Dewhurst Ad on Cruz

Crockett

Crockett

5,000+ Posts
There's a really nasty ad David Dewhurst is running about Ted Cruz. Claims that Cruz represented a Chinese Company that ruined an American business by stealing blueprints and business info, then counterfeiting products.

A couple of things here. While the Chinese company lost in a jury trial, we have a well established tradition that if you got plenty of money you can appeal civil verdicts forever. That's what "tort reform" and packing state supreme and appelate courts with "business friendly" judges is all about. Basically, it's disincentive for "frivilous" lawsuits business interests campaigned against, with the handy side effect that it discourages most other torts as well.

If that's the kind of Justice sytem we want should we blame Cruz for being on the "smart money" side of it. Or maybe we need to know how far the story was twisted to make the ad?
 
if I read things correctly Cruz had zero to so with the trial. There are over a thousand lawyers at that firm
nor did he even argue the appeal
Dewhurst says the company was fouund guilty
that is not true either
funny thing
Cruz DID argue FOR a USA company against a Chinese company that had stolen a US patent
and Cruz WON 8-1 and got a 5 million verdict against the Chinese company
facts matter
and this is easy to call Dewhurst a liar over
 
You have links? The source documents in the ad showing the guilty verdict and Ted Cruz as the attorney of record look legit -- not that I trust anything in an attack ad. I think all desperate candidates kind of develope a Karl Rove code of ethics when campaigns are desperate, but they twist truths playing both offense and defense.

It's amazing how effective negative ads are and how little effort is made to verify and answer them. I'm not voting for Cruz anyway. If he thinks Texas didn't cut spending enough then he must have a much lower priority on law enforcement, highways, public education, higher education, mental health services, child protective services and medical care for indigents than I do.
 
I love how Dewhurst says on his ad that we need to cut the federal budget, "cut it to the bone," and balance it like we do here in Texas.

He offers not a single clue as to what he would cut and in what proportions.


Your political parties will be the death of me.
 
Sadly enough BI, anybody willing to really tell the truth on the federal budget couldn't make it through the primaries. Gotta say you care about "job creators" and the social safety net and make it seem like you can cut "waste and inefficiency" and painlessly get from point A to point B. The reason Dewhurst and everybody else is feeding us ******** is because we got no appetite for the truth.
 
The ad had a different effect on me. My first thought was that if Cruz can win representing a Chinese company in Texas, then he is the guy I want representing me in Washington.
Just saying.
 
Ivan
Then you will like knowing Ted Cruz on behalf of all 50 states presented the case to the Supremes that VOLUNTARY pledge of allegiance should be allowed in schools
This was the case brought by the Maddow guy in Calif.
The maddow case was that this violated gov't not establishing religions.
one of Ted's arguements was that in 55 years of children reciting the pledge not one single religion was established by the gov'tfrom the recitations.
he won on behalf of all 50 states
he also won the case where people were trying to force a military group to take down a cross ( not the big one in Cal I don't think)

I didn't even know who he was until this campaign started and i did research on them all

I agree with your point, that if Ted Cruz can convince people including those opposed to his ideology then he is the one i want representing our interests in the Senate.

i will also admit, at the risk of being called vile names that Craig James acquitted himself very very well in the 2 debates i saw. He doesn't have any experience and he is still a douche
but i was surprised at his grasp of government.

Tom leppert/ not so much
 
I will be voting for Ted Cruz. Sadly, I expect Dewhurst to win because he has the most money. Likewise I expect Obama to win for the same reason. Hopefully if the R's win the Senate then the damage of a second Obama term can be curtailed somewhat.
 
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

handy side effect that it discourages most other torts as well.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From the looks of the ads everyday on day time TV, your statement is either an indictment of your inability to get business outside of frivolous civil suits or false.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm not a lawyer and never even acted like one in a high school play. I am concerned that in crushing the false concern of "frivilous lawsuits" we've made it really hard to collect on legitimate concerns. For an instructive look at the issues of corporate abuse of the court processes just google "Bob Perry" and "homeowner lawsuit." Maybe I'm overly influenced by having recently watched the documentary "Hot Coffee." and visiting with a woman whose productive life as a single mom and nurse was wrecked by a Fortune 500s Company truck than ran into the back of her when she was stopped at a light. The resulting litigation did pay her initial treatment claims (enough to pay Jim Adler or other TV advertising attorney for his time) but not yielding enough to keep her out of public housing or readily pay the Medicare copay for the hydrocodone it takes to get her through the day. I think trial courts can be instructive as much as punitive and people who have suffered great wrong at the hands of the rich and powerful deserve commensurate compensation. I think it's cheaper to buy judges than it is to pay for justice and people voting on constitutional amendments based on what they learn in 30 second commercials are part of the problem.
 
I agree that the legitimate lawsuits are affected.
The reason for the law are Judges that either did not understand or ignored the meaning of frivolous.
 
Or maybe you and others became convinced "frivilous lawsuits" were a problem by folks whose whole intent all along was to avoid paying legitimate damages.
 
Frivolous lawsuits are a huge problem and the best way to combat them is to go after the ambulance chasers who pursue them. The bottom line is that they hurt our country by making everything more expensive to everyone and making it harder to conduct business and harder to employ people.
 
