Lawsuits for climate disasters?
by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014

Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. In groundbreaking peer-reviewed research, researcher Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute offers the most complete picture to date of which institutions have extracted the fossil fuels that have been the root cause of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Rather than just attribute emissions to nations, the study aggregates historical emissions according to carbon producing entities themselves. Heede concludes that nearly two-thirds of carbon dioxide emitted since the 1750s can be traced to the 90 largest fossil fuel and cement producers, most of which still operate today.

For example, the top twenty emitters among oil and natural gas liquids companies are:

1. Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia years 1938- 2010 108,050 million barrels 40,133 Mt CO2.
2. Chevron, USA 1912- 2010 98,492 36,583
3. ExxonMobil, USA 1884- 2010 79,658 29,587
4. BP, UK 1913- 2010 69,684 25,883
5. National Iranian 1928- 2010 63,130 23,448
6. Royal Dutch Shell, The Netherlands 1892- 2010 56,962 21,157
7. Pemex, Mexico 1938- 2010 39,797 14,782
8. Petroleos de Venezuela 1960- 2010 34,118 12,673
9. Kuwait Petroleum 1946- 2010 25,095 9,321
10. ConocoPhillips, USA 1924- 2010 24,961 9,271
11. Total, France 1934- 2010 23,683 8,796
12. PetroChina 1988- 2010 22,527 8,367
13. Abu Dhabi National Oil 1962- 2010 20,352 7,559
14. Iraq National Oil 1960- 2010 17,680 6,567
15. Libya National Oil 1961- 2010 15,561 5,780
16. Nigerian National 1959- 2010 15,023 5,580
17. Pertamina, Indonesia 1958- 2010 13,241 4,918
18. Petrobras, Brazil 1960- 2010 12,879 4,784
19. Sonatrach, Algeria 1959- 2010 12,026 4,467
20. Lukoil, Russian Federation 1996- 2010 9,023 3,352

Richard Heede’s 7Nov13) full report is available at Carbon Majors: Methods & Results Report.

This kind of research can lay the groundwater for successful lawsuits for climate disasters, somewhere in the world. As the Chevron Ecuador case has shown, a court judgement anywhere can lead to a search for assets around the world to satisfy it. I wonder how many of these firms deal with climate liability risks on their balance sheets?

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

Lawsuits for climate disasters? by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014 Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. In groundbreaking peer-reviewed research, researcher Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute offers the most complete picture to date of which institutions have extracted the fossil fuels that have been the root cause of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Rather than just attribute emissions to nations, the study aggregates historical emissions according to carbon producing entities themselves. Heede concludes that nearly two-thirds of carbon dioxide emitted since the 1750s can be traced to the 90 largest fossil fuel and cement producers, most of which still operate today. For example, the top twenty emitters among oil and natural gas liquids companies are: 1. Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia years 1938- 2010 108,050 million barrels 40,133 Mt CO2. 2. Chevron, USA 1912- 2010 98,492 36,583 3. ExxonMobil, USA 1884- 2010 79,658 29,587 4. BP, UK 1913- 2010 69,684 25,883 5. National Iranian 1928- 2010 63,130 23,448 6. Royal Dutch Shell, The Netherlands 1892- 2010 56,962 21,157 7. Pemex, Mexico 1938- 2010 39,797 14,782 8. Petroleos de Venezuela 1960- 2010 34,118 12,673 9. Kuwait Petroleum 1946- 2010 25,095 9,321 10. ConocoPhillips, USA 1924- 2010 24,961 9,271 11. Total, France 1934- 2010 23,683 8,796 12. PetroChina 1988- 2010 22,527 8,367 13. Abu Dhabi National Oil 1962- 2010 20,352 7,559 14. Iraq National Oil 1960- 2010 17,680 6,567 15. Libya National Oil 1961- 2010 15,561 5,780 16. Nigerian National 1959- 2010 15,023 5,580 17. Pertamina, Indonesia 1958- 2010 13,241 4,918 18. Petrobras, Brazil 1960- 2010 12,879 4,784 19. Sonatrach, Algeria 1959- 2010 12,026 4,467 20. Lukoil, Russian Federation 1996- 2010 9,023 3,352 Richard Heede’s 7Nov13) full report is available at Carbon Majors: Methods & Results Report. This kind of research can lay the groundwater for successful lawsuits for climate disasters, somewhere in the world. As the Chevron Ecuador case has shown, a court judgement anywhere can lead to a search for assets around the world to satisfy it. I wonder how many of these firms deal with climate liability risks on their balance sheets?

I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane.
To illustrate this take for example the case of PCB's nearly all of which to responsibility for their manufacture fell to Monsanto.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 1:25pm: Lawsuits for climate disasters? by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014 Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. In groundbreaking peer-reviewed research, researcher Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute offers the most complete picture to date of which institutions have extracted the fossil fuels that have been the root cause of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Rather than just attribute emissions to nations, the study aggregates historical emissions according to carbon producing entities themselves. Heede concludes that nearly two-thirds of carbon dioxide emitted since the 1750s can be traced to the 90 largest fossil fuel and cement producers, most of which still operate today. For example, the top twenty emitters among oil and natural gas liquids companies are: 1. Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia years 1938- 2010 108,050 million barrels 40,133 Mt CO2. 2. Chevron, USA 1912- 2010 98,492 36,583 3. ExxonMobil, USA 1884- 2010 79,658 29,587 4. BP, UK 1913- 2010 69,684 25,883 5. National Iranian 1928- 2010 63,130 23,448 6. Royal Dutch Shell, The Netherlands 1892- 2010 56,962 21,157 7. Pemex, Mexico 1938- 2010 39,797 14,782 8. Petroleos de Venezuela 1960- 2010 34,118 12,673 9. Kuwait Petroleum 1946- 2010 25,095 9,321 10. ConocoPhillips, USA 1924- 2010 24,961 9,271 11. Total, France 1934- 2010 23,683 8,796 12. PetroChina 1988- 2010 22,527 8,367 13. Abu Dhabi National Oil 1962- 2010 20,352 7,559 14. Iraq National Oil 1960- 2010 17,680 6,567 15. Libya National Oil 1961- 2010 15,561 5,780 16. Nigerian National 1959- 2010 15,023 5,580 17. Pertamina, Indonesia 1958- 2010 13,241 4,918 18. Petrobras, Brazil 1960- 2010 12,879 4,784 19. Sonatrach, Algeria 1959- 2010 12,026 4,467 20. Lukoil, Russian Federation 1996- 2010 9,023 3,352 Richard Heede’s 7Nov13) full report is available at Carbon Majors: Methods & Results Report. This kind of research can lay the groundwater for successful lawsuits for climate disasters, somewhere in the world. As the Chevron Ecuador case has shown, a court judgement anywhere can lead to a search for assets around the world to satisfy it. I wonder how many of these firms deal with climate liability risks on their balance sheets? I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane. To illustrate this take for example the case of PCB's nearly all of which to responsibility for their manufacture fell to Monsanto.

asbestos ring a bell?

