Subject: ALERT!!!! URGENT!!!! Citizens right to sue (Raunio).
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 171853 -0500
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru , gephardt@mail.house.gov,
--------------------------------------------------
--------------DB7FD41F83B8405446162F40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi everybody:
I don't think it is possible to conceive of a more important issue upon which to decide
how you will vote in the coming Senate and House races ... than the following......!!!!
If your Senatorial or House of Representatives candidate is promoting the following
legislation ... get him/her OUT of office...............!!!!!.........
This legislation is pure BIG $$$$$$$$ "special interests" against the rest of us......
Yes, it is class war, alright -- against "the people"............guru......
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ALERT!!!!!!!!!! URGENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:53:58 -0500
From: Darlene Raunio
To: guru@emfguru.com
> We cannot allow this to happen for the sake of the citizens of Wisconsin and the United
> States. There are TWO versions of this Senate bill ... IS.353 and RS.353 deceptively
> called "Class Action 'Fairness' Act of 1999"
>
> There is also COMPANION Legislation (passed 9/23/99 by narrow 222-207 vote) called
> "Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999". This Bill (H.R.1875) has 4
> versions.
> Darlene
>
>
> Public Citizen's Alert:
> http://www.citizen.org/congress/field/classalert.htm
> Grassroots Action Alert--Fax Your Senator!
> Congress Begins Consideration of Anti-Consumer Class Action Legislation; the House and
> the Senate Judiciary Committee Pass Measure, Full Senate Up Next
> Fax your Senator to oppose this legislation!!
>
> Legislation just approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee would make it difficult,
> and in some cases impossible, for injured consumers to hold negligent corporations
> accountable through class action lawsuits. The bill, S. 353, deceptively titled the
> Class Action "Fairness" Act of 1999, was introduced last year by Senators Charles
> Grassley (R-IA) and Herbert Kohl (D-WI) of the Judiciary Committee.
> Injured consumers often use class actions to gain access to the courts in cases where a
> defendant may have gained a substantial benefit through injuries to a large number of
> people. Consequently, class actions protect citizens by offering a valuable mechanism
> for aggregating small claims that otherwise might not warrant individual litigation.
> If it became law, S. 353 would:
> ·Provide a substantial procedural advantage to defendant corporations in court. A
> significant majority of state court class action cases will either have to be filed in
> federal court or will be removed by defendants to federal court. Defendants such as
> tobacco companies, HMOs, gun and drug companies that injure the public should not have
> the power to choose the legal forum they believe will benefit them most.
> ·Trample on the rights of states to manage their legal systems. State judges commonly
> are called upon to apply state law to new factual situations. Federal judges will be
> more reluctant to judicially extend state law; their reticence would have a negative
> impact on evolving areas of law like tobacco, HMO and gun litigation.
> ·Considerably delay -- if not deny -- justice for injured consumers. Justice will be
> considerably delayed for injured consumers. The current high vacancy rate in the federal
> judiciary has already created a backlog of civil cases. Adding complex and
> resource-intensive class action cases that traditionally have been handled by the states
> will create further delays.
> A broad coalition of organizations has joined together in opposition to this harmful
> legislation, including tobacco control, gun control, health, civil rights, and consumer
> groups. Click here for a list of organizations
> In addition, the Judicial Conference of the United States (an association of federal
> senior circuit and district judges, chaired by Chief Justice Rehnquist), the Conference
> of Chief Justices (state supreme court chief justices), and 15 state Attorneys Generals
> (New York, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New
> Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Tennessee, and West Virginia) have all
> expressed opposition to this legislation.
> The Clinton Administration has also expressed its opposition to the bills in testimony
> before Congress. Click here to view the Department of Justice testimony
> On September 23, 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives passed companion legislation,
> the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999 (H.R. 1875), sponsored by Reps. Bob
> Goodlatte (R-VA) and Rick Boucher (D-VA), by a narrow 222-207 vote. Two pro-consumer
> "carve-out" amendments that would have exempted from the bill cases against tobacco
> corporations and gun makers were rejected.
> The Senate Judiciary Committee approved S. 353 on June 29, 2000, by a vote of 11-7. All
> the Democrats opposed the bill with the exception of its sponsor Herb Kohl (D-WI).
> Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) offered an amendment that would have exempted tobacco
> lawsuits from the cases removable to federal court, but the amendment was defeated. Also
> defeated were amendments that would have carved out firearm lawsuits and lawsuits based
> on consumer fraud, as well as one that would have required federal judicial vacancies to
> be filled before the bill can come into effect.
