On a recent trip to the supermarket I noticed that the price of bananas is over 50¢ a pound, and in my home that’s a serious expense. Unlike the cause for the drastic increase in food goods related to higher fuel costs and a depletion of food storage reserves through out the world, the high cost of bananas can be attributed to more to the dubious activities of the largest producer of bananas in the world, Chiquita Brands International.

The activities on the part of Chiquita read like a Hollywood drama. Chiquita has pled guilty to   criminal activities during the past 20 years, including monetary support paid to a known terrorist organization. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17615143/).

Chiquita Brands began in 1997, through a subsidiary known as Banadex, making payment to the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia (“AUC”). The AUC was and is a dangerous terrorist organization that was created in order to combat other guerilla groups in the country of Colombia. The AUC however was reportedly not limited in its activities to that purpose. Allegedly they engaged in kidnapping and the murder of innocent civilians, as well as drug traffickers. The AUC has been a named terrorist organization every year by the United States since 2001. Most recently Chiquita Banana paid a $25 million dollar federal criminal fine for its activities in Colombia (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5721/is_200705/ai_n23755882)

No wonder bananas are over 50¢ a pound! American corporations should be good corporate citizens, whether they are in Colombia or in the United States and act in an ethical and humanitarian fashion.

http://www.chiquitalawsuit.com/

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

The St Petersburg Times published an article today with a very well written and poignant story about a victim of Big Tobacco.

The story was about the progressive illness and death of a popular area TV personality, John Eastman. He was known as the dean of Tampa Bay talk radio. It is a story that is unfortunately very typical of many smoking victims. Mr. Eastman began smoking at the age of 12 because everyone his age was smoking; it was the cool thing to do. His addiction developed into a four pack a day habit and he believed those ads that told him smoking was “good” for his throat: “Philip Morris’ superiority for the nose and throat is RECOGNIZED by eminent medical authorities; no other cigarette can make that statement” (quoted from Philip Morris ad” . His career ended when those very cigarettes that Big Tobacco promised were good for his throat, took his professional voice away.

Our thoughts go out to Mr. Eastman’s sons for the untimely loss of their father at the hands of Big Tobacco.

I want to add, however, some information not mentioned in the article. This is information about the attorney who fought many years to achieve justice for Mr. Eastman. That attorney was Howard Acosta; he faced the “scorched earth” tactics employed by Big Tobacco’s lawyers and he won justice for his client. When most attorneys would not or could not take on the juggernaut of Big Tobacco’s well funded defense lawyers, Howard Acosta beat them back and gave his client some amount of comfort in his last days.

Howard Acosta has been practicing law and defending the rights of injured victims for 29 years. He has not stood on the sidelines of difficult fights; he has entered the fray against very formidable adversaries. Big Tobacco has been known to spend millions of dollars on just one plaintiff’s lawsuit in an effort at grinding the plaintiff or his attorney into submission. This is not litigation for the faint hearted.

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the issues that all Americans, and particularly lawyers, should consider in making their presidential pick is which candidate will best serve the interest of “justice for all.”   Recently, while the talking heads continued to focus on the meaning of the word “bitter,” or the sound bites from a retired minister, a little-covered story gave us some real insight into how the three remaining Presidential candidates view our civil justice system.

Read the rest of this entry »

I think we can all agree that the 2008 race for the White House has received more media coverage than any election in history. I have certainly watched and read more campaign speeches than ever before. One thing that has struck me, however, is the Democratic candidates’ reluctance to discuss their law degrees. Sen. Obama occasionally mentions that he was a community organizer or that he taught Constitutional Law. But I have never seen him even mention that he graduated from Harvard Law School, much less that he was Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review, a phenomenal accomplishment. And I have not seen Sen. Clinton discuss that she graduated from Yale Law School.

Read the rest of this entry »

We have left the age of “document management” in litigation. The forms that information takes are no longer limited to paper or to the physical world. Rather, information now occupies digital repositories of varying forms and types. We are now faced with obtaining and managing “knowledge”, rather than “documents”; information of all kinds, of varying forms, and stored on a wide array of devices.