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

Lawsuits for climate disasters? by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014 Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. In groundbreaking peer-reviewed research, researcher Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute offers the most complete picture to date of which institutions have extracted the fossil fuels that have been the root cause of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Rather than just attribute emissions to nations, the study aggregates historical emissions according to carbon producing entities themselves. Heede concludes that nearly two-thirds of carbon dioxide emitted since the 1750s can be traced to the 90 largest fossil fuel and cement producers, most of which still operate today. For example, the top twenty emitters among oil and natural gas liquids companies are: 1. Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia years 1938- 2010 108,050 million barrels 40,133 Mt CO2. 2. Chevron, USA 1912- 2010 98,492 36,583 3. ExxonMobil, USA 1884- 2010 79,658 29,587 4. BP, UK 1913- 2010 69,684 25,883 5. National Iranian 1928- 2010 63,130 23,448 6. Royal Dutch Shell, The Netherlands 1892- 2010 56,962 21,157 7. Pemex, Mexico 1938- 2010 39,797 14,782 8. Petroleos de Venezuela 1960- 2010 34,118 12,673 9. Kuwait Petroleum 1946- 2010 25,095 9,321 10. ConocoPhillips, USA 1924- 2010 24,961 9,271 11. Total, France 1934- 2010 23,683 8,796 12. PetroChina 1988- 2010 22,527 8,367 13. Abu Dhabi National Oil 1962- 2010 20,352 7,559 14. Iraq National Oil 1960- 2010 17,680 6,567 15. Libya National Oil 1961- 2010 15,561 5,780 16. Nigerian National 1959- 2010 15,023 5,580 17. Pertamina, Indonesia 1958- 2010 13,241 4,918 18. Petrobras, Brazil 1960- 2010 12,879 4,784 19. Sonatrach, Algeria 1959- 2010 12,026 4,467 20. Lukoil, Russian Federation 1996- 2010 9,023 3,352 Richard Heede’s 7Nov13) full report is available at Carbon Majors: Methods & Results Report. This kind of research can lay the groundwater for successful lawsuits for climate disasters, somewhere in the world. As the Chevron Ecuador case has shown, a court judgement anywhere can lead to a search for assets around the world to satisfy it. I wonder how many of these firms deal with climate liability risks on their balance sheets?

...did you mention Coal?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:38pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:28pm: # wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 1:25pm: Lawsuits for climate disasters? by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014 Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. In groundbreaking peer-reviewed research, researcher Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute offers the most complete picture to date of which institutions have extracted the fossil fuels that have been the root cause of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Rather than just attribute emissions to nations, the study aggregates historical emissions according to carbon producing entities themselves. Heede concludes that nearly two-thirds of carbon dioxide emitted since the 1750s can be traced to the 90 largest fossil fuel and cement producers, most of which still operate today. For example, the top twenty emitters among oil and natural gas liquids companies are: 1. Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia years 1938- 2010 108,050 million barrels 40,133 Mt CO2. 2. Chevron, USA 1912- 2010 98,492 36,583 3. ExxonMobil, USA 1884- 2010 79,658 29,587 4. BP, UK 1913- 2010 69,684 25,883 5. National Iranian 1928- 2010 63,130 23,448 6. Royal Dutch Shell, The Netherlands 1892- 2010 56,962 21,157 7. Pemex, Mexico 1938- 2010 39,797 14,782 8. Petroleos de Venezuela 1960- 2010 34,118 12,673 9. Kuwait Petroleum 1946- 2010 25,095 9,321 10. ConocoPhillips, USA 1924- 2010 24,961 9,271 11. Total, France 1934- 2010 23,683 8,796 12. PetroChina 1988- 2010 22,527 8,367 13. Abu Dhabi National Oil 1962- 2010 20,352 7,559 14. Iraq National Oil 1960- 2010 17,680 6,567 15. Libya National Oil 1961- 2010 15,561 5,780 16. Nigerian National 1959- 2010 15,023 5,580 17. Pertamina, Indonesia 1958- 2010 13,241 4,918 18. Petrobras, Brazil 1960- 2010 12,879 4,784 19. Sonatrach, Algeria 1959- 2010 12,026 4,467 20. Lukoil, Russian Federation 1996- 2010 9,023 3,352 Richard Heede’s 7Nov13) full report is available at Carbon Majors: Methods & Results Report. This kind of research can lay the groundwater for successful lawsuits for climate disasters, somewhere in the world. As the Chevron Ecuador case has shown, a court judgement anywhere can lead to a search for assets around the world to satisfy it. I wonder how many of these firms deal with climate liability risks on their balance sheets? I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane. To illustrate this take for example the case of PCB's nearly all of which to responsibility for their manufacture fell to Monsanto. asbestos ring a bell?

Differences....let's see....prior knowledge that it was a hazard (which regulators knew also but that's beside the point).
And absence of a host of other sources of asbestos, as in we don't ordinarily breathe it out.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 1:25pm: Lawsuits for climate disasters? by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014 Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. ... I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane. ...

As the article says, the groundwork is being laid. It's early days yet.


namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:48pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:38pm: ... asbestos ring a bell? Differences....let's see....prior knowledge that it was a hazard ...

Could be argued, I guess. Didn't the ancient Greeks ponder the impact of human activities (such as forestry) on weather (if not climate)? Didn't Arrhenius issue a pretty clear warning in the 19^th Century? Hasn't evidence been mounting ever since? I remember some pretty convincing presentations in the middle of last century.

Couldn't it be argued that ignorance at this point is wilful? Legally, couldn't that be presented as evidence of negligence?

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:25am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:28pm: # wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 1:25pm: Lawsuits for climate disasters? by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014 Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. ... I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane. ... As the article says, the groundwork is being laid. It's early days yet. namnugenot wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:48pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:38pm: ... asbestos ring a bell? Differences....let's see....prior knowledge that it was a hazard ... Could be argued, I guess. Didn't the ancient Greeks ponder the impact of human activities (such as forestry) on weather (if not climate)? Didn't Arrhenius issue a pretty clear warning in the 19th Century? Hasn't evidence been mounting ever since? I remember some pretty convincing presentations in the middle of last century. Couldn't it be argued that ignorance at this point is wilful? Legally, couldn't that be presented as evidence of negligence?

