Monday, December 28, 2009

Renewed inquiry to ECOA

From: RDShatt
To: KDarcy@theecoa.org
Sent: 12/28/2009 6:55:40 A.M. Central Standard Time

Subj: Business ethics issue in 2010 elections

Dear Mr. Darcy,

I am going to be pressing my advocacy in connection with the 2010 elections (which you may get more information about here in my blog), and I am particularly raising my contention that the civil law liability system undermines business ethics.

I wish to renew my inquiry to the ECOA along the lines of the following questions:

1. Does the ECOA wish to express an opinion or view?

2. Does the ECOA wish to be a venue for discussion and exploration of the issue by its members?

3. May I participate if the ECOA's answer to question 2 is yes?

Thank you for your attention to this email.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

ABA Justice Center; Judicial Division

From: rdshatt@aol.com
To: koellinp@staff.abanet.org
Sent: 12/28/2009 5:45:25 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: 2010 elections; continued interest

Dear Mr. Koelling,

Please be advised that I am now directing my attention towards the 2010 elections, which you may get more information about here in my blog.

I invite the ABA Justice Center and the ABA Judicial Division to join in the debate. If the Justice Center and/or the Judicial Division care to provide me with a written statement of position or views, I will probably be willing to post it in my blog.

In addition, I continue to be interested in involvement with the Justice Center as an "involved citizen" and hope you will respond to my request to participate.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Response from DRI

From: johnrkouris@DRI.org
To: RDShatt@aol.com
CC: Kelly.Freeman@Meadowbrook.com, larry.henke@trane.com, cehiltgen@hiltgenbrewer.com, cairns@gcglaw.com, hsneath@psmn.com, mmassaron@plunkettcooney.com, ccole@srcattorneys.com, thowes@DRI.org, nparz@DRI.org, lconneen@DRI.org
Sent: 12/27/2009 10:30:37 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: FW: I hope DRI Corporate Counsel committee is sympathetic with my efforts

Dear Robert,

Kelly Freeman, Chair of the DRI Corporate Counsel Committee, forwarded me your most recent message. I have reviewed a number of your blog postings, and I appreciate the concern expressed in your writings. I will respond to your comments on behalf of DRI.

There certainly is a portion of the public and the defense bar who would agree with you about the relationship between our current economic condition and the influence of the plaintiffs’ bar. I do, however, feel that reasonable people understand that the complexities of the U.S. and global economy extend beyond class action lawsuits and other legal machinations of the plaintiffs’ lawyers. Nevertheless, your point is well taken.

Members of the DRI Corporate Counsel Committee are employees of various corporations, and I can assure you that as such employees, they are doing everything possible to protect their employers from the ravages of lawsuits. Such activities are not apparent to the general public, which makes it difficult for individuals to realize the positive impact of their work.

Because DRI is non-political – we do not engage in lobbying activities, and we do not support any political party – we do not become involved in supporting candidates for election at the local or national level. Instead, we focus our energies on our founding purposes: Education of defense lawyers, Justice and the improvement of the civil justice system, Balance as a counterpoint to the plaintiffs bar, Economics – assisting the defense lawyers in the economic realities of the practice of law, and Professionalism & Service.

Thank you for your inquiry.

Cordially,

John R. Kouris
Executive Director
DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar

Suggested campaign message

[Below is an introductory campaign message I am trying to draft for consideration by candidates in the 2010 elections who are interested in the same.]

During the past year and a half, the country has been trying to understand what clobbered our economy and financial system and we are trying to battle our way back to better economic health and prosperity.

Significant sectors of the economy have been brought under close scrutiny by the government and public, and the government is in the process of revamping many of the rules and imposing new controls and limitations to try to solve the country's problems.

Some areas and sectors have not been given scrutiny that is needed, or have been looked at but gotten a pass. As part of my campaign I want to press on those.

If the country thinks that management of banks needs to suffer compensation limitations to help fix the economy, why has there been a failure in the monumental health care reform bills to include medical malpractice reform to bring help bring down costs and help the economy that way? I think a pass is being given there that should not be given.

Indeed, I believe the whole area of tort reform and class action litigation has new need for heightened scrutiny and legislative and judicial action to lessen adverse effects that flow from that domain and that impair the country in its battle to regain better economic health and prosperity.

I am going to develop and put in my campaign platform several specific proposals and ideas.

[end of draft campaign message]

DRI Corporate Counsel follow up

From: RDShatt
To: kfreeman@meadowbrook.com, l_henke58@yahoo.com, laura.proctor@lpcorp.com, cbroerman@centurysurety.com, ed.buckles@electrolux.com, kris.carey@us.mcd.com, fulcherkyle@johndeere.com, chris.howard@syngenta.com, glenna.m.kyle@exxonmobil.com, christina.magee@zurichna.com, amass@hanover.com, scnordling@cvty.com, kpihlstrom@onebeacon.com, katrina.reinhardt@dowcorning.com, john_siegart@trg.com, kurt.tandan@adidas-Group.com, clinton.thute@catlin.com, kay.e.tuveson@healthpartners.com, lee.vail@farmersinsurance.com
Sent: 12/27/2009 5:33:25 A.M. Central Standard Time

Subj: I hope DRI Corporate Counsel committee is sympathetic with my efforts

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I appreciate that the purpose of the DRI is not to respond to inquiring members of the public, and that there is no responsibility of the Corporate Counsel committee to respond to the below email that I previously sent to you. At the same time I feel it is legitimate to push my advocacy by including the DRI in my emailing.

Corporate Counsel is supposed to protect the interest of the corporation and constituent interests of stockholders, employees and others. In my opinion, the law, in many class action lawsuits, operates unjustly in failing to give fair consideration to those interests. I believe that should be changed.

While the obligation and role of Corporate Counsel does not extend to advocating to lawmakers that the law be changed to afford fairer consideration of corporate and corporate constituent interests, I wish for you to be aware of my advocacy efforts that go in that direction.

My current efforts are being heavily directed towards the 2010 elections. See this link in my blog.

I hope that you, as Corporate Counsel, are sympathetic with my efforts.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck


[previous email]
From: RDShatt
To: kfreeman@meadowbrook.com, l_henke58@yahoo.com, laura.proctor@lpcorp.com, cbroerman@centurysurety.com, ed.buckles@electrolux.com, kris.carey@us.mcd.com, fulcherkyle@johndeere.com, chris.howard@syngenta.com, glenna.m.kyle@exxonmobil.com, christina.magee@zurichna.com, amass@hanover.com, scnordling@cvty.com, kpihlstrom@onebeacon.com, katrina.reinhardt@dowcorning.com, john_siegart@trg.com, kurt.tandan@adidas-Group.com, clinton.thute@catlin.com, kay.e.tuveson@healthpartners.com, lee.vail@farmersinsurance.com
Sent: 12/12/2009 9:19:13 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Inquiry of DRI Corporate Counsel committee

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In my blog How To Combat Plaintiffs' Lawyers, I record my involvement with several securities law class action lawsuits in which I contend that, if securities purchasers (on the open market) have sustained financial losses by reason of misrepresentations that officers, accountants, and others have purveyed, corresponding windfall gains have accrued to lucky sellers who happened to sell before the misrepresentations became publicly known. Those lucky sellers are not parties to the litigation and walk away with their windfall gains. To extract funds from the corporation for the losses effectively redistributes the losses (increased by plaintiff and corporate defense attorney fees), such redistribution being in somewhat random ways and being made among the unlucky purchasers (some effectively getting their losses increased, some decreased), and also among other securities holders who did not have a loss from the misrepresentation (but wind up with an effective loss because of such redistribution).

I know some would say that inappropriately tries to look too much through the corporate form. Nonetheless the funds for any liability the corporation has to pay could have been distributed to security holders in some pro rata way, and that gives, I think, some legitimacy to the concept of "effective loss".

My inquiry to you is, all things considered, do you agree that the law should make the foregoing redistribution of losses (where lucky selling security holders have walked away with windfall gains and don't have to give those back)? If you think the law should not make that redistribution of losses, do you think there are any valid legal, equitable or procedural arguments that could be made to a court that would avoid or mitigate the amount of such redistribution of losses?

