It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court rules that companies can block class-action lawsuits

page: 2
67
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Watts
 



Originally posted by Watts
It may take us longer than other countries to go into rebel mode but when we do.... oh boy its gonna be ugly.



When? After we will have given up every tool with which to fight back? By then, it will be far too late, if it isn't already. Our founding fathers gave us the [Constitutional] rights and liberties to fight back these kind of influences, though sadly, we are doing nothing as they are being either eroded or eliminated all together.

Take the Second Amendment for instance. The right to bear arms has been eroded so much, that it is now pretty much pointless. We now have to get permission from the government, to arm ourselves to keep that same government in check. Yet still, we aren't allowed to arm ourselves in a manner that makes us competitive, thus effective.

Then we can look at the First Amendment. We now have to get permission from the government to assemble against and/or protest that very same government. Even still, this permission is either out-right denied, or diminished to the point of non-effectiveness (free-speech zones).

Then we can look at the Tenth Amendment, which is ignored all together. I can literally go on and on, though I digress. You get the point.



--airspoon







--airspoon




posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
The United States is simply operating for the benefit of its assets and business associates like any good corporation should. They wouldn't want AT&T removing naurus fibre sniffers from their exchange now would they?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Watts
 



Originally posted by Watts
It may take us longer than other countries to go into rebel mode but when we do.... oh boy its gonna be ugly.



When? After we will have given up every tool with which to fight back? By then, it will be far too late, if it isn't already. Our founding fathers gave us the [Constitutional] rights and liberties to fight back these kind of influences, though sadly, we are doing nothing as they are being either eroded or eliminated all together.

Take the Second Amendment for instance. The right to bear arms has been eroded so much, that it is now pretty much pointless. We now have to get permission from the government, to arm ourselves to keep that same government in check. Yet still, we aren't allowed to arm ourselves in a manner that makes us competitive, thus effective.

Then we can look at the First Amendment. We now have to get permission from the government to assemble against and/or protest that very same government. Even still, this permission is either out-right denied, or diminished to the point of non-effectiveness (free-speech zones).

Then we can look at the Tenth Amendment, which is ignored all together. I can literally go on and on, though I digress. You get the point.

--airspoon

--airspoon


Who's to say when. All it takes is one little catalyst. Who knows what that may be. With the LA riots, although it was a somewhat different situation it could be looked at as symbolic. Cops(corporations/wealthy) getting away with the beating of a helpless outnumbered minority man(middle class/poor) turned into an all out riot. Who knows what the last straw will be... personally I think itll be hackers that fully expose everything to the people that are distracted by things like the NBA playoffs, real world etc that will cause people to finally say "Hold the F#&% UP...THIS IS GOING TO STOP OR WE'LL BURN IT ALL DOWN"

To me hackers are the ones that could bring about a unified awakening that would overcome the distractions of media. Imagine every major prime tv network pirated at the same time with an all encompassing message that can't be overlooked. Itd be game time.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
The bulk of class action lawsuits just benefit the lawyers that bring the suits.

The customers get something like a certificate for future purchases.

This should curtail frivolous lawsuits. I'd like to see more actions that limit frivolous lawsuits while still protecting the people. The lawyers don't need to get money for being a pain in the rear.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


I actually agree with you, to an extent. The vast majority of class-action suits due benefit the lawyers the most, sometimes only the lawyers, though only monetarily. However, not all suits are focused solely on monetary value. For a single instance, Class Action suits have good punitive value to bring about valuable change in whatever conduct was is the focus of the litigation. When you touch a hot stove, you burn your finger. Now we have given the corporations heat resistant gloves so they may man-handle the stove all they want.


--airspoon

edit on 28-4-2011 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


I actually agree with you, to an extent. The vast majority of class-action suits due benefit the lawyers the most, sometimes only the lawyers, though only monetarily. However, not all suits are focused solely on monetary value. For a single instance, Class Action suits have good punitive value to bring about valuable change in whatever conduct was is the focus of the litigation. When you touch a hot stove, you burn your finger. Now we have given the corporations heat resistant gloves so they may man-handle the stove all they want.


--airspoon

edit on 28-4-2011 by airspoon because: (no reason given)


EXACTLY!!! Everyone is so focused on money they miss the bigger issue, that being that class-action gave people a unified front to make corporations stop the crap they try to pull to increase their profits. A group of 500 people suing you for the same thing is hard to ignore... with this new law, they can laugh at you as they drag a case on and on and on until you have no more money to fight back. And since its just one person, its highly unlikely to get media coverage.

Now, it'll be lonely Jack with his $5,000(if that) against At&t with billions to make a case go away.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
What do you expect. Republican Presidents from Reagan on have worked hard to stock SCOTUS with young corporate favoring judges to make decisions just like this.

It is just another shoe dropping as a result of people supporting supposed free market principles. First they stopped the government from punishing corporations for cheating people, and stripping people of their rights, now they are talking away the tools that people found to get back at corporations.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Our SCOTUS has become an absolute joke and nothing they could do would surprise me anymore. Corporations and their interest currently rule the roost and the republican controlled SCOTUS is doing everything in their power to see that it stays that way. Thanks alot, G.W. Bush!



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
When I first went into business for myself, I noticed the incredible advantages to incorporating.
Any individual can game the system if they so chose. Even a simple LLC affords multiple perks that the ordinary taxpayer misses out on like avoiding personal lawsuits, tax breaks etc.

Incorporating is easy, cheap and beneficial. Take advantage of at least being an LLC if not a full blown corp. And you can do it on line.

www.newbusinessnow.com...

