So bunge if the courts are do decide what about all the cases that never get there. What of Joe Nobody web site owner publishes something that Joe Corporateevildoer doesn't like? Joe Nobody gets slapped with so many legal motions and sees $10,000 of legal bills and folds before it gets to the judge. Not because Joe Nobody was wrong but because Joe Corporateevildoer can afford to sink Joe Nobody.
Where's the justice in that?
What about the doctors that are run out of business. Not because they are bad but because they can't risk losing a meritless lawsuit?
While I understand, and actually agree with the premise behind what you are saying, it appears to me that the arguement Scott is making (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that just because you have the right to sue, it gets to a ridiculous point when the threat of a lawsuit becomes a bully pulpit to force the less wealthy to bend to the more wealthy whims.
What about the doctors that are run out of business. Not because they are bad but because they can't risk losing a meritless lawsuit?
No justice there either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well though I do feel that bad doctors should be sued and put out of business, I have an example of the other side.
Because of what I thought was medical negligence I sued a doctor for a mere $5,000. He of coarse counter sued for legal costs. Because his lawyer was way better than mine I lost...
AND THE COURT SAID I HAD TO PAY HIS BETTER LAWYER LEGAL COSTS ( $17,000 ).
<strong>So bunge if the courts are do decide what about all the cases that never get there. </strong><hr></blockquote>
What cases never get there and why?
Somewhere in this thread I already suggested that it is the court system that needs to be improved and sped up, a 'filter' that would most likely be unconstitutional doesn't need to exist. In fact, it does exists, in the judges. The cases need to get to the judge to be filtered. They're the only ones capable of deciding what can and should go forward.
Somewhere in this thread I already suggested that it is the court system that needs to be improved and sped up, a 'filter' that would most likely be unconstitutional doesn't need to exist. In fact, it does exists, in the judges. The cases need to get to the judge to be filtered. They're the only ones capable of deciding what can and should go forward.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In New Jersey tort cases, a person can be denied their day in court and be forced to have binding arbitration instead.
So they do have their day in front of an arbiter, correct? And this system prevents Joe Website from backing down without a say, correct?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just for accuracy, neither side "sees" the arbitrator. The transcript of those deposed are submitted to the arbitrator. In two of my cases, neither party ever had to even see each other. I had to request to be at the other depositions.
You're joking right? I can't give you numbers but I'd bet most don't get to court. Often because one side can afford a lawsuit and the other party can. Just answer the question. What about corporations (for example) that compel people, business whatever to stop what they are doing. Not because they are right but because some can't afford it, at any level.
Microsoft?s lawyers could make eat out of a garbage can if they wanted to.
Comments
Where's the justice in that?
What about the doctors that are run out of business. Not because they are bad but because they can't risk losing a meritless lawsuit?
No justice there either.
I asked three questions and the only things I quoted you as saying are things you actually said.
Yet another instance of you avoiding questions about statements you make?
While I understand, and actually agree with the premise behind what you are saying, it appears to me that the arguement Scott is making (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that just because you have the right to sue, it gets to a ridiculous point when the threat of a lawsuit becomes a bully pulpit to force the less wealthy to bend to the more wealthy whims.
<strong>...
Where's the justice in that?
What about the doctors that are run out of business. Not because they are bad but because they can't risk losing a meritless lawsuit?
No justice there either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well though I do feel that bad doctors should be sued and put out of business, I have an example of the other side.
Because of what I thought was medical negligence I sued a doctor for a mere $5,000. He of coarse counter sued for legal costs. Because his lawyer was way better than mine I lost...
AND THE COURT SAID I HAD TO PAY HIS BETTER LAWYER LEGAL COSTS ( $17,000 ).
Killing all desire and money for any appeal.
That's when I started learning law.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
She saves peoples money from the nasty government!
<strong>So bunge if the courts are do decide what about all the cases that never get there. </strong><hr></blockquote>
What cases never get there and why?
Somewhere in this thread I already suggested that it is the court system that needs to be improved and sped up, a 'filter' that would most likely be unconstitutional doesn't need to exist. In fact, it does exists, in the judges. The cases need to get to the judge to be filtered. They're the only ones capable of deciding what can and should go forward.
<strong>
What cases never get there and why?
Somewhere in this thread I already suggested that it is the court system that needs to be improved and sped up, a 'filter' that would most likely be unconstitutional doesn't need to exist. In fact, it does exists, in the judges. The cases need to get to the judge to be filtered. They're the only ones capable of deciding what can and should go forward.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In New Jersey tort cases, a person can be denied their day in court and be forced to have binding arbitration instead.
I don't fully understand his point, which is why I ask the three questions.
<strong>
In New Jersey tort cases, a person can be denied their day in court and be forced to have binding arbitration instead.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So they do have their day in front of an arbiter, correct? And this system prevents Joe Website from backing down without a say, correct?
<a href="http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=21299§ion=COMMENTARY&subsection= COMMENTARY&year=2003&month=1&day=25" target="_blank">Shakedown Lawyers</a>
It's hard to believe what these basturds are doing is legal.
<strong>
So they do have their day in front of an arbiter, correct? And this system prevents Joe Website from backing down without a say, correct?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just for accuracy, neither side "sees" the arbitrator. The transcript of those deposed are submitted to the arbitrator. In two of my cases, neither party ever had to even see each other. I had to request to be at the other depositions.
<strong>
What cases never get there and why?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're joking right? I can't give you numbers but I'd bet most don't get to court. Often because one side can afford a lawsuit and the other party can. Just answer the question. What about corporations (for example) that compel people, business whatever to stop what they are doing. Not because they are right but because some can't afford it, at any level.
Microsoft?s lawyers could make eat out of a garbage can if they wanted to.
<strong>
You're joking right? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not denying, I'm just asking the WHY that I think you're ignoring.