Here's who I'm voting for

[Ithaca 37]

Spitzer Files Suit Against Calif. Company

This is who I'm backing for President.

Universal Life Resources Accused of Pocketing Millions of Dollars in Hidden Payments


ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- A California-based company that brokers life, accident and disability policies for leading U.S. companies pocketed millions of dollars a year in hidden payments from insurers and from charges on clients' unsuspecting workers, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer charged Friday.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/041112/insurance_probe_5.html

 

[feclnogn]

If you are a gun owner and I assume that you are Ithaca voting for this guy would be a huge disaster to firearms ownership. You should do a search on this guy and what he did to Smith & Wesson.

That being said, if he did run he would gaurantee the Rep's four more years as he would get destroyed in the south, midwest and rust belt states.

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Here's who I'm voting for "

Good pick for anyone that back's gun control.
I wonder how he stands with the animal rights wacko's?????????

This a classic case of someone backing a person on one issue , or is it?
Maybe he knew all along how Mr. Spitzer viewed Firearm's!!!!!!!!!!!!



Spitzer’s Nuisance

By WALTER OLSON



["When it comes to press coverage, as is well known, New York State attorney general Eliot Spitzer enjoys a charmed life. When he gets to the courtroom, on the other hand, the spell has been known to break. On Tuesday, a state appeals court handed Mr. Spitzer a stinging defeat, ruling 3-1 to sustain a lower court’s dismissal of his lawsuit attempting to obtain gun control by hauling into court the companies that manufacture guns.

Mr. Spitzer unveiled the suit three years ago at a press conference alongside Andrew Cuomo, who was then housing secretary for President Clinton. At the time, gun control advocates had been running into trouble obtaining new legislation in either the Congress or in Albany,where the large hunting community upstate makes its voice heard.The solution? Mr. Spitzer and more than 30 big-city mayors decided to sue to get the control they wanted, forcing gun-makers to the settlement table where they’d agree to new constraints on the firearms trade — much as tobacco-makers had capitulated in 1998. And presto: Stricter gun control, without the bother of having to win votes in Albany or Washington.

That was the plan, at least, when Mr. Spitzer sought kudos for making New York the "first state" to file suit against the gun industry. For "first" we can now read "only" — even Mr. Spitzer’s activist Connecticut counterpart, Richard Blumenthal, hasn’t followed suit. Evidently eager to contribute something distinctive in the line of legal analysis, Mr. Spitzer staked the state’s claim on a truly novel theory: That guns, lawfully produced and sold or not, should be reclassified as a legal "nuisance," akin to drifting smoke or straying animals, that prevent neighboring residents from peacefully enjoying their domiciles. Even some of his allies found that a long stretch, but Mr. Spitzer blustered about how he had "a strong case built upon a solid legal foundation," based on "a clear statute," "repeated conduct that clearly violates the law," and so on.

Just in case the logic of the nuisance theory proved elusive,Mr.Spitzer was not above falling back on blunter methods."If you don’t sign," he threatened Glock, which was refusing to follow its larger competitor Smith & Wesson into signing a "voluntary"deal with the feds,"your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your door"—a comment widely construed as referring to the ruinous costs of legal defense.And as the Smith & Wesson deal itself careened toward collapse, Mr. Spitzer threatened other gun-makers with antitrust prosecution for having dropped their cooperative efforts with Smith & Wesson, including joint legal defense.The point was sheer intimidation: Why else menace smaller companies with antitrust penalties for failing to enter an agreement to restrain trade with the largest firm in their industry?

Having ventured so far out on his limb, Mr. Spitzer soon found the courts were sawing it out from under him. In April 2001, in a unanimous and devastating 7-0 opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected the most important elements of the much-hyped Hamilton v. Accu-Tek lawsuit, which had sought to tag gun-makers with retroactive liability for misuse of their products bycriminals.Since the claims of industry responsibility made in Hamilton closely paralleled those Mr.Spitzer was making in his suit,the odds weren’t looking good. And sure enough, in August 2001, Judge Louis York of the trial court in Manhattan threw out Mr. Spitzer’s case.

