Erin Brockovich’s 33 Frivolous Lawsuits & The Sociopathic Business Model™ Case Study
September 18, 2014
One thing doing over thirty Cases Studies regarding The Sociopathic Business Model™ has taught me is that fact based evidence over time is a good indicator of the future; and, applying that knowledge can help flush out a fraud very quickly and very accurately. Something about the way Ms. Brockovich’s lack of engagement with the women of Bayer’s Essure wasn’t sitting right with me and with good reason, in fact there are 33 frivolous good reasons.
Let me back up just a moment. A story I wrote earlier this week trying to get Ms. Brockovich, through forced accountability, to do as any good advocate should do, use their voice to give the victims a voice. I was met with opposition from the most unlikely group-the group of women I was fighting for began to fight with me. I make allowances in this situation unlike any other case study on this site, as these women have been lied to, mistreated and injured.
I was told my actions were “tearing down a good woman,” I was committing “character assassination against Ms. Brockovich,” because I posted her mug shot (which I Googled and is a matter of public record-oh yeah-and factual, that this group “no longer wanted to work with me,” (I wasn’t working with them specifically or for them specifically-there are more victims than just Bayer’s Essure) that I should “have checked with them before I wrote the story,” (anyone that knows me, knows I don’t ask for permission or forgivness when I write about fraud) and, that I didn’t know all the facts.
Hypocritical Newsflash Angie Firmalino/Gwendolyn Rain*
forgot to clarify that all ‘stong’ women must
must agree with her or else she gets to “tear them down.”
Again the goal
was to get all mesh victims (hernia, transvaginal, birth control, etc)
to unite for a greater voice and force accountability from
the makers of mesh and the government.
One woman who truly believed what she wrote, recounted when “Erin” selflessly talked to her personally and dropped everything when she asked her to help one of the women that needed an attorney within the hour; and, Erin was able to help the woman retain an attorney. That was the fact I was missing.
I don’t blame these women for not knowing this I do blame Ms. Brockovich for being less than transparent with these women that her site is nothing more than a way to attract victims. What they don’t realize is that each “woman” she helps become a “client” to a law firm, Ms. Brockovich is likely getting a cut of each of the successful settlements she brings to the firm(s). I don’t fault her for making a living but I do fault her for making these poor women feel like they “owe” her something because she’s “she’s allowing them to use her name,” for sparse media coverage, at best without disclosing the financial component. I was told several times “She’s doing this for free.” No ladies, no she’s not.
If you go through her site at the end of the “Contact Erin” section it asks if you have or need legal representation. The part I resented is that I was being accused of trying to “profit from their personal stories.” I have been writing a book (likely now two) for over three years and diagnosed a corrupt business model that isn’t a trend it’s entrenched from my former corrupt industry, the same industry that has hurt all of these women. I’m trying to fix a problem and provide people tools to empower even if they’re victims, especially if they’re victims. But like many victims they fail to see they’re still being abused by the system.
I don’t (what some refer to as) “tear women down,’ for sport or without good reason. I also refer to it as forced accountability and it’s blind to race, sex, political party, or economic background. If there’s inconsistent and contradictory language to action then the company is fair game for a Case Study (9 pages on the site to be exact) because there’s likely fraud attached.
And with that, the Erin Brockovich Business becomes a Case Study in The Sociopathic Business Model™:
Ms. Brockovich in 2006 filed 33 lawsuits between California and St. Petersberg Flordia for (a wait for it) Medicare fraud. Yep, a woman who never worked in healthcare decided to file 33 Medicare lawsuits; and, anyone in healthcare will tell you a person filing a medicare lawsuit has to have working knowledge of the system over years to understand the system.
“This is what I do,” the 45-year-old Brockovich said. “I am an advocate. It would be as odd for me to turn down a cause as it would be for Julia Roberts to not do another movie.”
The lawsuits do not involve specific allegations of wrongdoing but seek instead to find evidence of such treatments, arguing that Medicare should be reimbursed.
One defendant called the lawsuits a publicity stunt by a “celebrity plaintiff.”
“These are the kinds of baseless lawsuits that contribute to the high cost of healthcare today,” said David Langness, a spokesman for Tenet California, a division of hospital operator Tenet Healthcare Corp., a target of Brockovich’s lawsuits. L.A. Times June 2006
C’mon, even the jackass doctor who basically sues the government for a living hasn’t filed that many suits against Medicare. And, I really hope Ms. Brockovich isn’t holding out hope for a sequel.
In December 2006, the St. Pete Times reported that Brockovich was listed as a plaintiff on 33 such lawsuits in California. It was further reported that by November 2006 all but one of the California cases were dismissed. And her litigation partner (where she was listed as a plantiff) filed 16 lawsuits across four states; and those cases were found “utterly frivolous”, “unreasonable” and “vexatious” upheld the lower District Courts decision to impose sanctions of $276,589.69 against the plaintiff as a deterrent against anymore similar vexatious law suits.
Are you kidding me? Never would 33 frivolous lawsuits ever be considered being an advocate for anything other than trying to scam a system for financial gain. The idea that there were no specific allegations of wrongdoing regarding Medicare fraud makes her a fraud.
Erin Brockovich’s team, “Advocate” who filed 33 frivolous lawsuits is inconsistent and contradictory language to action
Erin Brockovich’s team filing 33 frivolous lawsuits did not recognize the rights of others and hospitals had to spend money to defend a junk lawsuit and that cost gets passed on to patients. Her attitude towards the suits was glib.
Erin Brockovich’s team filing 33 frivolous lawsuits showed lack of shame, remorse or guilt (using word advocate is a manipulation)
Erin Brockovich’s team filing 33 frivolous lawsuits was irresponsible
Erin Brockovich’s team filing 33 frivolous lawsuits was parasitic and lacking life plan
Erin Brockovich’s team filing 33 frivolous lawsuits created hopelessness in the victims
Erin Brockovich’s team filing 33 frivolous lawsuits were unethical and illegal
Again, any information is good information it’s what we choose to do with it that counts. This is certainly disappointing-as we all see her as she was portrayed in the movie; but, I know that if I were a victim and needed an advocate I would not look to an Erin Brockovich who has systematically abused a legal system for financial gain without regard to others. And that’s not just my opinion-that was also the court’s opinion as they dismissed all 33 frivolous lawsuits.
*I don’t work for any one group but I also don’t work against them either. I write about fraud, exposing the truth and try to create positive change.