digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at cracked.com

9 Insane Cases That Prove the US Legal System is Broken

cracked.com — Justice is blind ... and stupid.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Fhwqhgads, on 06/12/2008, -12/+16Yup, the system is truly *****.
    • Dissonance, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5But many of the examples in this article are just claims that never made it very far in court but got a lot of media attention. I bet most of them were dismissed at an early summary judgment motion because the plaintiffs either failed to state a claim, or failed to state facts that support a claim.

      And courts do have rules to help prevent frivolous and vexatious suits from being constantly filed.

      This list is really examples of people who abuse the legal system, not examples of the legal system itself being broken. Although, I'm sure examples of the latter are not too hard to find either.
    • Waldeneast, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3I don't know that the system is *****...the fellow didn't get his $67 million for the pants, the lawyer didn't get her settlement against the casinos....maybe people themselves are *****, because they try and get things they don't deserve from others by using the legal system, but hopefully the system protects us from them?
      • Fhwqhgads, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4The system is ***** because it wasted more than 30 seconds on that guy's case.

        "They lost my pants. I wan't 67 million!!"

        System: "Get the ***** out."

        That's how it should go.
      • dnields, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Oh, the system is surely *****. Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson are prime examples.
    • Stroggoth, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1The court system handled most of these correctly, so there is nothing wrong with the system. What you are complaining about is the people filing the ridiculous claims, but you can file any claim you want. The court will just smash it down with a DJ motion before it ever reaches trial, as they should.

      People really need to learn about how the legal system works in this country. Anyone is free to file any complaint, but only a tiny number will actually get processed by the system. I can sue for $50 million in pants, but I will never see a courtroom.
    • Amnesia10, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Actually the Mr Loophole is of a British lawyer. He is based near Manchester, Cheshire. He gets people off on technicalities. If the police actually followed the correct procedures then he would lose every time. Yes most of these people are guilty but they are still entitled to legal representation. He is not invulnerable but he did have a 99% success rate. Though that is now dropping as the police and prosecutors are doing a better job now. He is the one lawyer there who does not deserve to be on that list.
  • edmoser, on 06/12/2008, -4/+90Nice, a cracked article not about video games, dicks or animals.
  • FreemanJack, on 06/12/2008, -17/+20*****! I didn't know that Pearson was black. Thanks for setting us back another fifty years, *****.
    • footodors, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6but he's yellow on the inside.
    • stevealford, on 06/13/2008, -6/+1So the actions of one black man set back ALL black people by 50 years? RACIST!
      • thanakar, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2According to Al Sharpton, yes, just as he thinks the actions of one white man represents the actions of all white people.
    • Her3t1k, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Oh, that was him? I thought he was the guy that worked at the cleaners.
    • saruyama, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1So, progressive race relations require that blacks get away with whatever they want?
  • andwhammy, on 06/12/2008, -1/+77I don't know if the US legal system should be responsible for British Mr. Loophole

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Freeman
    • Justice101, on 06/13/2008, -1/+8I don't know, the U.S. legal system is based on English Common Law. (score one for not sleeping through Law; failed math though...)
      • kanabiis, on 06/13/2008, -1/+10And English common law was derived from both Germanic law, and largely Islamic Law...

        So if your inclined to lean that way, just another reason to blame everything on the Arabs

        Really, look it up.

        • kanabiis, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8I was being sarcastic about blaming the Arabs though...

