The Injury Board Commentary - All Topics - Most Commented

Experts Claim Pit Bulls a Threat

Beth Janicek — Tue, 10 May 2011 10:27:00 GMT

San Antonio nurses and doctors recently released a report which found that attacks by pit bulls were more likely to kill people then those by other breeds. All three deaths resulting from dog attacks seen at University Hospital of San Antonio over the last fifteen years came from pit bull attacks. The victims included two children and a 90-year old man. Another fatal attack that was not treated at University was also caused by a pit bull.

The study also found that pit bulls caused more serious injuries when compared to other dogs, and that pit bull victims accrued higher amounts of medical bills than others. Other stats found that pit bulls were responsible for 65 percent of all fatal US dog attacks in 2008. In 2007, 7 out of the 8 deaths in Texas were caused by pit bulls.

The study, published in the scientific journal April edition of Annals of Surgery, states that “there seems to be a distinct relationship between the severity and lethality of an attack and the breed responsible.” The study goes on to call for pit bulls to be regulated similarly to wild animals.

Pit bull advocates disagree, arguing that it is the owner, not the dog, which causes the propensity for violence. During the last legislative session, Texas lawmakers considered a law permitting local bans on certain breeds of dogs, but the law did not pass.

An owner of a dangerous dog can be subject to civil liability if a dog causes injury. Under both the theory of negligence or strict liability, an injured person may have a cause of action against an owner of a dangerous dog. In order to prove strict liability, a plaintiff must show that: 1) the defendant was the owner or possessor of the animal; 2) the animal had dangerous propensities abnormal to its class; 3) the defendant knew or had reason to know the animal had dangerous propensities; and 4) those propensities were a producing cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

Currently, a bill is pending before the Texas legislature which would increase criminal penalties for an owner of a dangerous dog which causes death to a child or elderly person.

Everyone should be aware of the danger posed by pit bulls and other aggressive dogs. Potential owners should consider how a pit bull could affect those around them, while the general public should be cautious, particularly with children and aggressive dogs.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Beth Janicek

H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine, Possible Side Effects and the Potential Dangers of Squalene

Teresa Allen — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:33:59 GMT

UPDATE: November 13, 2009

The NVIC has just posted a Vaccine Ingredients Calculator for the H1N1 vaccine and the seasonal flu vaccine. You put in your weight, age etc. and the vaccine and click 'calculate'. It will tell you how much mercury the EPA states is acceptable for you.

Click here to go to the VIC.www.vaccine-tlc.org/calc.html

I put my info in and it said that based on the EPA standards of mercury that I can handle would be 8 micrograms. The H1N1 vaccine has 25 micrograms.

UPDATE: November 10, 2009

Thank you, Anais, for sharing this.

A brave and highly educated spanish nun,doctor and theologian, living in a monastery, but very much involved in the matters of the world, explains the H1N1 flu. This is the clearest and most sensible information I have been able to find. Hope it helps everybody to make an informed and free decision.
More ...

The youtube version is in 6 parts here.

UPDATE: November 3, 2009

Please go and listen to this interview! Very informative! Very good interview with Dr. Russell Blaylock: (Dr. Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. For the past 25 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from both practices to devote full time to nutritional studies and research.) http://articles. mercola.com/ sites/articles/ archive/2009/ 11/03/What- We-Have-Learned- About-the- Great-Swine- Flu-Pandemic. aspx Just a couple of things from the interview:

UPDATE: October 27, 2009

The shocking truth about why Obama announced a National Public Health Emergency in the US this weekend.

October 21, 2009
ALERT: Special Swine Flu Update

*UPDATE: 10/14/2009* -

(Taken from Peninsula - Palo Alto Daily News )

"...the current stock of U.S. swine flu vaccines does not contain adjuvants, according to Anne Schuchat, MD, in an informational video produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Schuchat does acknowledge that there is an emergency provision to use them — should the pandemic accelerate."

*UPDATE: 10/5/2009* - According to the CDC, neither the 2009 H1N1 vaccine nor the 2009 seasonal flu vaccine used in the United States contains squalene.

A Glimpse into the Scary World of Vaccine Adjuvants

The U.S. government has contracts with several drug companies to develop and produce swine flu vaccines. At least two of those companies, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, are using an adjuvant, Squalene, in their H1N1 vaccines.

