We Get Letters!

The APJ Mailbag

From: John Mark
Re: John McCain

Despite all the confusion, two biographies of the Shrub (W. Bush) tell of his 'community' service in the early seventies in Houston.

All his cash and something sinister is going on. The Repugs are getting ready to dump Bush in favor of John McCain. You know John McCain, the Manchurian candidate who was in the hands of red torturers for 8 years or so.

Another Mark exclusive prediction, you heard it here first.

From: Alan Maskell
Re: vote.com

I would like your opinion of the Dick Morris site vote.com, which started this week.

I can tell you this: when I voted, it seemed VERY strange that all the votes were 75%+ to the right.

It just did not seem true to me -- and, just maybe, this site is being used not for the masses to make an honest vote, but for the far right to do us damage.

Suggest that you look into this.

On the surface it looks like a great idea.

But it certainly DOES NOT have the same honesty as say moveon.org. In reality it MAY BE a 5th column Republican Right Wing to wear honest people down by giving the results that seem so heavily weighted to the right.

If I kept seeing 75% + voting to the right, I, as a liberal, might lose heart, stop voting here, AND at the polls -- thinking "what's the use?"

Our reply:

I wouldn't lose heart, Alan -- a lot of Capitol Hill types are already referring to this site as a joke.com!

And here's more news about the Morris "auto-spamming" site. The unctuous Matt Drudge sure made a lot of hay over the White House blocking automatically generated by this site -- but, typically, Drudge missed the full story, or selectively chose his facts. He failed to mention two things:

First, Morris has been plugging his site through right-wing media outlets such as the Fox News Channel and the New York Post. His target audience is hard right.

Second, Drudge somehow "forgot" to say that many senators and congressmen have done the very same thing as the White House! They are fed up with seeing their e-mail boxes stuffed with almost identical messages!

It turns out that most of these "spampaigns" come from right-wing activists (such as Brent "I Hate That Lefty Negro Gumbel" Bozell of the neo-fascist Media Research Center and Dr. James "Beat Your Kids" Dobson of Focus On the Family). They send out e-mails to thousands of people essentialy inflaming them to spam politicians, television networks and corporations, and to put hate messages on web bulletin boards. And now Morris seems to have jumped on the bandwagon -- but in the dumbest possible way.

Of course, most politicians or companies on the receiving end of these e-mail bombardments are intelligent enough to ignore these messages -- or file them in the "trash" folder!

Fact is, Dick Morris has made it all too easy for thinking politicians, including many moderate and conservative Republicans, to filter out these crudely organized campaigns by filtering out his domain name.

We are only left to wonder if Matt Drudge, with all of the "attention" he has paid to this story, might not have a personal or financial interest in Morris's folly of a web site.

Click here to check out our parody of Dick Morris's Web Site.

From: Brian Oxley
RE: CTBT

Regarding your 11/05 commentary on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty -- How about this for for a folly? Madeleine Albright has notified the rest of the world that, despite the Senate voting down the treaty, the United States is still legally obliged to follow the guidelines set forth in the treaty. So what's the big problem for you folks? Even though it was voted down, President Clinton will still honor the ban anyway.

Tamara Baker's reply:

The "big problem" RE: the CTBT's being killed is that without the US' signature on the dotted line, our ability to compel and cajole nations like Pakistan to sign on has plummeted.

In addition, the Republicans, by doing their damnedest to ensure that the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty CANNOT be verified-- by going after the $300 million mechanism needed to perform such verifications -- have shown that all their fine and noble talk about their alleged worries concerning the treaty's being "unverifiable" was nothing more than a Grade-A load of bullshit.

The GOP, solely in order to tweak Bill Clinton's nose, has at one stroke gravely endangered humanity's continued existence.

But, hey, the total nuclear annihilation of humanity is a small price to pay if it means ridding the Universe of Bill Clinton, right?

From: "Barrington Daltrey"
Re: California Petition Drive -- Beware!

I hope some of you in California will find this issue important. It is a bit involved, but basically the insurance companies are running a misleading campaign to undo an important new law that has not even been publicized.

You won't even know what the law IS, but you will be asked to sign a petition to "stop Uninsured Motorist Insurance from going up 35%." That is not what the law is about.

Now, I'm writing this from my best recollection so there may be some errors, but generally, the following is accurate.

In California, Insurance Companies have a statutory duty to deal with people "in good faith." They often fail to do so, because if they make the process of settling a claim difficult, it will discourage claimants, resulting in fewer claims and lower settlements.

The insurance companies have been very effective at this. Despite a continuing increase in population and number of attorneys, there has been a substantial decrease in the number of lawsuits filed.