In answering my inquiries, I hope you will take into account your role as corporate counsel and how you view your obligation to protect the interests of security holders in the litigation and advance arguments to the court to try to protect those interests.

If you wish to read my blog posts related to my involvement and objections in securities class action lawsuits of the type in question, see these links: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/november-2007-tyco-class-action.html (Tyco); http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2008/04/letter-to-judge-thompson.html (Xerox); http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-arent-government-retirement-systems.html (Monster, Inc.).

I hope I hear from you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Friday, December 25, 2009

Currency conversion lawsuit: reply to Mr. Berg

From: rdshatt@aol.com

To: selwynberg@hotmail.com

CC: altmanlaw2@aol.com, ann_ruck@yahoo.com, asteyer@steyerlaw.com, bamford@oz.net, barrington1assoc@cox.net, bbrosnahan@kasowitz.com, bjasinski@carolina.rr.com, bonnys@csgrr.com, cashbonas@hotmail.com, cbuffon@cov.com, chris.lipsett@wilmerhale.com, chris@chrisgraeser.com, cmtlaw@aol.com, daniel.squire@wilmerhale.com, darrell.palmer@cox.net, douglascoleesq@att.net, downeyjustice@gmail.com, edward@hasbrouck.org, efsiegel@efs-law.com, fastowj@dicksteinshapiro.com, firm@bishoplegal.net, gcumming@morganlewis.com, htomlinson@bellsouth.net, ibizar@ballonstoll.com, jacob.jou@gmail.com, jclasen@rc.com, jim@schragbaum.com, jskess@charter.net, kennelson@mclaw.com, kskoenig@hotmail.com, mladner@mofo.com, n.a.bacharach@att.net, nzezula@rc.com, onewaywon1@gmail.com, pkamenar@wlf.org, psr@rothsteinforjustice.com, rogers@ballardspahr.com, rsglaw@bellsouth.net, russ@wildwoodlamps.com, rwick@cov.com, dstewart@hulettharper.com, quinn@sabre-holdings.com, tom@schragbaum.com, vrw@vrwalkerco.com, wjdrakeford@gmail.com

Sent: 12/25/2009 8:41:48 A.M. Central Standard Time

Subj: Currency conversion fee litigation: reply to Mr. Berg

Dear Mr. Berg,

A desire for justice is widespread and deep seated in human beings, and it is extremely worthy for society to expend much time, money and effort on seeking justice.

Unfortunately, this currency conversion class action is despicable Bleak House/Jarndyce v. Jarndyce type litigation.

In September of 2007 I expressed my views to Judge Pauley in this letter.

At the end of the letter I characterized the class action lawsuit as "skimming" by the attorneys and said this to Judge Pauley:

As I have indicated, the skimming that is going on by the attorneys here is at least as reprehensible as the skimming that the credit card companies and banks are alleged to have perpetrated.

In short, Your Honor, I think you should be ashamed to put your stampof approval on these shenanigans.


I have no idea whether Judge Pauley read my letter or if he had any thoughts about my letter.

I believe this is a closed legal system in which the judges and the lawyers are out of touch with economics, business ethics and genuine justice.

Now that our country is battling the worst economic and financial difficulties in 80 years, it is time for American citizens to heighten their efforts to lessen the predations of the plaintiffs' lawyers (and their defense lawyer cohorts). The upcoming 2010 elections will provide an opportune time to do this.

As indicated here in my blog, I have used this website http://www.uselections.com/ to send the below form of email message to United States Senators and Representatives and to announced candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives in the 2010 elections (approximately 1000 messages sent).

Subj: Plaintiffs' lawyers impede economic recovery

Dear ____________,

I am an Alabama resident.

I think plaintiffs' lawyers impede the country's economic recovery. I also think they undermine business ethics. They particularly stand in the way of sensible medical malpractice reform as a way to lower the nation's health care costs.

I have a blog How To Combat Plaintiffs' Lawyers where I record my efforts to communicate with lawmakers, judges, attorney generals and academics, among others, about how I believe plaintiffs' lawyers ill serve societal interests.

I receive no remuneration for any of my activities. I am not a member of any tort reform organization, chamber of commerce, or any other organization that has an interest in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers.

Congress is debating more stimulus, health care reform, and other governmental action to get our nation's economy back on track, and the country is moving toward the 2010 elections that will be a referendum on how the current Congress performs about these important domestic issues.

I hope you, as a United States Senator or Representative, or as a candidate for the Senate or the House of Representatives, will look at the contribution the plaintiffs' lawyers make to the country's economic difficulties and will consider, advocate and propose legislative action to lessen the problem of the plaintiffs' lawyers.

Thank you.


I hope those who have been sucked into the currency conversion class action lawsuit and who have our country's best interests at heart will join in efforts in the coming year to fight the predations of the plaintiffs' lawyers.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

In a message dated 12/24/2009 11:55:06 A.M. Central Standard Time, selwynberg@hotmail.com writes:

Attached please find a letter to Judge Pauley in support of the Bonds. I regret
that such a financial intimidation has to be used to discourage vexatious legal
actions, but –as the system stands- it is expensive to litigate and the dollar
is an unfair – but existing- legal weapon which is a two way sword. I can only
hope the Judge will be fair in assessing bond requirements.

Selwyn Berg;
pro se

Saturday, December 12, 2009

DRI Corporate Counsel committee

From: RDShatt
To: kfreeman@meadowbrook.com, l_henke58@yahoo.com, laura.proctor@lpcorp.com, cbroerman@centurysurety.com, ed.buckles@electrolux.com, kris.carey@us.mcd.com, fulcherkyle@johndeere.com, chris.howard@syngenta.com, glenna.m.kyle@exxonmobil.com, christina.magee@zurichna.com, amass@hanover.com, scnordling@cvty.com, kpihlstrom@onebeacon.com, katrina.reinhardt@dowcorning.com, john_siegart@trg.com, kurt.tandan@adidas-Group.com, clinton.thute@catlin.com, kay.e.tuveson@healthpartners.com, lee.vail@farmersinsurance.com
Sent: 12/12/2009 9:19:13 A.M. Central Standard Time

Subj: Inquiry of DRI Corporate Counsel committee

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In my blog How To Combat Plaintiffs' Lawyers, I record my involvement with several securities law class action lawsuits in which I contend that, if securities purchasers (on the open market) have sustained financial losses by reason of misrepresentations that officers, accountants, and others have purveyed, corresponding windfall gains have accrued to lucky sellers who happened to sell before the misrepresentations became publicly known. Those lucky sellers are not parties to the litigation and walk away with their windfall gains. To extract funds from the corporation for the losses effectively redistributes the losses (increased by plaintiff and corporate defense attorney fees), such redistribution being in somewhat random ways and being made among the unlucky purchasers (some effectively getting their losses increased, some decreased), and also among other securities holders who did not have a loss from the misrepresentation (but wind up with an effective loss because of such redistribution).

I know some would say that inappropriately tries to look too much through the corporate form. Nonetheless the funds for any liability the corporation has to pay could have been distributed to security holders in some pro rata way, and that gives, I think, some legitimacy to the concept of "effective loss".

My inquiry to you is, all things considered, do you agree that the law should make the foregoing redistribution of losses (where lucky selling security holders have walked away with windfall gains and don't have to give those back)? If you think the law should not make that redistribution of losses, do you think there are any valid legal, equitable or procedural arguments that could be made to a court that would avoid or mitigate the amount of such redistribution of losses?

In answering my inquiries, I hope you will take into account your role as corporate counsel and how you view your obligation to protect the interests of security holders in the litigation and advance arguments to the court to try to protect those interests.

If you wish to read my blog posts related to my involvement and objections in securities class action lawsuits of the type in question, see these links: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/november-2007-tyco-class-action.html (Tyco); http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2008/04/letter-to-judge-thompson.html (Xerox); http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-arent-government-retirement-systems.html (Monster, Inc.).

I hope I hear from you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Candidates for US Senate and House

In the coming weeks I will use this website http://www.uselections.com/ to send the below form of email to United States Senators and Representatives and to announced candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives, ideally covering all 50 states.