Meryl Nass, M.D., who is an authority on the anthrax vaccine, states

“A novel feature of the two H1N1 vaccines being developed by companies Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline is the addition of squalene-containing adjuvants to boost immunogenicity and dramatically reduce the amount of viral antigen needed. This translates to much faster production of desired vaccine quantities.”

There is a difference between 'good' and 'bad' squalene. The difference is the way it enters the body. Injecting squalene is an abnormal route of entry. Injecting squalene into the body causes your immune system to attack ALL of the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant.

According to the European website Without Concent :

What you don't know can hurt you.

WithoutConcent is about informed concent. We promote transparency in the pharmaceutical industry and the governments that regulate it...because you can't make good choices with bad information - or no information at all.

Clinical trials with "fast-track" swine flu vaccines that contain and adjuvant - substance that turbocharge the immune system's response to the vaccine - are underway on four continents. The adjuvant is an oil called squalene, which causes incurable autoimmune disease in animals. Autoimmune diseases occur when the immune system attacks the body instead of defending it.

Over the past 35 years, scientists in laboratories like UCLA Medical Center and the Karolinska Institute, which awards the Nobel Prizes in Medicine and Physiology have published papers showing how squalene injected into rodents will cripple them. They used squalene to induce diseases like rheumatoid arthritis in animals (the animal version is called "adjuvant arthritis") in order to search for a cure in humans.

This website also states:

The European Medicines Agency report on GlaxoSmithKline's new swine flu vaccine called "Pandemrix" says on pg. 17 that it contains 10.69 milligrams of squalene.

An appendix to the report says on pg. 29 that subjects injected with the vaccine suffered "Headache, Tiredness, Pain, redness, swelling or a hard lump at the injection site; Fever, Aching muscles and joint pain." It says these complaints were "very common" - occurring with more than 1 in 10 doses of Pandemrix.

In 1 out of 1,000 doses, subjects reported "Allergic reactions leading to a dangerous decrease of blood pressure, which, if untreated, may lead to collapse, coma and death; Fits, Severe stabbing or throbbing pain along one or more nerves and Low blood platelet count which can result in bleeding or bruising." In 1 in 10,000 doses, volunteers reported "Temporary inflammation of the brain and nerves causing pain, weakness and paralysis that may spread across the body; and Narrowing or blockage of blood vessels with kidney problems."

We're not going to tell you what to do about this - except to get informed. Your health could depend on it.

According to Jeffry John Aufderheide of justgetthere.us

"As to my knowledge, this information is the first of its kind validating the ingredients and the intent to use them on the population. Buyer beware of this vaccine as we are likely to see an onslaught of damaged men, women, and children if there are forced vaccines. The ‘new’ experimental vaccine is certainly unlike any other that we, as Americans, have been exposed to in the past."

On Fox News, a Doctor recently said that the H1N1 Swine Flu virus is losing its virulence and the vaccine has levels of Squalene, even going so far as to say you would rather get Swine Flu than seasonal flu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1z7KSEnyxw

More video from the National Vaccine Information Center

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5wHP5zLcP4

I, for one, will not be getting the H1N1 vaccine. However, no matter what you decide to do, please be sure to educate before you vaccinate.

I have removed the 'side effects' listed in the vaccine insert. Please do your own research into this.

..."Vaccine Safety Testing Only Done for ONE Week Now we are being told that this new fast tracked, poorly tested vaccine is very safe and effective. The results of the testing on this vaccine were reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.39 It is instructive to learn that the tests for safety and to assess complications lasted only 7 days after the vaccine, an incredibly short period of follow-up. Gullian Barre paralysis can occur even months after a vaccine as can seizures, behavioral problems and neurodevelopmental disorders in children. It is interesting to note that the authors of the safety study for our swine flu vaccine were all employees of the maker of the vaccine CSL Biotherapeutics and eight held equity interest in the company.39 This admission is part of the disclosure policy of the New England Journal of Medicine. It is always important to keep in mind when you hear about this vaccine being safe and produced just like the seasonal flu vaccine -- What else do they not know about this vaccine that they will discover months, years or even decades later. Once injected with the vaccine and you develop a complication there will be little that can be done to treat the life-long degenerative disorder it produces. You will just be a sad story on 60 minutes."

For the amount of mercury given in the vaccines to be considered safe, I would have to weigh a minimum of 551 pounds (250 kilograms).

