotten a burn at one time or another from the oven or stove or steam. I got a good steam burn tonight after removing the cover from Rice I had just nuked. Still hurts now. However, to sue the Rice Steamer people would be wrong, as I should have known better than to take the cover off right after nuking. It's a matter of WHO is responsible for your burn..ya know. It's you, it's me. We'll know for next time.

If it's a matter of someone making the liquid SO HOT as to cause burns that scar and/or require extended medical attention, that should be the person who made the liquid to begin with, don't ya think? Ever go to a restaurant and have them put a plate in front of you and the waitress says "Be carefull..the plate is hot!"...I guess thats what might be needed in a hot liquid case?

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), July 16, 2000.

In most cases the average person should be aware of potential burns after ordering hot beverages/foods. However, in the Stella Liebeck v McDonalds Resaurant case, the situation that led to the massive award was unique - and the media failed to recognize and report it and instead attempted to ridicule the judgement.

(1) McDonalds has historically brewed their coffee and dangerously high temperatures far exceeding the levels used throughout the commercial and home appliance industries, (2)McDonalds had been sued successfully on a number of prior occasions due to the elevated temperatures and had refused to alter the dangerous practice, and (3) the injuries sustained were not the norm - these were massive third degree burns requiring extended hospitalization and numerous skin grafting surgeries to correct - not a normal little burn.

-- David Mullins, Tech Acdt Investigator (D.Mullins@juno.com), October 25, 2000.

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Mullins. I'm curious, since this was an old thread, is it your job to look for references to this case on the net and post this message? I guess when the record needs to be set straight on something...finding references to it is probably tedious work!

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), October 25, 2000.

ROTFL!!!

I gotta know if Mr. Mullins answers your question, K. I'm stupified! Perplexed. Bedazzled. How bizarre!

Rich

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), October 25, 2000.

Well, now it's a REALLLLY old thread. But I find the implied accusation in the last two post both interesting and disheartening. Interesting because it is so stupid, and disheartening because it says bad things about America's future, since such ignorant attitudes have become the norm in this once great nation.

Mr. Mullins simply gave some facts about a case - facts which were not reported in the media ( but can be easily verified ) and which put a completely different light on the McDonalds case. And what is the response? A veiled accusation that he is dishonestly supporting the trial lawyers in a case that "obviously" proves that litigation in this country is out of control. Of COURSE, if anyone even suggests that the 2.9 million dollar award was justified, they must be blindly on the side of the lawywers!

But the facts are otherwise. The only real problem with this case is that the judge reduced the award. It should have been RAISED by a factor of 10. Do a search on McDonalds, lawsuit, and coffee and you'll find that there are numerous articles available.

-- Mark (nospam@hadenoughofthat.net), April 06, 2002.

David Mullins's points are not well taken.

1) McDonald's was *not* brewing coffee well above normal temperatures. They were brewing coffee ten degrees below the temperature recommended by the alt.coffee FAQ, for example, and well within the range recommended by ANSI. See the discussion in the Bunn- O-Matic case. http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/rbrill/torts/day/sup_mat/index.html?/cl asses/rbrill/torts/day/sup_mat/mcmahon.html

2) That there were stupid lawsuits before Liebeck v. McDonald's does not excuse the decision in Liebeck v. McDonald's. The vast majority of courts recognize these lawsuits as perversions of tort law, and dismiss them before they get to a jury.

3) Stella Liebeck's injuries were grievous. But, then, one would expect grievous injuries when one spills a cup of boiling liquid into one's crotch while wearing sweatpants. Not every grievous injury requires a defendant to pay damages. Why not sue the sweatpants manufacturer for not protecting Stella against boiling liquid?

4) I don't know what to make of Mark's point. What theory rationalizes assessing $29 million of damages against McDonald's because one out of a billion customers gets third-degree burns?

Max Power http://maxpower.blogspot.com

-- Max Power (safblog@yahoo.com), April 15, 2002.

Like everyone else who misrepresents the case in support of Tort reform, Max, your facts are incorrect. This takes rudementary research. Are you afraid of the truth?

1) McDonalds brewed their coffee 20 degrees higher than industry standard. This was a practice freely admitted by McDonalds and demonstrated in the court case.

2) The temperature of McDonalds coffee was excessively dangerous, causing third degree burns in two to six seconds. After repeated complaints and claims (not lawsuits), McDonalds, aware of the problem, refused to post warnings that their coffee was dangerously hot.

3) McDonalds representatives LIED in court about the existence of previous complaints.

4) The woman in the case is portrayed as having "simply burned" herself and filed a frivolous case. In fact, the woman suffered third degree burns over 6 percent of her body and had to have skin grafts in an eleven day hospital stay. She only wanted compensation for her hospital bills, which McDonalds refused to pay. She hired a lawyer and only went to court when a mediator's recommendation was turned down by McDonalds.

5) The jury awarded the punitive damages based on two days worth of sales of McDonalds coffee, $2.6 million. The judge reduced the punitive damages by dismissing the charge of negligence on behalf of McDonalds because the woman spilled the coffee on herself. The award was reduced to $480,000. The case was then settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

It sounds like the so-called out-of-control system worked pretty well to me.

Corporations have grossly misrepresented the case in support of Tort reform, which would greatly reduce the amount of jury awards to consumers or individuals injured by corporations. Sadly, many consumers and individuals are only exposed to the media and corporate propaganda rather than the real facts of the case.