From: RDShatt
To: ___________
Sent: 12/__/2009 _______Central Standard Time

Subj: Plaintiffs' lawyers impede economic recovery

Dear ____________,

I am an Alabama resident.

I think plaintiffs' lawyers impede the country's economic recovery. I also think they undermine business ethics. They particularly stand in the way of sensible medical malpractice reform as a way to lower the nation's health care costs.

I have a blog How To Combat Plaintiffs' Lawyers where I record my efforts to communicate with lawmakers, judges, attorney generals and academics, among others, about how I believe plaintiffs' lawyers ill serve societal interests.

I receive no remuneration for any of my activities. I am not a member of any tort reform organization, chamber of commerce, or any other organization that has an interest in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers.

Congress is debating more stimulus, health care reform, and other governmental action to get our nation's economy back on track, and the country is moving toward the 2010 elections that will be a referendum on how the current Congress performs about these important domestic issues.

I hope you, as a United States Senator or Representative, or as a candidate for the Senate or the House of Representatives, will look at the contribution the plaintiffs' lawyers make to the country's economic difficulties and will consider, advocate and propose legislative action to lessen the problem of the plaintiffs' lawyers.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Washington State federal legislators and candidates

I used this website http://www.uselections.com/wa/wa.htm to send the below email to Washington State's United States Senators and Representatives and to announced candidates for those offices in the 2010 elections.


From: RDShatt
To: ________
Sent: 12/9/2009 ______.M. Central Standard Time

Subj: Plaintiffs' lawyers and economic recovery in Washington State


Dear __________,

I think that plaintiffs' lawyers and their activities are an impediment to economic recovery, are an obstacle to health care cost reduction, and undermine business ethics.

I am an Alabama resident who has objected in a class action lawsuit against Expedia, Inc. that is pending in the King County Superior Court. The past several days I have sent the below form of emails to county commissioners and to Superior Court judges in Washington State in which I am highly critical of the settlement agreement approved by the judge in the Expedia case and argue that action is needed to be taken against the plaintiffs' lawyers as a source of the country's health care cost problems and by reason of how they impair economic recovery, job creation and government revenue raising.

I am writing you this email for you to consider in your position as a high level elected official in Washington State and/or as candidate for the same, and to try to make the same an issue in the next election.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

[form of email to county commissioners and county council members]

From: RDShatt
To: _______@co._____.wa.us
Sent: 12/8/2009 ________.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Email to ________ County Judges


Dear Commissioner _________,

I am a resident of the State of Alabama and I have sent the below email to your county's Superior Court judge(s) and other Washington State Superior Court judges.

Why am I bothering to tell you this?

Our country is struggling to get out of an extremely bad recession; our federal, state and local lawmakers are contemplating more job stimulus programs, finding ways to reduce health care costs, and other additional governmental action, to try get our economy back on track; further, governments are desperate for revenues to cover large budget shortfalls.

You have something in your backyard you should take a look at. You can begin to do so by reading the below email to the Superior Court judges. It is specifically about a $9,500,000 mindless waste of funds that one Washington State Superior Court judge has sanctioned (which waste of economic resources is significantly greater that the stated $9,500,000 amount), and that judges around the country are multiplying thousands of times over. These amounts go to line the pockets of persons (plaintiffs' lawyers) who use their resources to block sensible medical malpractice reform (and the health care cost reductions that can come from that) and who otherwise broadly propagate activities that are an indefensible tax and exaction on business that impedes the economic recovery and job creation, which in turn keeps your government from getting revenues it needs.

You may not be a federal or state lawmaker or a judge who can do something directly about the plaintiffs' lawyers but you are a local official who can be informed about the burdens they place on the economy, on business recovery, and on your government getting needed revenues. You are in a position to register your views with state legislators and judges and other local persons of influence with whom you come in contact.

I, as a citizen, am complaining strenuously against the attempted governmental takeover of health care that will increase health care costs and will impair economic recovery and also against the trillions of dollars of increased government spending and debilitating tax increases in the name of stimulus that have taken place or that are in the works. While I am complaining about those, I want to complain about why action is not being taken against the plaintiffs' lawyers as a source of the country's health care cost problems and how they impair economic recovery and job creation and government revenue raising.

I hope you agree with my views and will register your own accordingly.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

[Form of email sent December 3rd and 4th to Washington State Superior Court judges]

From: RDShatt
To: ______________Sent: 12/__/2009 _______.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Email to Judge Benton


Dear Judge _____,

I think the below email to Judge Benton is self-explanatory of why I am sending you a copy of the email. I hope you will give due consideration to the points I make in the email and perhaps discuss the same with other judges in Washington State.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

From: RDShattTo: laura.dorris@kingcounty.govCC: neal.mccarthy@__________, jkaren@jonesday.com, steve@hbsslaw.comSent: 12/3/2009 7:21:56 A.M. Central Standard TimeSubj: Continued complaint about Expedia class action litigation

Dear Judge Benton,

Plaintiffs' counsel has sent me your signed Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Incentive Awards in In re Expedia Taxes and Fees Litigation, in which you awarded the plaintiffs' counsel $9,587,096.11, which includes $412,903.89 in expenses.

In August I sent these two emails to you that your bailiff indicated were reviewed by you and would be made part of the file: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/08/email-to-judge-benton.html and http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/08/second-email-to-judge-benton.html .

I have read your order and the justification you set out for the attorneys' fees.

With all due respect, your Honor, I consider your order to be a mindless action based on either mindless actions of other judges previously (I have not studied the cases you cite so I cannot say whether they were mindless as well) or, if the actions of the other judges were not mindless, you failed to see why you were being mindless in how you followed those precedents in the Expedia litigation.

I have been disseminating this citizen's letter to judges and feel the Expedia litigation in the King County Superior Court is an appropriate opportunity for disseminating my citizen's letter to judges at other Superior Courts in Washington State. I see from the Washington courts website that there are email addresses for emailing to judges at other Superior Courts, and I plan to send to them copies of this email to you.

I would like further to call this matter to the attention of Washington State state legislators, such as the judiciary committees. While I am not a citizen of Washington State, class action litigation such as the Expedia case has an effect nationally on consumers and investors, and I believe it should be permissible for out of state citizens to point that out to other state legislatures.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Washington State county commissioners

I sent the following form of email to county commissioners and county council members of just about all counties in Washington State.

From: RDShatt
To: __________
Sent: 12/8/2009 _____A.M. Central Standard Time

Subj: Email to ____ County Judges


Dear Commissioner ________,

I am a resident of the State of Alabama and I have sent the below email to your county's Superior Court judge(s) and other Washington State Superior Court judges.

Why am I bothering to tell you this?

Our country is struggling to get out of an extremely bad recession; our federal, state and local lawmakers are contemplating more job stimulus programs, finding ways to reduce health care costs, and other additional governmental action, to try get our economy back on track; further, governments are desperate for revenues to cover large budget shortfalls.

You have something in your backyard you should take a look at. You can begin to do so by reading the below email to the Superior Court judges. It is specifically about a $9,500,000 mindless waste of funds that one Washington State Superior Court judge has sanctioned (which waste of economic resources is significantly greater that the stated $9,500,000 amount), and that judges around the country are multiplying thousands of times over. These amounts go to line the pockets of persons (plaintiffs' lawyers) who use their resources to block sensible medical malpractice reform (and the health care cost reductions that can come from that) and who otherwise broadly propagate activities that are an indefensible tax and exaction on business that impedes the economic recovery and job creation, which in turn keeps your government from getting revenues it needs.

You may not be a federal or state lawmaker or a judge who can do something directly about the plaintiffs' lawyers but you are a local official who can be informed about the burdens they place on the economy, on business recovery, and on your government getting needed revenues. You are in a position to register your views with state legislators and judges and other local persons of influence with whom you come in contact.

I, as a citizen, am complaining strenuously against the attempted governmental takeover of health care that will increase health care costs and will impair economic recovery and also against the trillions of dollars of increased government spending and debilitating tax increases in the name of stimulus that have taken place or that are in the works. While I am complaining about those, I want to complain about why action is not being taken against the plaintiffs' lawyers as a source of the country's health care cost problems and how they impair economic recovery and job creation and government revenue raising.