> The amendments all failed by a 7 to 10 vote, with Sen. Kohl voting with the Republicans
> and Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-MI) passing, probably because he is in a tight reelection
> race this year. Sens. Leahy, Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Joseph Biden (D-DE) all
> threatened to force long, drawn-out debates on amendments should the bill be brought to
> the floor. It is important to let your Senator know that his/her constituents do not
> support this anti-consumer, pro-big business legislation.
> Fax your Senator a personalized letter directly to their DC office. Let them know where
> their constituents stand on this issue. Don't let big business have control over your
> legal rights.
>
> *************
>
> Consumers Union (Consumers Reports):
> http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/classaction/letters/conunion.htm
>
> June 26, 2000
> Judiciary Committee Members
> United States Senate
> Washington, DC 20515
> Dear Senator:
> Re: Opposition to Class Action Fairness Act - S. 353
> Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, is opposed to S. 353, the
> "Class Action Fairness Act." We agree that it is important to curtail abuse of class
> action litigation, but unfortunately we do not believe this bill will achieve that goal.
> Instead, S. 353 could make it more difficult for consumers to obtain effective and
> efficient judicial relief for injuries caused by defective products, fraud in the
> marketplace, and discrimination, without addressing the true source of class action
> abuse. In curtailing Americansí right to pursue class actions in state courts, we
> believe this legislation could be detrimental to consumers for the following reasons:
> ·Consumers may be subject to legal "ping-pong"and ultimately left without a remedy.
> Under S. 353ís scheme for easing the removal of class actions from state to federal
> court, a class action that otherwise qualifies for certification by a state may be
> lacking the necessary requirements to be certified in federal court. If so, the case
> could be dismissed by the federal court, and then dismissed again if re-filed as a class
> action in state court. This legal "Ping-Pong" could well deprive consumers of access to
> their own state courts, and ultimately deny them their day in court through the class
> action process- in many cases their only effective remedy. Without the opportunity to
> join with similarly situated consumers in one combined lawsuit, many consumers wouldnít
> be able to afford legal representation.
> ·State courts have served as important forums for consumers. Consumers have brought
> state class actions to remedy injuries stemming from fraud, defective and dangerous
> products, discrimination prohibited under state law, and negligence causing widespread
> public health or environmental damage. States remain an important forum for consumers
> attempting to obtain a remedy for an injury or other harm.
> ·Class actions economize on judicial resources. Class actions are an efficient and
> practical method of bringing action since they combine similar claims; they also reduce
> the number of inconsistent judgments and lower court costs.
> ·The Chief Justice, along with the Judicial Conference of the United States and the
> Conference of Chief Justices have expressed concerns about burdens that S. 353 could
> create on the federal courts. United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William
> Rehnquist has expressed concern that this bill will result in further overloading an
> already backlogged Federal docket. Class actions are among the most resource-intensive
> cases before the Federal judiciary and this bill would require the Federal courts to be
> interpreting cases involving solely State law.
> ·Greater judicial scrutiny of settlements is a better approach to abuse of the class
> action process. Consumers Union has spoken out against instances of collusive agreements
> between lawyers and defendants that were detrimental to members of the class. We believe
> the response to those abuses must be greater judicial scrutiny of settlement agreements.
> We simply do not see how removing class actions from state to federal court addresses
> these problems. Indeed, one of the settlements that proponents of this bill cite as
> proof of the problems with class actions is a settlement in Federal court. (The case
> involves a settlement where plaintiffs receive coupons for airline flights.)
> Consumers Union fears that S. 353ís provisions, instead of curtailing collusive class
> action settlements, may instead result in depriving consumers of an important forum- in
> many cases their only forum- for remedying genuine wrongs suffered as a result of
> negligence, fraud, public health or environmental damage. We urge you to oppose this
> legislation during the Senate Judiciary Committee mark-up on June 15.
> Sincerely,
> Sally J. Greenberg
> Senior Product Safety Counsel
>
> *************
>
> Here is a list of Organizations opposing both the Senate Bill (S.353) and the House of
> Representatives Bill (H.R.1875):
> http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/classaction/factshts/opponents.htm
>
> ************
> 2 Versions of S.353:
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:s353:
>
> There are 2 versions of Bill Number S.353 for the 106th Congress
> 1 . Class Action Fairness Act of 1999 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.353.IS]
> 2 . Class Action Fairness Act of 1999 (Reported in the Senate)[S.353.RS]
>
> *************
>
> Companion Bill H.R. 1875 in Congress:
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query
>
> There are 4 versions of Bill Number H.R.1875 for the 106th Congress
> 1 . Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999 (Introduced in the
> House)[H.R.1875.IH]
> 2 . Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999 (Reported in the
> House)[H.R.1875.RH]
> 3 . Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999 (Referred in Senate)[H.R.1875.RFS]
> 4 . Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999 (Engrossed in House) [H.R.1875.EH]
--------------DB7FD41F83B8405446162F40
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi everybody:
I don't think it is possible to conceive of a more important
issue upon which to decide
how you will vote in the coming Senate and House races
... than the following......!!!!
