In the UK, there's a rule for civil lawsuits that differs from the USA rule. The loser must generally pay the winner's legal expenses. The "American Rule" is different. Everyone pays their own legal expenses, unless the lawsuit is completely frivolous.
A pro-State troll says "The American Rule creates more access to the legal system." The American Rule encourages frivolous lawsuits. If you have deep pockets and want to harass someone, just file a lawsuit. The victim must spend time and money defending themselves.
Criminal trials are even worse, both in the USA and in the UK. The victim is not threatened merely with financial loss, but with threat of imprisonment. Defending yourself in a criminal trial costs $50k-$100k+ in legal fees. That cost would cripple/bankrupt most middle class families.
The State prosecutor has wide discretion to prosecute whoever he chooses. The prosecutor is protected by sovereign immunity. It's usually impossible to sue the prosecutor for misconduct. A good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict anyone for practically anything.
I read some interesting reform proposals. They'll never be approved, but they're still interesting.
One reform is "If the defendant is acquitted, then the State must reimburse the defendant for his legal expenses." This would severely cut down on frivolous prosecutions. There's no chance this reform will occur.
Another reform is "Public defenders are available to everyone, regardless of income." Right now, you only qualify for a public defender if your income is really low. If your income is around $50k, you don't qualify for a public defender, but you probably can't afford the $50k-$100k+ a lawyer costs. Public defenders are already overworked. This reform will not occur.
The State legal system has a monopoly. There's no accountability. "Democracy" only provides the illusion of accountability. Most people don't realize that the legal system is unfair until they come into contact with it.
The State licensing cartel for lawyers is evil. This restricts supply and drives up prices. I'm a good public speaker. If you wanted to hire me to advocate for you in court, that's illegal, because I don't have a State permit.
The "American Rule" encourages frivolous lawsuits and frivolous criminal charges. Everyone pays their own legal expenses. Insiders with deep pockets can file frivolous lawsuits against smaller competitors. Prosecutors can bankrupt anyone by filing criminal charges.
When someone sues you, you might be angry at the scumbag who sued you. You also should be angry at the inefficient State legal system. You can't ignore a lawsuit. If you do, a crazy person will give a default judgement against you and thugs with guns will come to kidnap you or steal your property. The State legal monopoly is dependent on the State violence monopoly. That's the reason judges bend over backwards to favor a policeman, when he is accused of misconduct.
The State legal system is one big scam, both in the USA and in the UK. "If you don't like the USA then move!" is an invalid argument. Each country is ruled by a slightly different gang of thugs. Via international treaties, these thugs have agreed to offer equally lousy terms to all slaves.
The State legal system is inefficient. Access to the legal system is restricted, due to the State licensing cartel for lawyers. This inefficiency is mostly irrelevant, because the State has a monopoly. State insiders love an inefficient legal system. That makes it practically impossible for someone to hold them accountable. Insiders may ruin any non-insider, by filing a frivolous lawsuit or frivolous criminal charges.
Friday, August 27, 2010
American Legal Extortion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The problem with "loser pays" is that the one with the most money for lawyers has a much much much greater chance of winning, especially over the long run since the big guy can appeal the little guy into bankruptcy.
Loser pays just makes the injustice worse.
There is no perfect solution, but loser pays is one of the worst systems imaginable if the goal is to allow equal justice.
In the UK, they are classist so the fact that the upper class always wins and can further screw over the peasants doesn't bother them.
"If the defendant is acquitted, then the State must reimburse the defendant for his legal expenses."
This sounds good but the problem is that right now prosecutors pursue cases for reasons other than likely innocence and guilt. They'll go after a weak person to rack up their conviction count even when they know the defendant is innocent, but they also know he likely can't prove it or can't afford an attorney to represent him properly. Many prosecutors are bullies. If someone is rich and has lawyered up, they won't bother because they know it will be a difficult fight and they will probably lose the case.
With this new policy, now they have yet another reason to send innocent people to jail. If the person is acquitted, the taxpayers have to pay for his legal expenses, which might be in the millions. This will be politically bad for the prosecutor and he could lose his job and livelihood, home, income and wife. Therefore he will be highly motivated to conspire to fabricate evidence, and withhold from the defense important evidence that would have acquitted.
Prosecutors should have no personal motivation at all to acquit or convict defendants other than the person's actual likely guilt. To the extent they do not, justice is not possible.
>In the UK, there's a rule for civil
>lawsuits that differs from the USA
>rule. The loser must generally pay
>the winner's legal expenses.
The loser can appeal and so can harass an innocent person again in the UK.
Even if the contract terms are on your side, you can lose the first time round in a UK court. Witness the mother and her daughter that lost the first time round with a building firm that was on their property. For the appeal, the mother and daughter could NOT afford a lawyer and so the daugher had to prepare the case herself. She won the appeal. The woman was offered a free place at law college due to her win.
This was presented as a victory for the underdog in the newspapers.
But in fact it shows that even if the law is on your side, the contract terms are on your side, you have a lawyer, you can still lose a court case. This is shown by the fact that their case was reversed on appeal.
WHY DID THE FIRST COURT MADE SUCH A BIG MISTAKE AS GETTING THE WINNING SIDE WRONG?
WHY WITH THE SAME CASE DID THE FIRST COURT AND THE APPEAL COURT GIVE DIFFERENT RESULTS?
Oh back to the original point.
I read in the papers that in the UK there are lots of lawsuit threat letters that are just meant to obtain an out-of-court settlement and never go near a court. In these cases the loser will pay nothing and can harass someone for free. The idea is that just a few letters exchange hands, lawyers pick up their fees and nothing goes near a court.
To summarise my last post, the problem in the UK is that court costs can run in hundreds of thousands of pounds, even for small matters.
You can be unlucky. A nasty lawyer with a slimy client can send you a threatening letter. If you have no experience in these matters you get your own lawyer. You are billed thousands of pounds. A few letters exchange hands but the case goes nowhere near a court.
Your money is wasted. The other side ends up not replying to your replies. As nothing has been submitted to a court, you get no compensation for your wasted time or money.
It is a scam.
Some people believe that in civil law cases, the lawyers are not interested in what the law actually says or morality or ethics, but simply conspiring together to rip off their clients for as much money as possible. Some people believe anything you tell your lawyer in supposed confidence will be secretly passed to the other side's lawyer so they both know how much money you have.
A friend of mine was sued. I looked up the law for the case and quite simply there was no case in law for what he was sued over. His lawyers should have simply argued there was no case in law. However they asked him how much money he had and how much money he could borrow from family. The first court judge bounced the case out of court. However the lawyers then stringed things along with further court cases to loot this guy's money.
The plaintiff never gained anything from the court cases. All that happened was both lawyers made vast sums of money in fees.
It is daylight robbery. There was never any case in law and the first court bounced the case straight out.
NEVER TELL YOUR LAWYER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE. HE WILL STRAIGHT AWAY PHONE THE OTHER SIDE WITH THIS INFORMATION SO THEY CAN BOTH LOOT YOUR MONEY. YOUR LAWYER WILL LIE TO YOU. IF YOU HAVE NO MONEY THE CIVIL CASE WILL BE SILENTLY DROPPED. MAGICALLY IF YOU HAVE LOTS OF MONEY A CASE WILL MATERIALIZE OUT OF THIN AIR.
Post a Comment