Fw: Geoff White's Response to Kathy ston's of TDN's Questions

[Guest guest]

FWIW, for those who have interest in the Dow litigation regarding breast

implants...

Patty

----- Original Message -----

From: " ilena rose " <ilena@...>

Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:38 PM

Subject: Geoff White's Response to Kathy ston's of TDN's Questions

> From: Geoff White <gwhite@...>

> Re: Toxic Discovery Network -- Geoff White's Response to Nurse ston's

> Questions

>

> Hi Kathy,

> Here is my response to your questions:

>

> Q. Do you and your firm indeed plan to take Dow cases forward individually

> in a court of law or this yet another legal maneuver for large out of

court

> settlements?

>

> 1. Yes, the trial lawyers and supporting paralegals and staff at White &

> Meany do indeed plan to take cases against The Dow Chemical Company

> forward, primarily in State and Federal Courts in Nevada. Most of these

> lawsuits are already on file, and were pending when Dow Chemical

> temporarily persuaded federal courts outside of Nevada to temporarily halt

> these Nevada cases in their tracks. I emphasize the word " temporarily "

> because the Nevadans felt this was wrong, as did the Bankruptcy Judge

> presiding over the Dow Corning Bankruptcy, and we believe the appellate

> courts will correct this wrong, soon. Please see the Nevadans' Reply

Brief

> to the Tort Claimants' Committee's and Dow Corning's " damn the law, screw

> Nevada " briefs, filed in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. These briefs

> will be posted on our website and, it is hoped, on your website, soon.

> No, this is not a " maneuver for large out of court settlements, " but I

> certainly can understand your cynicism, given the national legal picture.

> White & Meany has not received a single penny from Dow Corning since it

> took on cases against them commencing in 1993. When Dow Corning went

> " bankrupt " (to use the term loosely) on May 15, 1995, all of our firm's

> pending litigation against Dow Corning was stayed by operation of law.

One

> of our clients, Charlotte Mahlum, managed to avoid some of these cruel

> delays, i.e., in 1995, she obtained a multi-million dollar award, which

was

> ultimately upheld by the Nevada Supreme Court in 1999. (Although not

> directly responsive to your question, I would point out, as I have

> repeatedly pointed out in the past, that I invited Ernie Hornsby and Ric

> Ellis to be my co-sounsel in the Mahlum v. Dow Chemical trial, and all

> three of us and our legal staffs worked day and night for months on end to

> win in Nevada). So, there was only one settlement - - Charlotte Mahlum's

> - - and that was with Dow Chemical only. To date, there have no

> settlements with Dow Corning. I do believe, however, that there will be

> many substantial out of court settlements against Dow CORNING in the $400

> Million Dollar Litigation Facility for those who choose not to partake of

> the 10-20-50+ deal in the Dow Corning Settlement Facility, and can

convince

> their lawyers to " take on " the red tape of the Litigation Facility in

> Michigan. I cannot predict whether my 53 Nevada clients whose litigation

> against Dow CHEMICAL was stopped in its tracks will each obtain a " large

> out of court settlement " against Dow Chemical. My belief is that these

> cases will probably go to trial.

> Q. In the future, will you be accepting women from other states or only

NV?

>

> 2. While I will be encouraging lawyers for women in other states whose

> Supreme Courts give them rights against Dow Chemical to pursue those

> rights, PRESENTLY White & Meany's " Breast Implant Litigation &

Settlements "

> division has its hands full dealing with its Nevada breast implant

> clients. Nationally, however, we are allied with a number of good

> out-of-state law firms, some of whom have expressed an interest in joining

> with White & Meany in creating a national " Litigation & Settlements "

> program, which we hope would provide lawyers and paralegals to do the

> following:

> (a) if not precluded by their own state law, prosecute Dow Chemical

in

> states outside of Nevada for breast implant related deaths and

> injuries, i.e hold Dow Chemical accountable;

> ( represent women in the Dow Corning Settlement Facility who need

> attorneys to get them their " highest and best " settlements under the

> 10-20-50+ settlement program under the Plan;

> © represent women in the Dow Corning Litigation Facility who cannot

> sue Dow Chemical for their full damages in their home state, who

reject

> a 10-20-50+ settlement, whose cases are actually (under the facts and the

> law) worth more than 10-20-50+, and who therefore could proceed in

> the Litigation Facility in hopes of achieving a larger settlement there,

or

> a " jury verdict " of sorts followed by a judgment and payment thereon;

> (d) represent women with claims against manufacturers other than Dow

> Corning and Dow Chemical.

