MySpace

Gerre's Thought Journal Offering Answers As God Provides

Saturday, April 04, 2009 

Current mood:  ecstatic
Category: Life

You can accomplish great things with patience and perseverance.


My mother's late brother's family is victorious in their lawsuit against Philip Morris!  Praise God!  It's been a long time coming.

Article link - http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/03/supreme_court_philip_morris_cig.html


Portland widow beats Big Tobacco

by Michelle Roberts, The Oregonian

Tuesday
March 31, 2009, 9:58 PM


The widow of a Portland janitor won her 10-year legal battle with the world's
largest cigarette maker Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the
tobacco company's appeal of a $79.5 million award.

In a one-sentence order, the nation's highest court left in place a ruling by
the Oregon Supreme Court in favor of Mayola Williams of Northeast Portland. The state court has repeatedly upheld a verdict against Altria Group Inc.'s Philip
Morris USA in a fraud trial in 1999.

The judgment has grown to more than $145 million with interest. Oregon law
dictates that 60 percent goes to a victims' fund.

"To be truthful, I'm not in tune with my feelings," Mayola Williams
said Tuesday during a press conference at the downtown office of two of her
four Portland lawyers. "I'm feeling sad -- this is the month in which my
husband died. But I'm also happy that Philip Morris will have to pay."

A decade ago, an Oregon jury levied $79.5 million in punitive damages against
Philip Morris to punish the tobacco company for causing the death of retired
Portland school custodian Jesse D. Williams, a longtime Marlboro smoker who
died of lung cancer in 1997.

It was the largest verdict against a tobacco company at the time, although it
has been eclipsed by a number of others, many of which have been overturned on
appeal. Philip Morris and Williams' lawyers have been fighting for a decade
over the size of the punitive damages, which far exceeded the $800,000 in
noneconomic damages she was awarded.

Jurors told reporters in 1999 that they were angered by Philip Morris documents
showing that company officials had known for decades that cigarettes are
addictive and can cause cancer. The decision prompted a flood of similar suits
against tobacco companies. Philip Morris' stock dropped more than 8 percent at
the news.

The verdict was helped by several smokers on the jury who "confirmed that
they find it addictive," according to juror April Dewee. She said that
some jurors apparently were trying to quit during the trial. The jury of 12
included three smokers and four former smokers.

Overall, she said, smokers on the jury were the most inclined to find fault
with Philip Morris.

The cigarette company spent the past ten years appealing the punishment in the
Oregon courts and in the Supreme Court.

Last year, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the award, and Philip Morris
promptly appealed to U.S. Supreme Court justices, who heard arguments in the
case in December. On Tuesday, they said that they are not passing judgment on
the legal issues that were presented, making it as if the court had declined to
hear the case at all.

Portland lawyer Bill Gaylord said he did not know when Philip Morris would pay
the Williams family but expected that it would be soon. He declined to say how
much would be left after lawyers' fees, taxes and other assessments.

"I hope this case gives courage to other people who have claims against
the other Philip Morrises of the world," Gaylord said. "And that
every now and then, David slays Goliath."

Oregon law provides that 60 percent of the judgement is to be paid to the
Oregon Crime Victims' Compensation Fund. Philip Morris plans to appeal that
part of the award, according to the company's lawyers.

Philip Morris had argued that the award should be thrown out and a new trial
ordered because of flaws in the instructions given jurors before their
deliberations.

Business interests had once hoped the high court would use the case to set firm
limits on the award of punitive damages, intended to punish a defendant for its
behavior and deter a repeat offense. Robert Peck, Williams' Washington lawyer,
told the Associated Press that the court has signaled a willingness to allow
large awards in certain circumstances.

"I think we can take from this long tale that if the behavior is sufficiently
reprehensible, then larger awards are merited," Peck said.

"Today has been surreal for us," said Glenn Williams, son of Mayola
and Jesse. "It's been 10 long years. We're just happy its over, and we're
glad that Philip Morris is being held accountable in the only way they
understand."

Glenn Williams said Tuesday's victory would not change his family.

"We'll have a little financial security," he said. "But we'll
keep living the lives we always have."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-- Michelle Roberts; Michelleroberts@news.oregonian.com












Saturday, August 16, 2008 

Current mood:  creative
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Ok it's been few and far between since my last blog.  So here goes:

Why has it developed into such an enormous issue when Christians (especially members of the clergy) prosper financially?  Many people seem to think it's due to not placing God first, greed, and selfishness.  I feel that we as Christians (born again believers) shouldn't take issue when our brothers and sisters in Christ are prospering financially even as their inner man prospers (their relationship with God).