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Teresa Allen

Dry Drowning Warning For Parents

Eddie Farah — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:59:00 GMT

The death of a 10-year-old boy from South Carolina this week while lying in his own bed, has brought attention to the little known “dry drowning.”

Johnny Jackson had gone for a swim in his neighborhood and walked home with his mother. He seemed fine except that his mother says he soiled himself, and then started talking slowly. He was sleepy. He lay down to take a nap and about one hour later he was dead.

Parents need to understand how dry drowning works. When water gets into the lungs, and it doesn’t have to be much, a child can asphyxiate. Lungs immersed in fluid are unable to take in oxygen from the air, but even with a small amount of water, Wikipedia says the “laryngospasm reflex essentially causes asphyxiation and neurogenic pulmonary edema.”

Basically when you breath, the diaphragm contracts, increases the volume of air into the lungs from the outside. During laryngospasm the person’s larynx spasm shuts. Air does not rush into the lungs. The heart is beating the blood flowing but it is not picking up oxygen.

Dry drowning can happen when someone has forceful contact with the water, such as from high diving or a water slide. Or just from summer fun in a pool, or even from a bath.

But the signs can be delayed and doctors don't know why. Signs are extreme fatigue and strange behavior which results from a reduction in oxygen to the brain. They need to get to an emergency room and have a breathing tube inserted so oxygen can be forced into the lungs so they regain their function.

3,600 people drowned in 2005, according to the CDC. About 10 to 15 percent were dry drownings, which can occur up to 24 hours after water is breathed into the lungs.

Johnny's mother, Cassandra Jackson, just didn't know, like most of us wouldn't.

"I feel like someone reached in and grabbed my heart and just yanked it out,” she says.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Eddie Farah

Obama Citizenship Lawsuit Headed to U.S. Supreme Court?

Brian W. Smith — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:48:35 GMT

DISCLAIMER: The author is a registered Independent and does not have an opinion as to the truth and/or veracity of the allegations of the lawsuit referenced in this blog or the information contained at the web sites cited.

Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who filed suit against Barack Hussein Obama, challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court.

Yesterday, Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the suit brought by Berg, ruling that Berg did not have standing to bring the suit. In his lawsuit, the Plaintiff, Berg, a Philadelphia attorney, alleged that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old, to regain his U.S. citizenship status. The lawsuit raises not only the Indonesian citizenship issue but also questions whether Obama was a citizen of Kenya.

Mr. Berg has stated that if Barack Hussein Obama will produce a certified "vault" birth certificate, a copy of his Certificate of Citizenship and a copy of his Oath of Allegiance to the United States, that he (Mr. Berg) will dismiss his lawsuit voluntarily. To date, Obama has refused to comply with Mr. Berg's request.

Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?.....What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people?"

Berg's lawsuit is not the only one filed, challenging Obama's eligibility. There are apparently as many as 8 lawsuits currently pending.

In Honolulu, Andy Martin, a longstanding critic of Mr. Obama, filed a lawsuit, asking the Hawaiian Department of Health to release Mr. Obama's birth certificate records.

In the state of Washington, Steven Marquis, a resident of Fall City, Wash., a town about 30 miles southeast of Seattle, has filed a lawsuit against Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, demanding that Mr. Reed verify Mr. Obama's citizenship status. The complaint seeks specifically that the office of the Washington Secretary of State verify and certify that Mr. Obama is or is not a "natural born" citizen by producing original or certified verifiable official documents. The lawsuit argues that this certification should take place before the election to preclude a constitutional crisis.

The interesting question to be possibly answered by the U.S. Supreme Court is whether voters, whether Republican, Democratic or Independent, have a right, under the Constitution, to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate. Hopefully, if that question is to be addressed by the Supreme Court, it will be decided before the election on November 4.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brian W. Smith

Tort Reform Has No Place In Health Care Reform

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:53:48 GMT

President Obama needs the support of all of us in regard to the efforts by the insurance industry to sneak tort reform into the health care bill before Congress. No back room deals with the insurance industry will be tolerated by the vast majority of Americans who are clamoring for real health care reform and no Shibai!