Shiner, you are right on. Crockett, you are right on. Rott problem is the Judges not throwing the frivolous lawsuits out.
Tort reform should focus on judicial review, toss judgements when determined to be frivolous with out cost to defendants, then toss the judges that can't determine what frivolous means.
 
Not a lawyer; a sales guy. But yes, I do know that much. Are these docs re to the appeal, not the initial trial? If so, then isn't Cruz still involved?

Again, I have no dog in this fight and know that whomever is the Republican nominee will be the next Senator. I don't care for any of the four, but am enough of a realist - having lived in Texas all my life - to know that Texas doesn't elect D's for higher offices. Still think the bickering is interesting.
 
meso
in your hastey to prove mewrong did you read the docs you rushed to post?

if no please do read them. You will see your answer and you will know I was correct.
 
Ah...so you want to claim that his name on those appeal docs show that he somehow isn't involved in this situation defending the Chinese co. against an American co.?

It's like the 2nd team defense attys went in for the trial, now they've brought in the 1st team on appeal.

Saying Cruz doesn't have any involvement is bs. But go ahead and carry water for this tea party lobbyist if it floats you boat. Another sell-out Republican in office couldn't do any more damage to this country than the rest.
 
meso??
Serioulsy do you ever read?
You posted to me that I said from what I read Cruz didn't have anything to do with the trial
then you post docs that are the ones filed for thre appeal and try to pretend you don't know the difference between a trial and an appeal.
I am not a lawyer but I can read , You should try it.

NOW, that you know you've been shown to be wrong about the trial you waffle out to say the issue was '"involvement".

You should stop digging now.
 
'Do-Worst' is evil..I've seen enough of his kind of politics. He's just another do nothing Bailey/Cornyn clone. It's time for some fresh blood/perspectives.
 
MrDeez
The hardest thing I learned approaching adulthood was that everyone deserved legal representation even someone like John Wayne Gacy. My attitude had been that he was clearly guilty so string him up now.

Now I appreciate attorneys who take on the disgusting cases. I know not all attorneys that are assigned the brutal cases where the people have no money are the best money can buy.
I honestly don't know how you do it when you "feel' your client is guilty.

so yes the chinese do deserve representation even though Cruz was not their trial attorney.

BTW Meso

From Cruz website.
"Again, Ted did not argue this appeal. He did however, argue, before the U.S. Supreme Court, a major case involving a stolen U.S. patent. Global Tech v. SEB. Ted represented a large manufacturer before the U.S. Supreme Court against a Chinese company that had stolen a U.S. patent. At Ted’s urging, the Court, 8-1, upheld a $5 million verdict against the Chinese counterfeiter and adopted a strict legal standard against those who misappropriate U.S. intellectual property"


IMO His track record before the Supremes shows me he can see both sides of an issue and craft a response that convinces even those ideologically different from his views.
 
This is just typical political strategy. I'm not a fan of dewhurst, especially after he dropped his skirt during the TSA debacle, but politics are dirty and this is expected. Cruz has made derogatory ads against dewhurst, misleading but more or less truthful. David has every right to not take the high ground. Again his ads are misleading but not entirely untrue.

I'm leaning Cruz but if he thought he could verbally assault Dewhurst without consequences he was kidding himself.
 
I appreciate the clarifications from both of you guys. I wish that I had more time in my work day to read more of these threads' details, but like most WM posters I look over them w/ a preconcieved mindset: in this case, Deez because of his personal relationship w/ Cruz, 6721 because of his disgust for DD (shared by most of us apparently), and me because I'm a Democrat.

Certainly Shandong Linglong (good name for a rock band, btw) has the right to be defended in an American court; no one is disputing that. DD's hard-on is that Cruz' law firm took the case initially and on appeal for big bucks from a Chinese company against a 74 yo American businessman. Being a believer in American capitalism, I don't think it's right for foreign businesses - abetted by their govts - to copy / rip off / steal an American small business' products, whether it's mining tires, electronics gear, or Levis.

As Paul Burka blogged on "Texas Monthly" Oct 3, 2011 (link on Dewhurst's anti-Cruz site):

"From Cruz’s perspective, the legal battle may the stuff of standard business disputes. While Cruz declined to talk about the case with Plaza de Armas, a campaign representative dismissed it as “a typical appellate case between two private parties.”

"In purely legal terms, it’s hard to argue with that assessment. In political terms, however,the idea of a Tea Party darling representing an alleged patent thief against a geriatric American entrepreneur, at a time when the U.S. economy is in shambles and China is the largest international holder of American debt, has the whiff of trouble about it."

"There is a growing perception in this country that China’s 21st-century economic boom has been bolstered by patent piracy. Only four months ago, the U.S. International Trade Commission released a report contending that Chinese intellectual property theft costAmerican businesses $48 billion in 2009."


Once again, I agree that Dewhurst is an empty suit whose money propelled him into office....kinda like someone else in the news.
 
MrD
that may be when I knew i was sorta an adult
when I realized our lega system afforded even the most evil among us representation in our courts

John Adam's defense of British soldiers accused of kiiling "Americans" opened my eyes as well.

For Ted Cruz to both draft an appeal against a judgement fo Chinese against Ameriican and then to craft an appeal to the SUPREMES against a chinese for Americans and win
really impresses me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top