[FoRK] The Platform
jbone at place.org
Mon Jun 30 08:53:29 PDT 2008
On Jun 30, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Zee Roe wrote:
> I think there are a lot more in the middle which have merit...
Fine, give the judge both the power to require a bond up front *and*
the power to distribute that bond however he sees fit in proportion to
the merits of the case, as previously suggested. I.e., let it be
possible for the judge to rebate entirely, or any portion thereof, the
bond of any plaintiff who had a good case but merely lost.
How does this produce a chilling effect on questionably-but-probably
Simply, it does not.
If you don't recognize how totally parasitized our system is by
entrepreneurial litigators, then you either haven't spent enough time
on juries and / or around lawyers, or you're uninformed, or you're
fully aware of the situation and pulling for the parasites anyway.
What we've got *now* is a complete perversion of justice; this can be
obviously demonstrated by the simple observations that (a) anyone can
sue anyone else for anything, with little to no up-front expense, (b)
the likelihood of being the defendant in a lawsuit is directly
proportional to net worth, (c) case statistics indicate that the suit
participant with the lower net worth wins more than would otherwise be
expected by simple random distribution of merit when cases go to a
jury, and (d) lifetime expenses in settlements and damages is also
proportional to total net worth.
The only possible conclusion from this is that current system
comprises a systematic means of extortion that enriches primarily the
litigating class by playing on the economic social biases of the
random jury and / or the economic rationality of wealthy defendants in
settling. This is *wrong* and I see no way to correct it other than
by balancing the risk-rewards involved, particularly with respect to
eliminating the risk arbitrage that is the business model of the
More information about the FoRK