“The jury…was urged by a plaintiffs’ lawyer to consider socking the company with $1 billion in damages as punishment for covering up the health risks of the herbicide for decades.”
The defendant’s lawyers said “Well of course, counsel for plaintiff will tell you ANYTHING, as long as they get their MASSIVE payday for as much as $300 MILLION. Especially when the ingredients DON’T CAUSE CANCER”.
The plaintiffs will deliberate for four days, and then ask the judge if they can INCREASE the award, since they will all get they faces on the TV.
The very first judgement should never have been awarded. I wonder what proof this couple has proved that they even used RoundUp in their landscaping. What photos or evidence was presented, other than they have the cancer and they called the 800# to make the same claim? Bayer and Monsanto need to fight these claims all the way and ask for their own legal defense bills to be reimbursed.
They presented literally hundreds of photos of the properties they gardened along with empty roundup bottles and firsthand accounts of its use and application.
Imagine not being at the weeks-long trial and having no idea what was presented there, but still rhetorically wondering/accusing the Pilliods of lying, and even less reasonably, thinking the court system would even hear a case with zero evidence.
Monsanto shill?! Really?! Is that the best reply you could make to scientific studies that prove the plaintiff attorneys are ambulance chasers?!
Imagine the weeks-long trial wherein the defense counsel presented recent scientific evidence to the contrary of what the plaintiff attorneys presented. Imagine the jury pool, selected from among members of the community who may be related to, or economically linked to, one or more plaintiffs in these Kangaroo Courts! That is more likely than people posting comments on IJ being ‘Monsanto shills’. Or, a higher possibility; you may be a C-A suit Ambulance Chaser! Anyone can speculate on the motives of comment posters with whom they disagree, including me.
FWIW; insurance pros understand that MONSANTO isn’t the only party punished IF the jury awards a hyuuge sum of cash to the plaintiff pool(s) in these Class-Action suits. It is partially or wholly covered by insurance, everyone buying product liability insurance pays part of the cost via premiums paid to pool the risks of hyuuge PL claim settlements / awards. And, if you think that only means COMPANIES that produce products for sale, think about how, and to whom, THEY pass along those insurance costs…
“Imagine the jury pool, selected from among members of the community who may be related to, or economically linked to, one or more plaintiffs in these Kangaroo Courts! ”
I wonder when the last time you were a prospective juror and sat in court while the judge asked numerous case-related questions so attorney’s could decide if they wanted to veto the selection of a juror due to conflict(s) of interest even after having individual discussions with all the potential jurors.
If you REALLY think the jurors selected were related to, or economically linked to, one of the plaintiffs, your gripe should rest with the attorney’s who selected the jury knowing that conflict existed.
I was in several jury pools, and made it onto a jury with a lengthy trial with a dozen witnesses testifying for both sides. I live in a state where fulfilled jury duty exempts me from further duty for a long time gap…. i.e. I haven’t been on a jury for many years. But what difference does the time gap make?
I understand disclosure of conflict of interest. It works in theory, but not in practice.
I also understand the nature and intent of the implication that IJ commenters are ‘Monsanto Shills’. Your comment works against that claim…. thanks!
“…and even less reasonably, thinking the court system would even hear a case with zero evidence.”
Example:
US DoJ FISA Court, 4 times, re: allegation of Russian Collusion, based upon a dis-credited ‘dossier’ from a dis-credited former MI-6 Brit Agent, funded by the DNC via Fusion GPS to ‘launder (i.e. “to Bleach-bit”) the money’.
Just remember there is no such thing as a free lunch. If juries award crazy large verdicts we all pay in the end. I for one and sick to death of the court lottery system. Reasonable verdicts for reasonable damage claims are fine but the courts awarding billion dollar verdicts are just crazy.
A billion is the new million. Next comes a trillion. As they say, “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you’re talking real money”.