> While many women across the country have asked us our law firm to

> represent them for purposes of (a), ( & © above, and we accept these

> inquiries, PRESENTLY we can only catalogue these requests, organize them

by

> category and " register " these clients' names with our firm on a " first

> asked, first considered " basis. In the future, as our firm grows, we will

> consider actively representing some breast implant victims depending on

> their circumstances and priority of " registration " (for lack of a better

> word). Time permitting, we do attempt to refer inquiries to

conscientious

> attorneys in other states, those that are not " burned out " from years of

> fighting " the Dows " without compensatiion. However, the science and

> medicine is getting better, and there should be more interest from other

> good product liability lawyers in other states to take on the

> manufacturers, again.

>

> Q. Is this truly about the injured consumer or just another chapter in the

> ongoing TRAVESTY of the victim being used to fatten the pockets of yet

> another BI firm?

>

> 3. Yes, as you might glean from the above or from reading the Nevadans'

> briefs when posted, this is truly about the injured consumer. As noted

> above, White & Meany's pockets have not been " fattened " by the BI

> litigation. Whatever fees we have earned on cases against manufacturers

> against defendants other than Dow Corning have been much deserved. But

the

> bottom line is that, against Dow Corning, this is about PRINCIPLE. White

&

> Meany would not have funded and maintained our lengthy and enormous

> battle against the illegality and stupidity of releasing a NON-bankrupt

> entity (Dow Chemical) in a Bankruptcy Plan if we didn't place Principle

> over Profits. My brother the bankruptcy lawyer, White, Jr.; my

sister

> Dr. , the sociology professor and highly acclaimed book

author

> (Silicone Spills: Breast Implants on Trial...now in its second printing);

> my law partner, Meany, our associate attorneys Amy Parks &

> White, and White & Meany's paralegals and staff too numerous to list here,

> also believe in Principle. My mother raised very principled children. We

> apply those principles in representing any man or woman needlessly injured

> by a drug or product not adequately tested for safety!

>

> Q. Does Ralph, Ernie and Rick Ellis all agree with your stance or are they

> totally opposed?

>

> 4. No, Ralph Knowles does not agree with the Nevadans' position as

> expressed in the Nevadans' soon-to-be-posted briefs. He is necessarily

> allied with the Tort Claimants position, i.e. that it is OK to release Dow

> Chemical from liability to the Nevadans and anyone else despite the fact

> that Dow Chemical did not file bankruptcy. In fairness to Ralph's

> position, read the TCC's brief. Then read the Nevadans' brief. You

> decide.

> I do not know if Ernie Hornsby or Ric Ellis agree with the Tort

> Claimants' Committee's brief or the Nevadans' brief. They are both

> principled attorneys (as is Ralph), and my belief is that if they read

both

> briefs, they would choose the Nevadan's position, both on the law and on

> the facts.

> I hope this addresses your important inquiries. I can provide many

further

> references about the good work our law firm has done in this breast

implant

> litigation, both in Nevada and in California. However, there will always

> be a few who are disgruntled or who may dissent, and all I can say to

those

> seeking the truth is to read the briefs and base your opinions on facts,

> not rumors or innuendo. I do not object to your posting my initial

> statements, your questions related thereto, or this response on any

> web-site or providing that information to your database. That is up to

> you. I have tried to be helpful.

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> " Kathy ley ston, R.N. - Director of Client Services " wrote:

> Mr.White; As you may or may not know, Toxic Discovery Network now

> maintains a database of over 25,000 + injured medical device recipients.

We

> have read your below comments and thank you for sharing your insight and

> information with us through Ms. Rosenthal. We have the following questions

> concerning the below: 1. Do you and your firm indeed plan to take Dow

cases

> forward individually in a court of law or this yet another legal maneuver

> for large out of court settlements? 2. In the future, will you be

accepting

> women from other states or only NV.? 3. Is this truly about the injured

> consumer or just another chapter in the ongoing TRAVESTY of the victim

> being used to fatten the pockets of yet another BI firm? 4. Does Ralph,

> Ernie and Rick Ellis all agree with your stance or are they totally

> opposed? Thanking you in advance for addressing these questions of some of

> our members. As far as a website (<http://www.toxicdiscovery.com>'>http://www.toxicdiscovery.com>

> www.toxicdiscovery.com to carry a copy of the Nevadans' briefs before the

> 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, we might be able to assist depending on the

> amount of information and format. Breast Wishes, Kathy L. ley

> ston, R.N.Director Toxic Discovery Network 1906 Grant Lane Columbia,

> Missouri 65203 Phone: (573) 445-0861 Fax: (573) 44504700

> <http://www.toxicdiscovery.com>'>http://www.toxicdiscovery.com>

> www.toxicdiscovery.com-----------------------------------Geoffrey White,

> Esq. wrote:

> Dow Litigation -- Nevada Plaintiffs' Counsel's (Geoff White's) Comments

> Ladies - -

> Geoff White and White & Meany are counsel for approximately 53 Nevada

women

> in litigation against Dow Chemical. These women have various degrees of

> scarring, disfigurement and disease. Some have died from their breast

> implant related illnesses while waiting for their day in Court. All of

> these women (or their surviving husbands) voted " No " on the Dow Corning

> Bankruptcy Plan engineered by Dow Corning and the Tort Claimants'

Committee

> because it takes away their right to sue Dow Chemical - - like my client

> Charlotte Mahlum successfully did - - in Nevada State and Nevada Federal

> Courts.