I hope you agree with my views and will register your own accordingly.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

[Form of email sent December 3rd and 4th to Washington State Superior Court judges]

From: RDShatt
To: ______________
Sent: 12/__/2009 _______.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Email to Judge Benton


Dear Judge _____,

I think the below email to Judge Benton is self-explanatory of why I am sending you a copy of the email. I hope you will give due consideration to the points I make in the email and perhaps discuss the same with other judges in Washington State.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

From: RDShatt
To: laura.dorris@kingcounty.govCC: neal.mccarthy@__________, jkaren@jonesday.com, steve@hbsslaw.com
Sent: 12/3/2009 7:21:56 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Continued complaint about Expedia class action litigation

Dear Judge Benton,

Plaintiffs' counsel has sent me your signed Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Incentive Awards in In re Expedia Taxes and Fees Litigation, in which you awarded the plaintiffs' counsel $9,587,096.11, which includes $412,903.89 in expenses.

In August I sent these two emails to you that your bailiff indicated were reviewed by you and would be made part of the file: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/08/email-to-judge-benton.html and http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/08/second-email-to-judge-benton.html .

I have read your order and the justification you set out for the attorneys' fees.

With all due respect, your Honor, I consider your order to be a mindless action based on either mindless actions of other judges previously (I have not studied the cases you cite so I cannot say whether they were mindless as well) or, if the actions of the other judges were not mindless, you failed to see why you were being mindless in how you followed those precedents in the Expedia litigation.

I have been disseminating this citizen's letter to judges and feel the Expedia litigation in the King County Superior Court is an appropriate opportunity for disseminating my citizen's letter to judges at other Superior Courts in Washington State. I see from the Washington courts website that there are email addresses for emailing to judges at other Superior Courts, and I plan to send to them copies of this email to you.

I would like further to call this matter to the attention of Washington State state legislators, such as the judiciary committees. While I am not a citizen of Washington State, class action litigation such as the Expedia case has an effect nationally on consumers and investors, and I believe it should be permissible for out of state citizens to point that out to other state legislatures.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Monday, December 7, 2009

Washington State Superior Court judges

I used the email addresses I found by means of the links on this webpage http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_dir/?fa=court_dir.county in order to send last Thursday and Friday the below email to almost all the Washington State Superior Court judges.

From: RDShatt
To: ____________
Sent: 12/__/2009 _______ Central Standard Time
Subj: Email to Judge Benton


Dear Judge ____________,

I think the below email to Judge Benton is self-explanatory of why I am sending you a copy of the email. I hope you will give due consideration to the points I make in the email and perhaps discuss the same with other judges in Washington State.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

From: RDShatt
To: laura.dorris@kingcounty.gov
CC: neal.mccarthy@_________, jkaren@jonesday.com, steve@hbsslaw.com
Sent: 12/3/2009 7:21:56 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Continued complaint about Expedia class action litigation

Dear Judge Benton,

Plaintiffs' counsel has sent me your signed Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Incentive Awards in In re Expedia Taxes and Fees Litigation, in which you awarded the plaintiffs' counsel $9,587,096.11, which includes $412,903.89 in expenses.

In August I sent these two emails to you that your bailiff indicated were reviewed by you and would be made part of the file: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/08/email-to-judge-benton.html and http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/08/second-email-to-judge-benton.html .

I have read your order and the justification you set out for the attorneys' fees.

With all due respect, your Honor, I consider your order to be a mindless action based on either mindless actions of other judges previously (I have not studied the cases you cite so I cannot say whether they were mindless as well) or, if the actions of the other judges were not mindless, you failed to see why you were being mindless in how you followed those precedents in the Expedia litigation.

I have been disseminating this citizen's letter to judges and feel the Expedia litigation in the King County Superior Court is an appropriate opportunity for disseminating my citizen's letter to judges at other Superior Courts in Washington State. I see from the Washington courts website that there are email addresses for emailing to judges at other Superior Courts, and I plan to send to them copies of this email to you.

I would like further to call this matter to the attention of Washington State state legislators, such as the judiciary committees. While I am not a citizen of Washington State, class action litigation such as the Expedia case has an effect nationally on consumers and investors, and I believe it should be permissible for out of state citizens to point that out to other state legislatures.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Center For Class Action Fairness

From: RDShatt
To: tfrank@gmail.com
Sent: 12/7/2009 5:31:05 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Re: Objecting in class action lawsuits

Dear Ted,

Thank you very much for informing me about this development in your activities. I was not previously aware of it.

Thus far, I have not been able to achieve "coordination" in my objecting in class action lawsuits and I have been acting solo. My Papadakis objection (that is reproduced in this email) continues as a generic form of argument for me. My most recent objecting activity (renewed this past Thursday and memorialized in my blog) is in an Expedia litigation in Washington State.

I am very much interested in learning about the approaches and activities of other class action objectors, and I will keep up with your blog for information.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

In a message dated 12/5/2009 1:24:46 P.M. Central Standard Time, tfrank@gmail.com writes:

You ask whether there are "any coordinated efforts by or among tort reform advocates for filing objections to class action lawsuits."
This summer, I've started a project to do that, called the Center for Class Action Fairness.
See:http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0921/outfront-tort-consumers-lawyer-tries-to-block-settlements.html ; http://centerforclassactionfairness.blogspot.com/
If, in the future, you are a member of a class, and you'd like an attorney to represent you in the settlement fairness hearing, feel free to contact me.
Ted

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:04 AM, <RDShatt@aol.com> wrote:

Objecting in class action lawsuits

Gentlemen,

As you may know from my blog, I have been an objector in class action lawsuits of which I have received notice. Appended below is my most recent objection, which is in a class action against The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company.

I would like to solicit your views on a couple of questions.

First, what do you think about my argumentation in my objection based on lack of social utility judged on the basis of (i) does the litigation tend to lessen or tend to promote corporate wrongdoing, and (ii) to what extent should the litigation be considered only as a case of unjust enrichment as between innocent parties and how well does the litigation serve justice under unjust enrichment principles?

Second, are you aware of any coordinated efforts by or among tort reform advocates for filing objections to class action lawsuits on a "friend of the court" basis?

Third, would you be interested in participating in any such coordinated efforts?

Thank you for your attention to this email.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

[objection submitted in Papadakis v.The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company; exhibits are not reproduced below but links to them are given below instead]

From: RDShattTo: cvergara@OMM.comSent: 12/3/2008 6:47:27 P.M. Central Standard TimeSubj: Objections of Robert & Fiona Shattuck in Papadakis v.Northwestern Mut. Life

Objections of Robert & Fiona Shattuck in Papadakis v.The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company.

Our names, addresses and telephone numbers are Robert and Fiona Shattuck, 3812 Spring Valley Circle, Birmingham, AL 35223, (205) 967-5586. We do not have an attorney. All or some of the policy numbers are: 13 436 492; 14 488 560; 13 574 094; 11 043 059 Our objections are stated below. We do not intend to appear in the Final Settlement Hearing.

Statement of objections and reasons

In exercising its discretion as to approval of the settlement and attorney fees, the court is obligated under the law to be reasonable and not to approve something that has no reasonableness.

Reasonableness is properly determined with reference to a standard based on social utility and cost benefit principles. If there is little or no social utility of the litigation or if it has disutility, attorney fees that are approved should not greatly exceed the social utility. Social utility is not subject to hard and fast quantification, and a subjective evaluation and weighing of factors and considerations is unavoidable.

The basic question is what is the social utility of this litigation and how does that compare to the cost of the litigation in terms of legal fees of all the plaintiffs' and defense attorneys and the time burden on non-attorneys, such as defendant's employees, who are called on to participate in the litigation.

It is contended that this litigation has little or no social utility and, in fact, has a significant component of negative disutility.

First, this litigation does not promote an objective of the law to lessen corporate wrongdoing, and this litigation is in fact counterproductive to that end and it undermines the fostering and inculcation of ethical business conduct. Extensive argumentation in support of this contention is set out in Exhibit A hereto, entitled "Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?"