Coal dust has a shot.
CO2?... you're dreaming.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:44am:

# wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:25am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:28pm: # wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 1:25pm: Lawsuits for climate disasters? by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014 Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. ... I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane. ... As the article says, the groundwork is being laid. It's early days yet. namnugenot wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:48pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:38pm: ... asbestos ring a bell? Differences....let's see....prior knowledge that it was a hazard ... Could be argued, I guess. Didn't the ancient Greeks ponder the impact of human activities (such as forestry) on weather (if not climate)? Didn't Arrhenius issue a pretty clear warning in the 19th Century? Hasn't evidence been mounting ever since? I remember some pretty convincing presentations in the middle of last century. Couldn't it be argued that ignorance at this point is wilful? Legally, couldn't that be presented as evidence of negligence? Coal dust has a shot. CO2?... you're dreaming.

So let the courts decide.

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:44am: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:25am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:28pm: # wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 1:25pm: Lawsuits for climate disasters? by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014 Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. ... I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane. ... As the article says, the groundwork is being laid. It's early days yet. namnugenot wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:48pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:38pm: ... asbestos ring a bell? Differences....let's see....prior knowledge that it was a hazard ... Could be argued, I guess. Didn't the ancient Greeks ponder the impact of human activities (such as forestry) on weather (if not climate)? Didn't Arrhenius issue a pretty clear warning in the 19th Century? Hasn't evidence been mounting ever since? I remember some pretty convincing presentations in the middle of last century. Couldn't it be argued that ignorance at this point is wilful? Legally, couldn't that be presented as evidence of negligence? Coal dust has a shot. CO2?... you're dreaming. So let the courts decide.

But they won't be able to, unless you can make a direct causal link between a particular incident and a specific company. Meaning you'd need to prove that the Co2 (in the hypothetical case) that 'caused' the problem was produced by a specific company and not by natural action.

It's like trying to link individual water molecules to one water company in a drowning case.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

# wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:57am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:44am: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:25am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:28pm: # wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 1:25pm: Lawsuits for climate disasters? by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014 Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. ... I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane. ... As the article says, the groundwork is being laid. It's early days yet. namnugenot wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:48pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:38pm: ... asbestos ring a bell? Differences....let's see....prior knowledge that it was a hazard ... Could be argued, I guess. Didn't the ancient Greeks ponder the impact of human activities (such as forestry) on weather (if not climate)? Didn't Arrhenius issue a pretty clear warning in the 19th Century? Hasn't evidence been mounting ever since? I remember some pretty convincing presentations in the middle of last century. Couldn't it be argued that ignorance at this point is wilful? Legally, couldn't that be presented as evidence of negligence? Coal dust has a shot. CO2?... you're dreaming. So let the courts decide. But they won't be able to, unless you can make a direct causal link between a particular incident and a specific company. Meaning you'd need to prove that the Co2 (in the hypothetical case) that 'caused' the problem was produced by a specific company and not by natural action. It's like trying to link individual water molecules to one water company in a drowning case.

You're also going to run into a problem, along with causation, of standing and what constitutes special damage. If # wants to put his money into a suit he can do what he likes. I'll look forward to it.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

# wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:57am: ... So let the courts decide. But they won't be able to, ...

I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

... If # wants to put his money into a suit ...

What are you on about?

To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 12:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 10:58am: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:57am: ... So let the courts decide. But they won't be able to, ... I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be. namnugenot wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 11:11am: ... If # wants to put his money into a suit ... What are you on about? To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?.

As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the  OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:02pm:

# wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 12:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 10:58am: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:57am: ... So let the courts decide. But they won't be able to, ... I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be. namnugenot wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 11:11am: ... If # wants to put his money into a suit ... What are you on about? To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it. No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?. As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the  OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it.

Qualifications, or the lack thereof, do indicate the credibility of your opinion.

Again:
To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:02pm: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 12:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 10:58am: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:57am: ... So let the courts decide. But they won't be able to, ... I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be. namnugenot wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 11:11am: ... If # wants to put his money into a suit ... What are you on about? To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it. No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?. As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the  OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it. Qualifications, or the lack thereof, do indicate the credibility of your opinion. Again: To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

I do have some experience with the workings of law. The legal system isn't hard to understand, if it was lawyers couldn't do it.

I wouldn't take their word for it, the qoute is incorrect. it should read "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable ever"

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

# wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:07pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:02pm: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 12:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 10:58am: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:57am: ... So let the courts decide. But they won't be able to, ... I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be. namnugenot wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 11:11am: ... If # wants to put his money into a suit ... What are you on about? To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it. No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?. As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the  OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it. Qualifications, or the lack thereof, do indicate the credibility of your opinion. Again: To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it. I do have some experience with the workings of law.

Me too.


gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

The legal system isn't hard to understand, ...

As with climate science, that assertion reveals a high level of ignorance. In my experience, the legal system has its complexities. The law and its interpretation (as distinct from the legal system) is a whole 'nuther thing. Byzantine is how I'd describe it.


gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

I wouldn't take their word for it, the qoute is incorrect. it should read "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable ever"

All things are possible.

If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?"

I reckon the author of that article is more credible than you.

Quote:

If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?"

Of course you will.  Lawyers do not 'judge' the merit of their client's argument.  As I used to say to all my clients, "If you want me to go to Court as your representative and argue that today is Christmas Day, I'll do what I can, but you need to know that I am wasting your time and money.  Please put $xx into my trust account."

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:05pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:17pm: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:07pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:02pm: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 12:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 10:58am: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:57am: ... So let the courts decide. But they won't be able to, ... I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be. namnugenot wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 11:11am: ... If # wants to put his money into a suit ... What are you on about? To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it. No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?. As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the  OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it. Qualifications, or the lack thereof, do indicate the credibility of your opinion. Again: To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it. I do have some experience with the workings of law. Me too. gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:17pm: The legal system isn't hard to understand, ... As with climate science, that assertion reveals a high level of ignorance. In my experience, the legal system has its complexities. The law and its interpretation (as distinct from the legal system) is a whole 'nuther thing. Byzantine is how I'd describe it. gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:17pm: I wouldn't take their word for it, the qoute is incorrect. it should read "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable ever" All things are possible. If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?" I reckon the author of that article is more credible than you.

If you pay a lawyer enough money, they'll argue any case. Just look at the lawyers who defend rapists and murderers.

I could, if I wished to and had enough money, charge you with killing my cat by telekinesis and finding a lawyer to present the case wouldn't be too hard. Of course I'd lose the case, if it ever went to trial (which it wouldn't).

