Would you sue a transgender person for using the bathroom?

[Revoltingest]

I am one of those leftist people who disagrees.

If one side has a lot of money, they can freely bring suits because they can risk the loss. But someone living in poverty would not be able to afford to sue even if they feel they have a good and just case, because there is always the possibility that they could lose. Consider an ex-employee who wants to sue his billionaire boss. But billionaire can ramp up the court cost, hire a team of expensive lawyers and fancy investigators, lab costs, and other expenses, as you said it can get very expensive. And what is to stop the winning side from padding those expenses, exaggerating hours etc.

No, you are giving an unfair advantage to those already advantaged. Courts are suppose to be a place where things are equal and fair.

I would support the idea of the winning side being able to sue for the court costs, but it should not be automatic. The winning side should only get the court costs paid if they can show that the case was either frivolously or maliciously brought, and then only win reasonable court fees. You mentioned SLAPP cases. But there you have to prove in court that the case was brought maliciously and was an abuse of the court system. It is not automatic.

The winning side always asks for costs.
But this is rarely ever granted because it would gut legal system's cash cow.
You disagree with a loser pay system, but you grant the party with the most money
the ability to crush anyone they choose with a meritless suit. Is this equal & fair?

I've proposed before remedies to handle legitimate complaints & losses.
A "loser pay" system needn't be as automatic as you might believe.
Factors in awarding damages to the prevailing party....
- Lack of evidence.
- Fraud.
- Lack of due diligence.
- Lack of pursuing reasonable settlement.
- Vexatious motive.
- Tactics to impose undue costs.
- Malicious accusations.
- Attorney misfeasance or malfeasance.

 

[fantome profane]

I've proposed before remedies to handle legitimate complaints & losses.
A "loser pay" system needn't be as automatic as you might believe.
Factors in awarding damages to the prevailing party....
- Lack of evidence.
- Fraud.
- Lack of due diligence.
- Lack of pursuing reasonable settlement.
- Vexatious motive.
- Tactics to impose undue costs.
- Malicious accusations.
- Attorney misfeasance or malfeasance.

Then we are in agreement, I just don't want it to be automatic, or assumed. I think there has to be a higher standard to get the court costs than just winning the initial case.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then we are in agreement, I just don't want it to be automatic, or assumed. I think there has to be a higher standard to get the court costs than just winning the initial case.

I'd even expect a sliding scale could be applied.
But regarding poor folk who have a suit worth filing, but which might fail,
there's an existing solution. Investors finance suits in exchange for
a cut of the award. The investors would also face the costs associated
with a loss. If someone wants to file a suit, but no investor is willing to
take on the risk, then this would be a suit best not filed.

I've also proposed that a bond be filed when filing suit.
This would ensure payment.

 

[fantome profane]

I'd even expect a sliding scale could be applied.
But regarding poor folk who have a suit worth filing, but which might fail,
there's an existing solution. Investors finance suits in exchange for
a cut of the award. The investors would also face the costs associated
with a loss. If someone wants to file a suit, but no investor is willing to
take on the risk, then this would be a suit best not filed.

I've also proposed that a bond be filed when filing suit.
This would ensure payment.

That is just what we need, an new group of parasites finding a way to profit on the legal system.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is just what we need, an new group of parasites finding a way to profit on the legal system.

It's not new at all, being part of the existing system.
I'm proposing that they also shoulder the risk of
covering the costs borne by the prevailing party.
This would actually reduce the parasitism.

 

[fantome profane]

It's not new at all, being part of the existing system.
I'm proposing that they also shoulder the risk of
covering the costs borne by the prevailing party.
This would actually reduce the parasitism.

Wait a minute, are you saying these bondsmen would be forced to provide a bond for every person who wanted their day in court? Or would they be able to pick and choose which cases they thought had a good chance of winning?

If it is the latter, it won't work. If it is the former it is a fascist idea, and it still won't work.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wait a minute, are you saying these bondsmen would be forced to provide a bond for every person who wanted their day in court? Or would they be able to pick and choose which cases they thought had a good chance of winning?

