Meet Judge Jack B. Weinstein

Biographical Information:

“The NAACP case is different because it will be heard by U.S. District Judge Jack B.
Weinstein, who is notorious for his activism and anti-gun bias. Weinstein presided over the 1999 case Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, the only case in which a jury has awarded damages based on the negligent marketing theory.” (emphasis added)

- Jacob Sullum, Reason Online (www.reason.com), 3/21/03

“… Alan Dershowitz has called [Weinstein] ‘the most important federal judge in the last
quarter-century.’” (emphasis added)

- Robert Kolker, New York Magazine, 1/05/99

“A Baltimore lawyer for thousands of asbestos plaintiffs, Peter G. Angelos, said he recently disagreed with the judge about a proposed settlement. But he added that the judge was brilliant, courteous and "impatient with the ways of the judicial system" in his desire to cut through the thickets of legal technicalities… He probably would have been a more interesting and effective United States Senator from New York,’ the lawyer said.”

- Arnold H. Lubasch, New York Times, 5/28/91

“Industry lawyers are scrambling to derail or slow down the litigations train. They say
that the cases before U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein are legally indistinguishable
from suits that have been thrown out of federal courts across the country… ‘Jack
Weinstein’s court is the only safe harbor left in this country for this kind of case,
and plaintiffs’ lawyers and their nominal plaintiffs have flocked there.’” (emphasis
added)

“Judge Weinstein has long been in the forefront of mass torts and complex litigation, with a penchant for engineering big solutions to big problems – asbestos, handguns and tobacco among them – that run counter to the recent trend in the Supreme Court and circuit courts.”

- Bob Van Voris, The National Law Journal, 4/24/00

“The gun litigation has been showcased by the Hamilton v. Beretta case, which was brought (not coincidentally) in Judge Weinstein’s court in Brooklyn early in 1995… Judge Weinstein wasted more than six years of the parties’ and courts time and money by nurturing this case and thus encouraging lawyers to file others like it.”

“Gun control is not a stealth issue. It is a highly visible one in which interests form all sides have engaged. Politicians at all levels of government are obliged to address it. Voters are manifestly capable of holding them accountable in ways that, for sound constitutional reasons, do not apply to life-tenured judges such as Weinstein.”

- Peter H. Schuck, The American Lawyer, 9/01

“… many lawyers following the case have said that it probably would have been
dismissed by almost any other judge except the famously independent Judge Weinstein…
Asked about defense lawyers who groan when they see their cases assigned to him, Judge Weinstein jokes ‘They should like it…It’s more interesting for them, and they get more fees.’” (emphasis added)

- Bob Van Voris, The National Law Journal, 2/15/99

“Ms. Barnes successfully steered her case into the Brooklyn, N.Y. courtroom of Jack B. Weinstein, a well-respected senior-status judge known for expanding the bounds of toxic-tort law in three decades on the bench.”

- Bob Van Voris, The National Law Journal, 1/11/99

“‘If the [U.S. Second Circuit] Court of Appeals disagrees with me or somebody else
disagrees with my rulings, it doesn’t bother me,’ Weinstein says in an interview shortly
after the [Hamilton] trial’s end. ‘After almost 33 years, I don’t feel I have to justify
myself to anybody but myself.’” (emphasis added)

- Judge Jack B. Weinstein to Robert Kolker

- Robert Kolker, New York Magazine, 1/05/99

“… with Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, Weinstein may have pulled off a stunt that even Congress couldn’t.”

“Weinstein found other methods of reform soon enough, turning to mass torts full-throttle… we’ve had to devise ways of interpreting the law using procedure – using concepts to meet needs of our present technology and size.”

“In the mid-eighties, [Weinstein] called on Congress to expand Social Security into a national health-insurance and comprehensive disability plan, and to create a federal court for helping victims of mass disasters, from train crashes to terrorist attacks. It was as if he had finally found a method for improving the world that could satisfy his bold theatrical streak, his zeal for administrative law and his social conscience – all at the same time.”

“Weinstein’s reputation in class-action cases got him noticed by Elisa Barnes, a Manhattan plaintiff’s lawyer who had spent years building the Hamilton v. Accu-Tek case. She needed a judge who would sit still for the wild-card thesis of her case… And so, rather than wait for [… a] judge to be chosen randomly, Barnes formally requested Weinstein…”

“During the [Hamilton] trial, Weinstein… ordered Barnes to produce evidence on national market share in the handgun industry. After trying dozens of different tactics, Barnes found the sweet spot… If this was Weinstein’s intent all along, he certainly didn’t hide it.”

“‘I have to say, I’d never seen Judge Weinstein so happy and beatific as the day he got the market share evidence,’ says Denise Dunleavy, who came on board to try Hamilton with Barnes and two other lawyers. ‘Not happy for the plaintiffs – just happy that he was watching the case unfold, maybe in the way he envisioned it years before.’”

“But Lou Dorfsman… did manage to chat about the case with [Weinstein]
afterward. ‘He thought if you can lay this gun thing on these guys – the
manufacturers – then there’s got to be a case against the automobile business,’ the judge’s friend recalls. ‘It seems they’re next in line. He just made that observation in passing.’” (emphasis added)

- Robert Kolker, New York Magazine, 1/05/99

Pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act seeks to protect firearms and ammunition manufacturers from being sued for the criminal misuse of their lawful products by third parties. This legislation seeks to prevent abuses to the American legal system.

Only passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR 1036 / S 659) will eliminate these frivolous lawsuits that threaten to destroy one of America's oldest, most important industries and eliminate the jobs of thousands of Americans. With 243 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and 51 co-sponsors in the Senate, the Act enjoys strong bi-partisan support.

On Thursday, April 3, 2003 the Act was passed out of the House Judiciary Committee and onto the whole House by an overwhelming majority of votes. This was the last legislative hurtle the Act had to clear before it could be voted on by the entire House of Representatives. The House is expected to vote on the Act in the near future. See Testimony of Lawrence G. Keane

According to a recent national poll conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 69% of Americans would be more favorable toward their Senator or Representative if they voted to reform the way class action lawsuits are handled in the United States. A recent poll conducted by the American Tort Reform Association found that 83.4% of Americans believe there are too many lawsuits in America.