-- Moze (megamoze@juno.com), May 15, 2002.

Way to go, MOZE.......... I actually studied this case as a student and you've responded quite factually and correctly...... seems there are some here that like to "stir up" stuff without a "good spoon."

-- nise (nwink@mediaone.net), June 09, 2002.

WHEN LAWYERS GO BAD New York Post | June 8, 2002 | EDWIN MEESE III and PAUL ROSENZWEIG

THINK the venture capitalists on Wall Street are good at raising money? They've got nothing on the lawyers who have been cleaning up on the lawsuits the tobacco companies recently settled with the states. The agreements will provide some of the plaintiffs' attorneys (between 200 and 300 of them) with payments totaling $500 million per year almost in perpetuity. For some, this works out to a payment of more than $100,000 per hour worked. One lawyer, Richard Scruggs of Mississippi, was awarded a total of $847.8 million for his interest in claims in Mississippi, Texas and Florida alone. Another, Ronald Motley, was awarded $304 million as his share of Mississippi's $1.4 billion settlement; his firm's total take is likely to exceed $3 billion.

In New Jersey, six lawyers who were politically connected to the attorney general were retained to represent the state, even though they had no prior experience with mass-tort cases. Although they contributed almost nothing to the settlement, they will share $350 million.

When former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales announced that tort lawyers in his state would receive $2.4 billion of the $16 billion Texas was awarded, Professor Geoffrey C. Hazard, chief draftsman of the American Bar Association's Rules of Professional Conduct, said the deal "amount[ed] to an abandonment by [Attorney] General Morales of his responsibilities as attorney for the State of Texas."

Unfortunately, far too few in the legal profession have followed Professor Hazard's lead in questioning these exorbitant fees and the manner in which they were distributed.

But these outrageously excessive fees are worse than unethical. They represent a grave danger to the American political system.

Why? Because they transfer the responsibility for determining matters of public policy from Congress and the executive branch - the elected representatives of the people - to a few powerful trial lawyers. These lawyers, with the complicity of creative judges in a few states, routinely create new rights and obligations where none had existed before. The tobacco cases are merely the blueprint for a strategy of systematically transferring political power to a select few.

The next set of targets for predatory lawsuits has been identified: With the assistance of state courts, tort lawyers next intend to reform the health-care system in America. And beyond the health-care system looms the specter of other "creative" suits.

For example, Peter Angelos, the tort lawyer who sought a $1 billion fee from Maryland for his tobacco work (but settled for $125 million), is now suing cell-phone manufacturers. Not because cell phones have been shown to cause injury, mind you, but because the plaintiffs he represents supposedly fear that there might be some medical consequences, and they want cell-phone manufacturers to pay the costs of monitoring their health for the foreseeable future.

Motley, meanwhile, has boasted of his intention to "bring the entire lead-paint industry to its knees within three years." Other lawyers have the fast-food industry in their sights. With these cases as a model, it seems we'll soon have trial lawyers (along with their allies on the courts) dictating policy on issues of vital concern to all Americans - effectively disenfranchising voters by eliminating the power of their elected representatives.

Money warps the political system in a second, even more palpable way.

The "big five" tobacco lawyers in Texas contributed more than $1.7 million directly to the Texas Democratic Party in 1998, and an additional $1.3 million indirectly through national Democratic sources. Through its PAC, the American Trial Lawyers Association gave $2.4 million to federal candidates in 1998, $2.1 million of it to Democrats - an amount that severely understates the problem since it doesn't count individual giving. (In 1998, Angelos gave $305,000 to various Democratic Party entities.)

In short, if the trial lawyers can't change America through the courts, they are seeking to buy the Congress they need to enact the agendas they support.

And every American, conservative or liberal, should fear the prospect. Because if we don't fix the civil justice system, we risk all that is precious in the American system - democracy and self- government most of all.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (racookpe@earthlink.net), June 10, 2002.

"The "big five" tobacco lawyers in Texas contributed more than $1.7 million directly to the Texas Democratic Party in 1998, and an additional $1.3 million indirectly through national Democratic sources."

I'd be interested in the figures you might have for what the "big five" tobacco COMPANIES gave to the Republicans in 1998. Did that factor ever figure into your criticism of the judicial and political system? If it turned out to be equal or greater value, I wonder how your diatribe against corporate donations might play out.

The control of Congress was long ago wrangled from the American voter and is now comfortably in the hands of corporations, not lawyers. I, for one, would find it refreshing if the corporations were relieved of their power, even if it were to go to lawyers or unions or name- your-special-interest. It certainly won't be in the hands of the people for any forseeable future --not until Joe Blow can muster up the financial resources to keep the fat cats satisfied.

-- Moze (megamoze@juno.com), June 11, 2002.

The DNC received (surprise!) just about as much as the RNC did...... the national press corpse (always willing to present the DNC's faxes" as truth) just didn't report that inconvenient fact.

By the way, the lawyers and unions (Groups, collectively, none of whom appear to be as honest as the "businesses" you seem to feel are so evil and greedy ...) personally gave millions to Clinton-Clinton- Gore-Reno .... met with them privately and off-record, and collaborated with them in each of the trial lawyer's biggest booms: Savings and Loan, tobacco settlements/extortion/lawsuits, Microsoft, and anti-ort reform legislation. Also in health care micro-mis- management, in government "reform", and in pending legislation.

