Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

And now another shining example of NY's stupidity.

Some time ago, NY state passed a law opening a 1 year window where the statute of limitations would be ignored for cases of victims of priestly sexual abuse, allowing former victims to file suit decades after the offense allegedly occured.

In my opinion, there are at least two severe legal problems with this law right at the start. I don't know if the state has the authority to waive laws such as the statute of limitations, and they certainly are violating the constitutional restrictions on ex-post-facto legislation; changing the law AFTER the offense has been committed.

But that's another battle.

Predictably, when the law took effect in mid-August, claimants began crawling out of the woodwork in droves. And what do you think would happen shortly afterwards?

From a nearby city, here's an example.

https://www.whec.com/news/catholic-d...uptcy/5489122/

Gee, that didn't take long.

So, the victims won't get much, that's for sure. But guess who will? The lawyers.

Our pathetic legislators couldn't predict this?

[Gatefan1976]

Don't comment on law, you don't understand it at all.

[jelgate]

What if he doesn't understand anything?

[SoulReaver]

Again and again and again, wrong, wrong, wrong.

If no one files an appeal to the SCOTUS on an issue, they can't look at it.

aaand more dishonesty
because those who worked to shift SCOTUS/SDS (even more) to the right & put Koch Indu$tries in charge, will all of a sudden renounce their agenda?
correct way to see it: if they file an appeal to the SDS then no one can prevent it from looking at it

[Annoyed]

aaand more dishonesty
because those who worked to shift SCOTUS/SDS (even more) to the right & put Koch Indu$tries in charge, will all of a sudden renounce their agenda?
correct way to see it: if they file an appeal to the SDS then no one can prevent it from looking at it

This is a good illustration of why it's not such a good idea to critique a foreign county. You just don't know how the place works.

Suppose a business is being harmed by some obscure regulation, enacted by some agency such. He thinks his case is legitimate, and it may in fact be perfectly legit.

So he hires a team of lawyers to start his way through the courts. He goes through several hearings at various courts who all rule in favor of the govt.

Lawyers are very expensive. They don't work for free. Far from it.

At any point in this process, that businessman can realize that he simply can't afford to pursue this any longer. Coughing up the money to continue would bankrupt him. So the case is never presented to any court above whatever level he is at. No SCOTUS ruling, they never look at it.

And to anticipate your next comment, there is no requirement that the victor in a case pay the legal expense of the loser. So he can't continue, hoping that he wins and the govt. pays his lawyer.

The only option he might have is contingency fee lawyers, such as ambulance chasers who hope to share in the payout of a lawsuit of some sort. But in a case where there is no big pot of money at the end of the rainbow, are there going to be any contingency lawyers interested in a case without the potential big payout?

[Annoyed]

Equal justice for all. My ar$e.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-varsity-blues

Felicity Huffman was sentenced Friday to 14 days in prison and a $30,000 fine for her role in a sprawling college admissions scandal involving rich and famous families who funneled cash to fixers in order to get their kids into the nation's most prestigious colleges and universities.

In addition, the actress will serve one year of probation and perform 250 hours of community service.

[SoulReaver]

This is a good illustration of why it's not such a good idea to critique a foreign county. You just don't know how the place works.

Suppose a business is being harmed by some obscure regulation, enacted by some agency such. He thinks his case is legitimate, and it may in fact be perfectly legit.

So he hires a team of lawyers to start his way through the courts. He goes through several hearings at various courts who all rule in favor of the govt.

Lawyers are very expensive. They don't work for free. Far from it.

At any point in this process, that businessman can realize that he simply can't afford to pursue this any longer. Coughing up the money to continue would bankrupt him. So the case is never presented to any court above whatever level he is at. No SCOTUS ruling, they never look at it.

And to anticipate your next comment, there is no requirement that the victor in a case pay the legal expense of the loser. So he can't continue, hoping that he wins and the govt. pays his lawyer.

The only option he might have is contingency fee lawyers, such as ambulance chasers who hope to share in the payout of a lawsuit of some sort. But in a case where there is no big pot of money at the end of the rainbow, are there going to be any contingency lawyers interested in a case without the potential big payout?

bad (and dishonest) anticipation - what if his adversaries (who in your scenario are far more financially powerful than the businessman, I assume) take the case to SCOTUS/SDS? a conservative SDS will therefore rule against him (ie. in favour of the more powerful party)

[SoulReaver]

Equal justice for all. My ar$e.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-varsity-blues

correct such a conviction for a millionaire is harsh considering that there are billionaires who've done far worse & haven't even been charged (instead became president)

shows who the REAL elites in this ****hole country are

[Annoyed]

bad (and dishonest) anticipation - what if his adversaries (who in your scenario are far more financially powerful than the businessman, I assume) take the case to SCOTUS/SDS? a conservative SDS will therefore rule against him (ie. in favour of the more powerful party)

Didn't I specify his opponent as the Government?

Suppose a business is being harmed by some obscure regulation, enacted by some agency such. He thinks his case is legitimate, and it may in fact be perfectly legit.

Who is bigger?

The govt., by a large margin. It costs money to advance things; lawyers don't work cheap. The business owner might not be able to afford to pursue it.

[SoulReaver]

Didn't I specify his opponent as the Government?


Who is bigger?

The govt., by a large margin. It costs money to advance things; lawyers don't work cheap. The business owner might not be able to afford to pursue it.

good so back to the original problem the Government (in this case) will appeal to the SDS & make the small business owner lose

[Annoyed]

good so back to the original problem the Government (in this case) will appeal to the SDS & make the small business owner lose

Bonk! Bonk! on the head!

Go back & re-read the situation I supposed.

[SoulReaver]

Bonk! Bonk! on the head!

Go back & re-read the situation I supposed.

TLDR :| coming from you I'll just (correctly) assume it's some convoluted scenario & clumsy attempt at dodging

long story short the SDS will side with the rich & powerful over the commonfolk (and there's nothing that the commonfolk - or their elected representatives - can do to prevent it they can only delay it via the lesser courts)

so back to what I first said it's the next president's duty (to the People) to ignore SDS rulings until the SDS itself is overhauled

[SoulReaver]

some good news that 18y/o who was accused of "killing" her stillborn was cleared or murder

[Annoyed]

TLDR :| coming from you I'll just (correctly) assume it's some convoluted scenario & clumsy attempt at dodging

long story short the SDS will side with the rich & powerful over the commonfolk (and there's nothing that the commonfolk - or their elected representatives - can do to prevent it they can only delay it via the lesser courts)

so back to what I first said it's the next president's duty (to the People) to ignore SDS rulings until the SDS itself is overhauled

And that cannot and will not happen.

[SoulReaver]

And that cannot and will not happen.

reality check: new rules
blame your king