Mysticwolf011 12:52:28 AM May 15 2008

Huffing Obama And Edwards use to drink wine Mad Dog 20/20 with Rev Wright in a alley behide the church sniffing paint in a wonder bread bag in one hand wine in the other.They sure looked happy huffing them days.

Cyberma777 12:33:55 AM May 15 2008

Read John Grisham's, "The Appeal." Big business is buying judges for just this purpose. It costs a lot less to buy a few State Supreme Court Judges than it does to make one of the payoffs. It is very scary.

BOSTONPRESCOTT 12:24:45 AM May 15 2008

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF G W BUSH'S ALBERTO GONZALES'S ANYTHING GOES FOR CORPORATION APPOINTEES IN ACTION.

GIVE US BACK OUR COUNTRY COME NOVEMBER

Hookmrl 12:09:48 AM May 15 2008

Yea I feel bad but smoke for 30 years?guess what

PLANEFIX 11:54:01 PM May 14 2008

JCox The suit was hardly frivolous. Frivolous suits are dismissed earlier on in the process, rarely do they even survive to the summary judgment stage. MOST frivolous suits are filed by corporations, not individuals. Indeed corporations file the majority of lawsuits, something like 78% of new lawsuits. Corporations definitely plead frivolous answers to lawsuits at an even higher rate. Indeed, as a pro se, I filed a lawsuit against my former employer, and its law firms, and lead lawyers under RICO for claiming in state court that the federal rules did not apply to the federal protocol, my employer invoked to gain release of any ADEA claim, I might have.

PLANEFIX 11:36:48 PM May 14 2008

PHSEAL <<<< In a civil case, it is preponderence of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt which is the criminal standard. A reviewing court does not have jurisdiction to retry the evidence that is to say the loser put forth more evidence than the winner, it may only reverse a jury decision if there is no evidence not that the evidence is merely thin for the winner. Unless the party(ies) waive trial by jury a judge may not make such a factual determination, it is unconstitutional under the 7th amendment. Here I agree the jury verdict should be vacated because of the loan issue and thus the juror was prejudiced. But that means a retrial not a judgment for the loser.

Though I disagree with the jury's verdict, myself much along the lines of the Appellate Court, there is a vast difference legally between weak evidence and on evidence.

JCox4901 11:21:33 PM May 14 2008

Way to go Merck! Keep fighting these scumbag leeches and their parasitic lawyers who file these frivolous law suits. This dirtbag had a 23 year history of serious heart disease and heart attacks plus he smoked for 30 years. His family should be required to repay Merck for all their time and money they had to spend to defend themselves against yet another FRIVOLOUS law suit. And the lawyer who filed the suit should be disbarred.

Wilkinwalter 11:17:27 PM May 14 2008

Believe it. Business owns and runs the government.It's simple when you own every one that makes the decisions.

CherMoeLin 11:11:40 PM May 14 2008

Well, that's what happens when the Republicans stack the courts with pro-corporate, ultra conservative judges. The laws in this country no longer protect the people ... they protect corporations and their "bottom line".

Aloep 11:01:21 PM May 14 2008

Merck pharm are scum bags they should be banned from selling anything they should put there CEO in jail and every body that works for them