          Just trying to interject some off color humor in my historical tidbit.
    • diemunkiesdie, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Hah Mr. Loophole! I would totally hire that guy (if I lived in Britain). He seems like he could get you off, no matter what retarded crap you pulled!
  • SmooveO, on 06/12/2008, -7/+2let's not forget how they dolled up marcia clark during the OJ trial to make her look better on TV. or how clean cut they tried to make the menendez brothers look. all because they thought it would work in their favor during their respective trials. unreal..
    • gryphon50, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0I thought Marcia Clark did a great job, unfortunately with that jury it was a hopeless case. In the case of the Menendez brothers, I thought the sweaters thing was a mistake on the part of their lawyer because it was way too obvious a ploy- as in, how could these harmless sweater-wearing boys be guilty?
  • jakash, on 06/12/2008, -2/+22By CodyCastor from the comments: "Unfortunately, you made me laugh so hard that I shat myself a little bit. My pants are ruined. Also, since I consumed several gas-station-grade frozen burritos yesterday, the discharge felt like hot napalm. I am now emotionally scarred and in dire need of some pants, and therefore have no choice but to sue you, Cracked. I will only try for about $100 for the emotional well-being, but have to go eight figures for the pants. They were friggin' sweet pants."
    ...Is this the new FatLoser from a few weeks back?
    • Licurgo, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2the guy love piss on public,in his diapers?
      classic
  • jakash, on 06/12/2008, -7/+5Hell, as long as all these problems with the legal system allow the Pirate Bay to keep going strong, I'm happy...
    "Waits for burying and arguing to commence*
    • fasda, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1Well making a file available isn't it self might not be illegal it would really depend on the details of the laws. However downloading it surely is. (this is also going to be a popular opinion
      • stevealford, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Actually, downloading a file is NOT illegal. Uploading or seeding one is. As long as someone else is willing to break copyright law to upload it, the downloader is breaking no laws (unless he seeds, which all good p2p'ers should... but I digress).
        • Abomonog, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1All three of you are wrong. It only becomes illegal when you sell it. That's why the RIAA and MPAA are doing the civil court shtick. Free file sharing (even copyrighted materials) is not directly illegal in America. If it were illegal P2P users would be seeing the wrong end of a cops gun instead of a lawyers pen.

          At the other end of the spectrum it is illegal to sell your own copyrighted material without a distribution license. Guess who controls those for movies and music.
  • mentallyinhell, on 06/12/2008, -2/+15Those pants better have been nice. They only cost him his wife, family, job, and home.
    • miggie, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1He lost his wife before this case. They had gotten divorce and he pulled lots of legal maneuvers to have the divorce cost her over 10 grand.
  • kinseyincanada, on 06/12/2008, -1/+63can someone tell me how these cases make the US legal system screwed? in not a single one of them did the person get the money they were seeking, doesnt that make the system work?
    • smotpoker, on 06/13/2008, -4/+11Not all of them have to do with seeking money and several have to do with ***** up petty judges/lawyers who are supposed to be responsible for running/maintaining the legal system.

      Do judges who charge contempt for reading a magazine or sue a janitor for $180,000 over an accident sound like people you want presiding over your case or trust to administer real justice? Like many high-paid professionals, they do not seem to realize or care how hard some people have to work for what they have and they seem to have an overwhelming sense of entitlement for petty inconveniences.

      It shows the legal system is ***** because some of the judges and lawyers are so petty.
      • Stroggoth, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0You mean the CLIENTS are so petty. You can pay to file ANY claim you want.
        • smotpoker, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Maybe you didn't read the article. Several of the people featured were lawyers and judges themselves. Judge charges man with contempt and fines him [at least twice] for reading a magazine. Judge slips on a wet floor in the courthouse and sues the janitor.

