The American Legislative Exhange Council is a nonpartisan individual membership organization of state legislators which favors federalism and conservative public policy solutions.
Its website states that its mission is...
...to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty, through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America's state legislators, members of the private sector, the federal government, and general public.
...to promote these principles by developing policies that ensure the powers of government are derived from, and assigned to, first the People, then the States, and finally, the Federal Government.
...to enlist state legislators from all parties and members of the private sector who share ALEC's mission.
...to conduct a policy making program that unites members of the public and private sectors in a dynamic partnership to support research, policy development, and dissemination activities.
...to prepare the next generation of political leadership through educational programs that promote the principles of Jeffersonian democracy, which are necessary for a free society.
ALEC has a Civil Justice Task Force and the website says its members are at the forefront of the efforts to restore fairness and predictability to the civil justice system. The Task Force has worked diligently to promote systematic fairness in the courts through bills to discourage frivolous lawsuits, to fairly balance judicial and legislative authority, to treat defendants in a consistent manner, and to install transparency and accountability in the trial system. Since the inception of its Disorder in the Court project in 1999, ALEC members have introduced more than 400 bills based on ALEC's legal reform model legislation. The Civil Justice Task Force’s work has resulted in numerous policy publications, state-level issue briefings, expert witness testimony and educational workshops during ALEC meetings.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Cintas Institute for Business Ethics at Xavier
Email sent to director of CIBEX
From: RDShatt
To: fiorelli@xavier.edu
Sent: 1/31/2009 1:13:11 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: CIBEX Advisory Board : Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
Dear Professor Fiorelli,
I have sent you several emails over the past two years to which I have not received any reply.
I would be interested in communicating with CIBEX Advisory Board members.
The gist of the communication I would like to send them is as follows:
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Jeff CooperSVP & Chief Compliance OfficerITT Educational Services, Inc.
Denise Kuprionis, Esq.VP Corporate Secretary/Director of Legal Affairs The E.W. Scripss Company
Jocile Ehrlich President Better Business Bureau
John KuzmanJr. Chief Compliance Officer and Assistant General Counsel AK Steel
Robin Everhart Vice President Corporate Compliance Cintas Corporation
Tim Lutz Vice President Internal Audit and CCO Convergys Corporation
Paul FiorelliDirectorCintas Institute for Business Ethics at Xavier Xavier University
Michael Moser Vice President and CCO Western & Southern Financial Group
Michael Flowers Vice President & Corporate Counsel The Midland Company
Laura RandallCoordinatorCintas Institute for Business Ethics at Xavier Xavier University
Sandy Hughes Global Privacy, Compliance and Ethics Executive The Procter & Gamble Company
Vanessa Vargas-Land, Esq. VP, Chief Compliance Officer Chiquita Brands International, Inc.
Julie Janson Vice President, Corporate Secretary Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Duke Energy Corpoartion
Tom Wiles Managing Director Corporate Compliance Duke Energy Corporation
Don Koenig Vice President Corporate Responsibility Catholic Healtcare Partners
From: RDShatt
To: fiorelli@xavier.edu
Sent: 1/31/2009 1:13:11 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: CIBEX Advisory Board : Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
Dear Professor Fiorelli,
I have sent you several emails over the past two years to which I have not received any reply.
I would be interested in communicating with CIBEX Advisory Board members.
The gist of the communication I would like to send them is as follows:
Dear ________,Would you be in a position to provide me email addresses for any of the CIBEX Advisory Board members (who are listed below), or to forward this email to them directly?
I contend that our country's civil liability system undermines business ethics. I have elaborated this contention at length in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
I am trying to get the attention of academics and other professionals in the ethics
field concerning my article.
I believe there is an obstacle that my contention contains a thrust towards making changes in the civil liability system and that is simply beyond the ken of
professionals in the business ethics field.
As a business ethics professional, do you have any comments?
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Jeff CooperSVP & Chief Compliance OfficerITT Educational Services, Inc.
Denise Kuprionis, Esq.VP Corporate Secretary/Director of Legal Affairs The E.W. Scripss Company
Jocile Ehrlich President Better Business Bureau
John KuzmanJr. Chief Compliance Officer and Assistant General Counsel AK Steel
Robin Everhart Vice President Corporate Compliance Cintas Corporation
Tim Lutz Vice President Internal Audit and CCO Convergys Corporation
Paul FiorelliDirectorCintas Institute for Business Ethics at Xavier Xavier University
Michael Moser Vice President and CCO Western & Southern Financial Group
Michael Flowers Vice President & Corporate Counsel The Midland Company
Laura RandallCoordinatorCintas Institute for Business Ethics at Xavier Xavier University
Sandy Hughes Global Privacy, Compliance and Ethics Executive The Procter & Gamble Company
Vanessa Vargas-Land, Esq. VP, Chief Compliance Officer Chiquita Brands International, Inc.
Julie Janson Vice President, Corporate Secretary Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Duke Energy Corpoartion
Tom Wiles Managing Director Corporate Compliance Duke Energy Corporation
Don Koenig Vice President Corporate Responsibility Catholic Healtcare Partners
Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers
Form of email sent to APRL Board members and officers
From: RDShatt
To: _______________
Sent: 1/31/2009 _______P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: To APRL Board and officers: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
Dear Mr. _________,
I contend that our country's civil liability system undermines business ethics. I have elaborated this contention at length in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
Do you, as a lawyer who has taken a special interest in ethics, have any comments about my contention?