The problem with the law is that it is supposed to be enforced by the Insurance Commissioner and it is never enforced.
Sometime ago (I am guessing, but I think during the 70s) the California Supreme Court made a ruling in a case known as the Royal Globe case that if an insurance company violated the statutes that specify the manner in which the insurance company IS REQUIRED to negotiate, the aggrieved individual can sue for violation of the statute in addition to suing for the actual damages. The purpose was an attempt to get the insurance companies TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

In writing the majority opinion, Justice Mosk noted that in the 20 or so years since the Insurance Law was passed, the Insurance Commissioner had never once attempted to enforce it, despite substantial evidence of ongoing violations of the law by the insurance companies. The court asked, "what good is a law if it is unenforceable" and gave individuals the right to enforce it.

Shortly thereafter, a number of Justices were voted off the court. Most notably, Chief Justice Rose Bird -- ostensibly because of the court's refusal to enforce the death penalty. However, it later came to be known that the primary funding for the anti-Rose Bird campaign came from the insurance industry. One might wonder what interest the insurance companies had in the death penalty?

Well, probably none. But what I consider to be the first major decision of the Malcom Lucas court (Lucas replaced Rose Bird) was not a death penalty case, but an insurance case known as Moredai, which reversed Royal Globe.

Now, those of you with any background in law will understand how significant this decision was. In law, we have a doctrine called "stare decisis." The concept is that once a decision is made by a Supreme Court, it will not be countermanded -- even by the Supreme Court. The reason for this is that there should be predicatability in the law, and not merely changing rules every time the court shifts its power balance.

Well, the California Supreme Court simply disregarded stare decisis and reversed itself, shocking everyone (except, I guess, the insurance industry, which was very pleased).

And although we changed the Insurance Comissioner law a bit somewhat later, the insurance companies continue to disregard the laws that tell them how they are supposed to deal with injured parties and insureds.

So... apparently, the California legislature has passed a law reinstating the right to sue for improper conduct of an insurance company. Now, I say apparently, because even though I am a lawyer who is interested in these things, I have yet to see any news coverage of this law whatsoever. But I have seen a couple of references to it -- and now this, the Insurance Company lobbying effort has begun.

When I was at Ralph's supermarket today, I was asked to sign a petition in support of a referendum. Of course, the petition did not explain any of this background. Nor did it explain clearly what the law to be undone actually said. I was told, specifically, that I would be signing a petition to undo a law "that raises your uninsured motorist coverage costs 35%." I read what little "fine print" was available on the petition and it was clear that was NOT what the petition was about. Instead, it was about repealing a law that says you can sue an insurance company that acts in bad faith.

Now, in the interests of full disclosure, I will note that I am a lawyer. But I have never brought a bad faith insurance case and I am not a PI Lawyer. However, I was a witness in such a case one time.

My client had purchased an insurance policy to pay him an income if he could not work. He was a poorly educated truck driver. And he paid the premiums year after year. Now one year, they tried to get him to change to a different policy. But he wouldn't. He had no idea what the original policy really meant, but the agent who sold it to him told him "this is a really good policy. Never, ever let them switch you." And by the way, among other things, a "switch" tactic is illegal, although it is not uncommon.

So he didn't switch. But when he needed to make a claim, he was told that he had an altogether different (and less valuable) insurance policy. He came to me about it and I contacted the insurance company. I had the policy in front of me, so I assumed they were just making a mistake.

Well, I started getting the runaround. And finally someone called me back and told me, "Well, we have his records on the computer right here in front of me, and there IS NO SUCH POLICY."

What that person did not know is that only a couple of hours before I had spoken with another executive in the company who told me she had a copy of the policy "right here on my desk."

Even when I confronted them with this clear "BAD FAITH" they refused to honor the policy. I then referred the client to a law firm that specialized in such problems. Even then, they did not settle. They took my deposition and tried to establish I did not know what I was talking about -- but I had taken very good notes.

Still, they did not pay the claim. They waited until the day the jury trial was to begin. And then, finally, minutes before selecting the jury, they decided it was time to pay up. And they paid a pretty good settlement. In fact, they paid considerably more than they would have paid under the policy.

But this should not happen. When a trucker (or anyone) pays his premiums for years and years believing that if he is injured he will receive an income -- when the bad thing happens, he should know he will be paid the income. He should be paid RIGHT NOW, not after five years of stalling and delays while he loses his truck and his home and has to file bankruptcy.

A much better attorney than myself explains it this way -- the only thing you ever buy that you have no idea what it is you bought is an insurance policy. You can't kick the tires. You can't walk around it and check for dents and scratches. In fact, you won't know until you need it if it even works. And that is a little late to find out that, "Oh, it did not mean what you thought it did. We don't intend to honor the contract."

Now, the situation I have just described is what we call "first party" bad faith, which is not covered by the Moredai case. But the principle is still the same. The law requires an insurance company to deal with you fairly -- and they should be held to that standard.