Lose Weight Fast What You Must Know

There are many myths around the idea to lose weight fast. Those can be dangerous, so be careful !

There are also several ways to lose weight quickly that proved to be working like Phen24.

Let’s have an insightful look at the “Lose Weight Fast” idea pros and cons.

“Do The Advertisers Tell the Truth ?”

US Federal Trade Commission report found that over 40% of advertised products presentation they studied were “almost certainly false”, and the remaining 60% rest was not “certainly true”. At that time, more than 55% of the products claimed to grant fast results.
It was in 2001, and it has got worse since.
So yes, most of them lie.
Blame it on them, the market, the other consumers or maybe somehow on yourself, yet you have to take this into account.

Well, if you can get past the scams, most products help you. That’s not the magic pill however.

Don’t get me wrong : Losing Weight Fast is possible. Today it is even a discipline with proven records. BUT as Losing Weight in general, selecting the right product is only setting ONE aspect of your Weight Loss, no matter how tricky it is in itself.

“I Must Lose Weight Fast”

I know I’m all coachy with this one, but trust me. You don’t HAVE TO Lose Weight Fast. You can CHOSE TO Lose Weight Fast.

The trick is : feeling obligation associates the idea of losing weight with a bad and powerlessness feel. So make it your decision, empower yourself, so that you unconsciously associate the idea of losing weight with the feeling of capability and determination.

It feels better like this, isn’t it ? And it asks your Unconscious to succeed rather than to fail

A few directions if you want to go further with your Beliefs and Well Being :

  • Get some NLP stuff about Emotions, Emotional Guidance and Positive Thinking ; there are a lot of
  • Read the “Unlimited Power” and / or Awaken The Giant Within books by Anthony Robbins (Amazon links here)

“I Can Lose Weight Fast”

This is true. You can lose weight fast.

  • Everyone can lose weight fast, including YOU : Understand that anything that someone could do since the dawn of history, one can do too by using the appropriate Strategy.
    Yes, that includes yourself.
    Wherever you come from, it’s a matter of finding the appropriate strategy. I have seen people losing more than 200 pounds over the years, and no one could tell they were overweight.
  • There are some really efficient methods today (amongst heaps of uneffective and dishonest ones, but that’s an other matter).
  • You will find the application of the Universal Model of Success in the EWLS “How to Lose Weight” Guide so that you set up yourself on the path to success and stay on it.
  • Work on your Beliefs. Most NLP literacy will help.

“I’d Rather Lose Weight Fast”

False. Unless you use some really top-notch weight loss method tailored for fast weight loss with NO backlash, losing weight fast is a risk.

If you lose weight in a brutal way (very intensive gym training, minimal or no food, suppressing totally some types of food), those will tend to happen :

  • your body will tend to stock (straight) anything it has been deprived of
  • your weight loss if not consciously maintained for several months could reverse
  • each pound will be far harder to lose in the future
  • beyond the medical risks (REMEMBER THEM AND MANAGE THEM), you will have bad feelings to cope with (your metabolism will “forward” the “dis ease” of lacking to its habits to your emotions, in some devilish ways : anguish, overwheliming hunger, etc.)

All this tend to happen if you lose more than 2 Kg (4 pounds) in a month.

So if you decide go for a Fast Weight Loss, be cautious !

  • pick a method/program that is REALLY tailored for fast weight loss, and minimum backlash.
    Take care to avoid dishonest advice/products because they are a REAL problem to your health.
  • Cope with your metabolism trends in a specific way. At least follow the ELWS Golden Keys. For what I have seen, Hypnosis and Acupuncture, however non canonical they were supposed to be, have proven to settle those issues with an impressive efficiency.
  • Do keep your new metabolism and well being “in line” with your fastened weight loss for at least one year

“Losing Weight Fast is difficult if I have just a few pounds to lose”


I am ASHAMED but..

The most effective for the “quick few pounds fix” I found was NOT with all the clients testing and reading stuff about losing weight during those last 10 years.

I know it’s so fancy to buy women magazines “before the summer diet”, but it was not even with those that the top tip was found.

It was my girlfriend that just ordered some stuff and lost the most-difficult (if to me not necessary) 6 pounds from 50 Kg to 47 Kg by doing some abdo exercize while looking at her favorite tv show. Took just ten days !

I guess by now you should be intrigued… This guidelines set could alone be sold for a neat price, cause it is easy (and rather enjoyable) to follow. But I’m in a good mood so get this :

  • Somatoline Cosmetics stuff (no, I get no affiliate money for telling this, maybe I should)
  • Low key abdo training in front of Lost (or whatever TV show you want) during 1 episode every day. It makes the training feel like a breeze.
  • She also followed the EWLS Golden Keys we coach our clients to follow (that feels a little better to my ego…)

The main real difficulty to Lose those “few” pounds fast is that they localize on specific parts of our bodies. For men it will be stomach/belly, for women, hips/waist/tighs. Thank evolution. However, localized action (which this cosmetics and the muscle training will provide) will do the trick.

Otherwise it will make you lose “general” weight, and those locations are the LAST one will lose mass from. So you could look very bad, lose breast or muscle before even lose that bad-location fat.

So rememeber: local problem, local action ! (and consider asking Somatoline to give me money for this).

“Lose Weight Fast” stuff does not work for me

To this, I say : Illusion !

I’m gonna be a little bit in your face on this one, but it is your responsibility. Accept that looking closer at this will empower you to turn this failure into a success opportunity.
If you have tried some CD/Program/whatever and could not lose weight, there can be 3 reasons :

  • You put your money in the wrong place. See through the marketing illusion. Learn to see through it.
  • You did not use correctly the product. Did you really follow the indications ? You made an illusion for yourself, because it was comfortable. Avoid laziness ni the future.
  • You did not put yourself in a success process. This made you fail because of problems of motivation, well being, beliefs, unconscious, environment, medical advice, bad knowledge and lack of efficient drive. Following no specific path leads you elsewhere. Follow our Guide to avoid this pitfalls like plague !

Those risks are the ones you will encounter if you want to lose weight fast. It is more difficult, you will have to cope with more risks, but the reward will be there. Nowadays, it is possible to Lose Weight Fast very efficiently.

So list those risks, and be cautious.

Glycemic Index

There seems to be a growing tide of media discussion about the glycemic index and the glycemic load, particularly regarding people who are overweight. Reducing the amount of sugar you ingest, plus eating in moderation and a little exercise is a well respected plan for losing and controlling your body weight with https://www.sportzfuel.com/. But, is it all that simple? What’s the big deal about the two glycemic numbers?

Glycemic Index

The glycemic numbers are very important for patients diagnosed with diabetes or in a prediabetic condition. Simply stated, the glycemic index (GI) is a measure of the comparison between foods containing carbohydrates and sugar (glucose) and blood glucose levels. Studies have measured the blood glucose values of a fixed quantity, 100 grams, of carbohydrate foods against a similar quantity of glucose. Determining the GI is not an exact science per se. The number can vary depending on the study source. But, through years, the GI of many foods have been somewhat standardized and accepted.

Glucose is the standard, set at 100. The tested carbohydrate foods fall into three groups based on the GI results; low, medium and high. GI below 50 is considered low, 50 to 70 medium, and 70 to 100 is high. The glycemic index is just a scale so one can identify the relative blood glucose effect of certain foods. Obviously, those concerned about lowering blood glucose should choose foods with a low GI. The caution here is the glycemic index is a relative scale and does not take into consideration the quantity of food eaten. Advice suggested is to use the GI to balance your sugar intake while being mindful of quantities eaten.

Also, be aware that the glycemic index of a particular food can change depending on ripeness, processing and cooking. The classic example is a banana. An unripe banana may have a GI of 42, while a ripe one may have 52. And, as the banana becomes over-ripe the number increases.

For the diabetic and prediabetic patient, controlling blood glucose levels is imperative. Moreover, knowing how fast, how high and how long blood glucose change with carbohydrate foods is just as important.

Glycemic Load

Glycemic load (GL) is a measure of rise in blood glucose based on the glycemic index and portion of the carbohydrate food eaten. Many believe that the glycemic load factor is a better guide in controlling blood glucose levels because it addresses the quantity of a food. The higher the GL the faster blood glucose levels will spike, and then, for most, fall off. This, in turn, puts stress on the insulin response. Whereas, a lower GL food will rise slower and maintain a lower blood glucose level over a longer period of time. A GL of less than 10 is considered low, 11-19 medium, and above 20 high. The formula to determine GL is the total carbohydrates in grams times the glycemic index (GI) divided by 100. TC(g) * GI/100.