Further this litigation is very questionable in serving the social utility of "doing justice." The main reason it is questionable is that it is likely there has been insufficient attention paid to the extent to which this litigation is about making transfers of amounts by and among parties in interest who are not culpable of any wrongdoing. It is possible there has been wrongdoing by corporate employees or other individuals, and as a result some innocent parties have received a benefit from the wrongdoing and other innocent parties have had a loss or cost imposed on them. Whether or not there has been wrongdoing, the case should be considered as an unjust enrichment case, and nothing more. The facts and circumstances of all the persons who have been unjustly enriched and at whose expense they have been unjustly enriched are likely highly variable and somewhat indeterminate, and it is likely there has not been adequate investigation, or opportunity for argument, as to persons who are contended to have been unjustly enriched, the particular facts about whether or not he was unjustly enriched or, if he was unjustly enriched, about whether more is being taken from him in the litigation than the amount by which he was unjustly enriched.

The below objectors have been in the plaintiff class in several class action lawsuits in which there has been wrongdoing or alleged wrongdoing and in which the litigation resulted mainly in transfers by and among innocent parties in interest who were not culpable of any wrongdoing and in which little or no attention was paid to which of the innocent parties were unjustly enriched, the amount of their respective unjust enrichments, and whether there was any correlation between the amount required to be borne by an innocent party in interest and the amount by which the party was unjustly enriched. These class action lawsuits had no or negative social utility on balance and various objections were made to them. Because these objections are illustrative about the lack of social utility, and may serve as enlightenment about the lack of social utility of this litigation, these objections relative to these other class action lawsuits are appended below as Exhibit B (a credit card currency conversion fee class action lawsuit), Exhibit C (a Charter cable TV internal wire maintenance fee), Exhibit D (a Xerox securities class action), and Exhibit E (Middlesex County Retirement System) and also as Exhibit F an analysis of a Tyco securities class action for which there was not status as a member of the plaintiff class and as Exhibit G an analysis of certain Enron litigation for which there was not status as a member of the plaintiff class .

If the social utility of this litigation is to be evaluated and judged under the foregoing criteria of (i) does it tend to lessen or tend to promote corporate wrongdoing, and (ii) to what extent does it serve justice by having innocent parties in interest who have been unjustly enriched to pay over their unjust enrichment, it is probably the case that more factual development is needed as to clause (ii). Defendant's counsel would be an appropriate attorney to do that factual development.

Absent such further factual development showing that more plaintiffs' fees are warranted based on social utility, we contend that the social utility of this litigation does not warrant plaintiffs attorneys fees in excess of $1,000,000.

Robert Shattuck
Fiona Shattuck


Exhibit A

Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?


Exhibit B

Objection in credit card currency conversion fee case


Exhibit C

Objection in Charter Cable class action


Exhibit D

Objection in Xerox securities class action


Exhibit E

Communication to lead to lead plaintiff Middlesex County Retirement System


Exhibit F

Tyco secrurities class action


Exhibit G

Enron's smartest guys, crooks, victims and other saps

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Another email to Judge Benton

From: RDShatt
To: laura.dorris@kingcounty.gov
CC: neal.mccarthy@__________, jkaren@jonesday.com, steve@hbsslaw.com
Sent: 12/3/2009 7:21:56 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Continued complaint about Expedia class action litigation

Dear Judge Benton,

Plaintiffs' counsel has sent me your signed Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Incentive Awards in In re Expedia Taxes and Fees Litigation, in which you awarded the plaintiffs' counsel $9,587,096.11, which includes $412,903.89 in expenses.

In August I sent these two emails to you that your bailiff indicated were reviewed by you and would be made part of the file: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/08/email-to-judge-benton.html and http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/08/second-email-to-judge-benton.html .

I have read your order and the justification you set out for the attorneys' fees.

With all due respect, your Honor, I consider your order to be a mindless action based on either mindless actions of other judges previously (I have not studied the cases you cite so I cannot say whether they were mindless as well) or, if the actions of the other judges were not mindless, you failed to see why you were being mindless in how you followed those precedents in the Expedia litigation.

I have been disseminating this citizen's letter to judges and feel the Expedia litigation in the King County Superior Court is an appropriate opportunity for disseminating my citizen's letter to judges at other Superior Courts in Washington State. I see from the Washington courts website that there are email addresses for emailing to judges at other Superior Courts, and I plan to send to them copies of this email to you.

I would like further to call this matter to the attention of Washington State state legislators, such as the judiciary committees. While I am not a citizen of Washington State, class action litigation such as the Expedia case has an effect nationally on consumers and investors, and I believe it should be permissible for out of state citizens to point that out to other state legislatures.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Some AJS views on judicial selection

From: sandersen@ajs.org
To: RDShatt@aol.com
Sent: 12/1/2009 9:33:29 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: RE: Inquiry regarding AJS membership

Mr. Shattuck:

I appreciate your continuing interest in the work of AJS. Regarding your stated intention to engage other members of the Society in discussions about policy matters, there are some opportunities to do so through mechanisms such as letters to the editor of our journal, Judicature. We do not currently host any blogs or online discussion boards, although we may do so in the future. Out of respect for the privacy of our members, we do not share membership lists.

Regarding the areas of judicial independence and judicial selection that you mention below, you should know that AJS has advocated for commission-based appointment and retention of judges (also known as “merit selection”) since 1917, when Professor Albert Kales of Northwestern University Law School, a co-founder of the Society, developed the first model for commission-based appointment of state judges. AJS has supported the expansion of commission-based appointive systems and retention elections across the country, beginning in Missouri in 1940. The Society convened more than 100 state-based citizens conferences on judicial reform from the 1950s through the 1970s, which helped pave the way for the adoption of merit selection systems in several dozen states. Currently, 35 states and the District of Columbia use some form of merit selection to fill some or all vacancies on the bench. Much more information on judicial selection methods and issues is available at our comprehensive Judicial Selection in the States website: http://www.judicialselection.us/.

AJS believes that recent criticisms of judicial nominating commissions by the Wall Street Journal and other entities are off the mark. The Journal has editorialized on this topic several times in the past few years, maintaining without any empirical evidence that judicial nominating commissions in many states are dominated by the plaintiffs trial bar. AJS has studied judicial nominating commissions extensively and provides balanced, nonpartisan training and orientation programs for members of such commissions based on the Handbook for Judicial Nominating Commissioners. We have found no evidence that nominating commissions as institutions are dominated by specific interests within our outside the organized bar. In fact, business interests are largely supportive of merit selection systems, as reflected by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s rankings of state liability systems for 2008. The results of this U.S. Chamber survey of corporate counsel show that the top five states for “creating a fair and reasonable litigation environment” all use appointive systems, with four of them using merit selection. All five of the bottom states in the U.S. Chamber survey, including Alabama at #47, use contestable elections for judges. (U.S. Chamber survey results are available at: http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/index.php?option=com_ilr_harris_poll&year=2008&Itemid=18/)

The U.S Chamber’s Institute of Legal Reform recently issued a report, Promoting “Merit” in Merit Selection, which outlines best practices for commission-based selection of state judges that are based largely on the American Judicature Society’s Model Judicial Selection Provisions and the selection systems used in Arizona and Massachusetts. AJS issued a statement applauding the Chamber ILR report on merit selection, which includes a link to the full Chamber report.

Again, thank you for your interest in the mission and work of AJS.

Best regards,
Seth Andersen


From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: sandersen@ajs.org
Sent: 12/2/2009 6:12:19 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Re: Inquiry regarding AJS membership

Dear Mr. Andersen,

Thank you very much for your extended and very thoughtful reply. I don't think anyone has shown me more consideration, and I wish many others I have contacted had shown me a little more consideration like you. I will include your views in my blog, unless you object.

If I will not gain any greater access to members (such as through email addresses), I may decide not to join and not to pay the membership dues (and save the money for where I can increase access).

