> > From: > Jim King > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:09:59 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> And how would they filter out cases without merit? They'd have to >> hear both >> sides. In other words, that is what bringing things into court does. > > It would seem to me that the courts could review the cases being > brought and dismiss out of hand those with no legal basis, rather than > hauling the person being sued into court to defend themselves against > a malicious attack. But I don't know all the facts or the law in this > matter; it may be that a hearing with both sides present is required > to sort this matter out. > The courts can do that. But they will have to hear at least some arguments to determine what does or does not have "legal basis", although I think the legalese for the term is "merit".
> In any event, if the plaintiff does not have a valid case (s)he should > pay the legal costs of the defendant without having to resort to more > legal action to force recovery. If I understand correctly that's the > way it works in many countries. However, US lawyers have constructed > the legal system differently here. I guess you win some and I win > some, but the lawyers always win... > > (My father was a lawyer and my daughter is a lawyer; I've had this > discussion with them also.) > > Regards, Jim The problem with a system where the loser is automatically saddled with the winner's legal costs is it tilts the system even farther toward the litigant with the deepest pockets. Consider the poor person wronged by the rich man. The rich man can already afford to pay lawyers to obfuscate, delay and run out the clock. Now you propose to enable the rich man to to pile on insult to injury by bankrupting him for his temerity in seeking redress. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