The glycemic load depends on the portion of the food. Many GI lists will use 100 grams for portion size just for numeric uniformity. Other lists will compute the GL based on the “normal” portion size which, of course, is not always 100 grams.

If you want to compute the GL of a product using the supplied nutrition label be sure to deduct the “Dietary fiber” quantity from the total carbohydrates listed. The mean GI for a popular candy shown below is 55. The GL 18.7.

Role and importance of SEO services in website

We are living in the digital era where every businessman totally depends on the online website. Is it beneficial or not? Thousands of people are making millions of dollars from the official online website.  They are achieving success in the online business. Therefore, if you have created a new website, then SEO is really important. It is the main part of every business that will improve the sale of every business.

Did you know most of the people are spending thousands of dollars on the SEO services? Therefore, you should hire an SEO professional for the website. Let’s discuss the main role and importance of the SEO services.

  • Improve the sale

Is SEO beneficial or not? If you are serious about your business, then it is really a mandatory task for you. After hiring an expert, you will able to attract a lot of people from the target area. Like, if you are selling any product, then it would be a reliable option for you. It will improve the sale of the business.  However, https://designful.ca is a particular website that is providing one of the best SEO and Graphic designers at a reasonable cost.

  • Increase the awareness of the brand

Nothing is better than promotion because it will increase the awareness of your brand. You will able to attract more viewers. One needs to look an expert for the SEO services. As per professional, it will improve the sale of the business.

  • The higher rate of the conversion

After improving the rank of a website, you will able to improve the conversion rate. Make sure that you are maintaining the position of the official website. It is a really great technique that will maintain the position of your business in the market.

  • Lower cost

It is best ever services which are available at the cheaper worth. According to the professionals, SEO has become a lower cost advertising method. If your website has a top ranking, then you don’t have to spend money on the advertising methods. An SEO professional will promote your business on other social networking website or blogs.

Bottom line

After choosing an SEO expert, a lot of customers will visit the local shop.  With the help of SEO services, you will witness the improvements in the sale and rank. It will increase the rate of viewers on the official website. Overall, it will increase the awareness of the brand.

Republican Committee Chairman Defies Leadership History Trusts CBOs Guesswork on Medmal Reform

On Thursday, the new leaders of the House, Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, criticized the Congressional Budget Office for a preliminary analysis that repealing ObamaCare would cost $145 billion through the end of the decade, and $230 billion by 2021. Last week, Mr. Cantor even accused the CBO of outright “budget gimmickry” in its calculations last year on the supposed “savings” that would result from ObamaCare.

Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor are right to doubt CBO’s analyses of ObamaCare’s budgetary impacts. The Congressional Budget Office has a long, inglorious history of large-scale, massive errors in its scoring of budget proposals. In August 2001, economist Alan Reynolds wrote with details of CBO’s many blunders in estimating deficits and surpluses – an excerpt:

In 1993, the CBO predicted that the deficit would soar to $653 billion in 2003. This week, they said that same budget will be in surplus by $172 billion. Little of that $825 billion revision can be explained by legislation or luck. Nearly all of it reflects the magnitude of past forecasting blunders

Past forecasts often overstated deficits by huge amounts even for the current year — by $78 billion in 1992 and $102 billion in 1997. In early 1998, the CBO thought the next year’s surplus would be $2 billion, but it turned out to be $125 billion. Looking further ahead, CBO errors have been staggering. Next year’s budget, now estimated to be in surplus by $176 billion, had once been expected to show deficits of $579 billion (per the CBO’s 1993 forecast), $349 billion (1995 forecast), and $188 billion (1997 forecast).

CBO’s comedy of errors extended throughout the decade just ended. Liberals complained back in 2001 about CBO’s “risky” and “guesswork” projections as the basis for the Bush tax cuts. A more recent analysis of CBO’s budget projections and the actual results shows how inaccurate the CBO has been throught the past decade. Last August, the CBO tried to please both sides in the tax cut debate, predicting that extending tax cuts would provide a short-term boost in GDP, then flipped-flopped and predicted extension would “reduce long-term economic growth.” These guys are truly unbelievable!

So it’s inconceivable that a new House Republican committee chairman would (1) ignore the history of CBO’s enormous mistakes, (2) defy his own leadership, and (3) depend on a risky CBO analysis as the basis for abridging our 7th Amendment rights. Yet Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith is doing just that, announcing that he’ll try to stop Americans from filing lawsuits in state courts over medical malpractice. And he’s aiming for achieving a CBO estimate of $54 billion of “savings” in health care costs. How the CBO reached its estimate is another example in a long line of mistaken assumptions and miscalculations that we’ve seen from CBO over the years. I’ll discuss that estimate in another post in the near future.

Meanwhile, there’s no question that the House Judiciary Committee Chairman is using CBO’s risky guesswork, thoroughly discredited by history and disowned by the Chaiman’s own leadership, to enact federal law which would impose limits on our Constitutional right to take our malpractice claims before a local jury of peers. It would also violate any notion he might have of promoting and protecting the sanctity of state courts from federal interference.

Chairman Smith’s announcement is in open defiance of House leadership and a repudiation of their criticism of CBO’s methodology. Will Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor let their committee chairmen set policy based on CBO’s “budget gimmickry” while selectively condemning it? If so, they will look like hypocrites, lose the ObamaCare debate and also the high ground in battling the deficit.

Quote of the Day West Va Supreme Court Supports Jury Trials in Many Arbitration Cases

Congress did not intend for arbitration agreements, adopted prior to an occurrence of negligence that results in a personal injury or wrongful death, and which require questions about the negligence be submitted to arbitration, to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.

In essence, our Constitution recognizes that factual disputes should be decided by juries of lay citizens rather than paid, professional fact-finders (arbitrators) who may be more interested in their fees than the disputes at hand.

The admission agreements in this case contain arbitration clauses that eliminate a fundamental constitutional right: the right of the parties to have a jury trial in the West Virginia circuit court system on the plaintiffs’ personal injury claims against the defendant nursing homes.

The West Virginia Supreme Court wrote these statements last week when issuing rulings in three cases against the use of forced arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts to keep victims from taking their case to a jury of their peers. Each case involved (1) a claim that a nursing home negligently caused the death of a resident; (2) a contract signed by a representative for the resident with a clause mandating that any disputes arising from negligent treatment would be submitted to arbitration; and (3) a defense by the nursing home that the claim should be submitted to arbitration, not to a jury at trial.

The court courageously disagreed, citing Article III, ยง 13 of the state Constitution, which preserves the right of the people to a jury trial with language identical to that of the Seventh Amendment. The Justices also criticized the “tendentious reasoning” used by the U.S. Supreme Court in its rulings to turn the Federal Arbitration Act into a substantive law that preempts most state law.

Congratulations to the attorneys who pleaded these cases and won the victory for their clients. Hopefully this decision will start a trend in other courtrooms and spark a change in opinions in Congress about forced nursing home arbitration contracts. A bill to ban such clauses has been gathering dust for several years and needs to be resuscitated.

Quote of the Day Supreme Courts Limit on Maritime Damages Violated 7th Amendment Rights

“Pronouncing that they had ‘a free hand’ to create a rule that would otherwise be within the legislative province of Congress, the Supreme Court announced that in Maritime cases, punitive damages verdicts would be forever capped to never exceed an equal amount of compensatory damages. Justice John Paul Stevens noted in his dissenting opinion that ‘it is telling that the Court has failed to identify a single state court that has imposed a precise ratio.’ Many state legislatures had taken up this issue, and through the representatives of the people of each state, they determined appropriate ranges for such punitive awards. Notwithstanding the observations of Justice Stevens, the Exxon v. Baker Court sidestepped the process of a representative legislature for the sake of corporate protectionism.

Moreover, no consideration was given to the value of the Constitution and the Seventh Amendment specifically. The jury, in itself a microcosm of democracy, had considered all of the facts and arguments by expert lawyers representing both sides, including Exxon. Upon the facts presented, the jury set the damages award. By changing the punitive award in this case, the Supreme Court rejected the value of the jury system established in the Seventh Amendment, an amendment so important to our Founding Fathers that it was placed alongside such venerated rights as the freedom to bear arms, the freedom of association, the freedom of the press, the freedom of religion, the right to due process, and the right to protect us as citizens against unlawful search and seizures.”

