Monday, March 13, 2006

Nothing Lasts Forever, Unless You Are in Vermont

By Rosemarie Jackowski

Read full article...

Posted 03/13 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Rosemarie, you’ve already proved that you have the stamina to not only finish, but win this marathon. So June it is. The State has taken their time in setting the date and one must assume that they are getting their ducks all in a row.
    I do sincerely hope that your legal representation is now a more suitable match fro your tenacity and I believe that if they make as much effort to fairly represent you - and cleverly - as you have done and continue to do on your own behalf as well as those who will follow you; that justice will prevail despite having been so grossly delayed.

    June is a lovely month.

    Another possibility is the AG will be stopped in traffic in front of a truck driver who happens to notice the first shorts of summer while enroute to work on the 5th....Anything could happen!

    In the meantime, my thoughts are with you.

    Posted by Amelopsis from Canada  on  03/13  at  09:43 PM

  2. Amelopsis...Thanks for your support. I still do not even have a court date. This could go on for many more years. It seems that the government is delaying and hoping that I die. Also, some of the witnesses are older folks. The government is treating this case like a jobs program for lawyers who are also bureaucrats. Maybe someday the taxpayers will become enlightened and realize that this is how the government is spending their money.

    Posted by rosemarie from  on  03/14  at  02:16 PM

  3. You still haven’t reconsiled the inconsistency of your own advocacy.  Recently you demanded enforcement of court order judgments against non-custodial parents without any regard or empathy of the injustices in their cases nor are you concerned about the entire regessive aspects of the system yet you writen volumes about your own unjust experiences with the courts. 

    Mamy non-custodial are ordered out of their homes without any recourse or compensation and find themselves having to find a place to live without any money for first and last month rent as they are force to resettle.  This happens on a daily basis from the courts. 

    The entire system is an “industry” and often in cases of divorce coersive “temporary” orders are imposed that effectively remove the rights of the non-custodial.

    While I empathizes with the injustices that you are facing from the courts you need to know that your very advocacy starts with the very courts that you are railing and struggling against.

    Posted by Deadbeat from In the Docket  on  03/15  at  10:15 AM

  4. Rosemarie,

    You need to issue a correction and a retraction.

    And you will never find a person who is more passionately anti-tobacco or more active in the quest against unethical medical expert
    “testimony for sale” than I am.


    You wrote:  “In Washington a few years ago Congressional committee hearings were held to investigate the effects of tobacco on health.
    Doctors stood in a line, raised their right hands, and swore to tell the truth. Then, like a perfectly choreographed ballet, each medical
    expert testified that cigarette smoke was not harmful to health.”


    Rosemarie, this is very colorful writing, and I remember very well the “ballet” of which you speak.  But please be honest and accurate in your reporting. That corps of people who raised their hands and lied about tobacco were certainly not doctors. They were tobacco company executives and owners.

    In the interest of ethical journalism,
    please do the right thing as I suggested in paragraph 1.


    Regards,

    Louise B. Andrew MD JD
    Founding President,
    Coalition and Center for Ethical Medical Testimony
    http://www.ccemt.org

    Posted by Louise B Andrew from  on  03/15  at  11:03 AM

  5. Louise...Thank you for your comment. Yes, some of those who testified were company executives but it is also a fact that doctors, researchers, medical experts, etc also testified. I look forward to the time that your web site is up and running. The problem of expert testimony is one of the most significant issues in the courts today. When the “expert” is a medical professional, the importance of honesty becomes even greater because when a medical doctor gives false testimony, it erodes confidence in the whole medical community. There are many examples of experts (medical and otherwise) spinning their testimony. That is just a way that “experts” taint testimony in a manner that is difficult to prove so that they cannot be held responsible. The influence of money on expert witnesses cannot be denied. I hope that you will join me in working toward honesty in the Court. Below is a small part of the transcript of a doctor’s testimony in MINNESOTA v TOBACCO
    “...Q. And when we speak about addictive, is it addictive to all people?

    A. Oh gosh, no, no. There is a range of—of this as far as people who can use and not become dependent, just like there is a range of people who can use heroin and not become dependent. There is lot of reports in—in the literature about that type of exposure. Even from Viet Nam, people who may have had used heroin very regularly, but then when they got back to the United they weren’t dependent upon it. So even with a drug hike heroin, not everyone becomes dependent upon it. And the same thing is true of nicotine....”
    Also from IOWA v Tobacco here is a quote, “...Doctor Homberger compromised, and changed the paper...” (This references the changing of expert testimony under pressure.)

    Posted by rosemarie from  on  03/15  at  01:21 PM

  6. Deadbeat #3...I am advocating fundamental change in the system that would bring justice to all. Please tell us how YOU would change the system.