ENRON, gave millions to the DNC, and got billions in extorted contracts from overseas inervention by Clinton and his DOE. The failure of these contracts, expected at the time they were signed (and assured by taxpayer dollars) then led to the company's failure.

Care to keep going trying to mislead us with YOUR misconceptions and distortion?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (racookpe@earthlink.net), June 11, 2002.

"The DNC received (surprise!) just about as much as the RNC did...... the national press corpse (always willing to present the DNC's faxes" as truth) just didn't report that inconvenient fact."

Didn't report an inconvenient fact? You've ONLY posted contributions made to Democrats. You've not provided a single figure regarding Republicans or where their funding comes from.

I'm simply noting your obvious bias and the complete lack of context or comparison of it all. If you're stating that such-and-such group gave money in a disproportionate amount to such-and-such political party and THEREFORE that same group held undue political sway, then why leave the Republicans conspicuously out of your "facts and figures" and even, in fact, ARGUE the suggestion that Republicans could even be included in such a comparison. When I intimated that Republicans have been given disproportionate amounts of money by corporations or groups, your only reponse was that the tobacco companies gave as much to the DNC as to the RNC. Even supposing this were true (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) you "didn't report the inconvenient fact" that 82% of the tobacco industry's contributions went to Republican candidates and committees.

For all your complaining about bias in the media and unreported facts, your post is remarkably bias and lacking in context. Either I'm exposing you as a hypocrite, or I'm helping establish a point of context for your complaints against the political and judicial systems. Which is it?

-- Moze (megamoze@juno.com), June 12, 2002.

Lights up a cigarette and waits to see Robert's reply...

-- kritter (kritter@longgone.addy), June 12, 2002.

Hmmmn.

There is a function difference here: It is legally and morally appropriate to receive campaign contributions from businesses, from individuals, and from organizations.

The questions come when that contribution is made to specifically influence or change policy (as was done by the democrats when they receive "donations" from the trial lawyers associations, from individual trial lawyers, and from organizations and businesses that directly benefit from government lawsuits (such as those in Silicon Valley (Oracle, Sun, Netscape, etc.) who then got Reno to start the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit.)

Bush, on th eother hand, has NOT been shown (BY ANY GROUP, or BY ANY CONGGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION) to have made government policy changes (or illegal pressures on foreign governments such as Indonesia and India and China) that benefited Enron.

Clinton did. In exchange for Enron's money.

Clinton set up lawsuits against tobacco to benefit (in terms of billions of dollars) directly into lawyers' accounts by the lawsuits. He opposed (and veto'ed limits on trail lawyers, in exchange for their money.

Clinton, (now a multi-million by virtue of his illegal connections made while in office ... Funny, isn't it that he makes so much money now ... and has 25 millions in one account alone, and is now paying the expensive bills of those who lied to keep him in office.)

Even the democratic Senators who white-washed his illegal conributions (from China, from second-hand sources laundering money from ????? foreign intersts AGAINST the US, from Indonesia, etc.) claimed that they proved he/she took the moeny illegally..."but that was okay because they didn't receive anything in return (There was no quid quo pro."

Yet only two years later we find that the VClinton DOE DID sell our nuclear bomb technology to China.

Now, what pray tell, have the republicans done "illegal" ... on behalf of, or because of, the money received? Are you going to claim that correcting our mis-managed, stupid, false-serving Clinton "lack-of-energy-policy" in favor trying to encourage domestic production is a "sell-out" to energy companies?

But attacking US citizens, seizing their property, restricting their vehicles, limiting what lanes of public roads that they can drive on, and restricting how they farm their own land, and restricting their freedoms by setting aside millions of square miles of western and northen land to appease enviro-freaks and their agenda is "not selling out" for votes?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (racookpe@earthlink.net), June 15, 2002.

"Bush, on th eother hand, has NOT been shown (BY ANY GROUP, or BY ANY CONGGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION) to have made government policy changes"

Are you kidding?

Your statement here is only true if you define "influence" differently for Republicans vs. Democrats. Apparently you do.

According to you, when Bush or Republicans promote, create, or propose legislation that directly benefits organizations or corporations that contribute money to them, it's either a coincidence or it's some kind of "correction" for Democrat policy.

But when Democrats do the EXACT SAME THING, it's somehow illegal?

The level of hypocrisy here is overwhelming. I realize that I'm insulting you here, a forum no-no, but I just feel that any point-by- point response to the nonsense you've provided would just be an exercize in futility. You honestly believe Bush and other Republicans have never paid back political contributors with favorable policy? I mean, c'mon, what do you say to someone who thinks that way?

I just get tired of these right-wing nuts who try to post some patriotic diatribe trying to hide their otherwise obvious bias. They complain about bias in the press as if they have some sort of problem with it, but then listen to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News as if they are havens of objectivity. If you are bias toward Republicans, just come out and say it. My only intend in this whole debate was to get you to either admit that you see Democrats negatively no matter what they do and Republicans positively no matter what they do, OR to expose your bias even if you don't admit it. I think your words speak for themselves.

-- Moze (megamoze@juno.com), June 16, 2002.

In the interest of healthy debate, I decided to do a pointed response, even though I know it will accomplish little in Mr. Cook's incredibly bias brain and even though his argument frequently compares apples to oranges, trails off, or is otherwise disjointed.