Attorney Terence Perenich, writing on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Exxon Shipping v. Baker case that artificially limits punitive damages in maritime cases to a 1:1 ratio to compensatory damages.

The Senate GOP Wage Control Act

On October 31, I posted about the promise by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to veto a federal tort reform bill that is now included in the Senate GOP jobs bill. Attorney General Cuccinelli joined a long line of conservative legal experts in opposing federal tort reform as a violation of states’ rights. In addition to violating states’ rights, the Senate GOP jobs bill establishes federal wage controls on attorneys. Sec. 3206 of the bill, S. 1720, states:

“(B) LIMITATION– The total of all contingent fees for representing all claimants in a health care lawsuit shall not exceed the following limits:

(i) Forty percent of the first $50,000 recovered by the claimant(s).

(ii) Thirty-three and one-third percent of the next $50,000 recovered by the claimant(s).

(iii) Twenty-five percent of the next $500,000 recovered by the claimant(s).

(iv) Fifteen percent of any amount by which the recovery by the claimant(s) is in excess of $600,000.”

Is this really the precedent that the Senate GOP wants to set while it complains about the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare, the excessive regulation of American industry by EPA, and the high tax burden faced by our corporations? Who wants to see the headline, “Senate GOP Talks Free Markets, Votes For Communism?” Were Democrats right after all when they wanted to enact laws against excessive compensation for Wall Street executives?

By the way, why would the Senate GOP reward “Big Medicine,” which pushed ObamaCare and continues to back it against the GOP’s efforts to repeal it? Whatever you think of the trial lawyers, they didn’t work to enact the individual mandate – the AMA, AHIP, and PhRMA did. Why reward them with special federal immunity?

The Senate GOP should delete the entire tort reform section from their jobs bill before any floor vote.

The GOP Immunity Disease Violates Federalism Pledge Expands Washingtons Power

Lots of Congressional Republicans profess allegiance to federalism and the protection of states’ rights enunciated under the Tenth Amendment, as well as to protecting First and Second Amendment rights. But when industry associations look for special deals so they don’t have to be held accountable, too many Republicans catch “immunity disease,” support bills that violate states’ rights, immunize whole industries from civil litigation, crush our Seventh Amendment rights and expand the federal government’s power over our lives. These Republicans morph before your eyes from Federalists into Crony Capitalists. Two examples tell the story.

1. S. 1009, the “Chemical Safety Improvement Act”

S. 1009, the “Chemical Safety Improvement Act,” is a proposal to supposedly “modernize” and “update” the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the federal law governing the regulation of toxic substances such as formaldehyde, asbestos and lead. But this 127-page bill gives new and frightful powers to the EPA and the chemical industry to strangle the constitutional rights of average Americans. It’s actually the result of a combo of Crony Capitalism and Enviro-Wackoism, mixed in with Democrats’ sympathy for a dead colleague. It’s the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s last bill, and some Democrats signed onto it just out of respect, without actually reading it – I know this for a fact. But some pro-industry Republicans are lining up for it without concern for states’ or individual rights.

The bill gives broad new powers to the EPA Administrator to “promote innovation and sustain a globally competitive chemical industry in the United States.” Have Republicans forgotten EPA’s “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” that threatened power plants, or EPA’s attempts to shut down boilers and cement plants? Why would Republicans now think that the Obama EPA will “promote competition?”

Under Section 4, the EPA will force industry to provide business-sensitive data and information through the use of what the bill calls “voluntary agreements.” Does Uncle Sam ever make us do anything “voluntarily?!” If a company doesn’t “volunteer,” will they get raided like Gibson Guitar, or see the Obama IRS knocking at their doorstep? Haven’t we had enough snooping?

The EPA would have the sole authority to define what constitutes the “best evidence” and a “safety standard” that would then be forced upon any dissenting state, company or individual in a local agency or court case. Right now, state legislatures and courts can use studies from different sources to regulate the toxic substances covered by this bill. That will end under S. 1009; the states would be forced into accepting the EPA’s decisions. So much for the Tenth Amendment.

That led the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislators to object to the chairman and top Republican of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over the bill. “However, NCSL cannot support any reform of TSCA that preempts state regulations in this area. Section 15 of the bill entitled “Preemption” is a broad state preemption provision that adversely impacts states’ abilities to protect their citizens.”

Finally, if the EPA takes any action on any chemical under this bill, American consumers injured or killed by a toxic chemical would be effectively banned from suing the company based on state tort law. Section 15 of the bill states that no state may create a new, or continue to enforce an existing, restriction on the manufacture, processing, distribution, or use of a chemical after EPA completes a safety determination for that chemical. When the EPA completes a safety determination for a high-priority substance under Section 6, that safety determination becomes: 1) admissible in state and federal courts, and 2) “determinative of whether the substance meets the safety standard under the conditions of use addressed in the safety determination.” Not only does this provision strip away the power of state judges to determine relevant evidence in their own courtrooms, it would grant total immunity from state tort law claims for any chemical that the EPA has determined to be “safe.” Even when the EPA doesn’t act on a specific chemical, the presumption will be that the chemical is safe.

Instead of overriding state law, Congress should retain state-law based causes of action and ensure that injured parties can be compensated by negligent chemical manufacturers for their injuries. Moreover, if state tort law is preempted, chemical companies will not have the same incentives to ensure their products are safe.

Too many Republican Senators who claim to be “Constitutional conservatives” are co-sponsors of S. 1009. Even Sen. Mike Crapo, who normally acts to protect Seventh and Tenth Amendment Rights, signed up for this bill. Fortunately, it appears that the House GOP is in no mood right now to expand the power of the EPA, override states and endanger our rights in this area.

That doesn’t mean the House GOP has rid itself of the “immunity disease.”

2. H.R. 2300, the “Empowering Patients First Act of 2013”

Republican Rep. Tom Price, M.D. has proposed H.R. 2300, the “Empowering Patients First Act of 2013,” as an alternative to Obamacare. In previous Obamacare alternatives, Dr. Price has proposed unconstitutional federal limits on damages in medical malpractice lawsuits, but those are not in this bill. While it’s encouraging to see that he doesn’t propose federal caps on medical malpractice damages in the bill, there are still Seventh and Tenth Amendment issues in at least two sections in the bill.

Section 502 would authorize the HHS Secretary to award grants to States “for the development, implementation, and evaluation of administrative health care tribunals,” a new set of courts devoted solely to resolving health care disputes. And the section stipulates the qualifications of the members of the tribunals and interferes with the decisions of state judges now operating under state law. Is Dr. Price seeking to immunize medical professionals from negligence by substituting “expert opinion” for the decision of a jury of the plaintiff’s peers, the system the Founding Fathers protected? What section in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to create these courts and dictate their makeup? Why should Republicans encourage the creation of another court system in each state and then tell the states who can serve on the court? Why would we Republicans use federal law to take the authority to decide these cases out of the hands of local juries? Since when do Republicans turn disappointment over “unjust” jury verdicts into federal law overriding state law and courts? And why do health care professionals deserve their own set of courts when they’re sued? Why not teachers or first responders or some other special profession?

Section 503 states orders that certain payments in excess of $50,000 “in any health care lawsuit” should be made in accordance with the Uniform Periodic Payment of Judgments Act promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Again, which section of the Constitution authorizes Congress to so order payments in a state court case to be made that way? And why would Republicans ignore each state’s established procedure for payments and a jury’s damages determination in court decisions? And again, why do “health care lawsuits” deserve special treatment over lawsuits over other decisions?

Again, some Republicans who pride themselves on protecting states’ rights, such as Rep. Rob Bishop, have mysteriously co-sponsored this bill, perhaps thinking that a bill without federal caps honors federalism and individual rights.

These and other bills expand federal authority in ways the Founding Fathers never envisioned. And for some reason, some Republicans (not all) still don’t realize that by overriding state law and courts, they invite Democrats to do the same for their agenda – Republicans play right into Democrats’ hands. Republican arguments for preemption of state law, based on Commerce Clause rulings by the Supreme Court starting with Wickard v. Filburn, led eventually to the enactment and defense of Obamacare.

Republicans have to reject the “immunity disease” that leads to Crony Capitalism and a bigger federal government.