I don't know whether you saw in my blog my "citizen's letter to judges" (http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/03/form-of-email-to-judges.html). If that or anything else you see in my blog suggests I could make a contribution for publication in Judicature, I would like that very much.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Email to Professor Natalie Davis

From: RDShatt
To: ndavis@bsc.edu
Sent: 11/30/2009 6:24:12 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: 2010 Attorney General election; AG&'s getting into bed with plaintiffs' lawyers

Dear Professor Davis,

I am trying to identify academics to whom I could direct the below form of email and from whom I would have a chance of getting a response. Are there any professors at Birmingham-Southern or elsewhere in the state whom you could suggest as targets?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

[form of email]


2010 Attorney General election; AG's getting into bed with plaintiffs' lawyers

Dear Professor ______,

I consider an important public issue to be plaintiffs' lawyers and attorney generals getting into bed with them. I wish to try to get this publicized as an issue in the upcoming Alabama Attorney General election race.

My views on the subject are laid out at this blog link of mine: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/E1.%20State%20attorney%20generals

I am contacting you because I would like to find academics who have an area of expertise that specially qualifies them to have view on this subject that are similar to mine and who are willing to express those opinions in a public way.

I hope I hear from you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586

American Judicature Society

From: RDShatt
To: sandersen@ajs.org
Sent: 12/1/2009 5:42:36 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Re: Inquiry regarding AJS membership

Thank you very much for your favorable reply, Mr. Andersen.

While AJS may not take positions on the matters I am interested in, I will assume it is not out of bounds for one member to try to engage other members in discussions about such matters, and, if I became a member, I would try to utilize AJS's facilities to do that. Again, if you think that would be frowned on, please say so, and I will not apply to become a member.

I repeat that I think my issues have a connection to the listed primary areas of focus of the AJS. For example, in the areas of judicial independence and judicial selection, there is a debate going on about judicial election versus judicial appointment, and, in some quarters (e.g., The Wall Street Journal), there is concern about lawyers and their politics and agenda unduly influencing judicial appointments, I would desire to engage with other members in discussion about that matter.

Again, thank you for the reply, and unless I hear from you again soliciting me not to proceed, I will make an application and try AJS out for a year.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: sandersen@ajs.org
To: RDShatt@aol.com
Sent: 11/30/2009 9:30:25 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: RE: Inquiry regarding AJS membership

Mr. Shattuck:

Thank you for your message and for your interest in the work of the American Judicature Society. Membership in AJS is open to anyone who is interested in improving the administration of justice. The membership and Board of Directors of AJS includes state and federal judges, plaintiffs and defense attorneys (both criminal and civil, and private and government attorneys), in-house corporate attorneys, law enforcement officials, law school deans and professors, political scientists who study the courts, and concerned non-lawyer citizens. You may join online at: http://www.ajs.org/ajs/ajs_membership.asp. (Dues rates and benefits of membership are listed at this page, as well.)

Please note that the American Judicature Society does not take positions on many of the issues that appear to be of greatest interest to you, such as class action litigation. AJS is primarily focused on promoting research-based improvements in the administration of justice and the structure of the courts. The substantive law governing class actions or any other categories of cases or controversies is addressed by many other organizations.

Sincerely,

Seth Andersen
Executive Director
American Judicature Society


From: RDShatt@aol.com [mailto:RDShatt@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:07 AM
To: sandersen@ajs.org
Subject: Inquiry regarding AJS membership

Dear Mr. Andersen,
I am a citizen activist who strenuously objects to much class action litigation. I have a blog that I have entitled How To Combat Plaintiffs' Lawyers. I have expressed sharp criticism of juges in my blog and in emails. See, e.g., my blog entries here http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/E3.%20Judges

The AJS website says it is an independent, national, nonpartisan organization of judges, lawyers, and other members of the public who seek to improve the justice system, and that primary areas of focus are judicial independence, judicial conduct and ethics, judicial selection, the jury, the criminal justice system, and public understanding of the justice system.

I believe I am a member of the public who seeks to improve the justice system, I have views that have a connection to all the AJS areas of focus, and my activities include trying to increase public understanding of the justice system.

I wish to pay the dues to join the AJS and become a member of the AJS. As a member I would try to use the facilities of the AJS to communcate my views to other members for their consideration, discussion and debate.

I can understand if the AJS might prefer that I not become a member. If that is the case, I would defer to that preference and not try to become a member.

Please advise me whether it is acceptable to the AJS for me to become a member, and, if it is, I will submit my application.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Monday, November 30, 2009

More emails to Duke professors

From: RDShatt
To: james.sheldon@duke.edu, james.emery@duke.edu, james.anton@duke.edu
Sent: 11/30/2009 5:37:21 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Email to Professor McGovern about class action lawsuit

Dear Professors Sheldon, Emery, and Anton ,

I have previously emailed Professor Francis McGovern at the Duke law school and numerous other law and business professors at Duke, and you may wish not to read further in this email based on that information.

I am a citizen activist against class action lawsuits, and I emailed Professor McGovern because of his involvement as an expert in a class action lawsuit (presumably for a fee), of which lawsuit I had received notice that I was a member of the plaintiff class (and arguably a source for payment of Professor McGovern's fee). (My email to Professor McGovern is appended below.)

I believe that Professor McGovern and other professors ought to be willing to express, for the benefit of the public, their opinions about significant policy questions in the realm of their expertise, such as that which I have inquired about of Professor McGovern in my email to him. This is particularly true in a situation in which a professor has received a fee for providing expertise in a narrow way, and a citizen activist/paying party, such as myself, asks the professor to state his views about a bigger picture of that which the professor has chosen to participate in and provide support to by that participation.

I hope Professor McGovern replies to me. He may not feel he is in a position to reply because to reply may improperly undercut what he was paid to do in the case.

The reason I am emailing you is that your respective courses of Legal Environment of Business, Ethics in Management, and Managerial Economics are indicative of expertise that is relevant (my basic contentions being that class action lawsuits (i) undermine business ethics, (ii) result in a waste of limited corporate resources that could be better deployed in other ways to promote ethical corporate behavior, and (iii) improperly distort risk assessment and result in the adoption of costly and uneconomic "defensive" corporate practices (like the practice of "defensive" medicine which is currently in the national spotlight as a driver of escalating health care costs that the United States is trying to control), which contentions are explicated in part by this article of mine Does the Civil Liability System Undermine Business Ethics? ).

To solicit your views may smack of guilt by association. If it does, I hope that only registers how objectionable I find the exploitation of the public that I believe is going on.

Thanks very much if you have gotten up to here in this email.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck




From: RDShatt
To: McGovern@law.duke.edu
Sent: 11/21/2009 7:54:46 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Currency conversion fee litigation

Dear Professor McGovern,

Your faculty profile http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/mcgovern/ reveals very impressive work in the alternative dispute resolution arena, and you were retained as an expert in this currency conversion fee litigation http://www.ccfsettlement.com/, of which I received notice in 2007 that I was a member of the plaintiff class.

In 2007 I objected to the class action lawsuit in the form of this letter http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/september-2007-credit-card-currency.html that I wrote to Judge Pauley.

I understand that the litigation is now on appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

I continue very perturbed about this class action litigation.

I would like to ask you, if you would, to read my letter to Judge Pauley and to make comment to me as to whether I, more as a citizen than as a class member, have legitimate grounds for my objections, and the extent to which you agree or not with my objections.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Saturday, November 28, 2009

ABA Justice Center follow up

From: RDShatt
To: koellinp@staff.abanet.org
Sent: 11/28/2009 8:12:35 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Follow up on prior requests to become involved

Dear Mr. Koelling,

Earlier this year I sent the below emails to Ms. Skrzekut. Her name no longer appears on the ABA Justice Center webpage, and you are currently shown as the Director.

I continue to desire to become an "involved citizen." Can you please provide me responses to my requests about becoming involved?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt
To: skrzekua@staff.abanet.org
Sent: 5/1/2009 7:32:32 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: ABA Justice Center- request to become involved

Dear Ms. Skrzekut,

I have not heard from you in response to the below email.