Mr. Cook first asks the question whether or not it is immoral or illegal for organizations to give political contributions to specifically influence or change policy. Well, let's hope not since organizations ONLY give money to influence policy. Why else would they do it? Good manners? But Mr. Cook would have us believe not only that organizations give money out of altruism, but that those altruistic groups only give their money to Republicans. Influence peddling, as Mr. Cook defines it, is reserved exclusively for Democrats. It's so simple. Why didn't someone point this out before?

Mr. Cook then states rather pointedly that Bush has never been shown to have made policy changes because of political contributions. I'm wondering, first of all, where he gets such an emphatically declared factoid, and second of all, whether or not he believes it is simply a coincidence that Bush recieved substantial contributions from energy companies (Enron was his single biggest donor) and then proposed policy that can only be described as favorable to energy interests (even flip-flopping on a campaign promise regarding carbon dioxide emissions). Mr. Cook then curiously declares equally emphatically that Clinton did influence policy based on money he got from the very same Enron corporation. There is no further explanation for how Clinton favored Enron in his energy policy (more of those "inconvenient facts" Mr. Cook keeps leaving out his posts), but it certainly raises questions since Mr. Cook goes on to criticize Clinton's lack of an energy policy and his mis-management of domestic production, policies that could NOT be described as favorable to companies like Enron.

Mr. Cook then goes on about trial lawyers and contributions that supposedly lead to Clinton's opposition to tort reform. Mr. Cook, however, conveniently omits the massive corporate support of tort reform and that the vast majority of their contributions went to Republicans. Mr. Cook must find it a coincidence once again that those same Republicans supported tort reform while recieving huge quantities of money from corporations that also support it. How is one of these illegal and the other perfectly justified?

Mr. Cook then finds it a mystery that a former lawyer, two-term governor, and two-term president could wind up with millions of dollars in the bank. Gosh! It must have been illegal means. Whoever heard of a rich president?

Mr. Cook has peppered the next couple of paragraphs with statements he believes are true for some reason, but have never been reported or alleged as fact unless you get the entirety of your news from the National Enquirer. First of all, no Democrat Senator has ever or would ever claim that Clinton receieved illegal contributions from anyone. Those claims only ever came from Republicans (go figure) and illegal contributions were never connected to Clinton. If they had been, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Republican-majority House and Republican-majority Senate (at the time), would have indicted him in a New York minute. They didn't because they couldn't.

Mr. Cook then states, also erroneously, that Clinton did sell nuclear bomb technology to China. Funny that Mr. Cook magically knows for a fact what no one else in the world could ever demonstrate or back up with actual evidence.

Mr. Cook then asks what, pray tell, Republicans have ever done illegal, first of all as if this is some sort of unimaginable challenge, and second of all, as if he's somehow shown unequivocably that Democrats have done something illegal. Neither is the case.

And then in his last paragraph, Mr. Cook expands his "illegality" standard to include "selling out for votes," not just campaign contributions. And one must suppose that this expansion of his accusation ONLY includes Democrats once again, since he seems to have no interest in even listening to the immoral and illegal conduct of Republicans. As if his list of so-called selling out --restricting vehicles, limiting what lanes of public roads (yeah, I don't understand what that means either) or restricting farm land, can't be met with a litany of transgressions by Republicans. But I'm sure that Mr. Cook, in all his objectivity, would find perfect justification for taxes cuts that only benefit the rich, limiting what US citizens can do or say on TV and the internet, opposing civil rights legislation every decade since its inception, restricting freedomes by allowing corporations to deregulate and police themselves on every matter from worker safety to polution.

-- Moze (megamoze@juno.com), June 16, 2002.

"But I'm sure that Mr. Cook, in all his objectivity, would find perfect justification for taxes cuts that only benefit the rich, limiting what US citizens can do or say on TV and the internet, opposing civil rights legislation every decade since its inception, restricting freedomes by allowing corporations to deregulate and police themselves on every matter from worker safety to polution. "