What Was the Only Bipartisan Medicare Bill Enacted in 2012

At the end of the last session of Congress, members of both parties finally came together to enact the Strengthening Medicare And Repaying Taxpayers Act, or “SMART Act,” and enacted it into law after a three-year effort. This bill helps to replenish the Medicare Trust Fund, make Medicare work for seniors instead of the other way around, and reduces paperwork burdens for businesses. Led by Rep. Tim Murphy, M.D., a Republican from Pennsylvania, a group of Members of Congress dedicated to resolving inefficiencies in one special part of the Medicare program pushed the bill through Congress as part of H.R. 1845, the “Medicare IVIG Access and Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012,” which also authorizes Medicare payments for intravenous immune globin (IVIG) for the treatment of immune deficiency diseases.

Here’s the issue dealt with in the SMART Act: Under federal law, Medicare pays the medical bills while a recipient is injured and sues the other party, acting as the “secondary payer” for the bills pending the outcome of any legal action. Federal law requires the injured person’s attorney to repay Medicare upon a judgment or settlement, before any funds are given to the injured senior. But the federal agency running Medicare hinders the repayment process, so it can take years to finally pay off even the smallest claim, and the senior doesn’t see a dime of the settlement until that payoff. Moreover, the feds impose ridiculous reporting burdens and penalties on businesses under the same secondary payer law. The SMART Act streamlines the process, establishes real deadlines for the federal agency, and enables businesses to meet CMS reporting requirements while maintaining data security.

The leading sponsor in the House was Rep. Murphy, a career psychologist serving his district for over ten years. I first met and worked with him while he was on the House Financial Services Committee, where I was the senior Republican oversight counsel from 2001 through 2003. Rep. Murphy has always reached out to work with Members on both sides of the aisle, while maintaining core conservative beliefs about limiting the size and scope of the federal government. He was the perfect Congressman to lead the most bipartisan Medicare bill in Congress, with 140 House co-sponsors from Reps. Ron Paul and Allen West on the right to Reps. Diana DeGette and Tammy Baldwin on the left. And the effort was supported by the U.S. Chamber and trial lawyers, and by companies as large as Lowes, WalMart, BestBuy, Marriott International, and Disney, as well as by some of the largest insurance companies in America

A year ago, Rep. Murphy discussed the bill on a nationally syndicated radio show. “Now it’s interesting: defense lawyers, plaintiffs’ lawyers,, retailers, stores, restaurants, everybody wants to fix this problem, except Medicare. And so there are hundreds of millions of dollars that sit out there that take forever for the bureaucracy to try and claim, and some of the sad news about this is that sometimes what Medicare does, they will sue some elderly person or ask for the money to come back from the elderly person, and say that if you don’t pay us back, we’re going to take it out of your Social Security… So we’re trying to correct this…”

And correct it he did. Congrats and thanks to Rep. Murphy, and thanks to other Members of Congress who championed this bill: Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI), the lead House Democrat on the bill; and Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rob Portman (R-OH), the lead Senators for the Senate version.

Use Irans Money For American Terrorism Victims

There is ONE bill in the House that take’s Iran’s funds stored in a U.S. account and reserves them to compensate Iran’s American terrorism victims.H.R. 4070 is sponsored by Rep. Bob Turner (R-NY) and supported by Members of both parties. Iranian terrorists killed 241 of our servicemen, and injured hundreds more, in the 1983 bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. For years, the 1300 survivors and families of those killed have sought justice in American courts for that attack, and were awarded a judgment in federal court of over $2.6 billion against Iran. Their attorneys then identified and attached an account of $1.8 billion in Iranian central bank funds in a bank in NYC to satisfy that judgment. Then the families of the servicemen killed in the 1996 Iranian bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia won a judgment and now stand to share in that account. But without special legislation, the order freezing the funds could be lifted, possibly enabling Iran to recover the money. This morning, the Beirut Marine families issued a press release urging House Members to co-sponsor and pass H.R. 4070. Lynn Smith Derbyshire, whose brother was killed in the barracks bombing and is now national spokesperson for the Beirut Marine families, says, “The Government of Iran will continue to do everything it can to hurt Americans. We see no reason to enable Tehran’s campaign of terror. Allowing the Iranian Government to get this frozen money back would do just that.” The bill is similar to language inserted into the Senate version of the Iran sanctions bill, now numbered S. 2101, which was approved by the Senate Banking Committee on February 2 and awaits Senate floor action.

No other bill before the House actually takes Iran’s money and reserves it for Iran’s American victims. The Beirut Marine families are urging House Members to co-sponsor H.R. 4070 and bring it to the floor quickly.

Why Support Civil Suits For Social Issues But Not Medical Malpractice

The fervor with which many of my fellow Republicans support a nationwide limit on awards in medical malpractice lawsuits masks a deep schizophrenia inside Republican circles. For even the most ardent opponents of trial lawyers and civil suits in medmal cases flip-flop to SUPPORT civil suits to protect First Amendment rights and for lawsuits related to selected social issues. And the bills don’t cap damages, override state law, or set a cap on the attorneys’ fees, unlike H.R. 5, the bill before the House this week to severely limit medmal suits.

On February 28, the House agreed, by a simple voice vote, to pass H.R. 1433, the “Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012,” which assists private property owners subject to abusive eminent domain actions by local governments. The official summary of the bill states that it “establishes a private cause of action for any private property owner or tenant who suffers injury as a result of a violation of this Act.” Moreover, the bill also prohibits state immunity againsg civil actions in federal or state court. I covered that bill here from its inception last year, and was astonished with the dedication that anti-medmal-lawsuit Republicans gave to protecting private property rights through civil suits brought by trial lawyers.

The abortion issue and the conscience protection issue arising from the enforcement of Obamacare mandates have led to numerous bills in which one or more parties with an interest are invited to file civil suits.

For instance, H.R. 3802, the “National Pro-Life Waiting Period Act of 2012,” prohibits an abortion provider from performing an abortion without waiting 24 hours after obtaining a written certification from the pregnant woman certifying the date and time of her first in-person meeting with the provider to seek the abortion. The bill enables the pregnant woman, or the parents/legal guardians of a pregnant minor, to sue the abortion provider if an abortion has been performed in violation of this Act. I know if at least three other pro-life bills introduced in this session of Congress that enable civil suits against abortion providers, including H.R. 3541, the “Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act,” which prohibits an abortion based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of the child, about which I posted on February 9.

And virtually all of the conscience protection bills introduced in reaction to the Obamacare mandates enable a private right of action. The bill drawing the most attention, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt and titled the “Respect the Rights of Conscious” amendment to the Senate highway bill, established a private right of action (by any “persons or entities protected”) to assert a violation of this section as a claim in a civil suit. The “persons protected” could have been anyone from a provider of a health care insurance plan to a beneficiary. That amendment was not approved by the Senate.

I have no personal objection to Congress creating private rights of action for any of these causes. The Founding Fathers believed in open courtrooms for all Americans to defend their God-given rights. But it’s hypocritical to do so in these instances, and then turn right around to deny access to the courtroom for someone injured through medical malpractice.

Why should doctors and hospitals be granted special protection in federal law when states and municipalities are told they might have to pay damages for violating our civil rights?

Tea Party Leader Jenny Beth Martin Opposes Boehners Plan to Protect Doctors

Jenny Beth Martin, President and Co-Founder of the powerful Tea Party Patriots group, is planning a massive anti-Obamacare rally on September 10 in Washington. She’s trying to persuade House Republicans to defund Obamacare in any way possible, including in a debt ceiling bill or continuing resolution to fund the government. Speaker Boehner and House Republican leaders have another idea for health care “reform,” and it would actually protect the doctors and other medical professionals whose lobbyists in DC fought for Obamacare and profit from it.

Speaker Boehner is still hellbent on enacting federal law to protect pro-Obamacare doctors, hospitals, drug and medical device companies and nursing homes from their negligence. Before the August recess, he told House Republicans that he wanted to spend time this fall on “GOP proposals to help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine by enacting medical liability reform.” That sounds like the caps on lawsuit damages that Boehner supported in a bill he pushed in 2011, when he combined it with an anti-Obamacare bill to ensure approval by the Republican conference.

But Jenny Beth Martin opposed Boehner’s bill two years ago to protect pro-Obamacare doctors, because she knew that the bill was an unconstitutional infringement of states’ rights.

In a blast email that she sent to followers and to Congress, Martin wrote the following:

The malpractice reform will affect not only federal law but also state law. It would take the authority to create tort law (i.e. medical malpractice) from the state and hand it over the federal government. This is an outright violation of the 10th Amendment…

The malpractice reform contains two components that are troubling. The first is that it is federal malpractice reform, even though tort law is supposed to be made at the state level. Second, not only will it affect federal law but, it goes a step further and overrides existing state law! This brings to light a new unconstitutional overreach by the federal government, violating our core value of constitutionally limited government.

