Class action judgments should be payable exclusively in cash and lawyers should be paid only a (reasonable and customary) fee just like the other expenses instead of any part of the judgment. End the "deep pockets" joint and several liability, so if someone is responsible for 1%, they pay only 1%. Add "loser pays", or at least set a low threshold that if the case should not have been brought, then the one bringing it has to pay. Expand Common Pleas (small claims) to $10,000 (or more).

A grab bag of ideas--

-The bankruptcy laws that were American custom until the lobbyists got to work should be restored. Genesis probably knows more than I am capable of writing on this subject. A penalty of bad/no credit for up to seven years is quite acceptable. The idea is to give people a new shot at life, not walk around in an outdoor debtor's prison. Or to spend $100 in taxpayers money per month to extract $20 net for the paper holder.

-In many cases similar lobbying induced distortions from classical American practice in family law need at least some protections for the weaker party (in the VAWA era, that often means the male. Often it will mean the female. Just to be clear I am happily married and have never been divorced-- but there are real horror stories out there). Equal treatment under the law, regardless of sex.

-All confiscated monies by seized property/fines should NEVER be retained by the agency that seized them. Conflict of interest.

-In no case should court systems be supported primarily by seized property/fines. Conflict of interest.

- A genetic test (repeated at court's request for accuracy) showing impossibility of paternity should be an absolute defense against a request for child support. (Some debate possible as to accuracy of test vs probability)

-An end to deep pockets legal doctrine regardless of responsibility in any area of law. How is that different from Judicial seizure of property?

-Possibility of petition drives to impeach judges in egregious (and hopefully rare) cases. In some states recall options already exist, but this is a special sanction for special cases.

The current legal system explicitly allows violations of the intent of the "due process of law" portion of the fifth amendment, e.g,, asset forfeiture practices. The justification most frequently used (up to and including the USSC) is that these are administrative, and not legal, seizures and thus the BOR does not apply.

I don't know what good wording would be, but I would suggest something along the lines of: "Protections articulated in the Bill of Rights shall apply in ALL actions of gov't, to include legal, administrative, regulatory, etc. Legal artifices such as charging property with violations in order to deprive property owners of rights shall be prohibited."


Another thing I have a problem with is that many gov't officials are immunized for their actions "in performance of their official duties", no matter how egregious their actions. I would like to see something along the lines of "No gov't official shall have immunity from prosecution or civil suit for any actions even those taken in performance of their official duties."

Added a platform plank on civil forfeiture actions.

Nobody should have to pay the other side's lawyer fees in any circumstance. That's the sole reason why the average lawyer costs north of $280/hour. Doctors have higher risk and require more education and only the very top of the profession costs what the average lawyer costs.

These lawyer fees are a major reason why normal folks are priced out of the justice system. It can cost $50,000 to litigate even a fairly simple case! The vast majority of people in this country can't even begin to consider affording that.

Gen -

You have often commented that Congress is not covered by insider trading laws. In addition, there are other instances of gov't officials being "immune" from prosecution or lawsuits for behavior that is prohibited for "regular folks".

I'm curious why you decided not to include a basic "equality under the law for everyone" item as I suggested in my earlier post,.

I'm formulating one; it is difficult to get right. Thoughts on language?

"No person, win or lose, shall be compelled to pay the costs of a suit brought against him."

And those costs are paid by?

(Incidentally, I'm fixing to start ignoring people who are throwing straw men and otherwise unimplementable garbage. Be advised.)

Gets paid by the person who brings the suit. If you want a $1000/hour lawyer to represent you then it should be your own money you spend. If I can only afford an average lawyer and the opponent can afford a high-power one, that makes the suit unequal in two ways; not only the difference in quality of representation, but the risk each party has in litigating. If the other guy's lawyer costs 5x mine, then I have a disproportionate risk in continuing a suit, where that risk ought in justice to be split equally.

The way it is now, there's no more incentive to keep legal representation affordable to the average person (and therefore have real de facto access to the courts to the average person, rather than pricing people out of justice) than there is to keep health care costs low. It's the same principle - no cost-shifting.

So what you're recommending is that if you sue someone, the person you sue gets to tax costs to the extent of your own expenses to the entity who brings the suit?

You realize this makes many lawsuits worthless even if you're in the right, yes? Or are you arguing that in the case of a relatively low-dollar suit the plaintiff should have the right to file pro-per, and in doing so deny having to pay the other side's expenses of defense?

Well, presently it's pointless to defend a suit if you can settle for less than the cost of a lawyer, even if you're in the right, which leads to an excess of litigation.

I'd be amenable to another solution that achieved in a fair manner the goal of making justice accessible to anyone - plaintiff or defendant - without being priced out of the system. If I can afford an expensive lawyer and know you can't, the justice system is a weapon I can use with virtual impunity against you, and you can't do a thing about it - right or wrong.

Again - bitching without a proposed solution is of no value. The iggy button itches.....

Note that the lack of something in the platform does not mean it lacks importance, just that it's not in the platform and doesn't form the basis (either for or against) in this go-around with the election cycle.

Genersis re: "equality under the law" wrote..

. . . it is difficult to get right. Thoughts on language?

Holy crap, it really is problematic. How about the following:

Quote:

A fundamental premise of a constitutional republic is that of full equality of all persons before the law. No person, by virtue of wealth, societal position, or government employment shall enjoy any favors or courtesies under, or privileges, exceptions, or immunity from, any law, statute, regulation, or legal procedure that applies to citizens in general. All existing laws, statutes, regulations, and legal procedures which conflict with this principle of equality under the law shall be rewritten to conform with this principle or they must be declared null and void.

Only in very narrowly construed and unequivocal and immediate exigent circumstances required for public safety may exceptions be considered for emergency personnel only.

I'm comfortable with the first paragraph, but not the second. That was only added to prevent, for example, a fireman from being prosecuted for using a fire axe to smash in a door to a burning building that was private property.

Now you see the problem