Judges tend not to be willing to find as frivolous those claims that are filed by attorneys who contribute to their elections. Lawyers tend not to seek sanctions against pro se claimants who live on welfare, get jollies by playing the system, have nothing to lose, and are willing to file false claims of grievance. Threats don't work against people satisfied to live off the system, who've nothing to lose. Occasionally, a little guy will have a valid claim and want redress. For him, "loser pays" would convert a small action into high stakes poker, where it's easy to run off those who lack funds to call bets. Over time, loser pays favors the house with the most resources, and has little to do with leveling the playing field for small cases.
There's no avoiding that there're people with no scruples. Those best able to keep up with constant churning of rules tend not to be little guys. Nor are little guys likely represented well among those who write rules, unless substantial rewards are given to their well heeled advocates. In that case, justice for individuals is purchased by imposing large burdens against society as a whole. And those advocates learn how to impose such burdens! For some time, one avenue for imposing such burdens has been to use discovery process to become such a nuisance that firms pay protection money just to get relief. In a discovery battle, it tends to be big companies that can be most harassed, since they have most by way of documents to sift through.
Write all the rules you want, and evolution will absorb and re-game them. Tampering with rules will not make negligence-based lawsuits an efficient or accurate way to reset "fairness." In many cases, it'd be more honest to have contesting opponents have issues decided by panels of judges for beauty contests. A way to trim lawsuit abuse would be to trim back negligence-based causes of action and rely more on rugged individualism, a social safety net, and the law of contracts and criminal law.
There's no avoiding that there're people with no scruples. Those best able to keep up with constant churning of rules tend not to be little guys. Nor are little guys likely represented well among those who write rules, unless substantial rewards are given to their well heeled advocates. In that case, justice for individuals is purchased by imposing large burdens against society as a whole. And those advocates learn how to impose such burdens! For some time, one avenue for imposing such burdens has been to use discovery process to become such a nuisance that firms pay protection money just to get relief. In a discovery battle, it tends to be big companies that can be most harassed, since they have most by way of documents to sift through.
Write all the rules you want, and evolution will absorb and re-game them. Tampering with rules will not make negligence-based lawsuits an efficient or accurate way to reset "fairness." In many cases, it'd be more honest to have contesting opponents have issues decided by panels of judges for beauty contests. A way to trim lawsuit abuse would be to trim back negligence-based causes of action and rely more on rugged individualism, a social safety net, and the law of contracts and criminal law.
1 comment:
Through the farmers and the farmed of the NWO, tentacles are spreading to consolidate control over every institution of civilization, whether it be of banking, industry, communication, society, family, individual, or even nation. In this onslaught, those who think forays against decent family values --- as if all manner of verbal and sexual expression were equally admirable --- are only minor diversions are badly misled. The last preserve of a replenishing civilization that defends a framework for the decent expression of individual liberty will soon be replaced by a NWO, in which the ruled will be powerless to resist being agreeable to whatever the rulers decide is p.c. We will eat the grass we are fed, and we will be taught to like it.
Post a Comment