The reason I said the case for charging a company for 'climate disasters' is un-winnable is because of the judges or magistrates, not due to a lack of lawyers.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:29pm:

# wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 3:05pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:17pm: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:07pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:02pm: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 12:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 10:58am: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:57am: ... So let the courts decide. But they won't be able to, ... I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be. namnugenot wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 11:11am: ... If # wants to put his money into a suit ... What are you on about? To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it. No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?. As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the  OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it. Qualifications, or the lack thereof, do indicate the credibility of your opinion. Again: To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it. I do have some experience with the workings of law. Me too. gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:17pm: The legal system isn't hard to understand, ... As with climate science, that assertion reveals a high level of ignorance. In my experience, the legal system has its complexities. The law and its interpretation (as distinct from the legal system) is a whole 'nuther thing. Byzantine is how I'd describe it. gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:17pm: I wouldn't take their word for it, the qoute is incorrect. it should read "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable ever" All things are possible. If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?" I reckon the author of that article is more credible than you. If you pay a lawyer enough money, they'll argue any case. Just look at the lawyers who defend rapists and murderers. I could, if I wished to and had enough money, charge you with killing my cat by telekinesis and finding a lawyer to present the case wouldn't be too hard. Of course I'd lose the case, if it ever went to trial (which it wouldn't). The reason I said the case for charging a company for 'climate disasters' is un-winnable is because of the judges or magistrates, not due to a lack of lawyers.

Still, it comes down to a question of relative credibility: the author of the OP who, as far as I can tell, is a lawyer; and you.

You seem to assume that the "... important groundwork [that] is being laid." will have no effect. I guess that just proves that you're a Conservative; the idea that things won't always be as they are is unthinkable.

.

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:43pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 3:29pm: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 3:05pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:17pm: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:07pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:02pm: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 12:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 10:58am: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:57am: ... So let the courts decide. But they won't be able to, ... I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be. namnugenot wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 11:11am: ... If # wants to put his money into a suit ... What are you on about? To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it. No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?. As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the  OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it. Qualifications, or the lack thereof, do indicate the credibility of your opinion. Again: To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it. I do have some experience with the workings of law. Me too. gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:17pm: The legal system isn't hard to understand, ... As with climate science, that assertion reveals a high level of ignorance. In my experience, the legal system has its complexities. The law and its interpretation (as distinct from the legal system) is a whole 'nuther thing. Byzantine is how I'd describe it. gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 1:17pm: I wouldn't take their word for it, the qoute is incorrect. it should read "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable ever" All things are possible. If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?" I reckon the author of that article is more credible than you. If you pay a lawyer enough money, they'll argue any case. Just look at the lawyers who defend rapists and murderers. I could, if I wished to and had enough money, charge you with killing my cat by telekinesis and finding a lawyer to present the case wouldn't be too hard. Of course I'd lose the case, if it ever went to trial (which it wouldn't). The reason I said the case for charging a company for 'climate disasters' is un-winnable is because of the judges or magistrates, not due to a lack of lawyers. Still, it comes down to a question of relative credibility: the author of the OP who, as far as I can tell, is a lawyer; and you. You seem to assume that the "... important groundwork [that] is being laid." will have no effect. I guess that just proves that you're a Conservative; the idea that things won't always be as they are is unthinkable.

Ground work aside, unless the groundwork complete removes the need for evidence in court cases, it still won't make any difference.

And of course you believe the author of the OP, they agree with your preconceived ideas, which is common with 'progressives'. They'd believe Attila the Hun if he said what they 'knew' to be true.

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:21pm:

Quote: If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?" Of course you will.  Lawyers do not 'judge' the merit of their client's argument.  As I used to say to all my clients, "If you want me to go to Court as your representative and argue that today is Christmas Day, I'll do what I can, but you need to know that I am wasting your time and money.  Please put $xx into my trust account."

You win, you lose, it matters nought, you get paid...

That being said such a case could hurt you or your firm (which is not good for you) an example would be the Gunns statements of claim that were judicially declared to be "unintelligible" and legally "embarrassing". Not to flash on the resume. Even Lord Atkin in his prime and the most favourable of circumstances couldn't get this ginger beer to fizz fragrantly.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 4:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 3:21pm: Quote: If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?" Of course you will.  Lawyers do not 'judge' the merit of their client's argument.  As I used to say to all my clients, "If you want me to go to Court as your representative and argue that today is Christmas Day, I'll do what I can, but you need to know that I am wasting your time and money.  Please put $xx into my trust account." You win, you lose, it matters nought, you get paid... That being said such a case could hurt you or your firm (which is not good for you) an example would be the Gunns statements of claim that were judicially declared to be "unintelligible" and legally "embarrassing". Not to flash on the resume. Even Lord Atkin in his prime and the most favourable of circumstances couldn't get this ginger beer to fizz fragrantly.

Nah.....we are not supposed to 'client shop.'  We are supposed to take whatever walks through the door, and we are supposed to represent them, provided all appropriate advices are given to them, and we adhere to ethical advocacy standards/restraints in Court.

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 4:42pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 4:38pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 3:21pm: Quote: If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?" Of course you will.  Lawyers do not 'judge' the merit of their client's argument.  As I used to say to all my clients, "If you want me to go to Court as your representative and argue that today is Christmas Day, I'll do what I can, but you need to know that I am wasting your time and money.  Please put $xx into my trust account." You win, you lose, it matters nought, you get paid... That being said such a case could hurt you or your firm (which is not good for you) an example would be the Gunns statements of claim that were judicially declared to be "unintelligible" and legally "embarrassing". Not to flash on the resume. Even Lord Atkin in his prime and the most favourable of circumstances couldn't get this ginger beer to fizz fragrantly. Nah.....we are not supposed to 'client shop.'  We are supposed to take whatever walks through the door, and we are supposed to represent them, provided all appropriate advices are given to them, and we adhere to ethical advocacy standards/restraints in Court.

A solicitor has a discretion to knock back work provided such a rejection would not be an infringement of legislation such as the racial discrimination Act 1975.
A barrister provided a client can pay an acceptable fee and the barrister is free or otherwise not engaged and it is in his or her field and within their capacity, skill and experience and they are not obliged to refuse under rules 95, 97, 98 or 99 under the cab rank rule they have a duty to act and are obligated under Rule 21 however  it does not always happen that a person or entity ends up being represented....go figure.
I can't for the life of me see how this could be contorted sufficiently to have even a shred of merit. It fails on multiple levels. It would, in this case, , on my view, be an improper abuse of court process to allege serious misconduct where I had no reasonable grounds for doing so...and there were no reasonable, or in fact any, prospects of success.
This dog won't hunt Monsignor.

All of that is unsourced but there are some truths in there, all of which is consistent with what I have posted about constraints.

"In my day," the Rule was that we could not refuse to act for a client.  I am aware that these days, firms will claim......"So sorry, we don't do that sort of work," but while the fundamental professional obligation is to the Court, the next most obligatory is to the client.