Tort reform has no place in health care reform. Taking away the rights of patients injured by negligent doctors and hospitals will do nothing to improve health care and study after study has shown that tort reform will not lower doctor's insurance costs. The biggest myth is the false claim that health care costs are driven up by defensive medicine _ doctors doing unnecessary medical tests to avoid frivolous lawsuits. When studies have been about those tests in states where tort reform has been passed, it turns out that the doctors and hospitals continue to do the tests. Why? Because they make money doing those tests. So leaving the 98,000 Americans who die each year due to negligent doctors and hospitals through preventable medical injuries without a remedy for their losses is un-American and just plain wrong.

You may be interested in reading the true facts about defensive medicine:

The Public Deserves The Truth About Lawsuit Abuse and Medical Malpractice - By Wayne Parsons, June 24, 2009 3:00 PM

Debunking the Myth on Defensive Medicine - By Cecelia Prewett, American Association of Justice (AAJ)

Not surprisingly the Honolulu Star Bulletin has taken up this false call for tort reform recently. That is consistent with the major media outlets siding with the insurance industry and ignoring the facts about health care and the basic American constitutional principle that for for every wrong there should be a remedy.

For more information go to the site for People over Profits where real facts are published and myths debunked. The Center For Justice & Democracy (CJ&D) led by legendary consumer advocate Joanne Doroshow is also a fabulous source for the real facts on these myths that major news media like the editors of the Honolulu Star Bulletin perpetuate on behalf of their friends in Big Insurance.

We must all tell President Obama and Congress not to tamper with the rights of injured patients to appease a greedy insurance industry that is, in fact, primarily responsible for the health care crisis of 98,000 deaths each year, many uninsured patients and doctors being gouged for their legitimate billings by insurance adjusters. I support the statement of Anthony Tarricone, President of the American Association of Justice in his communication today on the subject:

Washington, DC—“Any changes to the malpractice system must focus on patient safety and preventable medical errors, not limiting patients’ legal rights.

“The goals outlined by the White House – such as reducing the number of injuries, fostering better communication, compensating patients quicker, and reducing doctors’ premiums – move the debate in the right direction.

“However, 46 states have already enacted tort reform and health care costs continue to hurt the pocketbooks of American families. Because of these tort reforms, patients injured through no fault of their own are often unable to seek justice.

“It is critical that these demonstration projects preserve Americans’ 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury. The details matter significantly, but any efforts to limit patients’ rights are not acceptable. Promoting greater patient safety and reducing preventable medical errors are tenets doctors, attorneys, hospitals, and all Americans can support.”
### As the world's largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others—even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations. Visit http://www.justice.org/newsroom.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

The Hypocrisy in Medical Malpractice Debate

Mike Bryant — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:27:00 GMT

There are so many things to look at in the ridiculous claims that are often made by tort reform proponents who call for medical malpractice changes. Two areas that often come up are cost savings and the argument that doctors get sued all the time.

A couple of recent items caught my eye concerning each of these topics:

- There is so much fraud out there in the health care system. Sure there can be cost saving if you simple rewrite the Constitution and take away people's right to sue. You would still have society having to pay for all of the damage that was left behind. But, shouldn't we start with the Medicare fraud that is out there?

The Washington Post recently reported that :

Miami health-care executive Larry Duran orchestrated one of the largest Medicare frauds in U.S. history, submitting more than $205 million in phony claims and landing a record-breaking 50-year prison sentence for his crimes.

But another piece of Duran’s scheme also caught the eye of prosecutors. They say he extended his fraud through his lobbying efforts, all aimed at getting official Washington to make it easier for mental health centers such as his to make money.

An advocacy group he helped set up, the National Association for Behavioral Health (NABH), has spent more than $750,000 on lobbying efforts over the past five years, including staging “fly-ins” on Capitol Hill and providing advice to group members on how to get around Medicare denials, according to the Justice Department. The group also held fundraisers for lawmakers such as Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and former congressman Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla.), records show.

There is a lot of money out there that is simply being stolen and doesn't seem to be as important to the tort reformers. There needs to be a crack down on the real problems in the system.

- Poptorts took a look at how doctors aren't really afraid of the courtroom as long as they are suing. Including a United States Supreme Court case where they are fighting to have the right to bring the suit. As is pointed out:

Imagine not being able to bring a lawsuit in a situation like this, when doctors have clearly been wronged, and when the poor are going to suffer for it, right?