Ahhhhhh ... Where to begin with this new litany of lies and exaggerations? First: Please, what republican "illegalities"? Lettuce be specific here: I want specific crimes since (say) 1990. (Newt, for example, was hounded by over 300 accusations of illegal acts, but only one, and that one was of dubious validity about a class that was sponsered by (gasp!) tax-free group that he gave at a local university. (Clinton, on the other hand, demanded she and Bill and Gore and dozens of other dnc candidates go to FUND_RAISING activities AT several hundred black churches where the "plate" was literally passed in the church to go to her pocket. In other cases, she received (personally) 90,000.00 dollars for an 8=page report that came from the governor of NY ... whom she then hired to a dnc party leadership as a paid position in payback.... Can you name ANY cabinet postion under the Clintons NOT requiring a resignation, a coverup, or a an investigation? Can you name the number of investigations of Gore and Clinton that were STOPPED by the illegal cover-ups of Reno.... Not even Nixon stooped so low as to use the IRS to harass his poilitical opponents: but EVERY person, and every agency, and every organization who accused Clinton of (true) crimes came under IRS scrutiny. Nixon was impeached for ONE FBI file misused: Clinton was excused (by his supporters) of misconduct after over 900 were SPECIFICALLY requested by the White House, were turned over to the White House, were transcribed by the WHite House, and were kept on file by the White House. What republican illegalities do you refer to? What were there? justification for taxes cuts that only benefit the rich.. Lettuce see here: If "the richest" (those 5% making over 100,000.00 per year) pay some 85% of the income taxes, who SHOULD the TAX REBATE go to? (You are suggesting/requiring/demanding/whining that TAX REFUNDS should go to those who don't pay taxes for some reason?) What is "fair" about that? If as now, the lowest 50% of the populace pays on;y 5% of their SHARE of the income taxes, that they should receive (for some reason) 95% of the tax REFUNDS? Your "democratically-inspired, focus-group tested" professionally- driven class envy, greed, and jealousy is telling here. (But green is not your best color.) The "poor" are already receiving tens of thousands of "charity" each year .... YES - more than about $24,000.00 per family per year in "tax money" per year in other aid from the "rich" ... What more do you want to extort? They vote democratic... because their gravy train, not voluntary charity, is democratically-driven to buy lower income votes using your exact words, and the lies behind them. NO REPUBLICAN HAS EVER THREATENED THIS CHARITY BY THE WAY. The dnc has only claimed that the republicans threaten it. As they have falsely, bluntly, and in their dnc-racial racial-hatred claimed that more black churches will burn if republicans are elected. "opposing civil rights legislation every decade since its inception... Hmmmn. Did you notice that it was DEMOCRAIC votes (such as by Gore's father, by the KKK DEMOCRATIC Senate member (WV's R. Byrd) , by the DEMOCRATIC sheriff's across the south, and in Detroit, and in Boston, and in Ohio, and In PA, and in CA, and in TN who opposed civil rights? DID you notice that it was REPUBLICAN CONGRESSONAL AND SENATE VOTES THAT STARTED AND PASSED Johnson's CIVIL RIGHTS Legislation --- AGAINST democratic opposition? Did you notice it was DEMOCRATIC legislation that began Jim Crow laws and vote restrictions? Please give me specific instances of republican opposition to civil rights.... Particulary since it was reno, and the democrats who are assaulting the 2nd Amendment rights, the 1st amendment rights (of conservatives) and of right-to-life protesters. Please give me THREE instances of republican restrictions on free speech ... while I can give you HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of LIBERAL "polically correct" restrictions on conservative free speech. From abusing republican speakers on campus, to removing US flags, to restricting plays, movies, and newspapers, and flyers, and preventing public speech. Please show me ANY republican inspired restrictions on free speech..... while Reno is using the ADL to illegally and "privately" investigate conservatives, then pass THEIR information to the FBI and ATF. One lane restrictions? Oh - you've never seen a carpool lane restricted arbitrarily to those who the government favors? Are you assuming that the known cheaters and liars in the EPA are "honest" in their reports .... We know of many "bad scientific reports" artificially and arbitrarily changed to produce the headlines the enviro-freaks demand.... Please give me a reason to believe their lies now.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (racookpe@earthlink.net), June 16, 2002.

We continue.

"Republicans would have us believe, first of all, that middle and lower class income earners pay no taxes. That is a blatant lie. "

Never said they pay no taxes.

I did say, ACCURATELY, that "the rich" hated so thoroughly in your greed and envy of their earned success, pay the vast majority (97%) of the INCOME TAXES paid by Americans. (And most of the social security taxes as well, though thankfully those at least max out at 15% of our wages.)

So when I pay 44% of my income in national, state, and local taxes, and yet the ENTIRE lower 50% of the nation pay only 3% of the INCOME taxes (I am being specific here, despite your claims), why do you it is republican lies - WHEN your claims are false?

Yes, they pay a little in social security taxes, YET GET MORE THAN THAT BACK. They pay some (a little) in sales tax over the year .... why is that unfair? Basic sales for needed items are not subject to sales tax... are you suggesting the "poor" should not pay sales tax on cigaretets or liquor? You claim they are oppressed by taxes, when their tax burden is small, yet their demands (for greater bureacracy and government waste) are ever-increasing.

In return, they get TAX CREDITS - when they pay no income taxes to begin with. Their lunch money, for example, is paid ... from my tax dollars. I am not eligible to deduct college loan expenses ... but they can.

I donate several tens of thousand to charity, I pay those taxes .... yet you complain of my greed, and then repeat democratic lies of envy. Why?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (racookpe@earthlink.net), June 16, 2002.

"HOWEVER, when defining taxes paid by the wealthiest 20%of wage earners, Republicans include the kitchen sink, everything from sales tax to luxury taxes (on items like yachts and cars that the poor could only ever dream of owning) to arrive at the rather frightening rate of 40% in taxes that "working Americans" pay. "

Lettuce continue.

Your claims are not true. (Again, he notes. On the other hand, he congratulates on your typing - a nice clean job.)

I notice you are using the term "payroll tax" rather than social security taxes. Funny, it was Clinton who reduced social security benefits to seniors, while it is the republicans trying to protect the future incomes of the young, the middle age, and older Americans .... and still preserving what little is available for the current older receiptants of their taxes.

Please note (speaking to other readers, since you won't listen) that social security taxes max at that 66,000.00 in income. (So a family making 70,000.00 (hardly the extreme "rich" so detested by the writer) pays THE SAME 15% social security taxes on their first 66,000.00 as a family making 66,000.00 Yes, one making 100,000.00 pays THE SAME as a person making that 66,000.00. What is unfair?