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 6:39pm:

All of that is unsourced but there are some truths in there, all of which is consistent with what I have posted about constraints. "In my day," the Rule was that we could not refuse to act for a client.  I am aware that these days, firms will claim......"So sorry, we don't do that sort of work," but while the fundamental professional obligation is to the Court, the next most obligatory is to the client.

Here is an example you remember Konrad Kalejs accused of having committed war crimes and they were going to extradite him? His solicitors approached Robert Richter a prominent Jewish Lawyer in Victoria (surprise, surprise) who considered taking him on but chose not to citing conflict of interest. So while there is a high duty to a client second only to the court they have to be a client for the duty to kick in.

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 6:39pm:

All of that is unsourced but there are some truths in there, all of which is consistent with what I have posted about constraints. "In my day," the Rule was that we could not refuse to act for a client.  I am aware that these days, firms will claim......"So sorry, we don't do that sort of work," but while the fundamental professional obligation is to the Court, the next most obligatory is to the client.

Actually the fundamental responsibility of law firms and its legal professionals is to the truth

A concept that has been corporatised and therefore at best incidental to what these legal structures do in society

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 2:15am:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 6:39pm: All of that is unsourced but there are some truths in there, all of which is consistent with what I have posted about constraints. "In my day," the Rule was that we could not refuse to act for a client.  I am aware that these days, firms will claim......"So sorry, we don't do that sort of work," but while the fundamental professional obligation is to the Court, the next most obligatory is to the client. Actually the fundamental responsibility of law firms and its legal professionals is to the truth A concept that has been corporatised and therefore at best incidental to what these legal structures do in society

If you want to split hairs it's actually the administration of justice (as carried out by the courts)....truth is more of an aspirational goal.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 6:59am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 2:15am: Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 6:39pm: All of that is unsourced but there are some truths in there, all of which is consistent with what I have posted about constraints. "In my day," the Rule was that we could not refuse to act for a client.  I am aware that these days, firms will claim......"So sorry, we don't do that sort of work," but while the fundamental professional obligation is to the Court, the next most obligatory is to the client. Actually the fundamental responsibility of law firms and its legal professionals is to the truth A concept that has been corporatised and therefore at best incidental to what these legal structures do in society If you want to split hairs it's actually the administration of justice (as carried out by the courts)....truth is more of an aspirational goal.

What is the point of the legal profession under these modern corporatised standards?

In the USA the medical profession has also moved in this direction. Many doctors opt to not partake in the Hypoocratic oath when graduating. Why? Ask the lawyers. Apparently it sets them up for law suits if they promise to DO NO HARM TO PATIENTS and also to commit themselves to training other doctors for NO FEE.

If a lawyer's primary responsibility isn't to exposing the TRUTH - the only way true justice can be served - then who are these people? What do they represent? Who do they work for?

A hair worth splitting in up my opinion.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 6:59am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 2:15am: Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 6:39pm: All of that is unsourced but there are some truths in there, all of which is consistent with what I have posted about constraints. "In my day," the Rule was that we could not refuse to act for a client.  I am aware that these days, firms will claim......"So sorry, we don't do that sort of work," but while the fundamental professional obligation is to the Court, the next most obligatory is to the client. Actually the fundamental responsibility of law firms and its legal professionals is to the truth A concept that has been corporatised and therefore at best incidental to what these legal structures do in society If you want to split hairs it's actually the administration of justice (as carried out by the courts)....truth is more of an aspirational goal. What is the point of the legal profession under these modern corporatised standards? In the USA the medical profession has also moved in this direction. Many doctors opt to not partake in the Hypoocratic oath when graduating. Why? Ask the lawyers. Apparently it sets them up for law suits if they promise to DO NO HARM TO PATIENTS and also to commit themselves to training other doctors for NO FEE. If a lawyer's primary responsibility isn't to exposing the TRUTH - the only way true justice can be served - then who are these people? What do they represent? Who do they work for? A hair worth splitting in up my opinion.

Lawyers work within a system...same as everyone else.

Quote:

If a lawyer's primary responsibility isn't to exposing the TRUTH - the only way true justice can be served - then who are these people? What do they represent? Who do they work for?

That's easy.  Their client and the client's interests.....there are professional and ethical constraints.....but none of them direct that Lawyers must be seekers of the 'truth.'

The 'truth' as an absolute is a slippery beast ~ almost impossible to nail down in any legal contest.   Almost always, my client's truth is the complete opposite of the truth according to the client of my opponent yet we are each in Court to maximise the likelihood the Court will conclude that our client's truth is more believable.

Aussie wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 3:45pm:

Quote: If a lawyer's primary responsibility isn't to exposing the TRUTH - the only way true justice can be served - then who are these people? What do they represent? Who do they work for? That's easy.  Their client and the client's interests.....there are professional and ethical constraints.....but none of them direct that Lawyers must be seekers of the 'truth.' The 'truth' as an absolute is a slippery beast ~ almost impossible to nail down in any legal contest.   Almost always, my client's truth is the complete opposite of the truth according to the client of my opponent yet we are each in Court to maximise the likelihood the Court will conclude that our client's truth is more believable.

So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence.

You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 4:03pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 3:45pm: Quote: If a lawyer's primary responsibility isn't to exposing the TRUTH - the only way true justice can be served - then who are these people? What do they represent? Who do they work for? That's easy.  Their client and the client's interests.....there are professional and ethical constraints.....but none of them direct that Lawyers must be seekers of the 'truth.' The 'truth' as an absolute is a slippery beast ~ almost impossible to nail down in any legal contest.   Almost always, my client's truth is the complete opposite of the truth according to the client of my opponent yet we are each in Court to maximise the likelihood the Court will conclude that our client's truth is more believable. So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you?

Lawyers do not enter the witness box and give evidence.  Nothing we say in Court is evidence......so there is no lie by the Lawyer.


Quote:

.....spin and omit the truth and evidence.

If by 'spin,' you mean we make submissions, comments, pose questions consistent with evidence to enhance our client's interests ~ yes, we do that.  We are unable to 'omit the truth' as it is not our job to determine it.  Not even Courts will make the claim that they get to the 'truth.'  They make judgements based on the evidence they found credible and apply the Law to those facts.  As for 'omit evidence'.....this is a trickier beast to explain in this environment.  Obviously, we are not going to present evidence to the Court which is inconsistent with the client's case.  But, leading up to any Hearing is a process called 'discovery' and what used to be called 'interrogatories" and through that, we have professional obligations to ensure that the client makes proper disclosure, even of material which is not helpful.