If only the ER docs saw the same value helping poor folks get proper treatment like this as helping some of those same patients who are negligently injured. For example, last November, we wrote about Florida legislation that would give ER doctors who treat Medicaid patients "sovereign immunity," and cap their liability for committing medical negligence against the poor at $100,000.

I wonder if they really understand the hypocrisy and simply don't care?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Second Citizenship Lawsuit Filed Against Barack Obama

Brian W. Smith — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:40:27 GMT

A second lawsuit has been filed against Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama over his lack of evidence of U.S. citizenship.

Steven Marquis, a resident of Fall City, Wash., a town about 30 miles southeast of Seattle, has filed a lawsuit against Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, demanding that Mr. Reed verify Mr. Obama's citizenship status. The complaint seeks specifically that the office of the Washington Secretary of State verify and certify that Mr. Obama is or is not a "natural born" citizen by producing original or certified verifiable official documents. The lawsuit argues that this certification should take place before the election to preclude a constitutional crisis.

Mr. Marquis argues the secretary of state has the authority and duty to not only certify the voters but also and most importantly the candidates and in so doing prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters who would had had an opportunity to choose from qualified candidates had the certification preceded the election process.

Mr. Marquis' lawsuit is the second to be filed seeking proof that Mr. Obama is a U.S. citizen qualified to run for the office of U.S. president. Philip Berg, an attorney who wants Mr. Obama to produce his original birth certificate, filed another suit in Pennsylvania earlier this year.

"At this point, Mr. Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records nor supporting hospital records," wrote Mr. Marquis in a statement. "The Hawaii Health Department has violated Federal law by ignoring formal Freedom of Information requests for the same. Due to the facts and numerous other allegations that would challenge Mr. Obama's fundamental qualifications for office, a Federal lawsuit was filed and is currently being heard in District Court, Pennsylvania."

The Pennsylvania case is being heard by Judge R. Barclay Surrick, who has not made any ruling in the case.

The Washington lawsuit demands injunctive relief directing Mr. Reed to carry out the duty of his office in this regard answering the formal complaints for verification of Mr. Obama and any other candidate appearing on the ballots issues through his office for which formal complaints have been received. The State of Hawaii has refused to release copies of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, because the privacy statutes of the state prevent them from doing so.

In Honolulu, Andy Martin, a longstanding critic of Mr. Obama, filed a lawsuit on Oct. 17, in an attempt to get the Hawaiian Department of Health to release Mr. Obama's birth certificate records.

"One of Mr. Obama's most controversial and contentious issues that he has allowed to fester for years is the question of his birth certificate," said Mr. Martin in a statement. "Mr. Obama has posted at least two versions, maybe more, of a 'certificate' on the Internet. "I want to see a certified copy issued by the State of Hawaii, not one issued by the State of Mr. Obama," he continued. "Why Mr. Obama won't allow direct access to his birth records is beyond me. But the closer we get to discovering the truth about Mr. Obama the more we understand why he is terrified of that truth."

According to the U.S. Constitution, "no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States."

The parties (and the country) await decisions by the judges in these cases. See affliated blogs on this subject at this link and this link and this link.

UPDATE: Brian Smith has been asked to appear on Roy King's radio show this afternoon (Saturday) at 4:30 Eastern, to discuss the Berg lawsuit and these blogs.

The show can be heard at this link: http://www.newstalk980.com/personality/roy-green

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brian W. Smith

More Accounts of Cipro/Levaquin Side Effects

Jeff Rasansky — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:20:16 GMT

Last week we blogged about Cipro and Levequin, two antibiotics that have been known to cause some pretty bad side effects. The FDA released a statement on July 8, that requested black box warnings for these drugs. Talk about side effects! These drugs have been linked to a risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture!

I decided to dig around a bit and see if I could find any first-hand accounts of people who have taken these drugs and experienced the side effects. I was amazed at what I found:

I have taken Levaquin 500 mg tablets for 11 days (until 2 days ago) against pneumonia.

I have developed severe pain in my achilles tendons (mostly on the left side ). I can hardly walk in the morning. Not having had any problems before I could not figure whatever could be the reason for this problem, especially since I have been doing stretching exercises for years.

I was diagnosed in an emergency room with pneumonia after some mysterious symptoms that included blood pressure over 200 and pulse of 110 with sputum containing blood. I was given a prescription for Levaquin for the "pneumonia."

After two days, there was tremendous swelling of my right arm and left leg.

