RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>They remind me of earwigs. Sometimes, you don't see them, then they are
>everywhere. Must be like Christmas to them, thousands of potential
>lawsuits, maybe 10's of thousands. Billions of $$$ Biden will have to
>pay out.

Setting aside the dubious moral character of a P.I. attorney, it's your
theory that no marine-in-training based at Camp Lejeune and no civilian
family member suffered a tort over the period in question? That water
supply was known to have been contaminated over close to a four decade
period. The Marine Corps knowingly covered it up after their own contractor
provided evidence of major contamination.

The coverups were as late as the George W. Bush administration in which
the Justice Department refused to press any criminal charges against any
Camp Lejeune official who participated in the coverup.

By the way, if you were to actually read the Wikipedia summary, this
would be the third act to deal with compensating victims of the
contamination, because federal courts kept finding that the federal
government wasn't liable for disabilities caused in civilians.

You gotta love the hypocrisy of the federal government. In this case,
the United States Navy knowingly subjected 10s of thousands to a
Superfund site and then spent decades covering it up.

RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 6 September 2022 at 09:37:57 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>They remind me of earwigs. Sometimes, you don't see them, then they are
>>>everywhere. Must be like Christmas to them, thousands of potential
>>>lawsuits, maybe 10's of thousands. Billions of $$$ Biden will have to
>>>pay out.

>>Setting aside the dubious moral character of a P.I. attorney, it's your
>>theory that no marine-in-training based at Camp Lejeune and no civilian
>>family member suffered a tort over the period in question?

>Life entails risk.

Marines at the beginnings of their service tend to have very young wives
and very young children living on base. How did civilians choose risk?
How is a bad water supply the fault of those who rely upon it?

The risk a marine anticipates is death or serious injury in combat, not
from basic infrastructure failure through abuse and coverup.

>Unless they prove there was negligence or an actual plan to avoid
>telling people about the problem, no one should be given compensation.

Did you read the article? It sure as hell sounds like that it's been
proven for years how long the Navy has known about it and what was done
to cover up.

>The U.S. (in addition to being a laughing stock) is economically-hurting
>themselves with TRILLIONS in lawsuits aimed at pretending there are no
>costs to real-life.

Uh, Rich? Which would have been cheaper for everybody, paying out
massive losses or actually fixing the problem in the first place when it
had become obvious? If you run a water supply, the duty is on you to
discover contamination and deal with it.

Isn't "duty" one of those things that's expected of service members? No
one takes an oath to cover up wrong doing and negligence throughout the
chain of command. In fact, I seem to recall that violates one's oath.

For your next trick Rich are you going to call all these cancer-riddled
Marines cowardly?

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 6 September 2022 at 09:37:57 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> They remind me of earwigs. Sometimes, you don't see them, then they are
>>>> everywhere. Must be like Christmas to them, thousands of potential
>>>> lawsuits, maybe 10's of thousands. Billions of $$$ Biden will have to
>>>> pay out.
>
>>> Setting aside the dubious moral character of a P.I. attorney, it's your
>>> theory that no marine-in-training based at Camp Lejeune and no civilian
>>> family member suffered a tort over the period in question?
>
>> Life entails risk.
>
> Marines at the beginnings of their service tend to have very young wives
> and very young children living on base. How did civilians choose risk?
> How is a bad water supply the fault of those who rely upon it?
>
> The risk a marine anticipates is death or serious injury in combat, not
> from basic infrastructure failure through abuse and coverup.
>
>> Unless they prove there was negligence or an actual plan to avoid
>> telling people about the problem, no one should be given compensation.
>
> Did you read the article? It sure as hell sounds like that it's been
> proven for years how long the Navy has known about it and what was done
> to cover up.
>

We have at least four different sets of lawyers advertising to get your
business on the same case and all of them present the facts a little
differently which is annoying.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tuesday, 6 September 2022 at 09:37:57 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>They remind me of earwigs. Sometimes, you don't see them, then they are
>>>>>everywhere. Must be like Christmas to them, thousands of potential
>>>>>lawsuits, maybe 10's of thousands. Billions of $$$ Biden will have to
>>>>>pay out.

>>>>Setting aside the dubious moral character of a P.I. attorney, it's your
>>>>theory that no marine-in-training based at Camp Lejeune and no civilian
>>>>family member suffered a tort over the period in question?

>>>Life entails risk.

>>Marines at the beginnings of their service tend to have very young wives
>>and very young children living on base. How did civilians choose risk?
>>How is a bad water supply the fault of those who rely upon it?

>>The risk a marine anticipates is death or serious injury in combat, not
>>from basic infrastructure failure through abuse and coverup.

>>>Unless they prove there was negligence or an actual plan to avoid
>>>telling people about the problem, no one should be given compensation.

>>Did you read the article? It sure as hell sounds like that it's been
>>proven for years how long the Navy has known about it and what was done
>>to cover up.

>We have at least four different sets of lawyers advertising to get your
>business on the same case and all of them present the facts a little
>differently which is annoying.

$5 sez there is a P.I. attorney unethical enough to make the facts of
the Johnson and Johnson talcum powder lawsuit fit a dude's case. There's
probably a P.I. attorney that would present a case based on the facts
from the novel The Rainmaker by John Grisham.