No one would post a bond involuntarily.
Anyone who wants to sue (other than small claims court) should post a bond.
If they cannot, then they'd have to convince someone else of the merit of the suit.

For the record, I oppose fascism.

 

[fantome profane]

No one would post a bond involuntarily.
Anyone who wants to sue (other than small claims court) should post a bond.
If they cannot, then they'd have to convince someone else of the merit of the suit.

I am still not sure how you would impose this. I am not talking about making the person going to court get a bond, I am wondering how you would force the person giving the bond to give it.

Imagine you are a bondsman. Someone comes to you and tells you they want to sue the someone for something or other (too lazy to invent some details). You look at the case and in your judgement this person will more than likely lose the case, and if they do lose they might not have the money to repay the bond. Do you give them a bond?

For the record, I oppose fascism.

The record shall reflect that Revoltingest is against fascism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am still not sure how you would impose this. I am not talking about making the person going to court get a bond, I am wondering how you would force the person giving the bond to give it.

No one would be forced.
Bondsmen provide this service for many kinds of customers, but it's always voluntary.
People who can't afford the bond, & have a weak case, wouldn't be able to get it from someone else.
So the case wouldn't proceed.
This is good.

Imagine you are a bondsman. Someone comes to you and tells you they want to sue the someone for something or other (too lazy to invent some details). You look at the case and in your judgement this person will more than likely lose the case, and if they do lose they might not have the money to repay the bond. Do you give them a bond?

I would not.
But a bond needn't be repaid.
If the bondsman thinks the case would be profitable (factoring in the risk
of losing), he could bargain for a share of the profit in lieu of repayment.
The market, in its wisdom, would provide.

The record shall reflect that Revoltingest is against fascism.

 

[esmith]

I am still not sure how you would impose this. I am not talking about making the person going to court get a bond, I am wondering how you would force the person giving the bond to give it.

Imagine you are a bondsman. Someone comes to you and tells you they want to sue the someone for something or other (too lazy to invent some details). You look at the case and in your judgement this person will more than likely lose the case, and if they do lose they might not have the money to repay the bond. Do you give them a bond?

.

then I would insure they had the collateral to cover the bond
here is a link to a bond company (not sure if this is within forum rules since it is a business, however it gives a good explanation of what a bonds company is looking for.
http://www.1stchoicebail.com/bail-cost/no-collateral-bail-bonds/

 

[fantome profane]

No one would be forced.
Bondsmen provide this service for many kinds of customers, but it's always voluntary.
People who can't afford the bond, & have a weak case, wouldn't be able to get it from someone else.
So the case wouldn't proceed.
This is good.

But this would only apply to those who don't have the money themselves. Under this system if you are rich you don't need to get a bond, you don't need to convince someone to cover you, you can cover yourself. So the result is that the rich have more access to the courts.

I would not.
But a bond needn't be repaid.
If the bondsman thinks the case would be profitable (factoring in the risk
of losing), he could bargain for a share of the profit in lieu of repayment.
The market, in its wisdom, would provide.

So the bondsman would essentially be gambling on the outcome of the case. The riskier the case the higher the share that the bondsman would claim of the outcome. A person desparate enough might be willing to give all of the potental settlement to the bondsman just for their day in court. It sounds like a very parasitic situation to me.

And you are creating a situation where the bondsman, not a judge, would have the power to decide if someone can go to court or not.

Again you are going to wind up with a situation where a person living in poverty would be denied access to the court because they can't get a bond.

 

[Revoltingest]

But this would only apply to those who don't have the money themselves. Under this system if you are rich you don't need to get a bond, you don't need to convince someone to cover you, you can cover yourself. So the result is that the rich have more access to the courts.

That's not accurate.
The rich would have more ability to file frivolous suits, but then they'd have to pay the winner's costs.
The ability to file frivolous suits is not something the poor need.
Such suits should be discouraged because they cost this country, both the citizens who pay to
defend themselves, & the government (because legal defenses are often deductable expenses).
This reduced government revenue actually harms the poor.
Why do you want to harm the poor?
Do you hate them?
Ignore those last 2 questions.