Like a gambler doubling down, Mr. Spitzer chose to argue the appeal personally rather than sending a staff lawyer. No luck. Of the four appeals judges in Tuesday’s opinion, only one thought he’d managed to state a viable claim.As Judge George Marlow noted in his majority opinion, the theory that gun-selling is a nuisance, if accepted by the courts, would have no obvious stopping point: "Such lawsuits could be leveled not merely against these defendants, but well beyond them, against countless other types of commercial enterprises, in order to address a myriad of societal problems — real, perceived or imagined — regardless of the distance between the causes‚ of the problems and their alleged consequences, and without any deference to proximate cause."Moreover,Judge Marlow rebuked Mr. Spitzer’s attempt to use litigation to achieve victories for the gun control lobby without the need for legislation: "Courts are the least suited, least equipped, and thus the least appropriate branch of government to regulate and micro-manage the manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of handguns."

A spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer says he’s considering an appeal. He should cut his losses.

Mr. Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is author, most recently, of "The Rule of Lawyers." "]

 

[Ithaca 37]

Eliot learned a lesson on that one. As a young guy breaking all kinds of new territory he is courageous and innovative. He also admits when he makes mistakes and corrects them. There's nobody else doing as much for the American people now as Eliot.

MD, Why aren't all those conservative Republican politicians you love so much going after the insurance industry and Wall Street when they're ripping you off?

Anyone with a brain would wonder what all the rest of the Attorney Generals (including Ashcroft), Federal regulators, Senators, Representatives, and every other politician right up to Bush are doing to earn their pay.

Anyone with investments was being ripped off for years and Eliot blew the whistle. Now he's going after insurance industry practices that have been taking money out of your pocket every time you pay an insurance premium. How come no other Federal or State Insurance Commission ever did anything about it?

Read this and tell me who's representing Americans. Anyone who doesn't recognize that we finally have a courageous politician who's not afraid to rock the boat should start waking up:

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2002/poyspitzer.html

When you're done with that try reading this (read the links, too):

http://www.spitzer2006.com/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cndProfile

Any other State Attorney General could have been doing the same types of things Eliot has been doing. Why haven't they?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Here's another good article that show exactly why Eliot is the kind of politician everyone should be supporting:

"Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said he knows of no other instance in which a state has picked up an environmental enforcement case after it was dropped by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

"When the federal government failed to enforce the law," said Spitzer, "we decided to step in."

http://spitzer2006.com/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpNews&htmlId=879

 

[Muledeer4me]

Good picks , you have voiced support of Ralph Nader,The sierra Club and now Spitzer ,

To read Ithaca's post's it's easy to get the impression that he support's Gun control and the animal right's movement ,we already know where he stand's on ranchers & grazing, mutiple use ,predator's and the war .







"Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Both the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the PETA front group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) belong to Ralph Nader’s Global Safe Food Alliance, and to the International Council on Animal Protection, which seeks to limit research on animals. HSUS and PCRM signed a letter demanding that the U.S. Department of Agriculture restore to its website documents concerning the use of animals in research. They were also both part of the Foodspeak coalition, run by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Member organizations wanted to abolish food disparagement laws and so avoid lawsuits for false claims against food companies.



Sierra Club
Sierra Club activists have collaborated with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to agitate against modern livestock farms. In 2002, Sierra Club members in Florida teamed with HSUS to pass a ballot initiative that extends constitutional rights to pregnant pigs. In 1998, the two groups successfully campaigned in California for Proposition 4, which bars ranchers from using traps to protect their livestock from mountain lions, coyotes and other predators. The edict has hurt California farmers, who have seen a steep increase in predator attacks on their herds. The Sierra Club and HSUS are also both members of the Keep Antibiotics Working coalition, a PR campaign that frightens Americans away from the conventional meat supply with scientifically baseless claims about livestock antibiotics. "

 

[Ithaca 37]

MD, How about expalining to all of us what's wrong with Ralph? (In another topic, please. Call it, "Why MD hates Ralph Nader". I'm curious to see what looney tune BS you come up with this time)

Are you unable to focus on a topic without attacking whomever started it?