If your Senatorial or House of Representatives candidate is promoting
the following
legislation ... get him/her OUT of office...............!!!!!.........
This legislation is pure BIG $$$$$$$$ "special interests" against the
rest of us......
Yes, it is class war, alright -- against "the people"............guru......
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: |
ALERT!!!!!!!!!! URGENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 |
| Date: |
Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:53:58 -0500 |
| From: |
Darlene Raunio <darvr@newnorth.net> |
| To: |
guru@emfguru.com |
We cannot allow this to happen
for the sake of the citizens of Wisconsin and the United States.
There are TWO versions of this Senate bill ... IS.353 and RS.353 deceptively
called "Class Action 'Fairness' Act of 1999"
There is also COMPANION Legislation (passed 9/23/99 by narrow 222-207
vote) called "Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999".
This Bill (H.R.1875) has 4 versions.
Darlene
Public Citizen's Alert:
http://www.citizen.org/congress/field/classalert.htm
Grassroots
Action Alert--Fax Your Senator!
Congress
Begins Consideration of Anti-Consumer Class Action Legislation; the House
and the Senate Judiciary Committee Pass Measure, Full Senate Up Next
Fax
your Senator to oppose this legislation!!
Legislation just approved by the Senate
Judiciary Committee would make it difficult, and in some cases impossible,
for injured consumers to hold negligent corporations accountable through
class action lawsuits. The bill, S. 353, deceptively titled the
Class Action "Fairness" Act of 1999, was introduced last year
by Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Herbert Kohl (D-WI) of the Judiciary
Committee.
Injured consumers often use class actions to gain
access to the courts in cases where a defendant may have gained a substantial
benefit through injuries to a large number of people. Consequently, class
actions protect citizens by offering a valuable mechanism for aggregating
small claims that otherwise might not warrant individual litigation.
If it became law, S. 353 would:
·Provide
a substantial procedural advantage to defendant corporations in court.
A significant majority of state court class action cases will either have
to be filed in federal court or will be removed by defendants to federal
court. Defendants such as tobacco companies, HMOs, gun and drug companies
that injure the public should not have the power to choose the legal forum
they believe will benefit them most.
·Trample
on the rights of states to manage their legal systems. State judges
commonly are called upon to apply state law to new factual situations.
Federal judges will be more reluctant to judicially extend state law; their
reticence would have a negative impact on evolving areas of law like tobacco,
HMO and gun litigation.
·Considerably
delay -- if not deny -- justice for injured consumers. Justice will
be considerably delayed for injured consumers. The current high vacancy
rate in the federal judiciary has already created a backlog of civil cases.
Adding complex and resource-intensive class action cases that traditionally
have been handled by the states will create further delays.
A broad coalition of organizations has joined
together in opposition to this harmful legislation, including tobacco control,
gun control, health, civil rights, and consumer groups.
Click
here for a list of organizations
In addition, the Judicial Conference of the United
States (an association of federal senior circuit and district judges, chaired
by Chief Justice Rehnquist), the Conference of Chief Justices (state supreme
court chief justices), and 15 state Attorneys Generals (New York, Oklahoma,
Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Tennessee, and West Virginia) have all expressed
opposition to this legislation.
The Clinton Administration has also expressed
its opposition to the bills in testimony before Congress.
Click
here to view the Department of Justice testimony
On September 23, 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives
passed companion legislation, the
Interstate Class
Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999 (H.R. 1875), sponsored by Reps.
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Rick Boucher (D-VA), by a narrow
222-207
vote. Two pro-consumer "carve-out" amendments that would have exempted
from the bill cases against tobacco corporations and gun makers were rejected.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved S. 353
on June 29, 2000, by a vote of 11-7. All the Democrats opposed the bill
with the exception of its sponsor Herb Kohl (D-WI). Senator Patrick Leahy
(D-VT) offered an amendment that would have exempted tobacco lawsuits from
the cases removable to federal court, but the amendment was defeated. Also
defeated were amendments that would have carved out firearm lawsuits and
lawsuits based on consumer fraud, as well as one that would have required
federal judicial vacancies to be filled before the bill can come into effect.