    Posted by rosemarie from  on  03/15  at  01:38 PM

  7. Rosemarie,

    Once again, what you wrote in your essay was
    “In Washington a few years ago Congressional committee hearings were held to investigate the effects of tobacco on health.
    Doctors stood in a line, raised their right hands, and swore to tell the truth. Then, like a perfectly choreographed ballet, each medical
    expert testified that cigarette smoke was not harmful to health.”

    Minnesota v Tobacco and Iowa v Tobacco are NOT “Congressional Hearings”.  They were individual state court cases.  There was no choreographed ballet or line of witnesses. These were probably individual, self-designated “hired guns”, not conspiratorial witnesses called before a Congressional Hearing as you described. 


    Our organization, the Coalition and Center for Ethical Medical Testimony has been in existence for over 3 years (the site is just being revised at the moment), and it is dedicated to everything you espouse with respect to ethical medical expertise, for all the reasons you noted. 

    But we are also sticklers for accuracy and honesty in the reporting or description of testimony as well as the testimony itself. In the interest of honesty and accuracy in reporting, you should simply correct yourself and move on.

    We would welcome you in our efforts to make honesty and ethicality the sine qua non of all those who are designated as medical experts.

    Posted by Louise B Andrew from  on  03/16  at  11:37 PM

  8. Louise...On the CCEMT web site, it appears that you say in the article written by you titled, “Outing the Unethical Expert”
    “...The fact of unethical expert medical testimony is our profession’s most shameful dirty little secret.
    Some of the specialty societies are beginning to discipline members whose testimony is so outrageous as to qualify under the principles of ethics of the society for disciplinary action. AANS is the leader here, with ACS and others poised to follow suit. But what can an individual do to attempt to police this army of terrorists among us?...”
    The article continues and says, “tremendous need for a place that physicians harmed by unethical expert testimony...”

    I believe that YOUR use of the word “terrorists” demonstrates the seriousness of the effects of unethical expert testimony.

    It seems to me that you and I are in basic agreement. But I question your view about protecting physicians who are harmed while ignoring ordinary citizens who are harmed. It seems to me that that is a rather self-serving, narrow view.

    There are steps that you and your organization could take right now to assist ordinary citizens who are victims of unethical expert testimony.  Have you considered compiling a list of Pro Bono experts? How often have you submitted Amicus Briefs to the court in an attempt to secure justice in a case that involved unethical testimony?

    I still believe that the real answer to the problem is to minimize, if not totally eliminate, experts. From what I have seen, most of them should be barred from the courts. That is not likely to happen. It seems that “Experts” who testify make up a growth industry. As long as the experts continue to profiteer on the backs of relatively helpless victims, the industry will thrive. One can only wonder about the number of families that have been adversely affected by your profession’s most shameful dirty little secret.

    Posted by rosemarie from  on  03/17  at  10:38 AM

  9. Well for God’s sake Rosemarie, quit griping and get a lawyer!  Just get a lawyer and settle the case!  If you had done that, you would have been finished years ago.

    I absolutely cannot believe you can’t find a lawyer who would take the case on a contingency.  If you can’t find a lawyer, then you’re doing something wrong.

    Posted by Andrew from  on  04/02  at  01:01 AM

  10. Andrew...I love your comment. I have a lawyer. The events that I have written about happened under the watchful/not-so-watchful eyes of my lawyer. After many years with lawyer #1, I recently replaced him and now have lawyer #2. Can you provide the names of any lawyers who can overcome the problem of dishonest testimony from “expert witnesses”?

    Posted by rosemarie from  on  04/02  at  08:25 AM

  11. Rosemarie, this is my last comment.  Please read again #4 and #8.  Obviously we are in complete agreement about dishonest witnesses.  That’s why I am actively “outing” this no-longer-so-secret “secret of my profession” through the organization I cofounded. 

    But I also have come across a few journalists who are not completely honest or accurate in their reporting.  You keep obfuscating the issue I respectfully and plainly brought to your attention, which is that the ballet of which you wrote was choreographed and performed by tobacco company execs, not doctors.  Please be honest.

    A lot of expert witnesses become so enamored of the testimony they have created that they do not correct it publicly (see. e.g., Dr. Park Dietz) --or not until it is too late.  But ethical expertise in the service of justice requires this degree of accuracy, honesty, and humility. 

    Journalists can also become wedded to their writings.  This may be what has happened in this instance.  The alternative, yellow journalism, is a dirty little secret in your profession.  It belongs in the same category as “testimony for hire” (and sometimes amounts to as much). 

    Louise

    Posted by Louise Andrew from "in your face" apparently  on  04/05  at  11:25 PM

  12. Louise, I thank you for participating in this conversation even though we have a point of disagreement. Your contribution here is appreciated. If you can help in the struggle for justice, please contact me.

    Posted by rosemarie from  on  04/09  at  01:27 PM
    13. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Does Anyone Really Need Another Article?

    Previous entry: Hungering for Justice at My First Congressional Testimony

    [ads]

    Support Press Action