Jenny Beth Martin stands with top libertarian and conservative legal experts such as Randy Barnett, Rob Natelson, John Baker, Ilya Somin and Carrie Severino, and with real Constitutional conservatives such as Reps. Ted Poe and Louis Gohmert and Sen. Mike Lee. She defends states’ and individual rights against federal encroachment and Crony Capitalism.

I have no doubt that if Speaker Boehner demands that House Republicans vote again to crush state sovereignty in medical malpractice issues, Jenny Beth Martin will again oppose it.

What Ronald Reagan REALLY Said About Tort Reform

I posted the following eleven months ago to prove that Ronald Reagan never believed that the federal government should run state civil justice systems through federal tort reform or caps on damages awarded in state courts. With President Obama poised to deliver another State of the Union and the Republican Presidential race raging at full tilt, I thought it would be instructive to repost what I wrote in February 2011.
During the recent 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, we read many tributes to him and re-read many of his greatest speeches. I worked for the 1980 Reagan campaign during law school, was a political appointee in the Commerce Department during the Reagan Administration, and my wife worked for the President in the West Wing, so I joined in all the attention paid to my favorite President.

I thought it was time to go back and research President Reagan’s personal stance on federal tort reform. I knew a number of senior officials in the Reagan Administration who were for some federal interference with the right to a jury trial for civil suits and states’ rights, notably then-Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige, for whom it became a personal crusade. But when reviewing President Reagan’s major speeches, from before the 1980 election to the end of his Presidency in 1989, I found the following:

1. Ronald Reagan never proposed any tort reform measure during any of his eight State of the Union speeches, and never criticized trial lawyers in them either. I’ve searched every word of his SOTUs. It’s a strange fact that President Obama proposed more tort reform in this year’s SOTU than Ronald Reagan did in eight SOTUs (I wonder if Republicans are comfortable with that).

2. Reagan didn’t criticize trial lawyers or propose tort reform in his major address to Congress on April 28, 1981, in which he proposed his economic plan. This was his first speech since the assassination attempt on his life, and it set up the entire Reagan Revolution.

3. Reagan didn’t criticize trial lawyers or propose tort reform in either of his Inaugural Addresses in 1981 and 1985. Neither did he in either of his speeches accepting the Republican nomination for President in 1980 and 1984.

4. I can find no mention of this topic in any of his major speeches prior to his election: not in his famous “Time For Choosing” speech in 1964; not in his speech to the first CPAC conference in 1974; not in a speech at Hillsdale College in 1977 titled, “Whatever Happened to Free Enterprise” – none of them. It’s obvious that Ronald Reagan wasn’t interested in limiting civil suits.

In 1986, President Reagan gave a speech at the Chamber of Commerce, in which he backed the findings of a “Tort Reform Working Group” (TRWG) inside the Administration. To backtrack: The Reagan White House created a number of “Working Groups” to address a variety of topics. For instance, I worked on a “Consulting Services Working Group” that changed the procurement of outside consultants and saved the Commerce Department several million dollars. The TRWG proposed a group of sweeping tort reform proposals, many of which are also included in H.R. 5, the bill reported last week by the House Judiciary Committee to impose federal limits on health care lawsuits.

Here’s what Reagan said about the TRWG proposals in his 1986 speech, and note the emphasis on protecting states’ rights:

Earlier this year I endorsed the report of my Domestic Policy Council’s Tort Policy Working Group. This report contains a number of recommendations, recommendations that include fixed-dollar limitations for certain kinds of awards and the establishment of assurances that liability judgments go to those actually wronged or injured and not to the lining of their attorney’s pockets. Now, one of the report’s most important recommendations urged our administration to submit reform legislation to the Congress.

This legislation, carefully drafted, has now been introduced in the Congress by Senator Robert Kasten and Congressman Hamilton Fish. It restores the fault standard, which requires that actual fault or wrongdoing must be established in most cases before liability can be assessed. It limits pain-and-suffering and punitive damage awards, awards the amount contingency-fee lawyers could earn, and restricts the joint and several liability doctrine that can force a single defendant to pay all damages even if he is only partly to blame.To be sure, much tort law would remain to be reformed by the 50 States, not the Federal Government. And in our Federal system of government this is only right. Many of the Tort Policy Working Group recommendations, for example, would have to be implemented at the State level to be fully effective. This administration’s bill represents a much-needed overhaul of Federal laws governing interstate commerce — one of the fields of authority the Federal Government is specifically granted by the Constitution — and sets an example of common sense for the rest of the Nation to follow.

To my knowledge, and with the limitations that come with Internet research, this is the only speech in Ronald Reagan’s long political career that comes close to proposing specific federal tort reform measures. And he recognized that states are the proper venue for the debate over tort reform, under “our Federal system of government,” not the federal government. And he said it ONCE. He didn’t follow up that speech with any other, not at the 1987 CPAC conference, not at the 1988 Republican convention, nowhere. You can do your own research and try to prove me wrong (I suggest you start at this website and at this website, where I found links to every speech cited in this post).

Anyone asserting that “Ronald Reagan was for tort reform” is mistating the Reagan record. It wasn’t a priority for him, he didn’t see civil litigation as a major problem, and it appears that he gave only one speech on it. That’s certainly no basis for sweeping away states’ rights in a new federal tort reform law.

Ramesh Ponnuru Judson Phillips Oppose Federal Medmal Limits in GOP Bill

Two more movement conservatives have examined the new healthcare bill proposed by some House Republicans and oppose the section mandating federal limits on medical liability.

Ramesh Ponnuru, respected conservative author and columnist at National Review, wrote about the bill on Bloomberg. While he approves of many of the proposals in the bill as a replacement for Obamacare, he opposes the federal medical malpractice limits in the bill.

And medical malpractice reform, as popular as it is among Republicans, shouldn’t be done at the federal level. Medical torts have traditionally been regulated by states, and states have the incentive to set their policies on it the right way — because their residents will pay the price if they don’t.”

This isn’t the first time Ponnuru has opposed federal medmal caps; he’s a consistent federalist. After Pres. Obama mentioned the idea in the 2011 State of the Union speech, Ponnuru dismissed it in two sentences: “Great: President Obama is open to one of the Republicans’ crummiest ideas. There’s no need for a federal takeover of medical-malpractice rules.” (Emphasis added.)

Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, continued his consistent defense of Constitutional rights in a post about the bill. His comments:

With great fanfare, the Republican Study Committee unveiled a new plan yesterday to repeal Obamacare with “The American Health Care Reform Act.”  One of the sections of the bill is designed to kill the bill.

That section is Title V of the bill, which is called “Reforming Medical Liability Law.”  Translating that into plain English, it is tort reform

Under this section, the Federal Government will take control of state court systems and tell states what limits are imposed on medical malpractice lawsuits.

This law is bad on a number of fronts.  First, it shreds the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that the powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved to the states.  Tort law has always been reserved to the states.  This is just another federal power grab, this time authored by Republicans

The bill repeats the old claim that lawsuits are driving up the cost of medical care.  Texas has thoroughly disproved that theory.  Texas imposed draconian medical malpractice reform and what happened?  Medical costs have not dropped but if a doctor commits malpractice on you, good luck getting a lawyer to sue.  It is now almost impossible to get a lawyer to take a medical malpractice case in Texas.”

He discussed the issue on the Mark McCaig Show, broadcast on Houston radio station KNTH AM1070 – here is the link to the podcast.

BILLIONS in Medicare Fraud Thanks to Medical Professionals NOT Trial Lawyers

The Justice Department announced today that “Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in eight cities has resulted in charges against 91 defendants, including doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals, for their alleged participation in Medicare fraud schemes involving approximately $295 million in false billing.” The alleged charges are reqally disgusting: a Detroit doctor allegedly billed Medicare for treating dead patients and for treatments lasting more than 24 hours in a day; a supervisor at a Miami community health center allegedly threatened residents of a boarding house that he managed with eviction unless they attended the center so he could overbill Medicare; and so on. As the press release from DOJ states, the defendants treated Medicare as “a personal piggy bank.” And the DOJ press office informed me that NONE of the 91 charged in this new effort was an attorney.

