Re: Protected Class Members
Posted by Pat on 4/05/05
In federal law, the disabled are a protected class. Could a team of attorneys
brave enough to undertake a novel construction find a such a construction
under title 42? In fact, could such a team find cause to cite 42 USC 1983,
concerning slight-of-hand misrepresentations found in government position
statements, or in the position statements of entities acting "under the color
of law"? After all, such unfavorable statements ca have the affect of
depriving the chemically sensitivite of needed research funding which
otherwise would have been obtained if not for the unfavorable view of that
condition, or if not for the lobbying of the perfume and pesticide industry?
And if that were the case, then the auditor in such a case would be the bench
itself, being that such a class action would be mainly for the purpose of
injunction. The injunction, of course, would consist in a restitution as
widely disseminated as the defamation and fraudulent misrpresentation; solely
to unpoison the minds that the anti-MCS propaganda did poison. Thus, the law
firm's compensation would be pursuant to 42 USC 1976, mostly. Just a thought.
Even a long shot. Even so, there is always recourse to a diversity action.
Perhaps you have occasionally read throughout the internet that Ronald Gots
was involved in insurance fraud. Well, as far as concerns that allegation,
here is a summation of it, along with a major media's web address reporting on it:
1] The fraudulency concerns the "Utilization Review Firm" of which is was
president, along its services for State Farm Insurance. The firm was titled
MCRS. It has known as a "Paper Review Company." It is now out of business.
2] The matter concerning Ronald Gots, MCRS, and State Farm made NBC's
Dateline. Make a note of that. It concerned hundreds of cases. It dealt
with reports that were never looked at by physicians. In fact, NBC obtained
79 reports done by Got's firm, and all 79 cases ever-so-coincidentally favored
State Farm. In fact, in one court trial, the presiding judge is quoted to
have stated that Ronald Got's MCRS was "A COMPLETELY BOGUS OPERATION"; so said
the NBC television network. However, Ronald Gots has two other firms. And
remember, "A tree is known by its fruits." At this point, let's let NBC do
the communicating. You are welcomed to go to:
It's worth reading. Educational.
On 4/05/05, Kevin wrote:
> On 4/04/05, mary wrote:
>> Play by their rules. Sue them all first and figure it out later.
> But then your malpractice attorney would be guilty of the same bad acts as
> your former class counsel.
> Class action attorneys maintain time sheets and expense reports, much like
> a defense counsel does with his/her corporate or insurance clients. When
> class counsel submits a fee application, there is always a comparison to
> the "johnson factors" or to the "lodestar method." To support the fee
> application, they submit their time and expense reports. Now is your
> opportunity to look into the billing practices.
> If you are a class member, you will likely need to retain separate counsel,
> or file motions in proper person, asking the court to perform or allow an
> independent forensic audit. Class counsel will not assist you in
> scrutinizing their bills. It could be tough to find a local attorney
> willing to take on other local attorneys.
> You may want to compare their time records in your case with the time
> records from other class action cases in which the class counsel is
> involved. You will probably see some attorneys billing 36 hours in a day.
> Pay close attention to requests for reimbursement for faxes and copy
> costs. Many times the court allows up to 2$ per page on faxes, and the sky
> is the limit on copy costs. This is literally a profit center for many
> class counsel. Get advice from the state bar association or office of
> disciplinary counsel on possible ethics violations by attorneys making a
> profit on out-of-pocket expenses charged to class members.
> There's plenty of room for abuse, and it's there to be found if you know
> where to look.
Posts on this thread, including this one