> Here's an update on the Dow Corning Bankruptcy Plan, including when some

> of you who voted " Yes " on the Plan or for that matter " No " voters and

> non-voters might be able to partake of the Plan's benefits. This is

> directly from " the horse's mouth " , as it is the Nevadans White & Meany

> represents, and the bankruptcy counsel we employ who are in the trenches

> fighting the good fight for ALL women affected by the Plan, i.e. those who

> voted " No " as well as those who voted " Yes " . Here's why I can say that.

> " Against all odds " , the Nevadans prevailed on the U.S. Bankruptcy Court

> (Judge Spector) in Dow Corning and Dow Chemical's home turf in Bay City,

> Michigan to " let our people go, " i.e. to allow the Nevadans (and therefore

> any woman in the country who voted " No " on the bankruptcy plan) to pursue

> their lawsuits against Dow Chemical despite a confusing provision in the

> Plan that most breast implant victims and attorneys alike had interpreted

> to kill any claims against Dow Chemical in all 50 states and in all of the

> world. Judge Spector held that he, as a Bankruptcy Judge, had NO POWER to

> destroy lawsuits against a $25 Billion Dollar Corporation (Dow Chemical)

> that was decidedly not bankrupt, and, unlike Dow Corning, had never filed

> for bankruptcy protection.

> This holding benefited Nevadans who voted " No " or who didn't vote. It

also

> benefited non-Nevadans who voted " No " or who didn't vote. However, Judge

> Spector did not kill the bankruptcy Plan in order to carve out the " No "

> voters and the non-voters and preserve their Constitutional rights to sue

> Dow Chemical (assuming they live in a jurisdiction like Nevada which

> recognizes claims against Dow Chemical and assuming further they can find

> an attorney to sue Dow Chemical for them). Instead of killing the Plan,

> Judge Spector, to his credit, AFFIRMED the Plan. If his ruling stands,

> this means that those who voted " Yes " on the Plan and just want to get

> their claims in, get their settlement money (mostly $10,000, $20,000 or

> $50,000 with a $20,000 or so additional " rupture " benefit, and a few other

> minor benefits), and " get the hell out of Dodge " (i.e. be done with the

> mess), will be able to do so. Monies could start being paid out of the

> Plan as early (or stated equitably, as ridiculously late) as the spring of

> 2002, i.e. 7 years after Dow Corning filed for bankruptcy protection. If

> Judge Spector's ruling stands, those who voted " Yes " and want to go into

> the strange and amorphous creature of the Plan called the " Litigation

> Facility " and try to get some of that so-called $400 million " litigation

> money " , could do that as well. (Indeed, so can the " No " voters and

> non-voters if they choose not to pursue Dow Chemical in their home states,

> but they can't sue Dow Chemical in the Litigation Facility). So, as you

> can see, Judge Spector's ruling was pleasing to White & Meany's 53 clients

> who are in litigation against Dow Chemical in Nevada, and also pleasing to

> all the claimants and " Yes " voters who just want closure.

> One would think that with such a pleasing ruling, the Tort Claimants'

> Committee would have shouted " Hooray " and joined the Nevadans in urging a

> quick end to the case so that both the " No " voters and the " Yes " voters

> could get paid...or have their day in Court ( " No " voters) or in the

> Litigation Facility, aka " Claims Reduction Facility " ( " Yes " voters).

> Instead, the Tort Claimants' Committee, purporting to represent YOUR

> interests, joined forces with Dow Corning and Dow Chemical and launched an

> aggressive, well-funded appeal of Judge Spector's " pleasing to all sides

> except Dow Chemical " ruling to the the U.S. District Court (Judge Hood) in

> Detroit, Michigan. Unfortunately for the tort claimants seeking rapid

> closure as well as the Nevadans seeking simply to preserve their rights

> against Dow Chemical, Judge Hood REVERSED Judge Spector and ruled that he

> had the power to kill the Nevadans' claims against Dow Chemical and should

> have done so.

> So, the Nevadans (as well as the Australians, the U.S. Government, and

> other significant parties) had no choice but to appeal Judge Hood's

> reversal of Judge Spector to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in

> Cincinnati, Ohio. Remarkably, out of all the appellants, the Nevadans do

> NOT seek to destroy the Plan and force Dow Corning to start over (as other

> appeals urge). Rather, the Nevadans are arguing that Judge Spector's

> " pleasing to all sides except Dow Chemical " ruling be completely affirmed.

