I just read a story on Fox about a Tennessee couple who lost their son in Iraq suing an Arizona T-Shirt seller for 40 billion Dollars for the survivors of slain soldiers whose names are on the T-Shirt.
A complaint seeking class-action status for the lawsuit by Robin and Michael Read says Dan Frazier of Flagstaff has no right to profit from commercial sale of products that use the dead soldiers’ names without permission. Frazier’s “Bush lied — They died” T-shirts, sold at his site CarryaBigSticker.com, list Iraq war casualties’ names, and Frazier contends he is covered by First Amendment free-speech protections.
I understand the theory in principal as ridiculously flawed as it is. Fraziers position is also ridiculously flawed. This is not a First Amendment case. You can have First Amendment protection and still not be allowed to profit off that protection at someone’s expense….
There are so many examples that I wont even get into it.
What I will ge into are these ridiculous class action lawsuits that have no agenda other than money for the attorneys. Anyone who thinks this is about anything other than that is delusional. There is no agenda of social concern, free speech right or even those who have lost their lives in Iraq.
This is about some guy with a T-Shirt that makes money trying to keep what he has. This is about some slimy attorney or law firm preying on the grief of those who have lost loved ones trying to get a piece of the pie…..
I challenge whoever is handling this case to step forward and explain why he or she is not some “McDonald’s Hot Coffee Chasing” “As Seen On TV”, Picture on the Back Of A Bus” class action ambulance chaser….
Please tell us there is some “greater public social good’ here other than your climbing the social legal ladder on the backs of Iraq soldiers and vets and their families.
Am I singling out the attorney when I should also be castigating the seller of the T-Shirt? I sure am. I hold the members of my profession to a higher standard of social conciseness. The legal profession and social responsibility does not have to be a contradiction in terms……
In closing, I would personally like to thank the attorney who took this ridiculous case for perpetuating every negative stereotype and cliche out there…… You’re a hell of a humanitarian…..
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
May 1st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Bravo Brian!!!!!
Absolutely your best post in my opinion. To think people want to make money off of the heroes of our country is heinous. As a Viet Nam era veteran, I salute you Brian. Great job.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Greetings sir,
A sincere and heartfelt thank you for speaking out about this ridiculous suit. The fact that you’re a lawyer yourself just gives it that much more weight. Very refreshing!
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
I agree that there are too many frivolous lawsuits, but I’d rather there be an overflow of these lawsuits than seeing laws restricting even one single legitimate lawsuit. Also referring to the Mcdonald’s case…if I understand it correctly that lady actually I believe had her skin burnt off….I’m sorry but there is no REASONABLE explanation for coffee to have been that hot. I have dumped coffee on myself plenty of times, and it burned and turned my skin red..but I have never lost skin over it. I kind of liken it to the idea that it’s better to have 100 guilty men set free than have one innocent person convicted.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 am
Hypovalemic shock is the diagnosis I received when admitted to the ER little more than one year ago.In response to Dalynn and for the sake of brevity I’ll say that according to my highly reputable and two closest friends that are MD’s I had the worse case of medical negligence they had ever heard. I suffered brain damage and ruptured tissues all because a rushed surgeon sowed up the skin and not the vein on an outpatient procedure that turned into anybody’s worse somatic nightmare. The surgeon explicitly assured me that,”It’s not a big deal at all. You’ll be fine. I promise.” Well I’ve had business law and I think that’s a pretty clear and explicit offer. “Fine” probably could not be stretched into having your heart flat line while conscious in the ER as result of my acceptance of this offer.
No malpractice attorney would take my case. Not enough damages. I couldn’t prove brain damage even though I had to relearn many common words such as shoe, cell phone, and skylight. Common objects I had the most trouble with. But you can’t prove it because it could’ve been an act. I was off the cane and out of the diapers in two weeks. Not enough damages. The tissues healed externally to produce a normal appearance in contrast to the cling on look they had before. I didn’t take pictures because I wasn’t thinking about vegeance, I was thinking about how lucky I was to be alive.
Should this guy have paid for my law school? My closest two friends who happen to be MD’s sure think so. Don’t go to Dr. Andrew Shimer in Mckinney. It’s not slander or print version of slander because its true-all on paper.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
Good article. Not even sure who’s right in this case according to law. The problem with things like this is that we all agree so we feel like it shouldn’t even be an issue, but at one point in history someone didn’t agree, and thus there is a law somewhere which reflects that idea. law /= morality
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
“Also referring to the Mcdonald’s case…if I understand it correctly that lady actually I believe had her skin burnt off….I’m sorry but there is no REASONABLE explanation for coffee to have been that hot.”
Regardless of the underlying facts, the McDonald’s case has become a “social moniker” for greedy lawyers and frivolous lawsuits…. The actual facts of the case or who was right or wrong have nothing to do with the point of the article….
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Did the Reads hire Dr. Evil as their attorney? “I demand the sum of FORTY! BILLION! DOLLARS!”
Regardless of the underlying facts, the McDonald’s case has become a “social moniker” for greedy lawyers and frivolous lawsuits…. The actual facts of the case or who was right or wrong have nothing to do with the point of the article…
Except that the actual facts undermine the point of your article, by invoking a case where large punitive damages were warranted and appropriate.
Spilling an ordinary 150 degree cup of coffee results in a first-degree surface burn, nothing more serious than red skin and swelling. If you spilled coffee on yourself and got an excruciating third degree full thickness burn to the bone, requiring a week in hospital getting debriding and skin grafts, running up $90,000 of medical bills, like Stella Liebeck did, wouldn’t YOU sue?
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
@Robin Lionheart: It was used to make a point about the perception of attorneys and not for actual facts of the case. Regardless of the facts of the case, the McDonald’s case has become a moniker to label ambulance chasers…