On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 13:24:33 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tuesday, 6 September 2022 at 09:37:57 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>They remind me of earwigs. Sometimes, you don't see them, then they are
>>>>everywhere. Must be like Christmas to them, thousands of potential
>>>>lawsuits, maybe 10's of thousands. Billions of $$$ Biden will have to
>>>>pay out.
>
>>>Setting aside the dubious moral character of a P.I. attorney, it's your
>>>theory that no marine-in-training based at Camp Lejeune and no civilian
>>>family member suffered a tort over the period in question?
>
>>Life entails risk.
>
>Marines at the beginnings of their service tend to have very young wives
>and very young children living on base. How did civilians choose risk?
>How is a bad water supply the fault of those who rely upon it?
>
>The risk a marine anticipates is death or serious injury in combat, not
>from basic infrastructure failure through abuse and coverup.
>
>>Unless they prove there was negligence or an actual plan to avoid
>>telling people about the problem, no one should be given compensation.
>
>Did you read the article? It sure as hell sounds like that it's been
>proven for years how long the Navy has known about it and what was done
>to cover up.
>
>>The U.S. (in addition to being a laughing stock) is economically-hurting
>>themselves with TRILLIONS in lawsuits aimed at pretending there are no
>>costs to real-life.

You would think that is the case but clearly the military saw it
differently. Much like the way they handled the burn pits when they
knew how that the burn pits were bad for their people yet they
continued to use them. Hell, if they really wanted to continue using
them they could have set them up miles away and provide some
protection for their people at the cost of having to move the material
that far but they didn't attempt that.

>Uh, Rich? Which would have been cheaper for everybody, paying out
>massive losses or actually fixing the problem in the first place when it
>had become obvious? If you run a water supply, the duty is on you to
>discover contamination and deal with it.
>
>Isn't "duty" one of those things that's expected of service members? No
>one takes an oath to cover up wrong doing and negligence throughout the
>chain of command. In fact, I seem to recall that violates one's oath.
>
>For your next trick Rich are you going to call all these cancer-riddled
>Marines cowardly?

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 6 September 2022 at 09:37:57 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> They remind me of earwigs. Sometimes, you don't see them, then they are
>>>>>> everywhere. Must be like Christmas to them, thousands of potential
>>>>>> lawsuits, maybe 10's of thousands. Billions of $$$ Biden will have to
>>>>>> pay out.
>
>>>>> Setting aside the dubious moral character of a P.I. attorney, it's your
>>>>> theory that no marine-in-training based at Camp Lejeune and no civilian
>>>>> family member suffered a tort over the period in question?
>
>>>> Life entails risk.
>
>>> Marines at the beginnings of their service tend to have very young wives
>>> and very young children living on base. How did civilians choose risk?
>>> How is a bad water supply the fault of those who rely upon it?
>
>>> The risk a marine anticipates is death or serious injury in combat, not
>>> from basic infrastructure failure through abuse and coverup.
>
>>>> Unless they prove there was negligence or an actual plan to avoid
>>>> telling people about the problem, no one should be given compensation.
>
>>> Did you read the article? It sure as hell sounds like that it's been
>>> proven for years how long the Navy has known about it and what was done
>>> to cover up.
>
>> We have at least four different sets of lawyers advertising to get your
>> business on the same case and all of them present the facts a little
>> differently which is annoying.
>
> $5 sez there is a P.I. attorney unethical enough to make the facts of
> the Johnson and Johnson talcum powder lawsuit fit a dude's case. There's
> probably a P.I. attorney that would present a case based on the facts
> from the novel The Rainmaker by John Grisham.
>

We get a lot of Tacom powder ads too. I’m not sure if it’s the one but one
of the “let us sue somebody for you” ads runs a disclaimer this that says
you’ll actually be handed over to another law firm selected randomly.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article <70fbbc82-bfb3-432b-ac5d-8c8a55c85364n@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 6 September 2022 at 09:37:57 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >They remind me of earwigs. Sometimes, you don't see them, then they are
> > >everywhere. Must be like Christmas to them, thousands of potential
> > >lawsuits, maybe 10's of thousands. Billions of $$$ Biden will have to
> > >pay out.

> > Setting aside the dubious moral character of a P.I. attorney, it's your
> > theory that no marine-in-training based at Camp Lejeune and no civilian
> > family member suffered a tort over the period in question?
>
> Life entails risk. Unless they prove there was negligence

I think knowingly drawing your water supply from a RCRA site is pretty
damn negligent, Rich.

In article <tf7ife$3tel7$4@dont-email.me>, ahk@chinet.com wrote:
> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>>They remind me of earwigs. Sometimes, you don't see them, then they are
>>everywhere. Must be like Christmas to them, thousands of potential
>>lawsuits, maybe 10's of thousands. Billions of $$$ Biden will have to
>>pay out.
>
>Setting aside the dubious moral character of a P.I. attorney, it's your
>theory that no marine-in-training based at Camp Lejeune and no civilian
>family member suffered a tort over the period in question? That water
>supply was known to have been contaminated over close to a four decade
>period. The Marine Corps knowingly covered it up after their own contractor
>provided evidence of major contamination.
>
>The coverups were as late as the George W. Bush administration in which
>the Justice Department refused to press any criminal charges against any
>Camp Lejeune official who participated in the coverup.
>
>By the way, if you were to actually read the Wikipedia summary, this
>would be the third act to deal with compensating victims of the
>contamination, because federal courts kept finding that the federal
>government wasn't liable for disabilities caused in civilians.
>
>You gotta love the hypocrisy of the federal government. In this case,
>the United States Navy knowingly subjected 10s of thousands to a
>Superfund site and then spent decades covering it up.

Wait, it's not the invention of some ambulance chasers? *cough cough Moragn
and Morgan cough*

--
Let's go Brandon!