Aussie wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 4:20pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 3:45pm: Quote: If a lawyer's primary responsibility isn't to exposing the TRUTH - the only way true justice can be served - then who are these people? What do they represent? Who do they work for? That's easy.  Their client and the client's interests.....there are professional and ethical constraints.....but none of them direct that Lawyers must be seekers of the 'truth.' The 'truth' as an absolute is a slippery beast ~ almost impossible to nail down in any legal contest.   Almost always, my client's truth is the complete opposite of the truth according to the client of my opponent yet we are each in Court to maximise the likelihood the Court will conclude that our client's truth is more believable. So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Lawyers do not enter the witness box and give evidence.  Nothing we say in Court is evidence......so there is no lie by the Lawyer. [quote].....spin and omit the truth and evidence.

If by 'spin,' you mean we make submissions, comments, pose questions consistent with evidence to enhance our client's interests ~ yes, we do that.  We are unable to 'omit the truth' as it is not our job to determine it.  Not even Courts will make the claim that they get to the 'truth.'  They make judgements based on the evidence they found credible and apply the Law to those facts.  As for 'omit evidence'.....this is a trickier beast to explain in this environment.  Obviously, we are not going to present evidence to the Court which is inconsistent with the client's case.  But, leading up to any Hearing is a process called 'discovery' and what used to be called 'interrogatories" and through that, we have professional obligations to ensure that the client makes proper disclosure, even of material which is not helpful.


[/quote]

But if a member of the public did the same thing, they would be considered accomplices, or at least accessories after the fact, would they not?

Tell me, what sort of system provides indemnity and protection to legal professionals in court as they gallop in there with their pathetic costumes and wigs and proceed to distort the truth and partake in omission of evidence and facts???

Sounds like a crime syndicate to me.

Is it any wonder how certain crimes are ignored - like those of the rich and powerful?

Reminds me of the Robert Zimmerman song

"....steal a little and they throw you in Jail, steal a lot and they make you king"

this is what you defend - a system of moral and legal corruption - right to very core

I can only assume that you are personally embedded in this corrupt system

I theenk you are in transmission only mode Mr Chimp.  You obviously have very well cemented, deeply pre-conceived concepts (all misconceived) of the pretty technical role Lawyers have, and it is clear that there is nothing I can say which will budge you even one inch.  So, thanks for the chat.

Cheers.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 4:37pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:20pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 3:45pm: Quote: If a lawyer's primary responsibility isn't to exposing the TRUTH - the only way true justice can be served - then who are these people? What do they represent? Who do they work for? That's easy.  Their client and the client's interests.....there are professional and ethical constraints.....but none of them direct that Lawyers must be seekers of the 'truth.' The 'truth' as an absolute is a slippery beast ~ almost impossible to nail down in any legal contest.   Almost always, my client's truth is the complete opposite of the truth according to the client of my opponent yet we are each in Court to maximise the likelihood the Court will conclude that our client's truth is more believable. So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Lawyers do not enter the witness box and give evidence.  Nothing we say in Court is evidence......so there is no lie by the Lawyer. [quote].....spin and omit the truth and evidence. If by 'spin,' you mean we make submissions, comments, pose questions consistent with evidence to enhance our client's interests ~ yes, we do that.  We are unable to 'omit the truth' as it is not our job to determine it.  Not even Courts will make the claim that they get to the 'truth.'  They make judgements based on the evidence they found credible and apply the Law to those facts.  As for 'omit evidence'.....this is a trickier beast to explain in this environment.  Obviously, we are not going to present evidence to the Court which is inconsistent with the client's case.  But, leading up to any Hearing is a process called 'discovery' and what used to be called 'interrogatories" and through that, we have professional obligations to ensure that the client makes proper disclosure, even of material which is not helpful.

But if a member of the public did the same thing, they would be considered accomplices, or at least accessories after the fact, would they not?

Tell me, what sort of system provides indemnity and protection to legal professionals in court as they gallop in there with their pathetic costumes and wigs and proceed to distort the truth and partake in omission of evidence and facts???

Sounds like a crime syndicate to me.

Is it any wonder how certain crimes are ignored - like those of the rich and powerful?

Reminds me of the Robert Zimmerman song

"....steal a little and they throw you in Jail, steal a lot and they make you king"

this is what you defend - a system of moral and legal corruption - right to very core

I can only assume that you are personally embedded in this corrupt system
[/quote]

You don't like the system...next election you march down to that polling place and give em hell with your vote.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 5:28pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:37pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:20pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 3:45pm: Quote: If a lawyer's primary responsibility isn't to exposing the TRUTH - the only way true justice can be served - then who are these people? What do they represent? Who do they work for? That's easy.  Their client and the client's interests.....there are professional and ethical constraints.....but none of them direct that Lawyers must be seekers of the 'truth.' The 'truth' as an absolute is a slippery beast ~ almost impossible to nail down in any legal contest.   Almost always, my client's truth is the complete opposite of the truth according to the client of my opponent yet we are each in Court to maximise the likelihood the Court will conclude that our client's truth is more believable. So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Lawyers do not enter the witness box and give evidence.  Nothing we say in Court is evidence......so there is no lie by the Lawyer. [quote].....spin and omit the truth and evidence. If by 'spin,' you mean we make submissions, comments, pose questions consistent with evidence to enhance our client's interests ~ yes, we do that.  We are unable to 'omit the truth' as it is not our job to determine it.  Not even Courts will make the claim that they get to the 'truth.'  They make judgements based on the evidence they found credible and apply the Law to those facts.  As for 'omit evidence'.....this is a trickier beast to explain in this environment.  Obviously, we are not going to present evidence to the Court which is inconsistent with the client's case.  But, leading up to any Hearing is a process called 'discovery' and what used to be called 'interrogatories" and through that, we have professional obligations to ensure that the client makes proper disclosure, even of material which is not helpful. But if a member of the public did the same thing, they would be considered accomplices, or at least accessories after the fact, would they not? Tell me, what sort of system provides indemnity and protection to legal professionals in court as they gallop in there with their pathetic costumes and wigs and proceed to distort the truth and partake in omission of evidence and facts??? Sounds like a crime syndicate to me. Is it any wonder how certain crimes are ignored - like those of the rich and powerful? Reminds me of the Robert Zimmerman song "....steal a little and they throw you in Jail, steal a lot and they make you king" this is what you defend - a system of moral and legal corruption - right to very core I can only assume that you are personally embedded in this corrupt system

You don't like the system...next election you march down to that polling place and give em hell with your vote.[/quote]

I am giving you hell

don't run away

respond to the points I make - or just ignore them - either is fine

But don't tell me to go elsewhere to voice dissent because you are incapable or not willing to engage in an honourable fashion

