California Ballot

[Gunslinger]

For mostly the cali residents here.  I was helping a friend vote today and he was asking questions about what I think of a prop.  I think it was 64

Basically this would overturn a previous prop that was passed that allowed ANY lawyer to basically act as the states atourney general and sue anyone or any business with out actually having a client.  IE Shakedown lawsuites.  Now not all suits that were done under this law were bad but the lawyers found a loophole and started suing for example travel agency websites that didn't have there liscens number on their hompage.   I guess alot of the time they'd send a notice and say they'd settle for $2500 and people would pay because it was cheaper than hiring a lawyer.  They didn't even need a person to actually complain about this minor violation they had the athourity by law to act in the "peoples" intrest.

What do you peoples republic of Kalifornia residents think of this.  There were ALOT of other interesting props on the ballot as well.

EDIT:

I almost got him to vote badnarik after telling him about the ATM robbery quote

[lazs2]

even tho my vote for pres will be wasted... there are a lot of things worth voting for in Ca. this time.  

64 is democrat trial lawyers and ambulance chasers deciding that even if no one burns themselves with starbucks coffee.... the stuff is dangerous and they will apoint themselves attorney general in order to sue starbucks out of existence.

lazs

[slimm50]

Originally posted by lazs2
even tho my vote for pres will be wasted... there are a lot of things worth voting for in Ca. this time.  

64 is democrat trial lawyers and ambulance chasers deciding that even if no one burns themselves with starbucks coffee.... the stuff is dangerous and they will apoint themselves attorney general in order to sue starbucks out of existence.

lazs

Starbucks' owner's rights aside, I wouldn't cry if there were a few less of 'em around.

[AKIron]

Doesn't have the same ring but I'm thinking we need to rewrite this:

Fifty Nifty United States
by Ray Charles

to

Forty Nine Fine United States

[parker00]

64 is democrat trial lawyers and ambulance chasers

So in your mind there are no corrupt republican lawyers in California?
I know that there are many bad lawyers(ambulance chasers) out there but the fact still remains that if we didn't have lawyers then you would have NO protection what so ever from big corporations, government or even the weathly for that matter. Lawyers and Unions have lost many of the fundamentals of what they were intended to do, but they are the only protection you have.

[midnight Target]

64 will win in a landslide. The whole issue was brought to the public eye by the outing of the Trevor Law Group. These guys were filing hundreds of suits with no clients.

This one will cross party lines.

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by midnight Target
64 will win in a landslide. The whole issue was brought to the public eye by the outing of the Trevor Law Group. These guys were filing hundreds of suits with no clients.

My friend led the investigation for the State Bar of California that ended up with the lawyers from the Trevor Law group being forced to resign from the practice of law under threat of disbarment.

It is sad that the law was abused like that, but Prop 64 goes too far and will reduce the remedies available if you get screwed by a car dealer or insurance company.   But that could never happen, right?

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
What do you peoples republic of Kalifornia residents think of this.  There were ALOT of other interesting props on the ballot as well.
 

Yeah, that is pretty much the only reason to vote here.

Kerry and Boxer have the state tied up, and our Congressional and State legislative races are about as competitive as the North Korean elections.

[Airhead]

It's too bad people don't read the entire ballot propisition (instead of the first two sentances) before drawing conclusions about the "limited" impact (stop shakedown lawsuits) of Prop. 64.

One provision of 64 is to restrict lawsuits to those actually injured by an action; say, if a factory were contaminating your water source, under Prop. 64 you would have to wait until you are actually physically harmed before you could file suit to stop the pollution, defeating the concept of litigation to force compliance with enviromental and consumer protection laws.

Prop 64 weakens the rights of individual citizens to find injuctive relief, it's been funded and backed to the tune of 8.2 million dollars by Big Business, and will charge the California Government's various beaucracies with "taking up the slack" to force industrial enviromental and consumer compliance regulations.