Read the rest of this entry »

As an attorney, I am accustomed to cautionary tales after the fact, in the wake of tragedies that might have been avoided. If only someone had known, I think. If only someone had behaved differently, I say. What follows is a short story that can, and does, happen to anyone, any day. It’s a cautionary tale before the fact, with a happy ending that nonetheless serves as a lesson about attention and responsibility on the road.

Last month I awoke with severe pain radiating down my back, legs and thighs, so excruciating that I couldn’t walk. In handling my share of medical-related lawsuits, I have gained just enough knowledge to scare the heck out of myself – but not enough for any kind of accurate diagnosis. So I turned to the Internet. Morning sciatica, I read. Nice to know, but not much comfort as the next few sunrises brought debilitating pain that abated only slightly as the days wore on.

Read the rest of this entry »

In 1995, David Kessler, former head of the Food and Drug Administration tried to regulate nicotine. His efforts failed when the regulations were struck down in the federal court system. Then, in 2004, the United States Senate passed proposed legislation to do so, only to have the House of Representatives fail to take up the issue. Now, Congress has again decided to evaluate whether the Food and Drug Administration should be charged with regulating tobacco marketing and the contents of tobacco products. If enacted, Congress would empower the FDA to regulate the contents of tobacco products sold in the United States.

Despite the fact that the bill has multiple goals which would greatly benefit the health of millions of Americans, President Bush and a parade of Senators voiced their strong opposition to this proposal, indicating, among other reasons, that the FDA is overburdened and that tobacco should not be a regulated product at all, because regulation would be equated in many people’s minds to “safe.” In a statement shortly after the vote, a White House spokeswoman, Emily A. Lawrimore, said the administration thought that the legislation would do more harm than good, creating a false impression that regulated tobacco products were safe. “The administration believes that tobacco is not a drug or device to be regulated by the F.D.A.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Do Big Corporations rail against the production of defective products? Do they form groups to monitor unsafe manufacturing methods? Does Corporate America want to put the American consumer first? The answer is a resounding—NO! So, do these things, by themselves, make Big Corporations bad? Again, a resounding-NO!

Corporate America is in the business of maximizing profits. This strengthens our economy and helps to keep people employed. I am in favor of Corporate America making a profit and in their growth. What I am not in favor of is Big Corporations who invest millions of dollars in efforts that try to twist constitutional rights of our citizens in an effort to maximize Big Corporation profits. I am not in favor of Big Corporations who purchase legislators who sneak through legislation designed to protect Big Corporations to the detriment of citizens.

Read the rest of this entry »

Our greatest asset is our children. As parents, we strive to provide them with the safest and healthiest environment possible. We spend a great deal of time researching the schools they will attend, including the daycare centers where we leave our toddlers for the better part of five days a week. We visit the schools, inspect the premises inside and out, meet with and talk to the teachers, and contact other parents with similar concerns. We read the brochures and pamphlets, and search the internet for information that will help us determine if a particular school will meet the needs of our children and meet our parental standards for care and safety. Does the school or daycare center have trained and qualified personnel to respond properly to health care emergencies? Has the facility thoroughly investigated the background information on teachers, aides, or others who are going to be around our little ones? The sex scandals that have headlined the news in past years have made all parents aware of the importance of daycare centers conducting proper and in-depth background checks on each of their employees.

Read the rest of this entry »

In case you missed it during the 2008 presidential primary news blizzard of the past few months, which has consumed the front page of newspapers nationwide, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has once again failed to protect the American public from harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs and devices. Choosing to protect the outrageous profits of the major drug manufacturers over the health and welfare of each of us, and after failing to gain the support of Congress in their quest to do so, the FDA went behind Congress’s back to President Bush to propose new rules concerning labeling requirements on drugs. In addition to the fact that important side effect information would be less likely to reach consumers under the proposed rule, the change would also permit companies to update their drug and device labels with new safety information without waiting for FDA approval.

Read the rest of this entry »