Andrew Halliwell wrote:
Rahul Dhesi <[email protected]> wrote:
Rjack <[email protected]> writes:
GNU fans never lose, they just mooooooooooooooooooove the
goalposts.
I feel your pain. Asking for the maximum possible, and then
settling for a lot less, is a common strategy that is,
unfortunately, embedded into the adversary system of justice.
Rjack, if it were up to you, how would you improve the system?
Would you propose a rule that once a party asks for a certain
amount, it is not permitted to take any less? How would you
enforce this?
The one thing that needs to be done to the system is Loser pays
ALL bills, both the plaintiff's and the accused's.
It's already like that over here in the UK for most types of
cases.
It'd stop a lot of fishing for out of court settlements if the
accused was no longer terrified of being bankrupted for being
found not guilty. Where's the justice in that? The innocent
should face absolutely no consequences for being willing to
defend themselves and winning.
Should Microsoft with its vast, deep pockets be able to walk over
the little guy because he can't afford the risk of enormous
litigation costs? In the United States, preponderance of the
evidence means 50.000001% wins over 49.999999% of the evidence. Are
you willing to risk bankruptcy because a trier of fact interpreted
0.000001% of the evidence in you opponent's favor?
A clever law firm can inflate the costs of an opponent's discovery
in a lawsuit to amounts a small litigant could never afford.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
