Unjustice System Always Favours Corporation

[TruthSeeker]

Corporations can legally get away with stealing from employees. Check it out....



"Bad Think
The Supreme Court mixes up intending to screw over your employee and actually doing it.
By Richard Thompson Ford

Pop quiz: Suppose you've just discovered your boss has been embezzling from you for years. Since the 1990s, he's stolen 30 percent of the return on your retirement investments each year. When did your boss actually swindle you? How long do you have to sue? A) He swindled you when he first came up with the scheme—if you didn't figure it out and sue him then, you're too late and he can keep your money. B) He swindled you when he shorted you for the first time—if you didn't find out and sue him then, you're too late. C) He swindled you from the first year right up until the end, when you found out about it and took the bastard to court. D) Stop bellyaching; you're lucky to have a job.

If you answered C, you have a promising career in law—writing frustrated and angry dissents along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If you answered A, B, or D, welcome to the majority of the United States Supreme Court."

More here: http://www.slate.com/id/2167286?nav=ais

 

[Kittamaru]

No shit sherlock... this is well known. It's matter of getting enough citizens to do anything about it.

Only the people of this country can change it... via force or otherwise

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

It is the same case of drug addict going to prison, and real big time drug dealers walking free on the streets. Money makes the world go around, and is a shame.

 

[mikenostic]

Because corporations have enough money to pay sleazy, unscrupulous high-powered lawyers to manipulate the system pretty much anyway they choose.

 

[darksidZz]

Are you sure?

 

[TruthSeeker]

You don't think millions of dollars is enough to buy justice?

 

[Baron Max]

You don't think millions of dollars is enough to buy justice?

Nope, I don't. I thnk it can help get you a better lawyer, for example, but if the evidence is stack against you, it's extremely doubtful that you'll have a trial that ends up like OJ Simpson's!!

Baron Max

 

[andbna]

Bear with me hear, I'm none too educated in law, however this brought up my memory of an article i read on the internet (damn I wish I could find stuff like this again) Basically, in a lawsuit, the party whith the more money does havea significant advantage; they can drag the trial on and on until the other runs out of money and can't continue (like a war of attrition.)
So in that case, I would say that money can buy 'justice' at least to some degree.
Just throwing this out there, sorry that I havn't provided sources yet.

As for a criminal offence, then once again more money= better lawyers and abetter chance of being found not guilty (and perhaps bribery as the movies would have it) But yah, OJ Simpson was lucky.
So what I'm getting at is, in this system, money won't buy you invincibility, but it can provide the best damn shield you could ask for.
We really do need a new justice system... Any ideas?
-Andrew

 

[Baron Max]

Basically, in a lawsuit, the party whith the more money does havea significant advantage; they can drag the trial on and on until the other runs out of money and can't continue (like a war of attrition.)
So in that case, I would say that money can buy 'justice' at least to some degree.

Oh, I think that's true to a certain extent, but I'm not so sure that it's actually a miscarriage of justice ...and that's the difference. How, for example, could anyone prove or show what might have been if things/attorneys had been different. See what I mean?

..., then once again more money= better lawyers and abetter chance of being found not guilty...

And once again, to prove that or to show it substantially correct, we'd have to know what would have happened if the attorneys had been "equal". See what I mean?

We really do need a new justice system... Any ideas?

Yeah, appointed attorneys, not hired! And eqaul pay for the attorneys.

Another factor which would help a lot is a panel of neutral judges who could stop the frivilous bullshit during trials ...including stall tactics, etc. The trial would still be by a jury, but the judges would sit to keep the attorneys on track and eliminate the bullshit.

Baron Max

 

[TruthSeeker]

Nope, I don't. I thnk it can help get you a better lawyer, for example, but if the evidence is stack against you, it's extremely doubtful that you'll have a trial that ends up like OJ Simpson's!!

Baron Max

You were sarcastic. Right? :bugeye:

 

[TruthSeeker]

Nope, I don't. I thnk it can help get you a better lawyer, for example, but if the evidence is stack against you, it's extremely doubtful that you'll have a trial that ends up like OJ Simpson's!!