But mega corps are a different story altogether. Welcome to corporate fascist America with private funded law enforcement, sewer, water, power/energy, no employee unions, thanks to the GOP planting the union busting seeds ....absolute control.

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house.




edit on 28-4-2011 by whaaa because: viva la pepa



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


You are right in there, but taking into consideration that even medical law sues are controlled and big pharma can get away with murdering people with their medications, things are getting every stiff for the consumer.

I remember my big pay off from a class action law sue last year, a whooping one dollar check.


Still this type of actions by courts and the government only gives more power to the corporations running the nation and less power to the consumers.
edit on 28-4-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


This could turn out to be a wrong move by the corporations, and wind up costing them very dearly indeed...hope so.

Think about it...class action lawsuits can involve any number of claimants with common elements of their case, coming together as a group that sues the corporation. Hundreds of thousands of people could make up a class action suit.

Think of how hundreds of thousands of people can claim individual damages/compensation, with no maximum limit based on a single case that wins against the corporation..precedent is a virtual shoe in to winners row, if the circumstances of the case and claim are virtually identical...

If the lawyers are as clever as they'd like to think they are, they will start offering alternatives to groups, based on precedent set in previous cases...it could ultimately end up costing corporations much more money than a class action suit might.

An award of $1 million dollars per judgement, doesn't sound a lot compared to $100's billion. A judge or jury would be far more willing to award $1 Million against a corporation, but would consider an award of $100's of Billions ridiculous.


edit on 28/4/2011 by spikey because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 





Iknow its tempting to go there, but I strongly suspect that is what they want. Any physical uprising would be an excuse to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law. Which is what they want. They want people in the US (much like has been orchestrated in the Mid East) to be the ones to topple their own protective system of government.

Our government has been infiltrated by treasonous scum, but the solution is not to overturn the government. It is to use the very tools put in place BY the treasonous scum to remove them from office. We are walking a very fine line. But the strategy of using their own weapons designed for us against them is a safer bet than outright revolt. We are not just against a group of corporations and politician in the US, we are at war, economically, with a multinational economic mafia which has been perfecting its technique of using propaganda, election rigging, and the illusion of uprising around the world for years.

We need to do something, but we need to make very sure we are on the side of the law. While we still have law.


Civil disobedience my friend.

Although we did it with Great Britain, I do not think we could win an armed resurrection against our government. Every right would be stripped away, our guns taken and property searched. We would all be labeled terrorists and anarchists.

But through Civil disobedience we can have a new civil rights movement, that encompasses all citizens. The army would dare not fire on a group of people peacefully sitting on one of D.C's main highways. Martin Luther King jr. and Gandhi were right about how to change the world.

On the other hand, there WILL be violence. I just hope it is directed at the right people.
edit on 28-4-2011 by Skerrako because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
This idea that corporations are like people is crap - because people are limited by DEATH.
Corporations NEVER die, so they are clearly not people - They are vampires.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


There is nothing quite so effective, and quite so frightening to the establishment as a general strike.

However, in this country, with the doctrine of 'media as a measure of effectiveness' such a thing would nearly impossible to carry out. And given the attenuation of the government towards a continuous state of emergency and elevated threat to the nation under all manner of guises... organizers of such a strike could be (or would be) categorized as extremists and/or economic terrorists (which is kind of ironic considering that the banking institution gets away with economic terrorism every day.)

But imagine if you will the effect on the government if even 60% of the adult "thinking class" of the nation simply refused to engage in any manner of commerce for two or three days straight.

They would crap themselves and declare martial law I suppose. But when enough momentum is imparted onto a population, no elite can handle the numbers... they need us waaaaay more than we need them.... It is that 'need' that they are continually laboring to minimize.
edit on 28-4-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Well that will do to corporate America at least when it comes to profits, but knowing our corporate ruled congress we just get more laws to force commerce upon us like the insurance companies did with the health care reform.
after all the culprit (the American voters and consumer) have to pay for the loses.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I think a good old fashioned boycott is in order...

That's just my take though..



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by ViperChili
 


Even if people were to read and understand the "fine-print", there isn't much that can be done about it. It isn't like you are allowed to interject your own terms into the contract and consumer/employee/contractee choice is now eliminated in most cases due to an atmosphere of government favoritism. We are no longer in a position to argue our terms for the contract, yet we are forced into these contracts in many cases.


--airspoon


No one is forced to use AT&T.

For that matter, no one is forced to have a cell phone, or to enter into any contract in which there are terms they disagree with.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ViperChili
 


Not at&t particularly, though we are forced to patronize other corporations, whether it be through employment or as a consumer. It is impossible, not to mention illegal in some cases to avoid patronizing corporations all together. So, while nobody is forced to have a cellphone, force is applied in other cases, instances or scenarios. This latest ruling doesn't only affect at&t or the cell phone industry, but rather all corporations.

--airspoon



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 

Not to mention that there are contracts you "sign" by merely purchasing a product. If the fine print is not available to you until you have purchased the actual product, you would essentially be forced into a contract. The next step would be to have stores start a no trade back policy, lol. This ruling is horrible, just like the CU ruling. Welcome to the (not so) new Plutocracy people.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Basically, this serves to enslave the employee even more. Slaves don't have the right to complain about their conditions.

They also know that people will sign these waivers just to have the privilege to be employed. Yup...privilege .

Gonna be a lot of Ambulance Chasers out of work now. More stress on the food lines.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join