So the bondsman would essentially be gambling on the outcome of the case. The riskier the case the higher the share that the bondsman would claim of the outcome. A person desparate enough might be willing to give all of the potental settlement to the bondsman just for their day in court. It sounds like a very parasitic situation to me.

If their case is so bad that they can't get a good deal selling the outcome, they shouldn't be filing suit in the first place. Remember that meritless suits damage the defendant. And such suits are often used as a form of extortion against deep pockets. Been there & done that (as a defendant).

And you are creating a situation where the bondsman, not a judge, would have the power to decide if someone can go to court or not.

The plaintiff has the most power. Bring a strong suit, & there'd be no trouble posting bond.
Bring a meritless suit & ......well.....no one should be bringing those.

Again you are going to wind up with a situation where a person living in poverty would be denied access to the court because they can't get a bond.

Denied access only if they have a meritless suit.
Why do you want to have the poor filing frivolous or vexatious suits?
Do you hate innocent parties, & want the poor to punish them?

Your arguments are typical of the lefties I know.
There's no consideration of the victim, ie, the innocent defendant.
They want to ensure that anyone can file suit without any responsibility for wrongful damage they do as a result.
This is not just irresponsible....it's heinous.

 

[fantome profane]

Your arguments are typical of the lefties I know.

Thank you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thank you.

Just to be clear, I didn't mean that as an insult or any such value judgement.
Twas just that such beliefs are to be found in that group.
I don't know what group my views typify.....but I bet they dress strangely.

 

[fantome profane]

Just to be clear, I didn't mean that as an insult

Sure you didn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure you didn't.

Toying with me, eh?
Grrrrrrr!

 

[fantome profane]

Toying with me, eh?
Grrrrrrr!

lol, you walked into it.

sal good.

 

[Curious George]

The winning side always asks for costs.
But this is rarely ever granted because it would gut legal system's cash cow.
You disagree with a loser pay system, but you grant the party with the most money
the ability to crush anyone they choose with a meritless suit. Is this equal & fair?

I've proposed before remedies to handle legitimate complaints & losses.
A "loser pay" system needn't be as automatic as you might believe.
Factors in awarding damages to the prevailing party....
- Lack of evidence.
- Fraud.
- Lack of due diligence.
- Lack of pursuing reasonable settlement.
- Vexatious motive.
- Tactics to impose undue costs.
- Malicious accusations.
- Attorney misfeasance or malfeasance.

LOL, you want what we already have...you just want different judicial discretion in awarding it.

 

[Curious George]

That's not accurate.
The rich would have more ability to file frivolous suits, but then they'd have to pay the winner's costs.
The ability to file frivolous suits is not something the poor need.
Such suits should be discouraged because they cost this country, both the citizens who pay to
defend themselves, & the government (because legal defenses are often deductable expenses).
This reduced government revenue actually harms the poor.
Why do you want to harm the poor?
Do you hate them?
Ignore those last 2 questions.

If their case is so bad that they can't get a good deal selling the outcome, they shouldn't be filing suit in the first place. Remember that meritless suits damage the defendant. And such suits are often used as a form of extortion against deep pockets. Been there & done that (as a defendant).

The plaintiff has the most power. Bring a strong suit, & there'd be no trouble posting bond.
Bring a meritless suit & ......well.....no one should be bringing those.

Denied access only if they have a meritless suit.
Why do you want to have the poor filing frivolous or vexatious suits?
Do you hate innocent parties, & want the poor to punish them?

Your arguments are typical of the lefties I know.
There's no consideration of the victim, ie, the innocent defendant.
They want to ensure that anyone can file suit without any responsibility for wrongful damage they do as a result.
This is not just irresponsible....it's heinous.

There are many,many suits that have merit, despite ultimately not prevailing. Methinks your personal bias rules your lack of objectivity in this arena.

 

[Revoltingest]

LOL, you want what we already have...you just want different judicial discretion in awarding it.

I'm proposing a revolution in civil justice.