From: Walter Gilbert<ldott...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I Wish
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"<pdml@pdml.net>
Date: Saturday, December 11, 2010, 10:16 AM
It's my understanding that, in the
British system, unlike in the US, the loser of the case is
responsible for the legal fees and court costs of the
winner. That would tend to make their system more
workable, an d would almost certainly make them more likely
to foot the bill for the highest-paid law firm in Detroit,
knowing they wouldn't have to pay for the other guy's
representation if they lost.
Of course, my understanding could be way off-base.
But, it seems like I read that somewhere.
-- Walt
On 12/11/2010 12:03 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: "Bob W"
It's a philosophical difference, and no
more "indefensible"
than the US system of "one law
for the rich, one for the poor"
which allows those with deep
enough pockets to buy their way
out of just about any
situation.
My understanding is the British law in
this case is sort of in response
to an old U.S. Supreme Court decision
that EVERY defendant should have
access to adequate legal counsel.
The U.S. decision applied only to
criminal cases, but the British
didn't
make that distinction when Parliament
passed their law. And they
actually put some teeth in their law.
they did make a distinction. There are different
rules and entitlements
applying to criminal and civil law and different
organisations dealing with
each branch.
<http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/default.asp>
What I meant is the British applied the concept that
"no one should be denied effective legal representation just
because they can't afford to pay a lawyer" to civil law as
well as criminal cases.
They did not limit it to criminal defendants the way
the U.S. Supreme Court decision did. In the U.S. you can
still be cheated of justice in civil matters simply because
you don't have as much money to pay lawyers as the other
side does.
Civil litigation is expensive, and someone with enough
money can screw you in court - burying you in lawyers,
forcing you to choose between bankruptcy or surrender.
Sometimes both.
It happened to someone I know.
He was a one man shop working on computer networks
starting the early 80s. When the internet began to open up
to commercial operations, he registered his domain name as
gateway.net.
Later a company in South Dakota chose the name
Gateway2000. In the late 90s they realized the 2000 part of
their name was getting ready to become obsolete, and changed
their name to Gateway.
They offered my friend $1000 for the domain name he
had been using for 15 years, and when he declined to sell,
they sued him for trademark infringement. Buried him in
lawyers.
The first thing they did was seek an injunction to
prohibit him from using his domain name until the case was
settled. An injunction the court granted despite his showing
that he had been doing business as Gateway, using the domain
name gateway.net a decade before the Gateway2000 company was
incorporated, and long before they decided to change their
name to simply Gateway.
Gateway2000 had the money, and were able to buy the
court. Their lawyers shopped around until they found a judge
who would grant the injunction.
Bankrupted him. Gateway used their financial muscle to
buy "justice"; or more properly, to deny justice to my
acquaintance.
Which, BTW, is why I never recommend Gateway, and
won't buy anything from them. And since Acer now owns
Gateway, screw them too!
Any human system which tries to be just is subject
to freeloaders, to people
whose entitlement may seem unfair, and to people
we just plain don't like
such as wife-beaters, but that's part of the price
of trying to be a just
society. One that I personally don't mind paying
provided there are
reasonable efforts to identify and deter the few
freeloaders.
I'm not criticizing it. As you might infer from above,
I don't think it's a good idea for "justice" to be for sale
to the highest bidder.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
directly above and follow the directions.