Both, at the same age later, will draw the same. In the mean time, at least, if I maek more than 66,000.00 - I can have 50% of that (considering the Alternate minimum tax!) save slightly more for real retirement.... rather the negative rate of return promised by the SSA.

Only 2% (approximately) make more than 125,000.00. So, ALL Americans pay the same base rate of 15% of their salary to social security. What, pray tell, is the writer screaming about?

Perhaps this quote is telling: "Republicans include the kitchen sink, everything from sales tax to luxury taxes (on items like yachts and cars that the poor could only ever dream of owning)..."

This estimate is actually low. I paid 43% in taxes last year _ WITHOUT YOUR EXAGGERATED LUXURY TAXES! ("Greed" taxes on new boats, by the way, destroyed the Florida and Maryland new boat markets ... putting SEVERAL THOUSAND Americans out of work ... and raising NO net money to the treasury!)

I merely added the telephone taxes, the income taxes, the social security taxes, the local 5.5% sales taxes (yes - ONLY marking that on what WAS SPENT from what was left), the medicare taxes, the school taxes, the license fees, the car ad valorum taxes, the garbage taxes, the heating gas bill tax, the road taxes, and so on.

NOTHING "luxurious" - Just life. no new cars. No new boats. (A 50.00 national park tax though!) No airplanes .. no diamonds.

Your simple exaggerations on "luxury" implied above ... by (incorrectly pushing the biased assumption that a "working person" has less discretionary income, and so a fixed tax burden is "higher") is simply wrong.

The higher income person PAYS MUCH MORE IN TAXES.

Many tens of thousand dollars a year more in taxes. The actual rates vary somewhat, but for all up to the top 0.5% present, the ratio of 40-45% in taxes PER YEAR is fairly standard. AND INCLUDES NO dnc-inspired exaggerations.

Left out is the estate tax which further hits small business owners and farmers: TAXING their families again at death on income and investments already earned after that previous 40-45% in taxes.

Your "kitchen sink" IS TAXED: on the labor to build it, to move it, to paint it (and the paint disposal fees at that company to paint it), and sell it, and install it, then for the next 80 years in school taxes to use it. Plus the water that goes in it is taxed, and the sewer it discharges to are taxed.

Its simple arthematic to get to the 40% tax rate ... but the dnc wants greed and envy to be claimed, not math.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (racookpe@earthlink.net), June 16, 2002.

"But for the sake of record, I will state one of the more glaring, the $1.6 million in illegal donations from China later returned by the RNC. This transaction will undoubtedly be dismissed by Cook as either somehow legitimate or non-existent, giving Republicans an utterly fantastic benefit-of-the-doubt he shows no interest in giving Democrats. "

Ah - I was wondering when you would bring this red-herring up.

This money WAS LOANED (by Taiwanese immigrants now CITIZENS of the US!) and thus legal to donate moeny directly.

Nevertheless, it was a LOAN that the RNC PAID BACK fully.

Nothing illegal or incorrect. (Just NOT reported by the networks.)

Clinton's dnc, on the other hand, was forced by the FEC to return slightly over 22 millions of dollars in ILLEGAL money. (Much of that from foreign contributors discovered..... how many hundred million in other funds remain undiscovered we don't know. Pehaps some will be in the 2 million emails unsuccesfully hidden by Clinton, Gore and friends... who then covered up their acts by deleting these.

Yes - over 22 million in known, penalized illegal donations to Clinton's dnc. (Those of us who are skeptical wonder how much really was returned .. since the donors were foreignors already knowlingly passing illegal bribes to US officeholders, it would be a simple matter to simple "forget" to cash the dnc check "erturning" the illegal contribution.

Keep trying, you're losing.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (racookpe@earthlink.net), June 16, 2002.

""Not even Nixon stooped so low as to use the IRS to harass his political opponents."

??? (As I regain my composure from laughing so hard...) Do you see what I mean? Mr. Cook simply ignores any and all facts, history, or reality that in any way denegrates Republicans. "

I'm waiting for you to address the hundreds of IRS audits addressed BY Clinton's IRS against political opponents of Clinton. (As stated, although Nixon toyed with the idea of going this low, he had too much moral backbone to go this low.)

You're "laughing" but you haven't addresed the fact that HUNDREDS of IRS audits were aimed directly at conservative groups. Each AFTER credible accusations were made against Clinton.

And NONE were made of known illegal tax procedures (such as Jackson's multiple-linked, common named for-profit and tax-free organizations) were ignored by the democrats.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (racookpe@earthlink.net), June 16, 2002.

Typical democratic "investigation/coverup" of illegal actions BY democratics.

This story from the Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper:

"Illegal electioneering and intimidation at a polling place by a political demagogue of the majority ruling party. A half- hearted "official investigation" by the state. A failure to prosecute the demagogue and send witness allegations before an impartial judge. Is this some movie script set in a one-party Third World country?

Unfortunately, it is occurring in Georgia. The brazen election law violations happened in the Stoneview polling precinct in DeKalb County on Election Day 2000. The demagogue/darling of the state's majority party is Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. The failure to present the charges to an impartial judge or to prosecute is the edict of Attorney General Thurbert Baker. His partner in this cover-up is Secretary of State Cathy Cox and her rump party-dominated state elections board. (Surely the governor of Georgia, a Democrat, had nothing to do with this.)