> The Tort Claimants' Committee opposes this, and sides with Dow Chemical on

> this issue. Read the Tort Claimant's Committee's brief. Then read our

> brief. You decide who's fighting for justice.

> The Nevadans are NOT holding up the Bankruptcy Plan or seeking to overturn

> that Plan. Other appellants are, as is their right, but don't blame ANY

> delay on the Nevadans. We are just fighting for rights which are

> important to us. I can't predict if we will win or lose in the 6th

> Circuit. We probably would have a better chance if the Tort Claimants'

> Committee had not taken Dow Chemical's side against us. On the merits and

> on the law we should win, but if we don't win, it means this: In the

> future, any small, medium or large corporation which files for bankruptcy

> can prevent the victims of its bad products from obtaining recovery from

> the smaller corporation's wealthy Parent corporations or any other wealthy

> company that the bankrupt company can argue is " related to " the bankrupt

> company. So, $25 Billion Dollar corporations can protect themselves from

> liability to victims by having their less-well-funded child-corporations

or

> less-well-funded related-to corporations sell the product. If said

product

> maims, sickens or kills humans, not to worry. The smaller corporation can

> declare bankruptcy, and the decidedly-NOT-bankrupt larger corporation can

> in most cases avoid accountability to its victims. Ah, justice...

> So, keep my clients in your prayers. Wish the Nevadans good luck in a

very

> difficult circumstance. My brother the bankruptcy lawyer, White, Jr.

> (<mailto:john@...> john@...), my

> associate Amy Parks (<mailto:aparks@...>

> aparks@...), and I (<mailto:gwhite@...>

> gwhite@...), are doing everything in our power to fight the

> well-funded, well-oiled machine of Dow Corning, Dow Chemical and, alas,

> even the Tort Claimants' Committee, in hopes of not setting a dangerous

> precedent for breast implant victims and victims of defective products for

> years to come. Please do everything you can to support us. Sometimes

,

> Amy and I (and our loyal staffs) are too busy fighting to look up from our

> desks to see whether anyone out there appreciates us or appreciates how

> difficult this fight is.

> By forwarding a copy of this message to my associate Amy Parks, and her

> paralegal Crystal , I am instructing them to put a copy of the

> Nevadans' briefs before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals up on someone's

> web-site, but I'm not sure of the computer-esque particulars of how this

> can be accomplished. When it is up, you will be notified.

> Again because of having to pay more attention to the work ahead than

> explaining all that is going on and explaining the Nevadans' pro-victim

> position, I am hopeful that another support group leader will forward

this

> explanation with any endorsement or comments they have to as many other

> support groups there are out there. Whoever can forward this important

> message, please do so.

> Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't ask you to please visit our firm's

> interactive website @ <http://www.whiteandmeany.com>'>http://www.whiteandmeany.com>

> www.whiteandmeany.com. Give us your comments. We welcome new business

> whenever a case has merit, and we have a doctor and a nurse on board to

> help us evaluate claims. Indeed, without our many friends' support in

our

> other areas of our practice, we would not be able to take on the Dows.

> So, after you visit our web-site, I guess it wouldn't be " overreaching "

to

> say that referring your case or your friend's and family's cases to our

law

> firm helps you, that friend or family member, and helps others as well.

> And, if we can't help, we'll try to find you a lawyer or law firm in your

> state who can help you.

> Geoffrey White, Esq.

> Law Offices of White & Meany

> 3185 Lakeside Drive

> Reno, Nevada 89509 (775) 828-9999 (775) 828-9998 Website:

> <http://www.whiteandmeany.com>'>http://www.whiteandmeany.com> www.whiteandmeany.com

> Las Vegas Office: 3960 Parkway

> Fifth Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89109

> Ph: (702) 990-3975 Fax: (702) 990-3501

> Toll Free: (800) 932-3186

> Ilena,

> please forward this out, too. It also explains a bit about the new NIH

> study and whether a woman might do better in the Dow " Litigation Facility "

> in Michigan than in the Dow " Settlement Facility " in Michigan. Thank you.

> Also, I wouldn't worry too much about a defense Daubert motion carrying

the

> day before Judge Hood in the litigation facility. As most of you know,

the

> two latest studies including the NIH study demonstrate that breast

implants

> DO indeed cause disease (i.e. fibromyalgia, connective tissue disease,

> etc.) in certain susceptible women, so even if we ignore the great

> pathology evidence (and we shouldn't) and the treating doctors' evidence,

> now we've got epidemiology on our side. So, with regard to Yes voters

> stuck in the Plan and having to face the Litigation Facility if they won't

> accept the 10, 20 or 50+ offered by Dow in the Settlement Facility, I

think

> the Litigation Facility is a viable option that may very well get you more

> than in the Settlement Facility. Each case is different, and this is my

> opinion only.

> Geoff

>

>

>

>