          The guy suing a korean dry cleaner for $67 million over lost pants was some sort of judge as well and the "Mr. Loophole" lawyer seems to personify the all-lawyers-are-deceitful-scumbags stereotype. In fact, nearly all of these cases involve someone in the justice system acting like a douche.
        • Stroggoth, on 06/14/2008, -1/+0Weak, really weak. You can pay, regardless of who you are, to file any claim you want.
    • zebco, on 06/13/2008, -3/+10It's ***** screwed because all the work to get these cases to court ties up the ***** system so that if you or a family member are the victim of a real crime or tragedy, you can't even get your ***** into court because tommy ***** is trying to sue the local cleaners for losing his ***** pants.
      That's litigation abuse, through and through. Yes, most Americans are too dumb to care or know if they are trying to rip someone off for money but the system fails us because it's never figured out a way in the entire history of the judicial system to simply put something like this into law: "You can't ***** sue anyone for 64 million ***** dollars if they lose your ***** ***** pants, you ***** idiotic moron."
      There. That's the reason.
    • novask, on 06/13/2008, -1/+29The simple fact that someone can sue you for $54 million simply because you lost their pair of pants scares me. Not to mention the $80,000 in attorney fees that they had to pay just for defending themselves from that douchebag.
      • Stroggoth, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0You would be able to get court fees for a ridiculous claim like that, so it wouldn't cost you anything.
        • smotpoker, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Technically, I think you would have to pay at least *something* up front for your lawyer in most cases so there would be some cost, albeit temporary.

          Plus there are costs of time/energy/stress as well for many people. You're essentially right, though
    • RogerStrong, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6>> can someone tell me how these
      >> cases make the US legal system
      >> screwed?

      That would be the lack of a "loser pays" system that prevents the courts from being used a a legalized blackmail system.

      You could be sued for millions, for something you're sure would never stand up in court. Say, (real examples) for "lowering property values" because your kids play in the back yard. Or because a mixer your company made and sold 20 years ago fell off a truck while being transfered between the 4th and 5th owners, and someone hit it with thier car. (And because you have more money than the 4th and 5th owners.)

      But whether you could easily win is irrelevent:

      You're given a choice. You could fight it in court, win, and still be out $100,000 in legal fees. Or you could bend over and settle out of court for a mere $30,000.

      Most people and companies, after their lawyers tell them that yes, it really does work like that, bend over.

      There are people who make a living out of sueing people. Often they're lawyers - they can represent themselves, so they have little to lose if they don't win the case.

      And that's not even as bad as the the almost comically corrupt US patent system, which enshrines this sort of behavior.

      Really, the only thing remarkable about the "lost pants" incident is that the shop owners didn't give in to blackmail and settle out of court.
      • smotpoker, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Typically, the loser *does* pay in some form or another (with civil cases anyway)

        I could be wrong, but I believe that in civil cases the defendant nearly always countersues for their legal expenses, which which is part of the same proceeding(s) and means if the defendant wins, the plaintiff is automatically liable for those expenses. Also, the burden to pay court costs always falls on whoever loses.

        Unfortunately, this is not the case with criminal cases. If the defendant wins they will likely not be charged court costs but they will have to pay their own legal fees unless they decide to sue the local government in civil court. When a citizen brings a frivalous case/suit against another citizen, the plaintiff has to pay out of pocket and learns his lesson whereas in criminal court, prosecutors and police never do. The tax-payer picks up the tab.