One of the reasons could be that some people misunderstand this verse when it states, "For the love of money is the root of all evil:  which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."  Sometimes we fail to realize or recall that God isn't ignorant to the fact that we live in this world and it takes money to survive on this earth (pay bills; buy food & clothing; pay for our children's education, help others, etc).  The problems come when we crave after money believing that it will solve all of our problems and that it can buy genuine happiness which some mistake for pure joy.

Then there's another verse that states, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."  I don't believe this suggests that a rich man cannot inherit the gift of eternal life (enter heaven).  It's more difficult for a rich individual to truly believe and trust God because they're so accustomed to using their money to obtain all of their wants and needs, and they want to cling to their possessions.  So they may feel that believing, worshipping, and depending on God gains them nothing.  Their first choice usually is to trust their money instead of leaning on God.

Why should other individuals, and not born again believers, be the only ones prospering financially?  Should born again believers (& clergy) have to always live from paycheck to paycheck, constantly borrow money from family, friends, and church, be late on rent, drive an old klunker/hooptie, secondhand store shopping, and/or be a welfare dependent?  Do we really wish this type of lifestyle upon our clergy, Bible teachers, and our Christian brothers and sisters?  Jesus bore our poverty on the cross as stated in this verse, "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich (enriched; abundantly supplied [both spiritual & physical])."

It also appears as though we actually loathe our Christian brothers and sisters when prosperity is manifested in their lives (especially in the lives of the clergy).  We seem to detest it when God moves them out of the place of lack into a place of prosperity or abundance.  The clergy are our examples to show us that by placing God first in our lives, we too can go from lack to more than enough.  I recall Jesus saying, "…I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" meaning an extremely plentiful or oversufficient quantity or supply.  Jesus taught us, "For whosoever has (spiritual knowledge), to him more will be given and he will be furnished richly so that he will have abundance, but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away."  We must be very mindful to seek spiritual abundance first, and the physical or material abundance will be added.

Take a look at a few characteristics of our God:  creator, all-knowing, strengthener, provider of all things, blesser, miracle worker, healer, deliverer, lover, giver, forgiver, rich, and all-powerful.  Now look at a few things that God gives us or blesses us with:  life, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, a sound mind, strength, prosperity (spiritual enrichment, wealth, riches, success), healing, sustenance (food & water), shelter, talent, miracles, children, power, spouses, jobs, material things, and the list goes on.

God's word says, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."  So you mean that we as born again believers (even the clergy) are not to prosper (spiritually/physically), have abundance, or use our talents and gifts to survive in this world?  It seems as though, if the haters were handing out blessings, they would give individuals just enough to last for a limited amount of time; and when that ran out, they wouldn't give anything else; and this would please them.  Individuals would have to return to asking for handouts, borrowing money from family, friends, church, secondhand store shopping, and depending on the government.  This appears sort of backwards.

I realize there are a few born again believers out there who are money hungry, greedy, and selfish.  But let's not place everyone in the same box.  I believe we have to understand that when it's time for a born again believer to prosper and receive abundance, that things automatically shift.  Their lives may shift towards more recognition, association with different classes of people, a great increase in church membership, and even media attention.  It doesn't mean that that individual wanted it to turn out in this manner, but having plenty and an oversufficient quantity brings about a change.  I also don't believe that it means that they're not putting God first in their lives.  Sometimes God blesses instantly or suddenly.  My understanding is that when you put God first in your life, things change, and change for the better.  The older generation used to say that God is sweeter as the days go by.  Life can be sweet!  What's wrong with that?  I know that change is hard to accept, but the only thing that's constant, is 'change'.  When I was a teenager, I recall a pastor saying this in his message:  "It matters not how much we've been blessed, some folk just want to stay in the same old place."

I would like to present a few questions:  Does any other born again believer desire to prosper spiritually, as well as financially?  Do you desire to use your Godly wisdom to find your niche in this world in order to fulfill a need, and bring your family financial prosperity; and then you can turn around and help someone else?  Do you think God is so unwise as to send born again believers to eternal damnation who are spiritually and financially rich even when we place Him first in our lives, and when we are abiding by His word?  Do you really desire to continue to live in a constant state of lack when God is rich?  Do you favor being weak when God is strong?  His word says, "The joy of the Lord is my strength."