This is just the latest in a long string of indictments and arrests by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which has charged over 1,100 defendants for allegedly billing Medicare more than $2.9 billion in false claims in just two years. And the overwhelming number of defendants in the cases are medical professionals – doctors, nurses, medical device company officers, and so on. And the perpetrators of the BILLIONS in Medicare fraud are not trial lawyers, the men and women who ensure that Americans can exercise their rights guaranteed under the 7th Amendment to the Constitution.

When the new “SuperCommittee” charged with meeting the provisions of the debt limit agreement start looking for big health care dollars to save, they should focus on Medicare fraud foisted on the taxpayers by medical pros. That’s the REAL waste in the health care system.

Designated Terrorist Financier Trying to Keep Victims Out of US Courts

In my post of September 15 titled Seven Reasons Why Protecting 7th Amendment Should Be Republican & Tea Party Priority, I noted that, “the 7th Amendment has been an important tool for the pursuit of terrorist financing, and civil lawsuits have resulted in some important judgments. The family of David Boim, an American killed by Hamas terrorists in Israel, successfully won a $156 million judgment against the Dallas-based Holy Land Foundation for its role as the biggest Hamas fundraiser in the U.S… A former official of the NSC under Presidents Clinton and Bush testifed to Congress that, ‘civil litigation can substantially enhance the financial consequences that such entities face’ (referring specifically to terrorist financiers).” The actual and alleged financiers know this, which is why they’re pulling out all the stops to keep the victims of their attacks from pursuing justice in U.S. courts.

An incorporated charity identified by the U.S. as a terrorist financier is now opposing a civil suit filed in federal court by trying to assert that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction over it, simply by reason that it is a corporation and not an individual. If the attempt is successful, it will gut an important component of civil anti-terrorism penalties. Individuals who wish to raise funds in the U.S. to fund terrorist attacks overseas might only have to incorporate in order to avoid civil suits in U.S. courts by the terrorists’ non-American victims.

First, some background. In October 2009, Sri Lankan family members of those killed and injured in bombings committed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, a.k.a. “Tamil Tigers”), filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that founders of a group called the “Tamil Rehabilitation Organization” provided millions of dollars in funds used for LTTE terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka. The complaint was filed under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 (“ATS”), which grants non-U.S. citizens access to the U.S. courts to seek justice for violations of “the law of nations,” regardless of where the violations occur.

The Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (TRO) was designated by the Treasury Department on November 15, 2007, for serving as the funding and procurement network in the U.S. for the LTTE, which has been on the official list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations since 1997. In the 2007 designation, the Treasury Department noted, “In the United States, TRO has raised funds on behalf of the LTTE through a network of individual representatives. According to sources within the organization, TRO is the preferred conduit of funds from the United States to the LTTE in Sri Lanka. TRO also has facilitated LTTE procurement operations in the United States. Those operations included the purchase of munitions, equipment, communication devices, and other technology for the LTTE.

And the Tamil Tigers were a terribly deadly terrorist group at that time, as also noted in the 2007 TRO designation. “The LTTE is a terrorist group that has waged a violent secessionist campaign for over two decades to secure a separate state for Tamil-majority regions in Sri Lanka’s North and East. The conflict between the LTTE and Sri Lankan military forces has claimed over 60,000 lives and displaced hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankan citizens.”

Here’s the issue raised last month by TRO that threatens civil suits by non-Americans against terrorist financiers. On November 23, TRO’s attorneys filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit. In a Memorandum filed with the notice, TRO’s attorneys asserted that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in Kiobel, et al., v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et al., that “the ATS does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over corporate defendants, because such liability is not a ‘specific, universal, and obligatory norm of international law.'” TRO’s attorneys thus claim that the 2nd Circuit decision immunizes TRO from any liability for funding the Tamil Tigers’ terrorist attacks, solely because it is a corporation.

Think about this outcome of the Kiobel decision and a potential dismissal of the lawsuit against TRO: Hamas could consider resuming fundraising in the U.S., through an incorporated “charity,” for attacks against Israelis overseas, knowing that the Israeli victims could not pursue justice in the U.S. and penalize Hamas’ fundraisers here. And it would be accomplished solely through judicial decision and without any input by Congress.

Not all federal courts agree with the 2d Circuit decision in Kiobel that immunized corporations from liability under the ATS. The 11th Circuit and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals held in other cases that ATS claims may be brought against corporations, thus setting up a possible Supreme Court case over the conflicting appellate decisions. But the Supreme Court has already refused to enable American 9-11 victims to hold Saudi financiers liable for funding Al Qaeda, so it could foreeably close the courthouse door to foreign terrorism victims, even in cases in which the funding was raised in the U.S.

Congress need not wait for the Supreme Court to possibly immunize terrorists from raising funds in the U.S. by using incorporated charities. Congress could and should act to enable those foreign victims to hold the terrorist financiers liable for their fundraising in the U.S.

Drugmakers Obamacare Federal Tort Reform updated June 7

House Republicans on the Energy & Commerce Committee have uncovered evidence of closed-door negotiations between major drugmakers and the Obama Administration in connection with the enactment of Obamacare, under which the former promised to back it with $80 billion in revenues in exchange for the Administration’s promise to protect the industry in various ways, e.g., oppose the importation of drugs from abroad. It was Crony Capitalism at its worst, and the House E&C Republicans are right to expose and condemn it. I assume other health care-related companies touched by Obamacare made the same kind of deal and look forward to seeing the evidence.

BUT… some of the same Republicans condemning Obamacare Crony Capitalism want to protect the same industry, and all health care-related companies, in federal law by severely limiting awards in medical malpractice and all health care-related lawsuits. This is Tort Reform Crony Capitalism, and it’s as bad in principle as Obamacare Crony Capitalism. And they’re equally unconstitutional, according to House Republicans’ favorite legal experts and many House Republicans.

So House Republican leadership would reward the very same health care associations and companies that gave us Obamacare!WHY?! This is what I can’t comprehend about the charge to include a federal medmal bill in Republican “Repeal & Replace” plans. I don’t find that chapter in my “Practical Politics 101” textbook!

UPDATE, June 7: I discussed these issues today on the ‘What’s Up’ radio program, broadcast daily on 12 radio stations and on channel 131 of Sirius satellite radio. Download and listen to Segment 1 here and to Segment 2 here.

Do Republicans Want Wage Controls Enforced By Federal Judges

Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee will debate and vote on H.R. 5, the “HEALTH” Act, which would institute federal controls for the first time on lawsuits filed for health care injuries and deaths. In this post I want to focus on one aspect of the bill: a federally imposed limit on certain wages earned by lawyers. to be enforced by federal judges. To my knowledge, nothing like this has ever been imposed by Congress on the legal profession. It’s also an indirect way of silencing the 7th Amendment right to a civil jury trial through a defunding mechanism.

Section 5 of the bill imposes the following limits – this would be FEDERAL LAW – on the contingent fees that a lawyer can charge his client for services in connection with a health care lawsuit:

(1) 40% of the first $50,000 recovered in the lawsuit;
(2) 1/3 of the next $50,000 recovered;
(3) 25% of the next $500,000 recovered; and
(4) 15% of the amount of the recovery in excess of $600,000.

And the bill authorizes federal judges to reduce the contingent fees by fiat: “In any health care law suit, the court shall supervise the arrangements for payment of damages to protect against conflicts of interest that may have the effect of reducing the amount of damages awarded that are actually paid to claimants… (T)he court shall have the power to restrict the payment of a claimant’s damage recovery to such attorney, and to redirect such damages to the claimant based upon the interests of justice and principles of equity.”

So the bill imposes federal wage controls on just one industry, lawyers who charge contingent fees, regardless of the amounts normally charged by an attorney in the normal course of his business. And the bill – a bill pushed by REPUBLICANS – lets federal judges cut the contingent fees to be paid for any reason, with no real limit on a judge’s authority.

This bill establishes federal wage controls on the legal profession, pure and simple. It’s an extraordinary abuse of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution (from the same people who rightfully complain about ObamaCare’s abuse of the same clause). It provides sweeping new powers to the federal judiciary. NONE of these impacts are “conservative” or “Republican.” If those provisions in Section 5 are enacted, it will open the door to other federal wage controls on all legal services, and then on all services for which a commission is paid, such as by real estate agents. WHY would Republicans in Congress even consider federal wage controls on lawyers, after resisting them so strenuously on corporate executives during debate of the Dodd-Frank bill? WHY would Republicans in Congress want to give federal judges MORE power?

By the way, the bill will force federal judges to define and interpret the meaning of the phrase “health care lawsuit” and other new terms in the bill. What’s “Republican” or “conservative” about that?