        This is a major reason why so many unjust arrests and prosecutions are made. No matter whether you win your criminal case, you are probably going to have to pay a ***** of money and in order to get any of it back you have to be able to afford more legal fees for another trial (within statute of limitations) and *prove* some sort of misconduct on the part of the state.
  • Croecop, on 06/13/2008, -12/+3OJ is innocent!!!!
  • patpl22391, on 06/13/2008, -2/+12Judging the millions of previous, present, and future cases solely on the bad outcome of 10 is a poor way to see the failure of the justice system. I trust America's criminal justice system a lot more than any other nation's.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5I could be wrong, but I think it's meant to be funny. You know, like jokes?
      • patpl22391, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3I know this was meant to point out some ridiculous cases (where the right decision was made by the presiding judges, anyway) but there are constantly articles that hit the front page that are just a savage attack on the system without regard for the facts
  • mikesbaker, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2that picture is so wrong on so many levels
  • wishninja, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2all of the people that have spent their lives on death row only to be found innocent later would probably disagree.
    • zebco, on 06/13/2008, -2/+0*****. They will be immediately happy that they're not wrongfully being put to death and then, after they meet with a lawyer, they sue the ***** judicial system for putting there wrongfully in the first place. Which means they really DO agree that the judicial system is ***** up from the inside out.
      Your comment makes no sense whatsoever.
      Are you suggesting that people on death row who become freed are happy that they maybe spent 20 years of their lives in a ***** prison cell? Waiting to die?
      And then the reprieve comes and they're supposed to be jubilant and ecstatic and love the judicial system for 'working?'
      You're high, Clairese.
      • wishninja, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1lol I meant that they would disagree about these being the 9 most insane cases proving a broken system, silly head.
  • 1dog, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7What isn't broke in this country? If you find something that isn't broke, you probably should look again.
  • zebco, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Judge Roy Pearson has to be the ***** dumbest person in the entire ***** world! He basically tried to DEMAND that a Korean family leave the U.S. for losing his pants. After they offered in $12,000, he ***** apparently went insane and lost his mind. OVER A ***** PAIR OF ***** PANTS!
    And now he's facing bankruptcy, lost his job, his wife and still is without his mind.
    Anyone who is this hateful and insane deserves to lose everything they own.
    • tony23, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7The Justice System might not have worked, but Karma sure as hell did.
    • thanakar, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Not to mention the laundry business got put out of business due to the high legal fees required to fight the case.
    • 808ethan, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Id wager the losing his wife part was going on before any of this.
      Leads to
      -going insane about stupid pants
      Leads to
      -demonstrating insanity in public court
      Leads to
      -being fired.

  • jkirk7msa, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5I'm a fan of Cracked.com but damn, it's like you have to sort through the crap Cracked is writing from the actual story. I want to learn more about these cases but their "creative" writing makes it hard to sort through what actually happened and what they use to try to make the reader laugh...
  • beachtrader, on 06/13/2008, -2/+31Why is the legal system broken? It seems most of these cases ended with the right decision: guy sues for $67 million and the court says your insane and the cleaners wins...what's wrong about that? It is not the legal system which is wrong here--it is the fruitcake plaintiff. The legal system did what it was supposed to: gave a forum for someone who was allegedly wronged an avenue to have his dispute decided. The legal system did just that and I think we would all agree it came to the correct decision.

    Don't blame the cereal bowl for the fruit loops who go in it.
    • yotsukado, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6agreed, but the fact that such a case last for so long and ended up costing a large sum of money in legal fees. That's where I feel like things are wrong.
      • 808ethan, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Who's got two thumbs and paid for all the court fees for that trial?

        You buddy!

        You should be pissed!
    • tony23, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Where it's broken is that they didn't throw his ass out of court first thing for being stupidly unreasonable. It's broken because that one idiot's actions nearly destroyed a family running an honest business who made an honest mistake.
  • 1337chic, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4See, that was funny until the ad for Scientology at the end which I though was a joke so I clicked on it.

    Now they have my ip address. *Closes and locks windows*

    Why does cracked.com advertise for scientology?!?!? WHY?!?!?!
  • GhostyBoy, on 06/13/2008, -1/+14Why is this article so poorly written?
    • jisrael, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3"Clearly these $67 million pants were stitched from the Turin Shroud using threads picked from the canvas of the Mona Lisa"

      (the Mona Lisa was painted on a piece of wood. not canvas. but i guess when you pump out that much swill you can't be expected to fact check it.)
  • nsummy, on 06/13/2008, -4/+7The Cracked List spam is starting to get old. It's constantly a failed attempt at humor. I quit reading after the first case with the pants because i knew the defendant was found not guilty. I think in everyone's opinion that means the legal system is not *****.