I feel the media doesn't focus on the other side of the financially, blessed believer.  I'm sure the media doesn't prefer to inform us of the dollar amount of what's given, what tangible things are given out or away, and the number of lives that have been changed due to that individual's prayers, time, money, talent, service, or even product.  No, the media doesn't want us enlightened on these good deeds.  Just the spotlight on what that individual owns (has purchased or has acquired).  Let's awaken to the fact that it's more to their story than just gaining or profiting!

Also, we may never know the whole truth about members of the clergy who are in the limelight.  I don't believe all individuals desire to own up to what was actually said or done, especially if millions of people are listening and watching.  Some individuals prefer that things are handled privately.  So let's not criticize our brothers and sisters, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.  The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."  If I stumble or make a mistake publicly, I certainly would want many prayers going up on my behalf so that God can change my thinking, motives, and actions.

And yes, our leaders/clergy are to abide by the same Holy Word as any other believer.  God's word doesn't change for us; we have to change towards the word.

Until my next blog, May God Save, Deliver, Bless, Prosper, Heal, and Provide for All of You!

Sunday, September 30, 2007 

Current mood:  cheerful
Category: Religion and Philosophy
Visit our website focusing on bible study resources and information at www.rittministries.org.
Monday, August 28, 2006 

Current mood:  calm
Category: Religion and Philosophy
Are you capable of looking at an individual's heart instead of their outward appearance? Yes, an individual's physical features are what we see first, but I believe we miss out on having good friends or acquaintances when we refuse to find out a person's true values, whether they're loyal and honest, a few of their life's experiences, and what motivates them even if they appear to be unattractive.

I've heard preachers interpret this particular story from the Bible, where Leah was described as being tender eyed (weak eyed or eyes that were dull-looking), as Leah being ugly and cock-eyed. Also, some preachers would go one to state that you wouldn't want to wake up next to an ugly woman. If these preachers describe Leah in this way just to add some humor, in my opinion, it isn't funny anymore!

These types of sermons or statements do not motivate me, and I'm sure they don't encourage the less attractive people in the world. The statements can be demeaning to many people who God created and formed in His image. Hmm, in His image? It seems as though the advice is that all males should seek to date or marry highly attractive, beautiful, pretty, very cute, gorgeous, and stunning females; the less attractive women are useless and of no good; they are incapable of being loving, kind, sensitive, understanding, hard-working, good wives and mothers, or even good friends.

I love the part that God blessed Leah even though some preachers of the gospel describe her as being ugly, unattractive, and cock-eyed. He blessed her to the extent that she gave birth to six sons and one daughter, and her handmaid gave birth to two sons. These sons are known as eight of the twelve tribes of Israel. God used Leah as an instrument to birth nations. The Bible states that these sons or nations will be listed on eight of the twelve gates of the holy city, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.

If ministers of the gospel aren't sensitive to people's feelings from the pulpit, then how can we know how to treat less attractive individuals? I feel people who are described as being physically unattractive are just as loving, good, kind, and hard-working as any person who is outwardly beautiful. God loves and uses people of all ethnic backgrounds, shapes, and sizes, whether unattractive or beautiful; we are made in His image.

Will you choose to love and get to know a less attractive human being (male or female: black, white, brown, yellow, red, beige, polka dot, striped, checkered, or plaid)?
Saturday, June 10, 2006 

Current mood:  cheerful
Category: Religion and Philosophy
Yesterday I attended a department picnic.  Pets were allowed in this park as long as they were on a leash.  So there were a total of four dogs at the picnic.  I'm not a dog owner, but I do like them and desire to own one before I get too old.  But I noticed how the people were giving the dogs so much attention.  They were petting them and saying things like "that's a good boy" or "that's a good girl".  There were two small dogs and they were being picked up, rubbed, hugged, rocked, and kissed, even by strangers.

I observed this behavior to write this:  most of the time people would rather pet, kiss, and hug a stranger's animal or a strange animal before they would shake another persons hand to meet a new friend.  I know people love their pets or animals, but what about human beings?  We, as people, would rather befriend an animal than befriend a human.  We do not have to rub or kiss a person, just shake a hand, give a hug, or pat on the back to someone.

Just an observation
Geck



Last Updated: 8/2/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Female
Status: Single
Age: 49
City: Silicon Valley
State: California
Country: US

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
>