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 6:51pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 5:28pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:37pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:20pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 3:45pm: Quote: If a lawyer's primary responsibility isn't to exposing the TRUTH - the only way true justice can be served - then who are these people? What do they represent? Who do they work for? That's easy.  Their client and the client's interests.....there are professional and ethical constraints.....but none of them direct that Lawyers must be seekers of the 'truth.' The 'truth' as an absolute is a slippery beast ~ almost impossible to nail down in any legal contest.   Almost always, my client's truth is the complete opposite of the truth according to the client of my opponent yet we are each in Court to maximise the likelihood the Court will conclude that our client's truth is more believable. So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Lawyers do not enter the witness box and give evidence.  Nothing we say in Court is evidence......so there is no lie by the Lawyer. [quote].....spin and omit the truth and evidence. If by 'spin,' you mean we make submissions, comments, pose questions consistent with evidence to enhance our client's interests ~ yes, we do that.  We are unable to 'omit the truth' as it is not our job to determine it.  Not even Courts will make the claim that they get to the 'truth.'  They make judgements based on the evidence they found credible and apply the Law to those facts.  As for 'omit evidence'.....this is a trickier beast to explain in this environment.  Obviously, we are not going to present evidence to the Court which is inconsistent with the client's case.  But, leading up to any Hearing is a process called 'discovery' and what used to be called 'interrogatories" and through that, we have professional obligations to ensure that the client makes proper disclosure, even of material which is not helpful. But if a member of the public did the same thing, they would be considered accomplices, or at least accessories after the fact, would they not? Tell me, what sort of system provides indemnity and protection to legal professionals in court as they gallop in there with their pathetic costumes and wigs and proceed to distort the truth and partake in omission of evidence and facts??? Sounds like a crime syndicate to me. Is it any wonder how certain crimes are ignored - like those of the rich and powerful? Reminds me of the Robert Zimmerman song "....steal a little and they throw you in Jail, steal a lot and they make you king" this is what you defend - a system of moral and legal corruption - right to very core I can only assume that you are personally embedded in this corrupt system You don't like the system...next election you march down to that polling place and give em hell with your vote.

I am giving you hell

don't run away

respond to the points I make - or just ignore them - either is fine

But don't tell me to go elsewhere to voice dissent because you are incapable or not willing to engage in an honourable fashion

[/quote]

To repeat lawyers work under the same system as everyone else.
What a lawyer would like the law to be does not make it so.
Two sources of law, governments either directly through legislation or indirectly where the legislative power of the parliament is delegated but they retain the ability to disallow it and judge made law or common law as in court precedents. If a parliament does not like a particular aspect of the common law they can institute legislation that will over-ride it. So the common law only exists at the discretion of parliaments.
The parliament represents the will of the people as expressed through the democratic process.
So if anyone is responsible for the system and the laws instituted under it then bless me it's the voter...
In this regard I also only have a single vote. I can write a stern letter to my MP. I can also start a petition. You may like to try any of these.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 4:03pm:

... So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you?

Have you ever noticed how many politicians are lawyers?  :P

# wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 7:53pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: ... So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Have you ever noticed how many politicians are lawyers?  :P

in western nations that is a very common observation

In China, if you examine the professional background of the members of the ruling party in Beijing, you will find that about 95% of them are either scientists or engineers.

You get what you pay for - or rather what you vote for

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 9:30pm:

# wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 7:53pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: ... So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Have you ever noticed how many politicians are lawyers?  :P in western nations that is a very common observation In China, if you examine the professional background of the members of the ruling party in Beijing, you will find that about 95% of them are either scientists or engineers. You get what you pay for - or rather what you vote for

Scientists and engineers...how enlightened...

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/robyncutie/jody%20ONLY/abc_execution3_080215_ssh.jpg

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 7:26am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 9:30pm: # wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 7:53pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: ... So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Have you ever noticed how many politicians are lawyers?  :P in western nations that is a very common observation In China, if you examine the professional background of the members of the ruling party in Beijing, you will find that about 95% of them are either scientists or engineers. You get what you pay for - or rather what you vote for Scientists and engineers...how enlightened... http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/robyncutie/jody%20ONLY/abc_execution3_080215_ssh.jpg

Care to examine the US record with the same arrow vision?

look at our own bloody past, which is continuing right up this very day

take some time out and see WHO YOU REALLY ARE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1dc5uo17rY

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 10:46am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 7:26am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 9:30pm: # wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 7:53pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: ... So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Have you ever noticed how many politicians are lawyers?  :P in western nations that is a very common observation In China, if you examine the professional background of the members of the ruling party in Beijing, you will find that about 95% of them are either scientists or engineers. You get what you pay for - or rather what you vote for Scientists and engineers...how enlightened... http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/robyncutie/jody%20ONLY/abc_execution3_080215_ssh.jpg Care to examine the US record with the same arrow vision? look at our own bloody past, which is continuing right up this very day take some time out and see WHO YOU REALLY ARE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1dc5uo17rY

China executions 2009 upwards of 5,000 - USA executions 2009 - 52....yes I see the similarity....Australia executions 2009 - 0.

Don't presume to lecture me on my own history. Lots of bad things happened to Indigenous Peoples not only from "whites" but also from other Indigenous peoples and not least of which was the native police. It just goes to show how little you know about Australian Indigenous peoples and history, black or white. Everyone has a bloody ancestral past...each and every one of us...that's why we're here and others are not.
I also have convict ancestors one was chained up at night not 30km from where I live in a spot that overlooks the town that was subsequently built and he did not ever take his shirt off because his back was pure scar tissue.
Everyone who displeased the establishment then was treated much the same.

http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/21515austral1869.jpg

We all have good and bad ancestors and I know it has zero bearing on who I am....but I see what you are.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 11:41am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 10:46am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 7:26am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 9:30pm: # wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 7:53pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: ... So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Have you ever noticed how many politicians are lawyers?  :P in western nations that is a very common observation In China, if you examine the professional background of the members of the ruling party in Beijing, you will find that about 95% of them are either scientists or engineers. You get what you pay for - or rather what you vote for Scientists and engineers...how enlightened... http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/robyncutie/jody%20ONLY/abc_execution3_080215_ssh.jpg Care to examine the US record with the same arrow vision? look at our own bloody past, which is continuing right up this very day take some time out and see WHO YOU REALLY ARE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1dc5uo17rY China executions 2009 upwards of 5,000 - USA executions 2009 - 52....yes I see the similarity....Australia executions 2009 - 0. Don't presume to lecture me on my own history. Lots of bad things happened to Indigenous Peoples not only from "whites" but also from other Indigenous peoples and not least of which was the native police. It just goes to show how little you know about Australian Indigenous peoples and history, black or white. Everyone has a bloody ancestral past...each and every one of us...that's why we're here and others are not. I also have convict ancestors one was chained up at night not 30km from where I live in a spot that overlooks the town that was subsequently built and he did not ever take his shirt off because his back was pure scar tissue. Everyone who displeased the establishment then was treated much the same. http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/21515austral1869.jpg We all have good and bad ancestors and I know it has zero bearing on who I am....but I see what you are.