The amendments all failed by a 7 to 10 vote, with
Sen. Kohl voting with the Republicans and Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-MI) passing,
probably because he is in a tight reelection race this year. Sens. Leahy,
Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Joseph Biden (D-DE) all threatened to force
long, drawn-out debates on amendments should the bill be brought to the
floor. It is important to let your Senator know that his/her constituents
do not support this anti-consumer, pro-big business legislation.
Fax your Senator a personalized
letter directly to their DC office. Let them know where their constituents
stand on this issue. Don't let big business have control over your legal
rights.
*************
Consumers Union (Consumers Reports):
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/classaction/letters/conunion.htm
June 26, 2000
Judiciary Committee Members
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Senator:
Re: Opposition to Class Action Fairness Act - S. 353
Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, is opposed
to S. 353, the "Class Action Fairness Act." We agree that it is important
to curtail abuse of class action litigation, but unfortunately we do not
believe this bill will achieve that goal. Instead, S. 353 could make it
more difficult for consumers to obtain effective and efficient judicial
relief for injuries caused by defective products, fraud in the marketplace,
and discrimination, without addressing the true source of class action
abuse. In curtailing Americans’ right to pursue class actions in state
courts, we believe this legislation could be detrimental to consumers for
the following reasons:
·Consumers may
be subject to legal "ping-pong"and ultimately left without a remedy.
Under S. 353’s scheme for easing the removal of class actions from
state to federal court, a class action that otherwise qualifies for certification
by a state may be lacking the necessary requirements to be certified in
federal court. If so, the case could be dismissed by the federal court,
and then dismissed again if re-filed as a class action in state court.
This legal "Ping-Pong" could well deprive consumers of access to their
own state courts, and ultimately deny them their day in court through the
class action process- in many cases their only effective
remedy. Without the opportunity to join with similarly situated consumers
in one combined lawsuit, many consumers wouldn’t be able to afford legal
representation.
·State courts have
served as important forums for consumers. Consumers have brought
state class actions to remedy injuries stemming from fraud, defective and
dangerous products, discrimination prohibited under state law, and negligence
causing widespread public health or environmental damage. States remain
an important forum for consumers attempting to obtain a remedy for an injury
or other harm.
·Class actions
economize on judicial resources. Class actions are an efficient
and practical method of bringing action since they combine similar claims;
they also reduce the number of inconsistent judgments and lower court costs.
·The Chief Justice,
along with the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Conference
of Chief Justices have expressed concerns about burdens that S. 353 could
create on the federal courts. United States Supreme Court Chief
Justice William Rehnquist has expressed concern that this bill will result
in further overloading an already backlogged Federal docket. Class actions
are among the most resource-intensive cases before the Federal judiciary
and this bill would require the Federal courts to be interpreting cases
involving solely State law.
·Greater judicial
scrutiny of settlements is a better approach to abuse of the class action
process. Consumers Union has spoken out against instances of
collusive agreements between lawyers and defendants that were detrimental
to members of the class. We believe the response to those abuses must be
greater judicial scrutiny of settlement agreements. We simply do not see
how removing class actions from state to federal court addresses these
problems. Indeed, one of the settlements that proponents of this bill cite
as proof of the problems with class actions is a settlement in Federal
court. (The case involves a settlement where plaintiffs receive coupons
for airline flights.)
Consumers Union fears that S. 353’s provisions, instead of curtailing
collusive class action settlements, may instead result in depriving consumers
of an important forum- in many cases their only forum-
for remedying genuine wrongs suffered as a result of negligence, fraud,
public health or environmental damage. We urge you to oppose this legislation
during the Senate Judiciary Committee mark-up on June 15.
Sincerely,
Sally J. Greenberg
Senior Product Safety Counsel
*************
Here is a list of Organizations opposing both the Senate Bill (S.353)
and the House of Representatives Bill (H.R.1875):
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/classaction/factshts/opponents.htm
************
2 Versions of S.353:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:s353:
There are 2 versions of Bill Number S.353 for the 106th
Congress
1 . Class Action Fairness Act of 1999 (Introduced
in the Senate)[S.353.IS]
2 . Class Action Fairness Act of 1999 (Reported in the Senate)[S.353.RS]
*************
Companion Bill H.R. 1875 in Congress:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query
There are 4 versions of Bill Number H.R.1875 for the
106th Congress
1 . Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of
1999 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1875.IH]
2 . Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999 (Reported
in the House)[H.R.1875.RH]
3 . Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999 (Referred
in Senate)[H.R.1875.RFS]
4 . Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999 (Engrossed
in House)
[H.R.1875.EH]
--------------DB7FD41F83B8405446162F40--
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com