In article <3e261deb.41950652@news.verizon.net>, alerma@nospam.bellatlantic.net says...

>
> 60 Minutes did a segment tonight about Chief Federal Judge Anderson
> and the unanimous decision of the entire SC Federal bench to end GAG
> and Secrecy agreements being bought or sold as a commodity
> "right under the judge's nose"
>
> http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyscandals/silence.htm
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/02/national/02JUDG.html
>
> South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements
> By ADAM LIPTAK
>
>
> outh Carolina's 10 active federal trial judges have unanimously voted
> to ban secret legal settlements, saying such agreements have made the
> courts complicit in hiding the truth about hazardous products, inept
> doctors and sexually abusive priests.
>
> "Here is a rare opportunity for our court to do the right thing,"
> Chief Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr. of United States District Court
> wrote to his colleagues, "and take the lead nationally in a time when
> the Arthur Andersen/Enron/Catholic priest controversies are
> undermining public confidence in our institutions and causing a
> growing suspicion of things that are kept secret by public bodies."
>
> If the court formally adopts the rule, after a public comment period
> that ends Sept. 30, it will be the strictest ban on secrecy in
> settlements in the federal courts. Mary Squiers, who tracks individual
> federal courts' rules for the United States Judicial Conference, said
> only Michigan had a similar rule, which unseals secret settlements
> after two years. The conference is the administrative body for federal
> courts.
>
> Judge Anderson said the new rule might save lives.
>
> "Some of the early Firestone tire cases were settled with
> court-ordered secrecy agreements that kept the Firestone tire problem
> from coming to light until many years later," he wrote. "Arguably,
> some lives were lost because judges signed secrecy agreements
> regarding Firestone tire problems."
>
> Lawyers say the proposal, which was widely discussed at the American
> Bar Association's conference in Washington last month, is likely to be
> influential in other federal courts and in state courts, which often
> follow federal practice in procedural matters. In South Carolina, the
> state's chief justice has expressed great interest in the proposal.
>
> The Catholic Church scandals are one reason for a renewed interest in
> the topic of secrecy in the courts, legal experts say.
>
> "All reactions are going to be affected by the bureaucratic
> cover-your-cassock responses of the church hierarchy," said Edward H.
> Cooper, a law professor at the University of Michigan.
>
> But some legal experts and industry groups say the blanket rule is
> unwise.
>
> "The judges of South Carolina, God bless them, have not evaluated the
> costs of what they are proposing," said Arthur Miller, a law professor
> at Harvard and an expert in civil procedure. He said the ban on secret
> settlements would discourage people from filing suits and settling
> them, and threaten personal privacy and trade secrets.
>
> Joyce E. Kraeger, a staff lawyer at the Alliance of American Insurers,
> said the current system, in which judges have discretion to approve
> sealed settlements or not, worked fine. "There shouldn't be a
> one-size-fits-all approach," Ms. Kraeger said.
>
> Jeffrey A. Newman, a lawyer in Massachusetts who represents people who
> say they were abused by Catholic priests, praised the South Carolina
> proposal. Mr. Newman said he regretted having participated in secret
> settlements in some early abuse cases. "It was a terrible mistake," he
> said, "and I think people were harmed by it."
>
> Mr. Newman said a rule banning secret settlements, combined with the
> Internet, would create a powerful tool for lawyers seeking information
> on patterns of wrongful conduct.
>
> The impact of such a ban could be limited, however, if adopted only by
> federal courts. Most personal injury and product liability cases, and
> almost all claims of sexual abuse by clergy, are litigated in state
> courts.
>
>
>
>
>
> END of article
>
> Read the conspiracy for silence
> http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyscandals/silence.htm
>
> Scientology's very existence depends upon it's continued ability to
> gag it's opponents.
>
> Arnie Lerma

In all honesty, such a ban would be practically worthless in civil cases.

Let me give you an example.

A noted critic of a notoriously malignant criminal cult arrives to the courtoom that he's spent 10 years and all of his life achieving. His outlook to winning is good, but, his own situation is horrendously bad, deliberately so.

Before entering the courtroom, the opposing counsel approaches him.

Look 'X', even if you win, which might actually happen, we have the finances to keep you from ever seeing a dime of your win for at least all forseeable future. In addition, I have been assured by my clients that any hope you might have to having a 'normal life' will be consistently frustrated, and your family will be likewise so legally penalized. What family you have left.

On the *other* hand... we have a bargain for you. You refuse to sign any settlement involving a 'gag order'. I suppose that's a noble purpose, even if it's absolutely essential for my client's agreement to settle with you on terms less than your absolute eradication.

So look... we'll do this: We settle. No money, no gag, nothing but the dropping of your admittedly valid lawsuit against my client.

In return for your willingness to drop this lawsuit, my client will pay you $5 million; immediately cease all actions against you or your family, and promise never to speak your name again.

In return, in this contract, you will promise never to mention my clients again publicly.

This will be a side deal mind you. The dropping of the lawsuit with prejudice is the only public part of this agreement.

Look at it this way: You can win and die, or settle and win your life back. It's up to you.

Strangely enough, plaintiffs presented with such 'contracts' might well be tempted to take them.

Laws against 'gag orders' are wortless, unless they also limit 'side contracts', which they wouldn't.

Zinj -- Scientology is the *Cure* for escalating Health Care Costs 'We didn't think it was a big deal' 'She died! People die! - David Miscavige

Go Back