    Edit: I read number the 2nd one about the lawyer reading Maxim. I like how the writer criticizes him and says he has poor taste. He also calls Maxim softcore porn. Playboy is softcore porn, there is no nudity in Maxim. This writer really needs to leave his parents basement.
    • bipolarruledout, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Say what you want about Maxim but it's in poor taste to read at all in a court room. Certainly a lawyer should know this. Never mind that cracked is starting to read more and more like rejected Maxim articles.
    • PatNolan, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2I know. I never got a paper cut from Maxim.
  • LukeBeaumont, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1You people cant honestly believe that any legal system is perfect, and that out of millions of cases a year, a few stupid things happen?
    Ignorance.
  • DanQuist, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1The blunt fact is that EVERY legal system has failures. Point is that ours has one of the fewest injustices compared to others.
  • wipis, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1While most of these cases were total clown shoes in most of them the system actually worked. So despite the fact that there are retards trying to abuse the system, it keeps going strong.
  • djdingo, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3OJ was acquitted.

    There's all the proof you need right there.
  • sabroskie, on 06/13/2008, -0/+21Dugg for the transition between 8 and 9:

    Worse, he was only representing a DWI client at the time. When you're dealing with somebody else's traffic offenses and you manage to get yourself jailed, you might just be the worst lawyer in the entire world. That's like a pyromaniac becoming a firefighter.

    Exhibit 9: A pyromaniac becomes a firefighter
  • cakrauss, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1It's not necessarily the system that's messed up, there will always be people who want to take advantage of the system, regardless of what it is.
  • megamod, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1ha...they said "digging"... DUGG!!! =)
  • bipolarruledout, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3Nine examples and you can't even list Bush v Gore? Nothing on seized property? Drug laws? Come on.. these are just average cases that happen EVERY DAY. Perhaps the article should have been "lawyers are douchebags." At least it would have come off as less trite.
  • uglypercy, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Even a weak enumerated list from Cracked is arguably better than a possibly stronger list on the same or a related topic of comparable, similar length from someone else, a site different than Cracked.
  • visionaryIX, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Yes. Lets trust cracked over the qualified legal and academic world to determine how screwed up a legal system is.

    People need to remember that on the surface, cases might appear ludicrous but in reality are serving a relevant and important piece of law. Now days Donoghue v Stevenson seems ridiculous, but it still is fundamental in the development of the Law. I've seen highly constitutional (Non US - yes, other countries have constitutions too) and important cases over as little as $14. Yet they're constantly quoted and referenced.

    Most of those cases just prove how screwed up some people are.
  • LawDigger, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1These cases prove what a great legal system we have. Plaintiffs bring frivolous cases; plaintiffs lose. Oh, and some lawyers are held in contempt for disrespecting judges. Is there a problem with punishing lawyers?
    • RogerStrong, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3>> Plaintiffs bring frivolous cases; plaintiffs lose

      Congratulations! You won in court against a frivolous lawsuit!

      Here's your bill for $80,000 in legal fees. It could go way up when the guy appeals. And he's free to sue you for something else, or sue someone else this afternoon.

      But congratulations!
  • goddessophia, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1One problem is that people want something for nothing. Poor ethics is ruining our judicial system... you don't even have to afford an expensive "mouthpiece" just call an attorney who will claim your law suit and if you win he will take an unreasonable amount of money and all you had to do is quit your job, put your family in shambles, and try and make people feel sorry for you. Let's create a generation of victims (Oh, wait, never mind...) What's wrong with that pervert (the lawyer with the foul gestures to the judge) it doesn't surprise me that he made it through law school. You know what surprises me? When a worthy person who has values and visions based on morality and ideals makes it through law school uncorrupted. We need more good men and women who actually believe in something to represent and interpret the law and return the dignity to our liberties and justice.
  • duggdowncatisad, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0Buried for John McCain push poll at the bottom of the article.
  • johnleemk, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2I'm a Dartmouth student. Venkatesan dropped her case before it ever went to court, although she still insists she was in the right.