Two weeks ago, I discussed eight reasons why Tea Partiers and conservatives should reject this bill. Here is a ninth: Interference by the federal government with the wages to be paid under contractual arrangement to attorneys who represent victims.

P.S. I campaigned and worked for Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan would never have proposed wage controls on any sector of the American economy, and he would have vetoed this bill.

Clinton Bush Counter-Terrorism Officials Agree on Need to Enable Civil Suits Against Terrorism Financiers

I wrote yesterday on the recent court cases which leave non-state foreign terrorist financiers virtually immune from civil suit, and the proposed “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” which would empower American terrorism victims to exercise their 7th Amendment rights in federal courts aginst such financiers. During today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the issue and the Act, former senior officials of the Clinton and Bush National Security Council agreed that the court rulings were wrong; they urged the Congress to enact the Act to not only obtain compensation for deaths and injuries, but also to deter future attacks as a matter of counter-terrorism policy. On that last point, they differ sharply from some commentators who inexplicably see no benefit to easing the filing of civil suits against terrorists, an issue I discussed on June 28 in my post on recent changes in federal pleading standards.

Richard Klingler was Associate Counsel, and then Senior Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007, and was also General Counsel and Legal Adviser on the National Security Council staff in 2006 and 2007. Now a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, he was one of the principal lawyers representing victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks in their suit, also discussed yesterday, against certain Saudi-based entitites and Saudi individuals. You can download his testimony from the Committee’s website, and here is an excerpt of his comments on the Act:

The Act is an important counter-terrorism initiative and focuses on redressing injuries incurred within our borders, where our nation’s sovereign interests are greatest. The Act is required in large part due to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ unfortunate and clearly erroneous construction of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) and application of the Due Process Clause, as well as by the Administration’s narrow construction of a FSIA exception to sovereign immunity for suits addressing tortious acts, including acts of terrorism. The Act would ensure that victims of terrorism will secure redress for acts of terrorism committed on U.S. soil, even if initiated abroad, and would increase the prospect of holding those responsible to account for their actions. This applies not only to victims of past acts of terror, but also to those who are, unfortunately, very likely to join their ranks, and it applies to those who would foster and support terrorist organizations as well as to those who more directly commit acts of terror.

The Act would also increase the nation’s ability to deter and prevent further attacks of terrorism.Although civil litigation plays only a small part in countering terrorism, relative to the efforts of our armed forces and intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement officials, its role is not negligible. The Act would increase the scope of civil litigation directed against those who materially support terrorism, which may prove especially effective when directed against the financiers of terror and by providing incentives to foreign states to ensure that those closely affiliated with them neither seek to harm expatriate communities within the United States nor further the efforts of terrorist organizations. And, the Act would increase the likelihood that federal courts will extend their powers broadly to entertain suits against those who would support terrorist actions directed against the United States and its interests.

Lee Wolosky served on the National Security Council during the Clinton and Bush Administrations. A partner at Boies, Schiller, & Flexner LLP, he is now assisting efforts to seek compensation from the Arab Bank for its involvement in funding Hamas terrorists. An excerpt of his comments:

Along with the threat of governmental fines and sanctions, the prospect of substantial civil damages can deter deep-pocketed corporations or individuals from doing business with terrorist organizationsCorporations, self-avowed charitable organizations, and other large entities will continue to provide material support for terrorist organizations until it is financially unpalatable for them to do so. Although government sanctions are clearly an integral part of the effort to stem the flow of funds to terrorist groups, civil litigation can substantially enhance the financial consequences that such entities face. This proposed bill will make it easier for litigants to sue those who provide support to terrorists who kill or injure Americans. It will thereby deter future such support.

DOJ Files Charges Against Tsarnaev Congress Needs to Determine What Feds Knew or Missed

The Justice Department has charged Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with using a weapon of mass destruction against persons and property at the Boston Marathon. Read the affidavit HERE.

Having assisted American victims of terrorism for eight years in their quest to take terrorists’ money, I’m pretty sure that what the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings most of all is The Answers and The Truth. To a person, terrorism victims have told me that they care more about finding the whole truth about the attacks that killed or injured their loved ones than obtaining compensation for the attacks. The Boston bombing victims deserve no less. They want to know what the feds at the CIA, FBI, DOJ and State Department knew about the Tsarnaev brothers and what they missed. They want to know to whom they might have confided in any mosque in Boston; why the FBI didn’t follow up on the 2011 review of Tamerlan Tsarnaev; why they didn’t recognize him immediately when pictures and videos of the bombing became available; and what the feds knew or missed about his trip to Russia last year, including who paid for it. They want to know if he was part of a larger group, with potential “sleeper” cells waiting to pounce elsewhere in the U.S.

Too many of us were dissatisfied into the “investigation” into the Benghazi attacks, especially the victims’ families. The Obama Administration’s lack of disclosure of the events surrounding the deaths of our diplomats and their security personnel stands in stark contrast to the 9-11 Commission’s thorough and mostly open investigation of the events leading up to the attacks on September 11, 2001. It wasn’t perfect, but it that is the standard we should set in the review of the Boston Marathon bombings. Nothing less will renew our sense of trust in the federal anti-terrorism effort, shaken after the Marathon bombings.

We can’t have a Benghazi on American soil. Congress should subpoena every possible document, interview every official involved, and hold as many hearings as possible to forge a single, complete narrative of the brothers’ radicalization, their training in explosives, and their plans to bomb the Marathon and possibly other targets.

Let the subpoenas fly and the hearings begin.

Earthquake GOPs Favorite Constitutional Scholar Opposes Federal Tort Reform Bills

Prof. Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center is arguably the GOP’s favorite Constitutional scholar. He co-authored an amicus brief for the National Federation of Independent Business in the 11th Circuit review of the State of Florida’s anti-ObamaCare case; he has written often about and testified to the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare before the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee; and he’s among the leading experts on the original intent of the Founding Fathers’ writings, including the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Just last week, he appeared with Congressional Republicans to announce the introduction of the Repeal Amendment, which would allow states to repeal federal laws under certain conditions.

So it’s stunning that Prof. Barnett has written two pieces today on the unconstitutionality of any federally enacted tort reform, beginning with H.R. 5, the Republican-sponsored “HEALTH Act,” which would severely limit all health care-related lawsuits. In an op-ed appearing in the Sunday edition of the Washington Examiner, Prof. Barnett wrote:

Congress is now considering the “Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011.” This bill alters state medical malpractice rules by, for example, placing caps on noneconomic damages. But tort law — the body of rules by which persons seek damages for injuries to their person and property — has always been regulated by states, not the federal government. Tort law is at the heart of what is called the “police power” of states… Indeed, if Congress now can regulate tort law, which has always been at the core of state powers, then Congress, and not the states, has a general police power. This issue concerns constitutional principle, not policy: the fundamental principle that Congress has only limited and enumerated powers, and that Congress should stay within these limits. Constitutional law professors have long cynically ridiculed a “fair-weather federalism” that is abandoned whenever it is inconvenient to someone’s policy preferences. If House Republicans ignore their Pledge to America to assess the Constitution themselves, and invade the powers “reserved to the states” as affirmed by the Tenth Amendment, they will prove my colleagues right.

And in a piece on his blog hosted on the pages of the “Volokh Conspiracy,” he added to his objections as follows:

When I first heard that the House was planning on pursuing tort reform, I was skeptical that there was a constitutional basis for this effort at the federal level, but thought maybe there is some legitimate federal power that, if cleverly deployed, could influence tort law at the state level. So I was disappointed when I read the law firm report on which the sponsors of the bill relied for ‘constitutional authority.’ The report justified the bill under the ‘substantial effects doctrine.’ Not only does this post-New Deal doctrine extend Congress’s power well beyond the regulation of interstate commerce, it does so, not by independently determining whether the activity being regulated actually has a substantial affect on interstate commerce, but instead on whether Congress had a ‘rational basis’ for believing that it did. Thus does the Court defer to Congress, while the House Republicans — just like Congressional Democrats — defer to the Court’s assessment of constitutionality. This ‘double deference’ is one of the secret (to the general public) tricks by which the branches of the federal government can claim to be adhering to the Constitution while actually ignoring it. It is one of the ways important passages of the Constitution’s text became ‘lost.’

