 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Contents on this page were published in the April, 1993 edition of the Washington Free Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- WAfreepress@gmail.com
Copyright © 1993 WFP Collective, Inc.
WHERE LOSERS
ARE THE WINNERS
This regular Free Press feature is dedicated to all of you who, after reading about someone doing something completely idiotic and/or sleazy, have a conversation with yourself about how you can't believe what this person has done, and then frantically ask the first total stranger you see - someone next to you at a red light, or waiting your table - how someone could be such a moron and/or dirtbag.
By bestowing a Dufus of the Month award, we're saving you the embarrassment of acting like a bozo yourself in front of someone you've never met. Reading Dufus of the Month is a much more socially correct way to channel your anger.
For this first award, we had a long list of candidates from which to chose.
One Dufus aspirant was none other than Jack in the Box president Robert Nugent, who told the Senate Agriculture Committee in February that, during an inspection of a Mercer Island JITB, King County health inspectors didn't allow his workers to finish cooking hamburgers; that for some reason they actually disrupted the delicate burger-flipping procedure to the point that the burgers were lifted off the grill before reaching the required temperature threshold. That's why the temperature was below state standards, Nugent told the senators.
Robert ... Bob ... haven't you fed us enough bullshit already?
Another hopeful was John Carr, who runs a powerful Portland-based lobbying organization on behalf of nine giant aluminum and chemical corporations in Washington and Oregon, including Kaiser Aluminum, ALCOA and Georgia-Pacific. All by themselves, these nine companies buy fully one-third of all the electricity sold by the federal Bonneville Power Administration - an unbelievable 23 million kilowatt-hours a year.
To make a long story short, big industries, commercial and sport fishing interests, electric utilities, timber companies, farmers and barge operators all are blaming each other for decimating several species of wild salmon. Studies have shown, however, that the 60-some hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake river systems are responsible for killing 90 percent of the migrating fish.
You may have read recently that Carr's organization, Direct Services Industries, had a big role in halting a commercial chinook salmon fishery on the Lower Columbia River. "I'm hoping this decision sets the stage for future decisions that allow adult wild fish a reasonable opportunity to get back into their spawning grounds," a sanctimonious Carr was quoted as saying.
Be careful, though, not to fall for Carr's environmental rhetoric; his only interest is to divert attention away from the fact that his clients, with their one-third share of BPA's hydroelectric power, single-handedly are responsible for killing 15 percent of all migrating salmon in the Columbia and Snake river systems. Part of Carr's job is to spread around the blame for the dual salmon and energy crises, even to those who might not deserve what he's shoveling.
Well Robert and John, thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you, including the home version of our game, which you and you family will enjoy around the dinner table.
Emerging from the pack is a man who already has been the recipient of some abuse, but who needs another dose.
Our first Dufus of the Month Award goes to D. Scott Blair, the ambulance-chasing Seattle lawyer who spent $8,413.65 on a quarter-page ad in the Seattle Times on Jan. 26, and nearly as much for a quarter-page ad in the P-I the same day, in a sleazy search for would-be clients sickened by the E. coli bacteria. "IMPORTANT NOTICE," the ad blared, as though people befallen by crises absolutely, positively need to hire lawyers to get them through their troubles.
Blair's law partner, Nancy Schultz, was quick to tell a Free Press reporter - who was posing as a father of a potentially bacteria-stricken daughter - that she was "outraged,"and that it was "very upsetting" to her that Jack in the Box served those nasty hamburgers to people. "I sit at home and look at my child and think that it could have been us," she said, mom-like.
Schultz's initial concern seemed to belie the money-fixated ad, which said, "You may have a valuable legal claim for DAMAGES." (Emphasis Blair's .)
But shifting back into lawyer mode, Schultz told the "father" that he "certainly could be entitled to money beyond (that needed to pay) medical bills," and "you have to look at your legal rights before you sign them away."
Despite assurances by Jack in the Box president Robert Nugent that the company would pay the medical bills of the stricken, Schultz felt compelled to say, "All they have said is that they will do what's right. They have not been that specific." Wrong, Nancy.
In fairness to Schultz, however, she did tell the "father" that he should get his daughter to a doctor, and that he may not have to sue anybody, obviously, depending on what doctors discovered. She also asked about the extensiveness of the "father's" insurance.
Despite Schultz's best attempts at sincerity, however, the size, timing and proximity of the ads expose the worst of the worst of the personal-injury arm(pit) of the legal profession. To file what amount to preemptive lawsuits when we have no evidence that JITB will renege on its promise to helped the sickened is emblematic of how the original intent of civil litigation has been warped by money-crazed lawyers. But having been born into a culture of litigation, we have been raised to accept knee-jerk lawsuits a the most effective way of dispute resolution.
In a Times article that discussed the controversy over the ad, Blair told the paper that people had called his office to complain about the ad. (Not a bad idea - his office number is (206) 527-2000, and his cellular number is (206) 947-6797.) The ads also were assailed by Halleck Hodgins, president of the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association, of which Blair is a member. Hodgins called the "opportunistic advertising ... a great disservice to injury victims and our profession." Lawyers may advertise their services as long as the messages are truthful and not deceptive, and if solicitation is not done face-to-face or over the telephone.
As justification for his aggressive marketing tactics, Blair predictably shrouded his motives in philanthropic mumbo-jumbo. "The fact is that I am interested in helping people out. I don't think (critics) know how committed I am to rectify a rather egregious wrong that pervades the beef industry." He explained that he shares a special connection with the E. coli victims because he once was poisoned by a fast-food meal. Who hasn't been?
Well, D. Scott, we've never heard about your anti-beef crusading. (Give us a call if we should have.) And if you are so "committed," you'd be representing the bacteria victims pro bono. But I suppose that's too much to ask. After all, who would pay for your ads?
Sorry, old man, you've been found "guilty" on two counts of proffering a lame excuse for running sleazy ads and one count of being a total scumbag. We sentence you to 30 days of having to wear a big letter "D" on the lapels of your $450 suits.
|
|
|
|
|