More than a year had passed since various non-partisan, independent witnesses (let alone Republican observers) had given statements to Cox's investigators and the media about Cynthia McKinney illegally campaigning inside a polling place and using a bullhorn to urge voters in line to cast a ballot for her. Her father, state Rep. Billy McKinney (D-Atlanta) was also inside the polling place egging her on, and his conduct resulted in accusations of intimidating election officials.

Yet proceedings against the McKinneys stalled until soon after the Southeastern Legal Foundation filed an open records request to get the process moving in public view.

Accompanied by increased public scrutiny when the state's Inspector Clouseaulike investigators finally completed their report, the state elections board, to its credit, voted unanimously -- twice -- to send six serious violations to an administrative law judge for adjudication and sentencing. That should have been the end of Cox's role. The attorney general's office, in charge of the prosecution, should have done its duty. But it didn't happen.

On June 6, Cox presided over a hastily called state elections board meeting featuring an assistant attorney general asking for a "settlement" to be reached with the McKinneys. Attorney General Baker's flunky, Kyle Pearson, said, "It appears likely that, at the evidentiary hearing, the McKinneys would be able to produce other witnesses to testify that they observed no improper campaign activities by the McKinneys." Well, so what? "Conflicting testimony" occurs all the time in courtrooms. "Conflicting testimony" is the reason there are judges and juries. Even some Democrats present who heard that nonsense had trouble stifling a laugh.

Oh yes, about the so-called "settlement" pushed by Cox, Baker & Co. and ratified by the elections board with only one dissenting vote:

Assistant Attorney General Pearson stipulated that the McKinneys not admit they violated the election code but "agree they will refrain from such conduct in the future." What a joke! On the same day Pearson was piously proclaiming this reassurance, Billy McKinney was actually quoted as saying, "We were just trying to get as many Democrats into the polls as possible."

Georgia's attorney general has always been highly partisan."

Now, the evidence shows that its elections board (and Cox in particular) is also partisian. As did her actions is permitting literally a last-second change for one candidate from the republican party to the democratic party so he could run un-opposed last year.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (racookpe@earthlink.net), June 17, 2002.

More typical (immoral, unethical) democratic behavior. This story from the SF Chronicle details the shenanigans used by W. Brown to manipulate power in the CA legistlature AFTER the republicans got a majority.

(Sound familair to what happend in the Senate: Carnahan winning a seat based on a dead man's campaign, voting polls (only in democratic precints) left open for hours after they were to be closed; New mexico false votes cerified to change a campaign there, two campaigns in the NW finageling less than 3,000 votes that the republican conceded, a GA governor giving a republican seat to his democratic friend after the death of the republican, in CT a democratic senator running in two elections at the same time, ... though he had condemned Dole for that offense in 1996, and in NY, a woman illegally using federal funds to travel, to bring money to the state, and to use NY school money for her own good ... and gaining illegal votes as well.

"For a month Brown had talked with Assembly Republicans looking for someone who would bolt the Party. He had to find one Republican dissenter to maintain his power. Finally, on a cold December morning, Speaker Brown struck a deal to retain his power.

Paul Horcher, a dissident Republican, agreed to cross party lines to vote for Brown. Horcher had been on the outs with Republican leaders for four years. As a reward for his defection, Brown named Horcher the vice chairperson of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. Brulte was furious. In the Assembly, a jubilant Horcher slammed his fist on his desk and hollered: "Brown for Speaker." Once again Brown had pulled off a political coup.

The Assembly was deadlocked 40 to 40 and the Republicans could not elect Brulte as Speaker. There was one more parliamentary move used by the Democratic Party when they forced Assemblyman Richard Mountjoy to resign from his seat. He had been elected to the California Senate in a concurrent special election, and the Democrats would not allow him to hold two legislative seats. So Brown was elected 40 to 39 and retained the Speakership. But his power was on the decline. "

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (racookpe@earthlink.net), June 17, 2002.

Ah. I am 14. I know that a cup of hot coffe is well sort of hot. I mean it is like um hey look this is a freash cup of hot coffe let me pour it on my lap and see what happens cool haha that hurt. Damn poeple. God gave you a brain. Use it once and a well. It is like chewing on a box and saying it didn't say do not chew on box.

-- Niklas (gamecrazy90@yahoo.com), March 10, 2004.

Thanks for the interjection of common sense Helen and Kritter. Frankly, most of the legalistic detail and bickering that followed just wore me out. It is unfortunate when people are so truculent they won't consider that the other fellow may be right at least in some aspects.

I have a friend who was a fireman and hurt his back trying to lift something at an accident scene. He didn't ignore it but stood up for his legal rights, negotiated, settled and got on with his life.

I knew another fellow who worked for the railroad. He hurt his back jumping from a moving flatcar. He didn't ignore it but stood up for his legal rights. My last contact several years ago involved a food contribution to his family. He was something like five years into litigation and determined to see it through.

Hot coffee was once spilled by a waitress down the back of the wife of one of my dad's employees . The restaurant was extremely apologetic and bought her a great new dress.

A year or so after that, I read in the paper that the victim of a similar accident was suing a Fort Worth restaurant for big bucks.