There was acute weakness and pain of the left Achilles tendon. My left leg bothers me to this day--about 8 months later.

I was in doubt about the pneumonia diagnosis to begin with, and still am. Doubly in doubt about the prescription, since I have never been allergic or had any reaction to drugs in 85 years.

I just finished taking Levaquin for 10 days for a sinus infection. After the 5th day I noticed extreme pain in my muscles through my entire body. I just finish my 10th pill 3 days ago and am still in extreme pain. I feel like I'm an 80 year old woman in a 34 year old's body.

I’m not sure if a “black box” warning will do anything for the pain these people have already experienced. What about you? Have you experienced any of these side effects with Cipro or Levaquin?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeff Rasansky

Rick Perry: Tort Reform Hypocrite

Brett Emison — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:32:00 GMT

Rick Perry has been highly critical of the American civil justice system. Perry has lauded so-called "tort reform" in Texas and chastised the 7th Amendment's right to civil jury trial as "frivolous lawsuits" and referring to plaintiffs - those who bring a lawsuit - as "playing the odds and hoping for a jackpot jury."

But what does Rick Perry do when his presidential campaign fails to follow the rules to obtain enough signatures to make it on the Virginia presidential primary ballot?

Rick Perry uses the same civil justice he has chastised and Rick Perry sues the Commonwealth of Virginia.

"We believe that the Virginia provisions unconstitutionally restrict the rights of candidates and voters by severely restricting access to the ballot, and we hope to have those provisions overturned or modified to provide greater ballot access to Virginia voters and the candidates seeking to earn their support," said Perry communications director Ray Sullivan in a statement.

Perry's lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of a state law that says those who circulate petitions to get a candidate on the ballot must be eligible, or registered, to vote in the state. Perry claims that the requirement violates his freedom of speech and association.

Source: NBC News

As Perry's lawsuit demonstrates, the 7th Amendment is the ultimate lynch pin for all other constitutional rights, which is why it's not just democrats and trial lawyers standing up for this fundamental freedom, but also constitutional conservatives who oppose attacks on 7th Amendment rights through tort reform.

What is your remedy if someone violates your constitutional rights to free speech? To religious freedom? To keep and bear arms? To contract? Or even to be on a Virginia presidential primary ballot? These are civil law (or civil justice) claims in which you take the bad actor (whether a person, a corporation, or a government) to court in order to have your rights protected.

But what happens when access to courts is limited? What happens when access to the courts is so lopsided that the average person cannot gain access? What happens when powerful lobbyists control the courts like they control other branches of government?

I applaud Rick Perry for recognizing the importance of the civil justice system in protecting his civil liberties. But such actions make his continued attacks on the civil justice system that much more hypocritical. The civil justice can protect Rick Perry's rights, but not yours.

The US Constitution is not something from which you can pick and choose. It applies in full. As patriots, we are bound to uphold it.

Freedom, liberty, and civil justice are issues our founders fought and died for. These are issues that should unite us as citizens rather than divide us as partisans. Join those on both sides of the political aisle in standing up for our Constitution and for preserving Civil Justice rights and accountability.

Perry Suing to Get on Virginia Ballot [Lexi Stemple at Fox News]
Perry Campaign Sues to Get on Virginia Ballot [Rebecca Kaplan at National Journal]
Rick Perry sues Virginia to get on primary ballot [Pete Williams and Carrie Dann at NBC News]

[More on your 7th Amendment Rights]

[More on Rick Perry]

Follow @BrettEmison on Twitter.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Delay Presidential Election

Brian W. Smith — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:33:47 GMT

According to a press release from attorney Philip J. Berg, he filed a request with the United States Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon, for an injunction staying the presidential election until the Supreme Court determines whether Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to be President of the United States.

According to Mr Berg, he has filed two documents:

Application for an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008; and
Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Berg stated, “I am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant the Injunction pending a review of this case to avoid a Constitutional Crisis by insisting that Obama produce certified documentation that he is or is not a “natural born” citizen and if he cannot produce documentation, that Obama be removed from the ballot for President".

Berg’s original lawsuit, Berg vs. Obama, was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania last Friday, for lack of standing. Berg questions the logic of the District Court's decision:

"This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?"

With the presidential election a mere five days away, the Supreme Court will need to act quickly. It is unknown whether Berg asked for an emergency hearing.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brian W. Smith