Last week, I wrote about the bizarre situation between Garth Brooks and Integris Hospital, describing his donation to the hospital with the understanding that the hospital would name a wing after his deceased mother. It was a truly tragic story, but it has come to an end, for now, and the outcome should be pleasing to all us.
When Garth Brooks won this victory, we all won.
In this country, our founding fathers intended each and every citizen to have access to the court system for the redress of wrongs. For a moment, forget the fact that Garth Brooks is, well, Garth Brooks and look beyond just the favorable judgment on his behalf. This sets a precedent wherein when a major corporation simply doesn't do what it's supposed to do and has agreed to do, they can be punished.
While it is true that there are plenty of frivolous lawsuits out there, Brooks' victory sends a very strong message to us all and with the countless problems with the court system, every now and again it proves that ours is the best justice system in the world.
Brooks was angry, even though he won and we can empathize with him. He lost his mother to cancer and wanted Colleen Brooks' name on the women's center. He said to the crowd after his victory, "One day Mom's name is going to go on the women's center right there where the hospital is, but that hospital won't be owned by Integris when it happens, I can tell you that. That's my dream." Can we really blame him for his anger?
Brooks had originally donated $500,000, but was awarded $1 million. We can't put a price tag on the value of this victory.
David
Friday, January 27, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Brooks v Integris
They (whomever "they" are) often say that there is no such thing as bad press, but for Integris Canadian Valley Regional Hospital, that just may not be the case. Particularly when taking on one of Oklahoma's favorite sons, Garth Brooks.
In a Tulsa World story, Brooks has filed suit over a dispute concerning a $500,000 donation from Brooks in exchange for the hospital's commitment to name a building after his deceased mother, Colleen Brooks. She died of cancer in 1999, and nearly ten years later, Garth donated money to have a building named after her in his hometown of Yukon.
Watch GARTH BROOKS - Shameless in Music | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
In my estimation, Brooks wouldn't have given the money (as made obvious by his lawsuit) unless there was an agreement that the hospital would name that building after his mother. Integris’ conduct is even more disconcerting considering that hospital officials spent two years seeking out the donation and then refused to return the money once they made the determination not to name the building after his mother. My heart truly goes out to Brooks. First, he loses his mother to cancer, and then has to face this kind of double-dealing. There is nothing right about it, in my opinion.
We live in an incredibly litigious culture right now, but this is one case where I believe a lawsuit will provide Brooks with the vindication in court I believe he deserves.
David
In a Tulsa World story, Brooks has filed suit over a dispute concerning a $500,000 donation from Brooks in exchange for the hospital's commitment to name a building after his deceased mother, Colleen Brooks. She died of cancer in 1999, and nearly ten years later, Garth donated money to have a building named after her in his hometown of Yukon.
Watch GARTH BROOKS - Shameless in Music | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
In my estimation, Brooks wouldn't have given the money (as made obvious by his lawsuit) unless there was an agreement that the hospital would name that building after his mother. Integris’ conduct is even more disconcerting considering that hospital officials spent two years seeking out the donation and then refused to return the money once they made the determination not to name the building after his mother. My heart truly goes out to Brooks. First, he loses his mother to cancer, and then has to face this kind of double-dealing. There is nothing right about it, in my opinion.
We live in an incredibly litigious culture right now, but this is one case where I believe a lawsuit will provide Brooks with the vindication in court I believe he deserves.
David
Monday, January 2, 2012
Ballot Access Denied
In Virginia, only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are on the presidential ballot, seeing former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich being left out in the cold along with Governor Rick Perry and the rest of the GOP field. The GOP of Virginia claim that the former Speaker failed to turn in the required 10,000 signatures in order to appear on the ballot.
This begs two questions, really: First, is access to the ballot in Virginia just too difficult? Or, secondly, have the candidates simply failed to put forth credible organizational skills to ensure they get on the ballot?
Rick Perry's communications director has said, "Virginia ballot access rules are among the most onerous and are particularly problematic in a multi-candidate election," which can be loosely translated to mean, "there are too many candidates in this competition for support, and they beat us." What was Perry's response? To file suit. Remember, this is one of the candidates who has campaigned on tough tort laws to restrict frivolous lawsuits.
Newt Gingrich has vowed to wage a write-in campaign, however, they aren't allowed in Virginia. So, he filed suit as well.
In my estimation, the ballot access in Virginia is tough, yet the candidates for president knew this - or should have known this - long ago and it's part of the price to pay when running for public office. Although the Perry suit should determine whether portions of the ballot access rules are unconstitutional, filing suit should not be the preferred response of candidates when something does not go their way due to the flaws of their own campaigns.
We must remember that this is not a race for class president, but rather President of the United States and it is one where leadership is critically important, and organizational skills are paramount.
While the two major candidates who made the ballot in Virginia, Romney and Paul, have shown leadership and the skill set necessary to put people in place to ensure ballot access for their candidacy, I'm not sure that either candidate is really the answer we need right now in the GOP.
Virginia is a "swing state" where we will see the most proverbial bloodshed in the race for president, and while most of us in Oklahoma aren't too concerned about Virginia, it should at the very least give us pause.
David
This begs two questions, really: First, is access to the ballot in Virginia just too difficult? Or, secondly, have the candidates simply failed to put forth credible organizational skills to ensure they get on the ballot?
Rick Perry's communications director has said, "Virginia ballot access rules are among the most onerous and are particularly problematic in a multi-candidate election," which can be loosely translated to mean, "there are too many candidates in this competition for support, and they beat us." What was Perry's response? To file suit. Remember, this is one of the candidates who has campaigned on tough tort laws to restrict frivolous lawsuits.
Newt Gingrich has vowed to wage a write-in campaign, however, they aren't allowed in Virginia. So, he filed suit as well.
In my estimation, the ballot access in Virginia is tough, yet the candidates for president knew this - or should have known this - long ago and it's part of the price to pay when running for public office. Although the Perry suit should determine whether portions of the ballot access rules are unconstitutional, filing suit should not be the preferred response of candidates when something does not go their way due to the flaws of their own campaigns.
We must remember that this is not a race for class president, but rather President of the United States and it is one where leadership is critically important, and organizational skills are paramount.
While the two major candidates who made the ballot in Virginia, Romney and Paul, have shown leadership and the skill set necessary to put people in place to ensure ballot access for their candidacy, I'm not sure that either candidate is really the answer we need right now in the GOP.
Virginia is a "swing state" where we will see the most proverbial bloodshed in the race for president, and while most of us in Oklahoma aren't too concerned about Virginia, it should at the very least give us pause.
David
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)