Some folks sue and worry about what cameras might catch them doing for years, others get on with their lives. Some injuries are predictable, the result of irresponsible behavior or neglect, and some might even be malicious. Others are simply accidents that happen with hot coffee and unpredictable work situations which resulting in varying degrees of inconvenience, temporary pain or genuine tragedy. An accident is no less accidental if serious, malicious or neglectful injury no more forgiveable if it fortuitously causes little damage.

Our system affords ample room to be reasonable. It also provides opportunity to shoot for instantaneous riches or avoidance of responsibility if you think you can make a case. The numbers trying to do the latter two are a disappointing commentary on society's evolution.

Although I have observed an unmistakable liberal bias (documented by surveys time-to-time) in media coverage, I find it hard to believe that major aspects of juicy national scandals are overlooked on either side. The dirt, I would think, is more newsworthy than the political bias. If something's not reported, it may only mean that networks would sell out their beliefs for ratings. I have no problem with that because the end result is to provided us with the skinny, although it's often depressingly negative, biased or overly intrusive. The effort for sensationalism, at times turning attention from following through on yesterday's lead story or even encouraging outright fabrication, is lamentable. If continued, this will eventually result in reading the paper or watching the news as a tabloid--salt shaker in hand. We will then be much like a Russian reading Pravda during the Cold War, only better entertained.

Whether influence-peddling to special interests or the inside-the- beltway culture or some combination of these and other factors, I do not know, but the tendency of our elected officials to ignore popular concerns and preponderance of public opinion (so-called free trade and immigration issues come to mind) is disconcerting. Volatility is increasing as society is again as divided as it was during the Vietnam War years. Or perhaps, as is my belief, the current polarization involves many of the same old unresolved issues that beset us in that former time bubbling to the surface again. We are justifiably concerned with current erosions of our decency and the foundations of our rights by steady hammering and opportunism from the left (normalization of abortion and homosexuality, indecency in the White House, Chinese campaign money, land-grabs and pardons, etc). We are equally alarmed by tendencies toward more abrupt incursions on our freedoms from the right (privacy and due process concerns all over the place, overly enthusiastic elements of the Patriot Act, aggressive expansion of executive powers, etc.). This seems to be a reversal of the sixties' situation wherein the conservative order was slow and steady and the liberal incursions more abrupt (Warren Court, civil disorder, feminism, drugs, free sex).

I read a study a few years ago about charitable contributions and the odd fact that corporations give vast amounts to causes that work against their interests. Perhaps some of this can be explained by "contribute to both candidates and hope for influence with whichever one wins" thinking. But since causes rather than candidates are involved, I believe there is real naivete on the part of the corportations brought about by a single-minded desire to be perceived as philanthropic.

Politically, if giving is not illegal, neither should taking be. But if it effects a politicians decisions, he's a crook. "Vote the scoundrels out" is easy to say. But my kids are totally disgusted with a system that no longer holds the promise of upward mobility and security that was our hope at their age if we worked hard. The problem is usually not removing undesirables from office. But even when it is the problem, there aren't always alternatives between liberals who act like hookers and conservatives who act like out-of- control mall cops. Both groups call those who disagree with them un- American. Both are wrong on that count. Seems to me that we've got to find and elect some people who can appreciate that there is no consensus on many issues, but that the right choices must be made with a sizeable minority in mind as well as that of the majority. There is a mandate to oversee our security and economic independence, to promote jobs and enough breathing room for grass between our toes for holidays and retirement.

My dad thinks he saw America at her zenith in the sixties. I'm inclined to agree with him. We were strong, prosperous, and still had reason to be optimistic. The future was not predictable (as the late sixties and early seventies proved), but at least when times were good, almost everybody prospered. When times were bad, almost everybody suffered. There was hope for a return to normalcy after every storm. Today, we have no such common expectation and are split down the middle on many things involving environment, immigration, affirmative action, security, sexual orientation, energy policy, internationalism, religion, taxes and abortion. With all these serious issues tearing at us on every side, perhaps the most telling indictment of our new culture is that the election will probably turn on the temporary state of the economy. This puts the average voter in the same cell with the politicians (which both sides argue are only concerned about the money), does it not? Yet the beauty of our system is that we have the power to be heard and to change. We can contol our own evolution. We have too long embraced the idea that change is always good and that anything that is tried and true must be too old fashioned to be of use to us in what is, in our narcissism, styled Rennaisance. This different-must-be-good thinking refuses to build on the shoulders of history and sentences us (our having re-invented every wheel) to bump along most uncomfortably while we brag jerkily that our machine is better than our father's Oldsmobile.

-- J (jsnider@hal-pc.org), March 12, 2004.

Well, I am 15 years old and I am from Hawai'i. I would have to agree with the people that say you have common sense. I'm sure that we all no that steaming liquid is bound to be hot. You get burned, bummer! Going to court is not such a great choice. It effects some things which we really dont need right now. In 1990, the U.S. courts reached 100 million lawsuits. BUT I really blame it on the lawyers. NO offense to anyone, especially Moze. Even shakespeare had to agree that lawyers where very bad and really contribute to the cases we have now. "The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers."- Shakespeare. I am on Mr. Cook's side, and to everyone, Aloha and no hard feelings.(Excuse me if my info. is wrong and please correct me for I me out of date or understood wrong, after all I am 15 years old).

-- SoDoGo (Dark_archon_protoss@yahoo.com), May 06, 2004.