Wyatt visits with book author Ray Bourhis whose critically acclaimed book Insult to Injury—Insurance Fraud and the Big Business of Bad Faith opened the doors to the culture of denial and oppressive practices used by insurance companies against their own policyholders. Get ready for some shocking news. Amazon GUEST: Ray Bourhis – Auth and Attorney from San Francisco, California Website Listen To The Audio Podcast: Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your...

Wyatt visits with a nationally known public interest advocate as they examine the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Riegel v. Medtronic which gives medical device manufacturers complete immunity from civil lawsuits—even when they knowingly sell dangerous products that can kill. GUEST: Joanne Doroshow, Executive Director of the Center for Justice & Democracy (NY, NY) The Center for Justice and Democracy Listen To The Audio Podcast: Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your...

Wyatt addresses bias at the Texas Supreme Court stemming from how the justices are elected. Patronage and rulings that are beholden to major campaign donors cast a shadow on the Court’s integrity and the way these justices make it to the bench. Join Wyatt and a Supreme Court candidate as they discuss these all too real issues. GUEST: Michele Petty, Candidate for Supreme Court of Texas Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your...

Wyatt and guest explain an absurd new ruling that holds a person accountable for a contract that she never agreed to or signed. This destruction of fundamental contract law in In Re Weekley Homes was done solely to benefit a big corporation homebuilder and send an injured lady packing. GUEST: Mitchell Ginsburg, attorney from Austin, Texas Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your...

Last year on the Wyatt Wright Show we covered the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC which opened the floodgates allowing unlimited amounts of money to flow in support of a candidate for office.  The ruling struck down a federal law limiting amounts and requiring disclosure of who was behind the money. But the ruling basically said the corporations (and the Super PACS) have the same “Free Speech” rights that humans have and that spending their money is protected speech.  While the ruling does not allow these Super PACS to give unlimited money directly to a candidate, they are free to run their own advertisements in support of their candidate, or against the opposing candidate.  The last vestige of responsibility following the ruling was the continued prohibition on “coordination of campaigns.”  That is, while the Super PACS are free to spend ten gazillion dollars on their man or woman, they can’t call up the candidate and share ideas or develop a coordinated strategy.   Some of you may be saying, “yeah right, I’m sure they don’t talk.”  Perhaps they do, but what may have been done in secret before is now being pushed into the open to test the limits of what is legal.  Ok, so talking on the phone and sharing notes is clearly illegal.  But what would you say if the candidate and the Super PAC endorsing him or her both hired the SAME market research firm to give target audience advice?  Does this cross the line?  What if the political consulting firms hired by the PAC and the candidate had different names, but shared the same office?  Not enough for you?  How about if the founder of the candidate’s consulting firm is married to the chief executive of the market research firm working for both the candidate and the PAC?  There is no question that this tramples the intention of the law, but does it violate it? This is the situation as it currently exists in the Mitt Romney campaign.  Would it make you feel better if I told you that the market research firm has promised that it isn’t sharing ideas with its two clients and that its employees have been instructed to pretend there is a wall between them? Yet, even if it Romney’s situation is innocent and the firms are able to keep things separate, by allowing this to occur aren’t we setting the stage for corruption in future cases?  Further, even if innocent, isn’t each client entitled to get the best work from its market research company?  How, then, can the market research company do anything other than give the same reports and the same advice to clients sharing...