Vote NO on 64.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Airhead
It's too bad people don't read the entire ballot propisition (instead of the first two sentances) before drawing conclusions about the "limited" impact (stop shakedown lawsuits) of Prop. 64.

One provision of 64 is to restrict lawsuits to those actually injured by an action; say, if a factory were contaminating your water source, under Prop. 64 you would have to wait until you are actually physically harmed before you could file suit to stop the pollution, defeating the concept of litigation to force compliance with enviromental and consumer protection laws.

Prop 64 weakens the rights of individual citizens to find injuctive relief, it's been funded and backed to the tune of 8.2 million dollars by Big Business, and will charge the California Government's various beaucracies with "taking up the slack" to force industrial enviromental and consumer compliance regulations.

Vote NO on 64.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

I read the entire thing and the supliment attachments for and against and both rebutles.

The state's atourney general can still file suit against a company or group that can cause harm to people or poluting the envirionment.  

prop 64 eliminates REGULAR lawyers acting on behalf of the people/atourney general.  

What's real rich is the thaught that all of a sudden Companys in California are going to start poluting and killing people.  Scare them into beleiving a lawyer can sue a small business for no wrong doing commited on behalf of the state and pocket the money made because it was cheaper for the business to settle out of court is going to cause california to become a toxic waste dump.

One of the major reasons business doesnt want to operate here other than taxes is this.  They are allready overegulated enough let alone letting anyone with a law degree sue them without a client just to make money off them.

[Airhead]

Gunslinger, Let's get past the rhetoric and look at the entire issue.

I have been self employeed for over 20 years; my family has run our family business since 1922, many of my friends are self employeed at everything from a magic shop to construction, and in all this time not ONE TIME have ANY of us ever had monies extorted from us in the manner the Yes on 64 folks charactize.

On the flip side, however, our family had to sue to stop an illegal logging operation on a parcel of land adjoining ours that was polluting our stream- an act which will become impossible for us to do in the future under the provisions of Prop. 64.


"The state's atourney general can still file suit against a company or group that can cause harm to people or poluting the envirionment."

Right- and our Attorney General (Dan Lungren) is opposed to Prop. 64 because it strips provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

The passage of Prop.64 will benefit big business (who has dumped 8.2 million into the Yes on 64 campaign) while limiting "ordinary" citizens' right to redress, even in cases of gross neglicance. I'm opposed because it erodes our rights as citizens just a bit more.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Airhead
Gunslinger, Let's get past the rhetoric and look at the entire issue.


Part 1
I have been self employeed for over 20 years; my family has run our family business since 1922, many of my friends are self employeed at everything from a magic shop to construction, and in all this time not ONE TIME have ANY of us ever had monies extorted from us in the manner the Yes on 64 folks charactize.

Part 2
On the flip side, however, our family had to sue to stop an illegal logging operation on a parcel of land adjoining ours that was polluting our stream- an act which will become impossible for us to do in the future under the provisions of Prop. 64.

PART 1.  Well lets say that you get a new vehicle or you own a travel agency and your liscens number just got over looked on placing it on either one.  Or lets say you own a loan company and instead of SPELLING OUT Annual Percentage Rate, you use the common abreviation of APR.

NOT ONE CONSUMER HAS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS AND A LAWYER OR A FIRM CAN SUE YOU AND/OR COLLECT DAMAGES.

Whether this has happend to you or not the practice is wrong

PART 2. Prop 64 does END your family's right to sue to stop illegal logging operation NOR after it is defeated do you have to ONLY petition the state's AG to have a court stop it.  BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONE FILING THE SUIT (or your lawyer does it on YOUR behalf)   NOT the lawyer filing on BEHALF of the state of California.  

Prop 64 allows ANY lawyer to file a suit on behalf of the State with out even having ONE PERSON WRONGED or complaining.  The situation you described above (part 2) has nothing to do with Prop 64.