More On: Judicial Secrecy And Seroquel, Shrouded In Controversy.

This is a follow-up to yesterday’s Judicial Secrecy And Seroquel, Shrouded In Controversy.

The Washington Post has an interesting article, “A Silenced Drug Study Creates An Uproar,” dealing with the Seroquel case. What started out simply as "Study 15" has become a serious problem for AstraZeneca, the makers of Seroquel.

Here's what happened.

Study 15, issued in 1997, the same year the FDA approved Seroquel, raised "serious concerns about an entirely new class of expensive drugs." Nothing gets the attention of a pharmaceutical manufacturer better than the manufacturer’s pocketbook. The thought that Study 15 might jeopardize an entire class of "expensive" pharmaceuticals was more than AstraZeneca could handle, so they buried the study.

AstraZeneca never shared the negative research data of Study 15 with doctors, opting instead to publish positive results for Seroquel based on "less rigorous studies.” Further, AstraZeneca minimized the metabolic problems that might lead to diabetes. In the process, AstraZeneca marketed Seroquel, collecting $12 billion over the past 3 years. That's right "$12 billion."

The details of Study 15 have emerged as a result of lawsuits filed nationwide. Taxpayer-funded research has found that new anti-psychotic drugs such as Seroquel are 10 times more expansive and did not really offer a "real advantage" over older anti-psychotic medications. In fact, they presented risks that AstraZeneca minimized.

The real problem here is more than corporate greed! Rather it's the problem of indifferent conservative judges who enter “secrecy orders” to protect corporate greed and prevent the dissemination of information such a Study 15. Judicial secrecy orders that compromise public health and safety need to stop now!

Indifferent Conservative Judges Try To Muzzle Dissenting Judge

I have written often about indifferent conservative judges. For the most part, these judicial impostors have limited their attacks to judges they call "liberal activist judges." But, in an ugly Mississippi judicial proceeding, a cadre of judicial charlatans has tried to silence even the most moderate voice. Here’s the situation.

On August 23, 2008, the Biloxi Sun Herald (Diaz's dissent raises ruckus) reported that the Mississippi Supreme Court attempted to suppress the dissenting opinion of Justice Oliver Diaz. Let me repeat: The Mississippi Supreme Court ordered the clerk to hide the opinion of a dissenting judge! Diaz correctly called the Mississippi Supreme Court's decision "unprecedented." I have tried cases for 30 years, and I have never seen an instance in which a court "muzzles" one of its own members. To call such behavior "unprecedented" is an understatement. It is an outrage!

Here’s what got Diaz muzzled.

The Mississippi Supreme Court tried to throw out a wrongful death case, claiming the statute of limitations had run. Curiously, the Mississippi Supreme Court said that the statute of limitations begins to run on a death claim even before the individual died. Let me repeat: The Mississippi Supreme Court said that an individual had to file his death claim before he died. Not only did the Mississippi Supreme Court have to “stretch" to deprive an individual of his rights, but in doing so it reversed 150 years of case law and insulted commonsense.

In his dissent, Justice Diaz correctly wrote that it was "absurd" to think that a claim for wrongful death must be filed before the person dies!

But there is a story behind this story. Diaz, who took the bench as a conservative, angered his fellow conservatives because he often took the part of the "little guy" and "working families," as his dissent demonstrates. For Justice Diaz fairness was more important than pandering to big business and powerful corporations. Justice Diaz wanted no part of "checkbook justice, for which he received a judicial muzzle from the indifferent colleagues.

Dark clouds have gathered for justice in America. The fabled "liberal activist judge" has been replaced by real, mean-spirited, indifferent conservative judge, proving once again that justice is a fickle thing...

If Your Daughter Has Been Rape At Halliburton, She May Have to Arbitrate Her Rape

It's in our nature as Americans to insist upon "fair play." From politics to the pulpit, Americans want "fair play," especially when it comes to justice.

But now-a-days, Big Business doesn't "play fair;" they want a "stacked deck." They want a sure thing, a winning hand, especially when it comes to justice. But, this can be difficult to get when juries call the shots. So, how does Big Business stack the deck when it comes to justice? It's easy! Simply let an indifferent conservative court force arbitration.

The conservative indifferent U.S. Supreme Court has expanded a 1925 law to a level no member of Congress ever thought possible. They have allowed Big Business to create corporate owned kangaroo courts.

Corporate-owned companies like the National Arbitration Forum prostitute justice by limiting the liability of Big Business to insure that corporate dirty linen stays out of public courtrooms, hidden in the dark world of back room deals called mandatory arbitration.

Mandatory arbitration hides all manner of financial chicanery, and all manner of abuse of workers. Including rape! Just ask Jamie Jones.

Jamie Leigh Jones was 19 and working for Halliburton/KBR in Houston when she volunteered to go to Iraq. Four days after she arrived, she was drugged and gang-raped. Her enemy wasn't rebel militias, but thugs employed by KBR. Jamie sued. But KBR said, "No way the public hears these stories in court. This goes to arbitration."

Ah, justice is a fickle thing...

John Vail, Op-Ed, National Law Journal, 8-4- 08

Surprise, Surprise: U.S. Supreme Court Favors Corporations During Last Term

Supreme Court’s decisions during the last term again revealed the court’s leanings toward general business interests. The court’s focus on punitive damages, the civil provisions of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), preemption of state law and arbitration were a familiar return to issues of interest to business and industry.

Here's the interesting thing.

The Supreme Court has limited punitive damages and RICO civil penalties . Without a corporate death penalty, punitive damages and RICO civil penalties are there only thing we have to stop corporations from doing really bad things. Here are some examples:

Union Carbide leaked 40 tons of toxic methyl isocyanate gas, leading to the Bhopal disaster. The death toll of the disaster was about 3,000 initially, with at least 20,000 additional deaths from related illnesses in the years following the disaster.

The Exxon Valdez spilled 10.8 million US gallons (40.9 million liters) of crude oil and has been recorded as one of the largest spills in U.S. history and one of the largest ecological disasters in the world.

Or Enron's corporate abuse and accounting fraud that cheated working folks out of their retirement.

Finally, it's funny how "state sovereignty" is important except when states protect life over corporate profit. Then, the matter becomes federal preemtion and states must back off. While forced arbitration, especially in consumer cases, continues to undermine justice in America. See, National Arbitration Forum. Rent-A-Judge! How Arbitration Is Undermining Justice for Consumers

Ah well, justice is a fickle thing, isn't it?

Adam H. Charnes and James J. Hefferan Jr., Law.com 08/15/2008 Read Article: Law.com

Some Who Settled Katrina Damage Can't Sue State Farm For Fraud

In a tragic case, U.S. District Court Judge L.T. Senter Jr. ruled that State Farm policyholders who settled Katrina claims through a state mediation program couldn’t sue State Farm for the same property damage.

The plaintiff, Eldridge Boyd, sued State Farm in June 2007, claiming State Farm "conspired with adjusters and engineers to underpay wind claims." Boyd said he was owed for additional damage because he knew nothing about the "conspiracy" when he went through mediation.

Judge Santer said, "No!"

The shame is that any agreement based on "fraud" isn't fair and isn't just. Insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to profit by their own fraudulent wrongdoing.

This case is another example of indifferent conservative judges who protect corporations!

The opinion was issued in the case Boyd v. State Farm. Anita Lee, Biloxi Sun Herald 08/13/2008 Read Article: Biloxi Sun Herald