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
From: RDShatt
To: _______________
Sent: 1/31/2009 _______P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: To APRL Board and officers: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
Dear Mr. _________,
I contend that our country's civil liability system undermines business ethics. I have elaborated this contention at length in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
Do you, as a lawyer who has taken a special interest in ethics, have any comments about my contention?
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Association for Practical and Professional Ethics
Form of email sent to APPE Executive Committee
From: RDShatt
To:
Sent: 1/31/2009 ______ A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: APPE Executive Committee: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
Dear Professor ____________,
I contend that our country's civil liability system undermines business ethics. I have elaborated this contention at length in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
I am trying to get the attention of academics and other professionals in the ethics field concerning my article.
I believe there is an obstacle that my contention contains a thrust towards making changes in the civil liability system and that is simply beyond the ken of professionals in the business ethics field.
As an academic or other business ethics professional, do you have any comments?
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
From: RDShatt
To:
Sent: 1/31/2009 ______ A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: APPE Executive Committee: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
Dear Professor ____________,
I contend that our country's civil liability system undermines business ethics. I have elaborated this contention at length in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
I am trying to get the attention of academics and other professionals in the ethics field concerning my article.
I believe there is an obstacle that my contention contains a thrust towards making changes in the civil liability system and that is simply beyond the ken of professionals in the business ethics field.
As an academic or other business ethics professional, do you have any comments?
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Email to Professor Geoffrey Miller
From: RDShatt
To: geoffrey.miller@nyu.edu
Sent: 1/30/2009 6:18:52 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Papadakis v. Northwestern Mutual Life
Dear Professor Miller,
I was a non-professional objector in the above case. I have strong anti-plaintiffs' lawyers views that I have expounded in this blog. My particular objection in the above case (which includes as Exhibits other class action objections I have made) is appended below.
I have read your affidavit.
I am writing to inquire what single book or single article you would refer me to as being the best statement of the case in defense of plaintiffs' lawyers and that is responsive to the various arguments made against plaintiffs lawyers, such as by Walter Olson and Philip Howard, and by myself.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
To: geoffrey.miller@nyu.edu
Sent: 1/30/2009 6:18:52 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Papadakis v. Northwestern Mutual Life
Dear Professor Miller,
I was a non-professional objector in the above case. I have strong anti-plaintiffs' lawyers views that I have expounded in this blog. My particular objection in the above case (which includes as Exhibits other class action objections I have made) is appended below.
I have read your affidavit.
I am writing to inquire what single book or single article you would refer me to as being the best statement of the case in defense of plaintiffs' lawyers and that is responsive to the various arguments made against plaintiffs lawyers, such as by Walter Olson and Philip Howard, and by myself.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Monday, February 2, 2009
Papadakis v. Northwestern Mutual Life
Objections of Robert & ______ Shattuck in Papadakis v.The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company.
Our names, addresses and telephone numbers are Robert and ______ 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: _______________________. 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 is 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
_____ Shattuck
Our names, addresses and telephone numbers are Robert and ______ 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: _______________________. 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 is 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
_____ Shattuck
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Southwest Airlines
My son received a notice of a class action lawsuit against Southwest Airlines. I sent the below email to Southwest directors for whom I could find email addresses:
From: RDShatt
To: _______
Sent: 11/29/2008 _______ P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Re: Kaye v. Southwest Airlines Co.
Re: Kaye v. Southwest Airlines Co.
Dear _________,
I am writing to you in your capacity as a director of Southwest Airlines related to the above class action lawsuit (http://www.southwest.com/landing/kaye_settlement_69162.html).
In this time of economic crisis, the skimming and scamming done by plaintiffs' lawyers is more objectionable than ever.
I have written letters to judges and lead plaintiffs in class action lawsuits of which I have received notice registering my strongest objection to the plaintiffs lawyers perpetrating their litigation. See these four links: credit card currency conversion fees; Xerox securities litigation; Middlesex County/Monster securities litigation; Charter cable fees.
I am doing what I can as a lowly citizen to complain, and I think the Southwest directors should take the opportunity of the above class action lawsuit to register their objection to the plaintiffs' lawyers' skimming and scamming, especially at this time of economic crisis and for the sake of the repairing and rebuilding of the economy that is going to have to take place as the country digs out of its problems. I hope you will find a way to register your objection.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
From: RDShatt
To: _______
Sent: 11/29/2008 _______ P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Re: Kaye v. Southwest Airlines Co.
Re: Kaye v. Southwest Airlines Co.
Dear _________,
I am writing to you in your capacity as a director of Southwest Airlines related to the above class action lawsuit (http://www.southwest.com/landing/kaye_settlement_69162.html).
In this time of economic crisis, the skimming and scamming done by plaintiffs' lawyers is more objectionable than ever.
I have written letters to judges and lead plaintiffs in class action lawsuits of which I have received notice registering my strongest objection to the plaintiffs lawyers perpetrating their litigation. See these four links: credit card currency conversion fees; Xerox securities litigation; Middlesex County/Monster securities litigation; Charter cable fees.
I am doing what I can as a lowly citizen to complain, and I think the Southwest directors should take the opportunity of the above class action lawsuit to register their objection to the plaintiffs' lawyers' skimming and scamming, especially at this time of economic crisis and for the sake of the repairing and rebuilding of the economy that is going to have to take place as the country digs out of its problems. I hope you will find a way to register your objection.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)