Re: DD: Plaintiff's Counsels...Keep Up the Good Work
Posted by ff on 3/19/04
OK. I was referring to "Dark Overlord" as Mr. Darkness. I have
not seen the types of cases or expert testimony that fits his
I have seen situations where defense experts, and supporting
scientists, typically fell into two categories: 1.) They were
willing to lie, i.e. they knew better, or 2.) What they thought
they knew, or believed to be factual, was later proven to be wrong.
Nothing fits better than the case referenced some time back by
Mary: Fla. 4th DCA. For years, it was believed that a certain
chemical did not contaminate water. In fact, in Florida, the
agencies excluded water contamination in their investigations into
this chemical based on this belief.
The 4th DCA states that the minimum distance from point of
application of this chemical, to where the aquatic damage was
observed, was ten miles. That seems like an awfully long distance
for a chemical that doesn't contaminate water?
Dark Overlord likely fits into category 2 above. I consider
Suppression Bias as the most likely explanation for 1 and 2 above.
He may be a victim of lies from those he trusts, suppressors, and
just doesn't know better?
On 3/18/04, dd wrote:
> Don't understand your statement. I am replying to Dark
> Overlord's post. The reality is that very few plaintiffs' firms
> have deep enough pockets or perfect enough clients to pursue
> these matters. We can't all be Ballard, McMahon, or Jordan, but
> we still have been damaged by the negligence of others.
> I am referring to some of my lingering health concerns as a
> result of my exposure.
> On 3/18/04, ff wrote:
>> Mr. Darkness?
>> Your perspective is certainly the flip side of what I have
>> seen. Get a grip on it. Possibly, you're a victim of your
>> own "team's" paticipation in suppression bias and believe the
>> BS they put out?
>> On 3/18/04, dd wrote:
>>> Clever. Too bad archival retrieval on this site isn't
>>> available. I can no longer sit at a campfire, attend live
>>> music performances where smoking is permitted, work or be
>>> around chemical cleansers, be in facilities regularly
>>> with commercial pesticides, and much, much more. Course, I
>>> was in the girl scouts and sitting around campfires and
>>> eating marshmellows has been known to cause all sorts of
>>> health problems that might cloud the issue of mold induced
>>> illness. And the fact that I worked at a stables could be
>>> equated to working in a grain silo, corn, specifically.
>>> As for the frivolous lawsuits, no reasonable person would
>>> willingly expose themselves to the rigorous scrutiny of
>>> defense interrogatory and discovery for love or money unless
>>> compelled to do so by grievous harm or wrongdoing, of course
>>> there are exceptions, like the occasional defense counsel
>>> that has morals and ethics. As for whore experts opinions,
>>> defense bar holds the cards for that one, so you should no.
>>> As for trials that go down in flames, we all know that it
>>> takes money at every step to stay in the 'civil' justice
>>> and defense bar holds the cards the majority of the time in
>>> that game, too. Sounds like you watched the Devil's
>>> On 3/16/04, Dark Overlord wrote:
>>>> Every frivolous lawsuit you file, every specious claim you
>>>> make, every discovery response you obfuscate, every whore
>>>> expert who opines, and every trial you go down in
>>>> flames...we in the defense bar thank you.
Posts on this thread, including this one