But the ‘findings’ of the bill are even worse:


“Congress finds that the health care and insurance industries are industries affecting interstate commerce and the health care liability litigation systems existing throughout the United States are activities that affect interstate commerce by contributing to the high costs of health care and premiums for health care liability insurance purchased by health care system providers.”

These ‘findings’ are based on the effects on interstate commerce, not only of the ‘health care and insurance industries,’ but also of ‘health care liability litigation systems throughout the United States’ — that is, on the affects on interstate commerce of state courts themselves! So Congress has the power to regulate tort law because state courts affect interstate commerce. By this principle, Congress has a general police power over any matter not adjudicated by state common law courts.

Prof. Barnett’s logic is irrefutable, if you believe in restoring the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If, instead, you adhere to the position that the post-Wickard line of Supreme Court decisions justifies H.R. 5, then… get ready for ObamaCare.

This is an intellectual earthquake. Prof. Barnett’s two pieces and the posts and letter by Constitutional conservative Rob Natelson of the Independence Institute trump the theories behind the business community’s long war to pre-empt all state laws and courts and deprive us of our Constitutional rights. Now the battle in Congress is fully joined. It’s the Founding Fathers vs. the U.S. Chamber. It’s the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to limit Uncle Sam’s power vs. new judge-made doctrines expanding Uncle Sam’s power. It’s the moral authority of principle and conscience vs. the naked power of business-side PAC dollars and scores of lobbyists. If GOP Congressmen and Senators vote their conscience, it’ll be no contest. Call your Congressman and tell him to save the Constitution and Bill of Rights by opposing H.R. 5.

Academic Bias Turns Rob Natelson Into Conservative Hero

Rob Natelson retired from the University of Montana Law School last year and joined the Independence Institute in Colorado, thus relieving himself from a years of persecution and discrimination for being a vocal and active conservative. In 2004, after the law school had failed to recognize his prolific scholarship, denied him the opportunity for a sabbatical, and then refused to assign him to teach constitutional law, he filed a discrimination complaint, and the UM President ruled in his favor. The dean of the law school at the time admitted that their poor treatment had nothing to do with Natelson’s work or professional conduct with his students. This week, the law school paid him back for that victory (and probably his anti-ObamaCare stance) and dissed him one last time, denying him an emeritus status that seems de rigeur for other retiring professors there. Natelson described his lonely road at UM in a comment on Volokh Conspiracy, the legal blog: “For the first five years I was on the faculty, I was not politically active and my views were largely unknown-and I was treated rather well by both faculty and students. After I became involved in politics (strictly on my own time, of course), things became quite different. (As a Reagan conservative, I was essentially a minority of one among faculty.) And the more visible politically I was at any given time, the more negative the response.”

But, like many instances of academic bias against a real conservative, the only thing that UM has really done has been to turn Rob Natelson into a conservative hero. His case has been discussed on Real Clear Politics and a number of conservative websites, in addition to being noted on legal blogs like Volokh and the ABA Journal. But I didn’t need them to tell me about Rob Natelson’s principles or resolve. I’ve come to know and appreciate Rob Natelson as a respected scholar and Constitutional conservative, as well as a nice guy, through a series of e-mails with him as he tried to persuade Congress to reject an unconstitutional federal medical malpractice law. His letter to the chairmen of two House committees and blog posts warning Congress of the ramifications of that law planted sufficient doubt in the minds of Republican lawmakers that tort reformers tried to counter him with an analysis of their own, and it fell flat. Many scholars would’ve shied away from criticizing powerful lawmakers over one of their favorite bills. But fortunately Rob Natelson isn’t like most scholars.

BP Breaks Its Promises Feinberg Doesnt Stop Them Congress Heads For Vacation

On July 19th, independent journalist Dahr Jamail reported that Gulf Coast fishermen had been told that BP and the $20 billion Feinberg-managed fund would subtract money they earn while working on the cleanup effort from any future damages claims, breaking an express promise by BP made to fishermens’ attorneys. He quoted from a letter sent on May 3 to an Interim Liaison Counsel for the BP cases in which A.T. Chenault, a lawyer representing BP, promised, “Lastly, we confirm that BP will not offset payments to vessel owners or other volunteers against claims they might have.” I can report that as of this afternoon, those fishermen are still being told that their cleanup earnings will offset their claims filed against BP for lost business earnings. Obviously, Ken Feinberg’s firm, which is being paid by BP as he establishes the fund, has done nothing to force BP to keep the promise less than two weeks after the disaster by its attorney to families of the victims. And it’s important to remember that BP still hasn’t signed any legally binding agreement to pay anything to anybody for any damages.

Meanwhile, the U.S. House is now on its August recess, and the Senate will join it later this week, after it votes to confirm Elena Kagan as the next Supreme Court Justice. The latest Senate bill introduced to deal with maritime liability limits is really weak compared to the House-passed SPILL Act; it not only doesn’t give the workers in commercial fishing industry, the most dangerous most dangerous in America, their 7th Amendment right to ask a jury to hold a fishing company accountable for negligence, but it fails to even do the minimum needed for the families of the 11 men who died onboard the Deepwater Horizon in the rig explosion. Incredibly, the bill language leaves open the potential that the families will receive no compensation, because it doesn’t repeal the Limitation on Liability Act, not even for personal injuries and wrongful deaths. Senators supporting the commercial fishing and shipping industries have successfully cut the SPILL Act in half. But it won’t really matter what that language says, because the half-loaf maritime liability bill is buried inside an energy bill that, on its own, has virtually no chance of enactment.

So Congress will be on vacation while (1) Feinberg lets BP lie to the fishermen who clean up its mess and cut their damage claims; (2) BP gets away with the “Exxon Valdez” modus operandi of ducking a legal commitment to paying all the damages; and (3) the families of the victims, including widows and orphans, still lack a clear roadmap to either recovering for the full amount needed to continue to live or to even exercising their Constitutional rights to pursue BP and its partners in court. BP will have no incentive, let alone legislated requirement, to do anything but stretch out its recovery responsibilities over a 20-year period, as Exxon did.

The Founding Fathers would not be impressed.

Contact – The 7th Amendment Advocate


About this capture

Organization: Internet Archive

The Internet Archive discovers and captures web pages through many different web crawls.

At any given time several distinct crawls are running, some for months, and some every day or longer.

View the web archive through the Wayback Machine.

Collection: Wide Crawl Number 13
Web Wide Crawl Number 13
For additional information or to provide tips, feedback or other information, please email us at [email protected]
On Constitution Day, Don’t Let Tort Reform and Forced Arbitration Threaten Your Rights
on The 7th Amendment Advocate Blog
Bipartisan Demands That GM Drop Civil Immunity Claim in Bankruptcy Court
on The 7th Amendment Advocate Blog
Happy 799th Anniversary, Magna Carta & Civil Jury Trials!
on The 7th Amendment Advocate Blog
Any “Conservative Governing Vision” Should Promote This “Sacred” Right
on The 7th Amendment Advocate Blog
Look Who’s Forging Right-Left Coalition to Stop Crony Capitalism
on The 7th Amendment Advocate Blog
(Updated) Pro-Seventh Amendment Conference on March 21 at Regent U. Law School
on The 7th Amendment Advocate Blog

Not Having Beer For Sale Everywhere

Between legal gay marriage and decriminalized marijuana, you’d think this Commonwealth of ours is as morally corrupt and Commie-loving as our many detractors would have you believe. I look forward to the day that San Francisco falls into the ocean due to a catastrophic earthquake and Boston values will finally become the war cry of the conservative talk show set.

What separates the myth of Boston as a super-liberal Valhalla and its reality is that we can’t buy beer at just any store in the state. What is that? Things would be a whole lot easier for this kid here if I could pull over at the Shell on the way home and grab some beers. But no, not in this nanny state. Instead I have to walk — walk for fucks sake! — up to the subway station and then do that weird hand switch with the beers every three minutes on the ride home because I’m too atrophied to be able to carry a 30 pack of Stroh’s ten blocks. Is there any logical reason for this? You’d think that the Puritans, who died out approximately 400 years ago, wouldn’t still have an iron grip on our liberties, but apparently you’d be mistaken.

So to protest I’m going to walk up the street with just under an ounce of weed and gay marry a buddy of mine so I can get free health benefits through his work. Hopefully, we’ll be able to lug two 30 packs back to my place for the reception. Woah, wait. I can get affordable health care through the state? Alright, cancel that marriage license. Still though, this religious beer rules shit is ridiculous.

AllBlogToolsFacebook comments for blogger brought to you by AllBlogTools.com , Get Yours?