Baron Max

Baron, you do realize that corporations are only charged money, but cannot be incarcerated nor the people who run it can be, right? :bugeye:

 

[Grantywanty]

Nope, I don't. I thnk it can help get you a better lawyer, for example, but if the evidence is stack against you, it's extremely doubtful that you'll have a trial that ends up like OJ Simpson's!!

Baron Max

A good lawyer will keep much of that stack of evidence out of court. And they will find things about witnesses that undermine their testimony. And they will find through creativity, huge investigative expense and 'experts' other potential criminals, other interpretations of every bit of that stack, and create a such a cloud of 'doubt' that what is obvious suddenly is not so obvious. someone with a PD has no hope of making such a smokescreen and filling the jury's minds with so much garbage they can't even be sure of their own names.

 

[Baron Max]

Baron, you do realize that corporations are only charged money, but cannot be incarcerated nor the people who run it can be, right?

Tell that to some of the CEOs and CFOs who are now serving prison sentences in federal prison. Ebbers comes to mind, as well as the Enron executives.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

A good lawyer will keep much of that stack of evidence out of court. And they will find things about witnesses that undermine their testimony. And they will find through creativity, huge investigative expense and 'experts' other potential criminals, other interpretations of every bit of that stack, and create a such a cloud of 'doubt' that what is obvious suddenly is not so obvious. someone with a PD has no hope of making such a smokescreen and filling the jury's minds with so much garbage they can't even be sure of their own names.

All of that typing only to say that some public defenders aren't good lawyers. Where does money fit into that scheme of things?

Baron Max

 

[Grantywanty]

All of that typing only to say that some public defenders aren't good lawyers. Where does money fit into that scheme of things?

Baron Max

No. Money affects more than the quality of the lawyer. Reread it and don't ask for more words while berating me for using so many.

 

[Baron Max]

someone with a PD has no hope of making such a smokescreen and filling the jury's minds with so much garbage they can't even be sure of their own names.

Why not?

Baron Max

 

[Grantywanty]

Why not?

Baron Max

I like how you just stay on the attack without admitting you were wrong that I was simply saying PDs aren't good lawyers. A mature person would have admitted that they found other points in there, but you just stay on the attack.

Well, the key word is 'such' a smokescreen. Sure the lawyer can try some antics in the courtroom, though his antics will have much less preparation time, if any. But he will not have resources that OJ's lawyers did to fly in DNA experts and do enormous background checks on the police involved and have teams of interns to pore over legal documents and so on as just a few possible examples.

I'd use more words but...

 

[Baron Max]

I like how you just stay on the attack without admitting you were wrong that I was simply saying PDs aren't good lawyers. A mature person would have admitted that they found other points in there, but you just stay on the attack.

No, it's just that I'm so overwhelmed by your intimate knowledge of the legal profession that I find that I'm at a loss for words due to my admiration of your skill and expertise.

Baron Max

 

[Grantywanty]

No, it's just that I'm so overwhelmed by your intimate knowledge of the legal profession that I find that I'm at a loss for words due to my admiration of your skill and expertise.

Baron Max

Play to the gallery if you want, but for my sake you don't have to waste words. I know you have a hard time admitting you are wrong. But I don't judge you for that. I simply consider you less of a resource.

(Good ironic smokescreen though)

 

[iceaura]

Yeah, appointed attorneys, not hired! And eqaul pay for the attorneys.

Left of Hillary, that position.

The legal status of a "corporation" is new - it's still being worked out. The establishment of a corporation as a legal "person" was probably a mistake, and the thing that will have to be corrected in the end.

A lot of the actual bad results derive from too wide a gap between the resources commanded by the rich and those available to the poor. Allowing a class demarcated economy like that, with so much of the wealth in so few hands, makes the pursuit of justice very difficult in practice. The class with almost full control over the setup and layout of the justice system will look out for its own interests, and if those interests are allowed to separate themselves from the interests of the other classes, those other classes will get screwed.