    The list should be more properly titled "9 Insane Americans That Prove the American People are Broken," or something of the sort.
  • sk545, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Legal system is broken because you can't get to trial without spending at least 30 to 50K minimum. A lot of people don't have that kind of money lying around.
  • BikerDude69, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1OJ thinks the caddy did it. Dug because we all know OJ did it.
  • Barclay1188, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Cracked has sold out. I got a "Get the Facts on Scientology" ad at the end of that article.

    A sad, sad day.
    • aflaks, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1cracked hasn't sold out because there are no takers. it just sucks
    • 55mph, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I logged in only to see it was a promo for scientology. I thought it could be interesting. It wasn't, unless you are interested in achieving 'the State of Clear' without an alien implant. If so, enjoy..
  • Bunnybutt, on 06/13/2008, -0/+19 insane cases? How about 9 insane people!
  • blackhappy, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1They should stop calling it digg and just call it cracked or huffington or washington post
  • flogistan, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I think part of the point is that nine cases couldn't prove this.
  • mrzack, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3#10: 9/11 = INSIDE JOB
    • peaceninja, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1september eleventh, two-thousand fun!
  • JVENEGAS, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1THIS IS BECAUSE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS NOT BLIND, IT'S BUSINESS
  • AlienMushroom, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I knew, cuz I broke it.
  • andwhammy, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0Priya Venkatesan: One time Tom Cormen was sitting in the class, and she asked me, how many T’s are in Gattaca. This was the kind of question she was asking, “how many T’s are in Gattaca?,” and I was about to answer her and Tom Cormen pre-empted me, “two t’s.” I’ll leave you to interpret it.
    The Dartmouth Review: No. No, I don’t understand that.
    PV: I have to tell you: it means tenure track.
    TDR: Oh, okay.
    PV: Because I wasn’t tenured track.
    TDR: Oh, okay, yes.
    PV: They were trying to intimate that I wasn’t ready for tenure track.
    TDR: Yes, okay, I didn’t realize that’s what that meant.

    http://dartlog.net/2008/04/tdr-interview-priya-ven ...

    racism at its worst
  • slingr, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4i love how the domain HOT-RACE-GENDEROFCHOICE-XXX.com was registered the same day the article was published.
  • HumanRecall, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Arelia Taveras she is that scamming lawyer for 9/11 victims blew the clients money in Vegas and than turns around and sues casinos for her gambling ***** up !!

    Man she just solidified her seat in HELL !!!!
  • arybarczyk24, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0i like the demonstration of imitating beating off.. cute. thats something my 14 year old brother does when he thinks you're full of *****.
    also, looking at one of the advertisements made me realize that Dana Carvey looks more and more like a middle-aged lesbian every time i see him
  • passedoutghost, on 06/13/2008, -2/+0"He proved his absolute lawyerality by once saying, "Morally, I can't (justify it), but ethically, I can." If that makes any sense to you then congratulations, you're either Buddha or psychotic."

    That makes perfect sense to me and I'm neither. For lawyers there's a difference between legal ethics and morality. Some things which are ethically correct may be contrary to each individual's morality. For the first time cracked.com has failed me.
    • eryximachus, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1While lawyers today might recognize this distinction, the fact remains that from the days of Socrates until the 1960s - nearly 3,000 years - the two words were basically synonymous.

      What defines a nation is the collectively shared language, aesthetic tastes, customs, and values of a people. A nation that has laws that do not reflect the values of its people cannot last.
      • passedoutghost, on 06/14/2008, -0/+0When I said legal ethics, I mean ethics that govern the behaviour of lawyers themselves.
  • pennvneff, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1It isn't the justice system that's at the heart of the issue, it's the corrupt society behind it. Germany had one of the best legal systems ever devised but when you have a totally corrupt and ***** society with a ***** ruling party like the Nazi's it doesn't do anything but become a tool for the wicked.

    When the Republicans and their brain-dead supporters are in charge individual freedoms and rights start to corrode.
  • gl77, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Exhibit 10: Smokers who have lung cancer sue cigarette companies for their illness despite knowing the risks.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.