Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Turkoglu, Aug 15, 2002.
What do you all think?
Hmm.. 10 times the United States GDP. Oh, that number is realistic.
Half the money collected in such suits, if anything, will go to the lawyers. The rest gets split among thousands. It's nothing but con job.
Suing who? It's not like they can collect from foreign entities. They've already soaked the American people for millions of dollars per family thru donations. They've collected millions more in insurance claims and other benefit payouts. Seems to me many of these greedy people are making a killing, no pun intended, off the unfortunate death of their relatives.
Seems they're going to have a very good try at suing a foreign government, since it's aimed at the House of Saud.
It's an attempt to force Saudi Arabia to account for its actions and responsibilities, and as such, I'm totally in favor of it. Screw Baghdad, let's go after Riyadh.
How did they get to be 1 trillion dollars?
And where are they gonna use the money for in the end??
To build the WTC again?
i hope if im murdered while walking down the street the whole world donates to my family as much as they did to these to people
I saw the conference..
They want to make the groups that funded and helped the 9/11 bankrupt!
this is fuggin stupid. what makes their relatives' lives any more expensive then someone else's?
The United States GDP is from 5 to 6 trillion a year.
Nope, spejic's number is a lot closer.
Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased 2.2 percent, or $56.8 billion, in the second quarter to a level of $10,369.9 billion.
So, $10.4 trillion.
The basics of the lawsuit are pretty simple....
Persons A,B,C,D had a hand in September 11
September 11 killed my relative
Persons A,B,C,D owe me money
As an attorney, I have to say that I believe there is pretty sound precedent for this type of case. If I am not mistaken it is based on the Pan am flight that was destroyed in Lockerbie (sp?) Scotland?
From my recollection, Libya or some other tyrannical government at the time funded the terrorists who blew the plane up.
People sued Libya
I think, if I am not mistaken, Libya or whomever it was has some international political liabilities (like they can't join some organization) until they agree to pay off the lawsuit. As they admitted liability.
Personally, I like the fact that someone is going after Saudi Arabia. I don't care who it is. Why not attorneys?
In addition, I have to say that the number is ridiculously too high, we all know it.
Plus in most lawsuits depending on the jurisdiciton, insurance payments, donations from charities, etc., could arguably be deducted from any reward.
I think you guys just seem to have a problem with wrongful death suits generally. If I am not mistaken, the Goldbergs (Sp?) sued OJ for the same thing. they won. He has or still is paying them.
Same concept for the suit. Just much bigger and whole lot of legal potholes to jump around. That is why it is important to get good attorneys. That is why we get our 33%-40%.
The ULTIMATE problem with lawsuits like these is you can't collect money from people you don't control.
In the Iran hostage lawsuit, the plaintiffs won 300 million dollars from Iran, but there was no way for the U.S. to take money from Iran. So, the U.S. government ended up having to pay 300 million to the people instead. Some people advocated using the frozen Iranian assets to pay for the lawsuit, but it was legally impossible.
Think of the global economic chaos if the U.S. had to pay this ridiclous amount of money.
Saudi Arabia does not have anything close to that amount of money. Their GNP is $146 billion a year. The oil they export in a year is worth $60 billion.
This is nothing but fishing from the lawyers. If the case wins anything, the lawyers are set for life. The families will get checks of $235 and wonder what happened.
Saudi assets aren't frozen, for one thing. This is about our so-called ally. As such, I can't love this case enough. Go, team.
To me, the money amount is the civil suit equivalent of asking for twenty consecutive life sentences. Of course they don't have the money. That's not the point.
Lawyers are on a no-win, no fee basis.
I couldn't tell, but apparently the US government is a defendant - based on its blind support of Saudi Arabia.
The umbrella group is called Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism.
I'll work on having a problem with all this, but right now I'm still quite fine with it. Go, team.
maybe San Jose Earthquake fans can sue too, since they claim that they would have won the west if not for the terrorist attacks. I think Equakes fans have the biggest gripe of all.
I agree entirely. A Bill Bryson quote springs to mind.........
It was only $1 trillion, after all.
I say go for the higher amount.
Here's why you should have a problem with this: Who do you think will end up footing the bill? You and me. The US government is a defendant? That's all I needed to hear. This is just more Robin Hood redistribution, from the pockets of American taxpayers to the pockets of American lawyers.
As an aside, the US government actually wrote a brief in favor of the Libyan government during the Pan Am Lockerbie trial.
I believe this would be the opposite of Robin Hood distribution - robbing the poor to feed the rich.
Yes, technically, but the lawyers argue the case under the guise of helping the poor relatives and then pocketing most of the cash themselves. It's nearly the same scam as most class-action lawsuits. The "class", since it is so large, gets 50 cents each and the few lawyers pocket the millions.
From the AP article:
The complaint names more than seven dozen defendants, including the government of Sudan, seven banks, eight Islamic foundations and three Saudi princes.
The US government is not a defendant. You've got to think they would make that unambiguously clear in the article.
If the lawyers can produce evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the actual defendants knowingly provided funds for terrorist attacks on the US, why shouldn't they be liable for damanges?
$1 trillion divided by an anticipated 1,000 plantiffs is going to work out to be a bit more than 50 cents a pop, even if the lawyers pocket, say, 75% of the damages.
Trust me, they ain't getting anything near $1 trillion. Even if they win the case they'll be lucky to see a nickel. At most, even if the banks ponied up an exorbitant amount of money, say $100 million (which will never happen), the lawyers will end up with about $40 million of that. That leaves about $60,000 per plaintiff. Not chump change, but the lawyers (who are NOT the victims here) will be pocketing multi-millions each.
Uh, I think I'd rather have lawyers have the money than the government of Sudan, Saudi princes, and banks and *cough* "charitable organizations" that helped finance 9/11.
The government of Sudan is an interesting presence here - weren't they the nice, reformed people that wanted to turn over Osama Bin Laden, but the darn Clinton Administration screwed the pooch? You think maybe they weren't so trustworthy after all?