If I may, I would be interested in establishing contact with other "involved citizens" who are involved with the Justice Center. Are there any names or email addresses you can furnish me? If you don't wish to give out that information, can you at least send an email to other "involved citizens" that provides my name and email address and indicates I would like to communicate with them and that they should email me if they are receptive to communication with me.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck




From: RDShatt
To: skrzekua@staff.abanet.org
Sent: 4/4/2009 9:18:52 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: ABA Justice Center- request to become involved

Dear Ms. Skrzekut,

Your website says the Justice Center seeks to accomplish justice system reform by "encouraging bench/bar/public collaboration" and that it "draws on the expertise of judges, bar leaders, law professors and deans, involved citizens, and others . . .."

I would like to participate as a member of the public. As to my qualifications as a citizen who wants to be involved and who is involved, I refer you to this "citizen's letter to judges" I am endeavoring to disseminate and other material that may be found at that link.

I look forward to hearing from you in response to this request.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Birmingham Business Alliance

From: RDShatt
To: dalton@birminghambusinessalliance.com
Sent: 11/26/2009 7:42:59 A.M. Central Standard Time

Subj: 2010 Attorney General election; AG's getting into bed with plaintiffs' lawyers

Dear Mr. Smith,

I consider an important public issue to be plaintiffs' lawyers and attorney generals getting into bed with them. I hope this will get publicized as an issue in the upcoming Alabama Attorney General election race.My views on the subject are laid out at this blog link of mine: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/E1.%20State%20attorney%20generals .

I hope The Birmingham Business Alliance will try to publicize this issue. If there is a way I can work with the Alliance on the matter, I would like to do that.

I hope I hear from you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Business Council of Alabama

From: RDShatt
To: quentinr@bcatoday.org, victorv@bcatoday.org, elawlor@bcatoday.org, claireh@bcatoday.org, brandonc@bcatoday.org
Sent: 11/26/2009 12:15:54 A.M. Central Standard Time

Subj: 2010 Attorney General election; AG's getting into bed with plaintiffs' lawyers

To BCA Governmental Affairs staff:

Dear Mr. Riggins, Mr. Vernon, Ms. Lawler, Ms. Haynes, and Mr. Colvin,

I consider an important public issue to be plaintiffs' lawyers and attorney generals getting into bed with plaintiffs' lawyers. I hope this will get publicized as an issue in the upcoming Alabama Attorney General election race.My views on the subject are laid out at this blog link of mine: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/E1.%20State%20attorney%20generals .

I hope the Business Council of Alabama will try to publicize this issue. If there is a way I can work with the BCA on the matter, I would like to do that.

I hope I hear from you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586

Email to Keenan Institute of Ethics faculty

From: RDShatt
To: pickus@duke.edu, wayne.norman@duke.edu, dan.ariely@duke.edu, eballeis@duke.edu
Sent: 11/25/2009 5:44:43 A.M. Central Standard Time

Subj: Keenan Institute of Ethics, Professor McGovern, and currency conversion

Dear Professors Pickus, Norman, Ariely, and Balliesen,

I emailed Professor Francis McGovern and a few other Duke law faculty members regarding a class action lawsuit in which Professor McGovern was retained as an expert witness.

I am a citizen activist against class action lawsuits, which was the prompt for my emails to Professor McGovern and the other law professors. (My emails are appended below.)

The reason I am emailing you is that I believe there is an important business ethics component in my stance against class action lawsuits, to wit, that they undermine business ethics. This article of mine Does the Civil Liability System Undermine Business Ethics? explicates my contention.

Based on your faculty profiles on the KIE website I think my argumentation is worthy of (i) thinking about by Professor Norman in connection with his current work "on a conception of business ethics arising out of the economic and legal theory of the firm," (ii) investigation by a behavioral economist such as Professor Ariely, and (iii) being a basis for a possible recommendation for improvement by Professor Balleisen after he completes his "history of commercial fraud in the United States, and especially organizational fraud against consumers and investors."

I hope my sending this email to you triggers an interest on your part.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt
To: ________
Sent: 11/2_/2009 _______. Central Standard Time
Subj: Email to Professor McGovern

Dear Professor ________,

I am sending you this email (which concerns the below email I have sent to Professor McGovern) for the following reasons:

I am a citizen activist regarding the subject matter of my email to Professor McGovern.

I believe that Professor McGovern and other professors ought to be willing to express, for the benefit of the public, their opinions about significant policy questions in the realm of their expertise, such as that which I have inquired about of Professor McGovern in my email to him.

I have experience with an unwillingness of professors to give the public (for free) the benefit of their views on significant policy questions. (For some excruciating, lengthy detail, see this link to my blog: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/D1.%20WSJ%20project . )

Professor McGovern and other professors receive fees for lending their expertise in narrow ways and, by so doing, should not object, if a citizen activist such as myself, asks if they would be willing to state their views about a bigger picture of that which they have chosen to participate in and to support by their participation. (In this case, I have alleged that reprehensible skimming is going on, and, if that is a fair characterization, Professor McGovern is getting a fee out of that skimming.)

I hope Professor McGovern replies to me. He may not feel he is in a position to reply because to reply may improperly undercut what he was paid to do in the case in question.

I am writing you because you are a professorial colleague of Professor McGovern at the Duke University Law School, and the matter in question comes within your same realm of expertise as Professor McGovern's or within a pertinent realm of expertise that you have relative to legal, social, economics and/or ethics policy questions that are raised by the subject matter at hand. As a result, I do not have a hesitation to ask you as well what your views are, in the chance that you are willing to express them to me (which I will likely want to post in my blog).

I hope I hear from you in reply.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck




From: RDShatt
To: McGovern@law.duke.edu
Sent: 11/21/2009 7:54:46 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Currency conversion fee litigation

Dear Professor McGovern,

Your faculty profile http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/mcgovern/ reveals very impressive work in the alternative dispute resolution arena, and you were retained as an expert in this currency conversion fee litigation http://www.ccfsettlement.com/, of which I received notice in 2007 that I was a member of the plaintiff class.

In 2007 I objected to the class action lawsuit in the form of this letter http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/september-2007-credit-card-currency.html that I wrote to Judge Pauley.

I understand that the litigation is now on appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

I continue very perturbed about this class action litigation.

I would like to ask you, if you would, to read my letter to Judge Pauley and to make comment to me as to whether I, more as a citizen than as a class member, have legitimate grounds for my objections, and the extent to which you agree or not with my objections.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Email to other parties in litigation

From: RDShatt

To: lucretia_eldridge@yahoo.com, dsorensen@bm.net, russ@wildwoodlamps.com, kskoenig@hotmail.com, vrw@vrwalkerco.com, ibizar@ballonstoll.com, clasaxn@earthlink.net, CMTLAW, rsglaw@bellsouth.net, AltmanLaw, efsiegel@efs-law.com, edwardcochran@adelphia.net, chris@chrisgraeser.com, bjasinski@carolina.rr.com, bamford@oz.net, ourfreebies@comcast.net, onewaywon1@gmail.com, barrington1assoc@cox.net, Edward@hasbrouck.org, douglascoleesq@att.net, firm@bishoplegal.net, mbishop@drhrlaw.com, kennelson@mclaw.com, htomlinson@bellsouth.net, downeyjustice@gmail.com, pkamenar@wlf.org, Darrell.palmer@cox.net, bpatterson@wattslawfirm.com, jskess@charter.net, N.A.Bacharach@att.net, psr@rothsteinforjustice.com
Sent: 11/25/2009 4:52:11 A.M. Central Standard Time

Subj: Judge Pauley's stamp of approval on currency conversion shenanigans

To Whom It May Concern,

In 2007 I sent this letter to Judge Pauley: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/september-2007-credit-card-currency.html

At the end of the letter I characterized the class action lawsuit as "skimming" by the attorneys and said this to Judge Pauley:

As I have indicated, the skimming that is going on by the attorneys here is at
least as reprehensible as the skimming that the creditcard companies and banks
are alleged to have perpetrated.

In short, Your Honor, I think you should be
ashamed to put your stamp of approval on these shenanigans.


Judge Pauley has put his stamp of approval on the shenanigans, and it is unlikely that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will overrule Judge Pauley.

Currently I do not intend to try to submit anything to the 2nd Circuit but if anyone submitting something to the 2nd Circuit would like to include a statement of objection from me, I would be pleased to provide it.