“The jury…was urged by a plaintiffs’ lawyer to consider socking the company with $1 billion in damages as punishment for covering up the health risks of the herbicide for decades.”
The defendant’s lawyers said “Well of course, counsel for plaintiff will tell you ANYTHING, as long as they get their MASSIVE payday for as much as $300 MILLION. Especially when the ingredients DON’T CAUSE CANCER”.
The plaintiffs will deliberate for four days, and then ask the judge if they can INCREASE the award, since they will all get they faces on the TV.
The very first judgement should never have been awarded. I wonder what proof this couple has proved that they even used RoundUp in their landscaping. What photos or evidence was presented, other than they have the cancer and they called the 800# to make the same claim? Bayer and Monsanto need to fight these claims all the way and ask for their own legal defense bills to be reimbursed.
They presented literally hundreds of photos of the properties they gardened along with empty roundup bottles and firsthand accounts of its use and application.
Imagine not being at the weeks-long trial and having no idea what was presented there, but still rhetorically wondering/accusing the Pilliods of lying, and even less reasonably, thinking the court system would even hear a case with zero evidence.
Monsanto shill found.
Monsanto shill?! Really?! Is that the best reply you could make to scientific studies that prove the plaintiff attorneys are ambulance chasers?!
Imagine the weeks-long trial wherein the defense counsel presented recent scientific evidence to the contrary of what the plaintiff attorneys presented. Imagine the jury pool, selected from among members of the community who may be related to, or economically linked to, one or more plaintiffs in these Kangaroo Courts! That is more likely than people posting comments on IJ being ‘Monsanto shills’. Or, a higher possibility; you may be a C-A suit Ambulance Chaser! Anyone can speculate on the motives of comment posters with whom they disagree, including me.
FWIW; insurance pros understand that MONSANTO isn’t the only party punished IF the jury awards a hyuuge sum of cash to the plaintiff pool(s) in these Class-Action suits. It is partially or wholly covered by insurance, everyone buying product liability insurance pays part of the cost via premiums paid to pool the risks of hyuuge PL claim settlements / awards. And, if you think that only means COMPANIES that produce products for sale, think about how, and to whom, THEY pass along those insurance costs…
“Imagine the jury pool, selected from among members of the community who may be related to, or economically linked to, one or more plaintiffs in these Kangaroo Courts! ”
I wonder when the last time you were a prospective juror and sat in court while the judge asked numerous case-related questions so attorney’s could decide if they wanted to veto the selection of a juror due to conflict(s) of interest even after having individual discussions with all the potential jurors.
If you REALLY think the jurors selected were related to, or economically linked to, one of the plaintiffs, your gripe should rest with the attorney’s who selected the jury knowing that conflict existed.
I was in several jury pools, and made it onto a jury with a lengthy trial with a dozen witnesses testifying for both sides. I live in a state where fulfilled jury duty exempts me from further duty for a long time gap…. i.e. I haven’t been on a jury for many years. But what difference does the time gap make?
I understand disclosure of conflict of interest. It works in theory, but not in practice.
I also understand the nature and intent of the implication that IJ commenters are ‘Monsanto Shills’. Your comment works against that claim…. thanks!
“…and even less reasonably, thinking the court system would even hear a case with zero evidence.”
Example:
US DoJ FISA Court, 4 times, re: allegation of Russian Collusion, based upon a dis-credited ‘dossier’ from a dis-credited former MI-6 Brit Agent, funded by the DNC via Fusion GPS to ‘launder (i.e. “to Bleach-bit”) the money’.
Yep. The great conspiracy. You sir, just lost all credibility. Monsanto AND Trump shill.
Wow – thank you Rush Hannity!
Just remember there is no such thing as a free lunch. If juries award crazy large verdicts we all pay in the end. I for one and sick to death of the court lottery system. Reasonable verdicts for reasonable damage claims are fine but the courts awarding billion dollar verdicts are just crazy.
Nobody ever answers ?-