Posted by Neredbojias on 10/07/07 12:16

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:58:18
GMT William Gill scribed:

> I agree with everything you say, but I don't see the "single simple
> solution."
>
> "Equitable", "within reason", or like the ADA says "reasonable
> accommodations", are as subjective as "common sense." BTW expenses
> come off the top, before "a third" is calculated.
>
> Having dealt with many contracts, laws, lawyers,and judges over the
> years I have developed a deep respect for the law of unintended
> consequences. The hair on the back of my neck stands up whenever I
> hear "that will be easy to fix."
>
> Companies hire actuaries all the time to calculate their "exposures."
> Some decide it's cheaper to produce an unsafe product, or skirt a law,
> than it is to fix or prevent a problem. It's a numbers game, and
> lawyers play it too. Assume for purposes of discussion, that we are
> able to define "reasonable" attorney compensation. If a lawyer knows
> he/she can make X dollars on one case or the same X dollars on
> another, but the second will take more time and effort, which one do
> you think he/she will take? Companies have lawyers; they know the
> kinds of cases others will shy away from. Are you ready to grant them
> license to disregard any laws that don't "cost" them, because no one
> can or will "prove it?"
>
> Let's put the principle in another context. I have a couple million
> dollars. I can put it in a bank and it will produce a nice safe
> return, or I can invest it in a business where, if I'm successful, I
> can make a nice profit, and BTW create a few jobs. I could lose
> everything, but if I COULD make enough to chance it, I might. Now
> someone says "hold on a minute, you're not paying your fair share of
> taxes." Will that change the equation, and possibly my mind? What
> about those people who needed those jobs?
>
> Elsewhere in this thread, someone suggests putting it all in the hands
> of judges to throw out the "unreasonable." Though they can and do do
> this now, I'm not sure I want all that power solely their hands, and
> if you had seen SOME of the judges I have seen, you wouldn't want any
> of it in their hands.
>
> Bottom line, I think we agree in principle, but I'm more cautious
> about the solution. I believe in asking "If it's so easy to fix, why
> hasn't someone already fixed it?" The answer may be "No one has
> tried." or it could be "This is how we fixed it!"

Yeah, your bottom line (and examples supporting it) are pretty darn
accurate. I guess what I'm advocating is a stricter interpretation and
limitation on what non-productive advocates can justifiably glean from
the primary proceeds of their independent clients. I certainly _don't_
believe that the solution lies with the judges because judges _are_
lawyers and will generally be swayed by the associated inequitable
mindset intrinsically related to their "calling".

I suppose my viewpoint is a bit socialistic, but I simply cannot accept
the old "It's not perfect but it works" tenet. The legal system is
hardly more than a joke in my book when money dictates advantage, as it
does now. Why did Patty Hearst "get off" with a slap on the tush? And
what about OJ? -Is he ?really? "innocent" just because his
state-of-the-art lawyers "uncovered" something that 99%+ of everyone
else's lawyers would not have? (-This is an example; don't know enough
about the OJ case to quote actual figures, but the point stands as it
demonstrates a prevailing condition.) A large part of the reason for
much of the crime today is the lack of confidence in the equality of the
legal system to begin with.

Here's one tenet I do believe in: if something's broke, fix it. The
legal system, and the associated judicial system, have been broke for a
long time, and no amount of pontificating and/or platitudizing changes a
fact into a non-fact. In this country (as in most), you can buy
"justice" - plain and clear, if not always simple. The answer is to
rectify this by a stricter, possibly more cynical recognition of who
benefits from what and why and then act upon that "new" information in a
logical and erudite manner. The old stupidities, traditional or not,
just don't hack it in the brave, new world. When justice is for sale,
there is no justice - for anyone.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

[Back to original message]