I have attempted and will continue to attempt to register, in ways outside the judicial proceedings, as strong an objection as I can to the shenanigans that Judge Pauley put his stamp of approval on. If you are interested, you can find my activities memorialized at this link on my blog: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/J0.%20Credit%20card%20currency%20conversion

For those persons who agree with my views, I hope you will try to find ways to continue to register your strong objection as well.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Email to other Duke law professors

[Email sent to Professors Thomas Metzloff, Ted Kaufman, Charles Becton, Donald Beskin, and William Mills ]


From: RDShatt
To: ___________
Sent: 11/__/2009 ___ P.M. Central Standard Time

Subj: Email to Professor McGovern

Dear Professor _______,

I am sending you this email (which concerns the below email I have sent to Professor McGovern) for the following reasons:

I am a citizen activist regarding the subject matter of my email to Professor McGovern.

I believe that Professor McGovern and other professors ought to be willing to express, for the benefit of the public, their opinions about significant policy questions in the realm of their expertise, such as that which I have inquired about of Professor McGovern in my email to him.

I have experience with an unwillingness of professors to give the public (for free) the benefit of their views on significant policy questions. (For some excruciating, lengthy detail, see this link to my blog: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/D1.%20WSJ%20project . )

Professor McGovern and other professors receive fees for lending their expertise in narrow ways and, by so doing, should not object, if a citizen activist such as myself, asks if they would be willing to state their views about a bigger picture of that which they have chosen to participate in and to support by their participation. (In this case, I have alleged that reprehensible skimming is going on, and, if that is a fair characterization, Professor McGovern is getting a fee out of that skimming.)

I hope Professor McGovern replies to me. He may not feel he is in a position to reply because to reply may improperly undercut what he was paid to do in the case in question.

I am writing you because you are a professorial colleague of Professor McGovern at the Duke University Law School, and the matter in question comes within your same realm of expertise as Professor McGovern's or within a pertinent realm of expertise that you have relative to legal, social, economics and/or ethics policy questions that are raised by the subject matter at hand. As a result, I do not have a hesitation to ask you as well what your views are, in the chance that you are willing to express them to me (which I will likely want to post in my blog).

I hope I hear from you in reply.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck



From: RDShatt
To: McGovern@law.duke.edu
Sent: 11/21/2009 7:54:46 A.M. Central Standard Time

Subj: Currency conversion fee litigation

Dear Professor McGovern,

Your faculty profile http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/mcgovern/ reveals very impressive work in the alternative dispute resolution arena, and you were retained as an expert in this currency conversion fee litigation http://www.ccfsettlement.com/, of which I received notice in 2007 that I was a member of the plaintiff class.

In 2007 I objected to the class action lawsuit in the form of this letter http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/september-2007-credit-card-currency.html that I wrote to Judge Pauley.

I understand that the litigation is now on appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

I continue very perturbed about this class action litigation.

I would like to ask you, if you would, to read my letter to Judge Pauley and to make comment to me as to whether I, more as a citizen than as a class member, have legitimate grounds for my objections, and the extent to which you agree or not with my objections.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Monday, November 23, 2009

Online message sent to Troy King

Dear Attorney General King,

I consider an important public issue to be plaintiffs' lawyers and attorney generals getting into bed with plaintiffs' lawyers. I hope to publicize this issue in the upcoming Alabama Attorney General election race.

You may find my own views on this subject at this blog link of mine: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/E1.%20State%20attorney%20generals .

Also, you may follow my efforts to publicize the issue in the course of the election race at this link: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/E1a.%20Alabama%20AG%20election%202010 .

I look forward to learning about where you stand on the issue.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586

Email to Luther Strange

From: RDShatt
To: info@lutherstrange.com
Sent: 11/21/2009 5:57:34 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: I am possible volunteer re: your ethics campaign issue

Dear Mr. Strange,

I may like to volunteer as a campaign worker related to your campaign issue of ethics.

If you are interested, please go to this link: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/E1.%20State%20attorney%20generals and read my blog posts there, which will indicate certain views I have about ethics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and attorneys general.

If, after you read the posts, you think there is some correspondence between your thinking and my thinking about these subjects, and that I might be of assistance to you in your campaigning related to the same, please let me hear from you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586

Email to Professor McGovern

From: RDShatt
To: McGovern@law.duke.edu
Sent: 11/21/2009 7:54:46 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Currency conversion fee litigation

Dear Professor McGovern,

Your faculty profile http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/mcgovern/ reveals very impressive work in the alternative dispute resolution arena, and you were retained as an expert in this currency conversion fee litigation http://www.ccfsettlement.com/, of which I received notice in 2007 that I was a member of the plaintiff class.

In 2007 I objected to the class action lawsuit in the form of this letter http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/september-2007-credit-card-currency.html that I wrote to Judge Pauley.

I understand that the litigation is now on appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

I continue very perturbed about this class action litigation.

I would like to ask you, if you would, to read my letter to Judge Pauley and to make comment to me as to whether I, more as a citizen than as a class member, have legitimate grounds for my objections, and the extent to which you agree or not with my objections.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Some dialogue on Expedia

From: Dawn@hbsslaw.com
To: neal.mccarthy@________, RDShatt@aol.com, Carla.walsh@mac.com
Sent: 11/20/2009 6:40:54 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: FW: In re Expedia (WA)

Attached please find all documents filed today in connection with Plainitffs' Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, etc.:
<<11-20-09>> <<11-20-09>> <<11-20-09>> <<11-20-09>> <<11-20-09>> <<11-20-09>> <<11-20-09>> <<11-20-09>> <<11-20-09>> <<11-20-09>>


From: neal.mccarthy@__________
To: Dawn@hbsslaw.com, RDShatt@aol.com, Carla.walsh@mac.com
Sent: 11/22/2009 8:11:47 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: RE: In re Expedia (WA)

Thanks Dawn
Your firm is a collection of blood sucking maggots -
Please let Mr Volk and your other partners know that class action suits like this are a tax upon the patience and virtue of the good people of our country
I suggest they find a more noble way of manipulating the legal system, such as chasing ambulances.
Regards

Neal McCarthy,
Managing Director


From: RDShatt
To: neal.mccarthy@_____________
CC: Dawn@hbsslaw.com, Carla.walsh@mac.com
Sent: 11/22/2009 8:22:40 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Re: In re Expedia (WA)

Way to go Neal!
I hope you are aware of my efforts to combat the maggots (see this link How To Combat Plaintiffs' Lawyers ), including trying to combat them on Expedia (see http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/J8.%20Expedia).

Do you mind if I reproduce your email on my blog and make other use of it?

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


From: neal.mccarthy@__________
To: RDShatt@aol.com
CC: Dawn@hbsslaw.com, Carla.walsh@mac.com
Sent: 11/22/2009 8:37:32 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: RE: In re Expedia (WA)

Happy to have you share my opinion and name, but please don’t provide my firm name, phone number or email – I have too many emails to answer every day.

I have been asked over the years to participate in numerous lawsuits like this and have steadfastly refused, and offered to assist the attorneys for the defendants, as I did in this case.

The silliest such suit which attempted to include me was a class action against the record company that produced albums for 80’s pop band “Milli Vanilli” – the class was suing on the basis that the music videos were done by actors/dancers who had not actually sung the songs. The settlement was a coupon for something like $1 off any album by the record company and the plaintiff’s counsel was pocketing millions for the “valuable aid to the victims of Milli Vanilli”.

This is the lowest and most coercive use of the legal process, and I have written Senators, Congressmen and the White house trying to put controls in place, but the plaintiff’s bar contributes heavily.

I was pleased to see the hypocrisy of this group exposed when John Edwards embarrassed himself and the Democratic party.

Neal McCarthy
Managing Director


From: RDShatt
To: Dawn@hbsslaw.com
CC: Carla.walsh@mac.com, neal.mccarthy@__________
Sent: 11/22/2009 9:03:03 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: In re Expedia (WA)

Dear Dawn,

I will be making use of Neal's views and opinions on my blog. If there is anything your firm would like to say in defense of itself and its work, I am likely to be willing to post your firm's statement on my blog. Just let me hear from you.

Thanks.
Rob Shattuck