So why pick on the Chinese in the first??   :o :o :o :o

Answer please,...  :-?

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 7:26am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 9:30pm: # wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 7:53pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: ... So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Have you ever noticed how many politicians are lawyers?  :P in western nations that is a very common observation In China, if you examine the professional background of the members of the ruling party in Beijing, you will find that about 95% of them are either scientists or engineers. You get what you pay for - or rather what you vote for Scientists and engineers...how enlightened...

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/robyncutie/jody%20ONLY/abc_execution3_080215_ssh.jpg
Tradition has it that the family of the executed is billed 1元. That's the cost of the bullet. User pays (or, the user being in no position to pay, the estate of the user pays). No good market capitalist could object to that.

Conservative Enlightenment!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 1:18pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 11:41am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 10:46am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 7:26am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 9:30pm: # wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 7:53pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: ... So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Have you ever noticed how many politicians are lawyers?  :P in western nations that is a very common observation In China, if you examine the professional background of the members of the ruling party in Beijing, you will find that about 95% of them are either scientists or engineers. You get what you pay for - or rather what you vote for Scientists and engineers...how enlightened... http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/robyncutie/jody%20ONLY/abc_execution3_080215_ssh.jpg Care to examine the US record with the same arrow vision? look at our own bloody past, which is continuing right up this very day take some time out and see WHO YOU REALLY ARE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1dc5uo17rY China executions 2009 upwards of 5,000 - USA executions 2009 - 52....yes I see the similarity....Australia executions 2009 - 0. Don't presume to lecture me on my own history. Lots of bad things happened to Indigenous Peoples not only from "whites" but also from other Indigenous peoples and not least of which was the native police. It just goes to show how little you know about Australian Indigenous peoples and history, black or white. Everyone has a bloody ancestral past...each and every one of us...that's why we're here and others are not. I also have convict ancestors one was chained up at night not 30km from where I live in a spot that overlooks the town that was subsequently built and he did not ever take his shirt off because his back was pure scar tissue. Everyone who displeased the establishment then was treated much the same. http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/21515austral1869.jpg We all have good and bad ancestors and I know it has zero bearing on who I am....but I see what you are. So why pick on the Chinese in the first??   :o :o :o :o Answer please,...  :-?

"In China, if you examine the professional background of the members of the ruling party in Beijing, you will find that about 95% of them are either scientists or engineers."

# wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 2:09pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 7:26am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 9:30pm: # wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 7:53pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: ... So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Have you ever noticed how many politicians are lawyers?  :P in western nations that is a very common observation In China, if you examine the professional background of the members of the ruling party in Beijing, you will find that about 95% of them are either scientists or engineers. You get what you pay for - or rather what you vote for Scientists and engineers...how enlightened... http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/robyncutie/jody%20ONLY/abc_execution3_080215_ssh.jpg Tradition has it that the family of the executed is billed 1元. That's the cost of the bullet. User pays (or, the user being in no position to pay, the estate of the user pays). No good market capitalist could object to that. Conservative Enlightenment!

No just pointing out chimps utopian Chinese regime run by scientists and engineers copes with rigorous or in fact any debate.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 3:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 1:18pm: namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 11:41am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 10:46am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 7:26am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 9:30pm: # wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 7:53pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: ... So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Have you ever noticed how many politicians are lawyers?  :P in western nations that is a very common observation In China, if you examine the professional background of the members of the ruling party in Beijing, you will find that about 95% of them are either scientists or engineers. You get what you pay for - or rather what you vote for Scientists and engineers...how enlightened... http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/robyncutie/jody%20ONLY/abc_execution3_080215_ssh.jpg Care to examine the US record with the same arrow vision? look at our own bloody past, which is continuing right up this very day take some time out and see WHO YOU REALLY ARE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1dc5uo17rY China executions 2009 upwards of 5,000 - USA executions 2009 - 52....yes I see the similarity....Australia executions 2009 - 0. Don't presume to lecture me on my own history. Lots of bad things happened to Indigenous Peoples not only from "whites" but also from other Indigenous peoples and not least of which was the native police. It just goes to show how little you know about Australian Indigenous peoples and history, black or white. Everyone has a bloody ancestral past...each and every one of us...that's why we're here and others are not. I also have convict ancestors one was chained up at night not 30km from where I live in a spot that overlooks the town that was subsequently built and he did not ever take his shirt off because his back was pure scar tissue. Everyone who displeased the establishment then was treated much the same. http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/21515austral1869.jpg We all have good and bad ancestors and I know it has zero bearing on who I am....but I see what you are. So why pick on the Chinese in the first??   :o :o :o :o Answer please,...  :-? "In China, if you examine the professional background of the members of the ruling party in Beijing, you will find that about 95% of them are either scientists or engineers."

you argue in circles  ;) ;) your kids must love you   :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 4:27pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 3:46pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 1:18pm: namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 11:41am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 10:46am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 7:26am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 9:30pm: # wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 7:53pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27th, 2014 at 4:03pm: ... So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence. You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you? Have you ever noticed how many politicians are lawyers?  :P in western nations that is a very common observation In China, if you examine the professional background of the members of the ruling party in Beijing, you will find that about 95% of them are either scientists or engineers. You get what you pay for - or rather what you vote for Scientists and engineers...how enlightened... http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/robyncutie/jody%20ONLY/abc_execution3_080215_ssh.jpg Care to examine the US record with the same arrow vision? look at our own bloody past, which is continuing right up this very day take some time out and see WHO YOU REALLY ARE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1dc5uo17rY China executions 2009 upwards of 5,000 - USA executions 2009 - 52....yes I see the similarity....Australia executions 2009 - 0. Don't presume to lecture me on my own history. Lots of bad things happened to Indigenous Peoples not only from "whites" but also from other Indigenous peoples and not least of which was the native police. It just goes to show how little you know about Australian Indigenous peoples and history, black or white. Everyone has a bloody ancestral past...each and every one of us...that's why we're here and others are not. I also have convict ancestors one was chained up at night not 30km from where I live in a spot that overlooks the town that was subsequently built and he did not ever take his shirt off because his back was pure scar tissue. Everyone who displeased the establishment then was treated much the same. http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/21515austral1869.jpg We all have good and bad ancestors and I know it has zero bearing on who I am....but I see what you are. So why pick on the Chinese in the first??   :o :o :o :o Answer please,...  :-? "In China, if you examine the professional background of the members of the ruling party in Beijing, you will find that about 95% of them are either scientists or engineers." you argue in circles  ;) ;) your kids must love you   :o

I'm sure quotation marks baffle you.

lol, nams trying to pretend I can't follow the conversation to justify his dismissive attitude!!  ;D ;D