Hey Calif. Hunter, before you send me one of your warnings again, how about taking a look at who started the personal attacks in this topic.


Fecl, I have faith in the Second Amendment's ability to be upheld by the Supreme Court. Especially after Dubya packs it. Don't you?

Do you ever wonder how Eliot can find out about these abuses by Wall Street and the insurance industry, but nobody else can?

As for going after the gun manufacturers; there's no doubt that some of them knew their dealers were selling some guns illegally, but they continued to supply them.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Following up on Eliot and guns, here's more:

"The goal of Spitzer’s suit is to change the conduct of manufacturers and wholesalers. Once it is shown that gun manufacturers and wholesalers contribute to and maintain a public nuisance, the companies could be required to "abate" or fix the problem. The court could then:

Ban crime-friendly gun models;
Bar companies from supplying retailers who have a track record of selling to criminals; and
Appoint a monitor to supervise the gun distribution system.

In addition, the court could require manufacturers to buy back illegally-obtained guns seized in the commission of crimes.

Spitzer said the goal of the lawsuit is the same as the earlier effort to negotiate with gun companies. [COLOR=DarkOrange[COLOR=Red]]"We are advancing reasonable and responsible steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and make firearms safer for legal gun owners and their families," he said............ [/COLOR] "[/COLOR]Please read the rest:

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2000/jun/jun25a_00.html

I don't know how they would identify "Crime friendly gun models" but I'd be willing to look at whatever they use for definitions.

As for these other two goals; I'm in favor.

"Bar companies from supplying retailers who have a track record of selling to criminals; and
Appoint a monitor to supervise the gun distribution system"

What would be wrong with those ideas?

 

[Delw]

uh-oh Ithace found the colors keys



Delw

 

[Ithaca 37]

I sure did !

 

[Moosie]

COLOR is as cool as BOLD...

or .....SIZE !!!!!


BuuaHAHAHAHAH !!

But the bottom line is.... Bush is President !!!!

 

[Muledeer4me]

Ithaca ,shown me where I said I that I hate Ralph Nadar .
I dont hate Ralphie ,and I dont Hate the Sierra club,I just think Ralph is a loser like John Kerry ,and I think the Sierra club has some members that are losers.

"Are you unable to focus on a topic without attacking whomever started it? "

I didnt think I was attacking anyone,only stating my thought about the topic you posted ,but if it looks like I was attacking anyone my only response is ( I learned it from watching you ,OK)

Talking about Ralph Nadar, are you saying it doesnt bother you that he has links to the Humane Society of the United States????????
It bothers me, and it's you that has shown support for him.
As a firearm owner it bothers me that Eliot Spitzer has it out for the firearm industry ,it was your pick not mine so dont go getting your panties in a wad when any of us dont agree with you.

Your reason for posting IS so everyone can do there own research and make up there own mind , isn't it?

 

[A-con]

"Ban crime-friendly gun models;"
Do you really think Mr. Spitzer is going to invite you to help decide what to ban ? More likly, he will enlist the help of senator Schummer. It will be just a matter of time until some low life steals a fine double barrel shot gun, takes a hacksaw to it and kills someone, then bingo, Merkel shotguns on the "crime-friendly gun " list.

"Bar companies from supplying retailers who have a track record of selling to criminals"

So you think we should punish the gun company because they sold to a distributer, who sold to a retailer, who sold to a crimanal ?, why not go after the retailer ? Thats like going after Ford because a drunk driver was driving a Mustang when he caused an accident.


"Appoint a monitor to supervise the gun distribution system."
Because some idiot would try the above two stupid ideas. The correct soultion is to track and go after retailers who are ignoring the rules and selling to criminals. It's called enforceing the laws we already have, and whos trying to do just that ? Could it be Dudya ? So you (Ithica 37) should vote for and support G.W. Bush, every chance you get !!!!!

 

[CJ...$]

Crime Friendly Guns ? W>t>f>?

 

[Ithaca 37]

A-Con, "Do you really think Mr. Spitzer is going to invite you to help decide what to ban ?"

Yup, I do. I know him.