3 ms·

Precisely. The legal system has certain informal but crucial checks and balances in it. One of them is that the cost and uncertainty of litigation make it in ev

by CPLX 10y ago

Precisely. The legal system has certain informal but crucial checks and balances in it. One of them is that the cost and uncertainty of litigation make it in everyone's interest to settle, and in addition insurance creates incentives to settle. A third party purposely removing those incentives distorts the process. Also to this general point, another check and balance for civil litigation are the reputational and discovery risks. With very few exceptions we require proceedings to be public, meaning that a plaintiff has to be willing to publically stand behind his action, and we allow defendants to have very broad discovery rights, to inspect the books and communications of a plaintiff. Both of these are disincentives to filing a revenge based lawsuit -- as opposed to an action primarily to recover monetary damages -- and these were perverted as well by having a hidden third party who managed to evade that scrutiny during the proceeding. There is a reason why vendetta based litigation is not all that common, and formal and informal checks and balances are a big part of it. As an aside, if I were in Peter Thiel's camp right now I would hope to God he's all paid up with his taxes, doesn't have any angry lovers or ex-employees out there, and isn't engaged in any unethical or embarrassing activities, given that he now almost certainly has a lot of investigative journalism firepower pointed at him.

csallen 10y ago
You're advocating a flawed legal system. You're basically saying: The legal system can be abused by any rich person with a vendetta, therefore shame on Thiel for abusing it. However, it's not feasible (or desirable) to put an end to rich people or vendettas. Thus, isn't the best option here to fix the legal system itself?
- CPLX 10y ago
  There is no system on this planet that cannot be at least somewhat abused by a person with a billion dollars in resources and no ethical constraints.
  - csallen 10y ago
    I agree. You're totally right. But does the fact that we're not perfect mean that we shouldn't strive to be? Is there any evidence that our court system doesn't have room for improvement? What worries me is that when people see a case like this, they take it for granted that our court system is abusable and denigrate the abuser. But any system that incentives abuse is itself a corrupt and flawed system that will give rise to more abusers. Imagine, for example, a country with no laws against murder.
cookiecaper 10y ago
I agree that weaponization of the courts as a tool for bullying, carrying out vendettas, and/or shutting down innovation from small companies is a huge problem (Donald Trump's penchant for this is one of the reasons I have a hard time closing the gap on supporting him). I think a good way to keep this system fairly stable but approximately prevent its weaponization is to require that each side has equivalently-priced representation. The Court should require the wealthier party to disclose their legal costs and pay 1x that much money into a trust managed by the Court, which would then be forwarded to the other party's attorneys. This way, both sides are evenly matched and it's a fair fight; if Thiel wants to pump $10m into the other party's legal offense fund, that's fine, but he'll have to pump an equivalent amount into the legal defense fund.
- true_religion 10y ago
  This will lead to people using shell corporations so not only will you have to use an entity without assets but also have to pay for its defense.
internaut 10y ago
> The legal system has certain informal but crucial checks and balances in it. One of them is that the cost and uncertainty of litigation make it in everyone's interest to settle, and in addition insurance creates incentives to settle. A third party purposely removing those incentives distorts the process. Seems like distortion in the same way paying a friend's bail is corruption. Not at all! > Both of these are disincentives to filing a revenge based lawsuit -- as opposed to an action primarily to recover monetary damages -- and these were perverted as well by having a hidden third party who managed to evade that scrutiny during the proceeding. It is honestly news to me that the purpose of lawsuits is not to be revenge based but to be based on recovering the highest amount of monetary damages. Can you explain in more detail why you believe this to be so? You're aware that some people view settlements to be a form of corruption? i.e. Big Guy pays off little guy, continues to screw little guys using the superpower of inordinate amounts of money. It is a complaint I've heard many times before. > As an aside, if I were in Peter Thiel's camp right now I would hope to God he's all paid up with his taxes, doesn't have any angry lovers or ex-employees out there, and isn't engaged in any unethical or embarrassing activities, given that he now almost certainly has a lot of investigative journalism firepower pointed at him. Amen, I've been saying the same thing. I'd be advising Thiel to carry full body hidden camera/audio recording devices in future, as well as examining all my personal and financial affairs with a fine toothcomb before the enemy gets to them. It should not have to be this way, but you know, it is.

by CPLX 10y ago

csallen 10y ago

You're advocating a flawed legal system. You're basically saying: The legal system can be abused by any rich person with a vendetta, therefore shame on Thiel for abusing it. However, it's not feasible (or desirable) to put an end to rich people or vendettas. Thus, isn't the best option here to fix the legal system itself?

CPLX 10y ago
There is no system on this planet that cannot be at least somewhat abused by a person with a billion dollars in resources and no ethical constraints.
- csallen 10y ago
  I agree. You're totally right. But does the fact that we're not perfect mean that we shouldn't strive to be? Is there any evidence that our court system doesn't have room for improvement? What worries me is that when people see a case like this, they take it for granted that our court system is abusable and denigrate the abuser. But any system that incentives abuse is itself a corrupt and flawed system that will give rise to more abusers. Imagine, for example, a country with no laws against murder.

cookiecaper 10y ago

I agree that weaponization of the courts as a tool for bullying, carrying out vendettas, and/or shutting down innovation from small companies is a huge problem (Donald Trump's penchant for this is one of the reasons I have a hard time closing the gap on supporting him). I think a good way to keep this system fairly stable but approximately prevent its weaponization is to require that each side has equivalently-priced representation. The Court should require the wealthier party to disclose their legal costs and pay 1x that much money into a trust managed by the Court, which would then be forwarded to the other party's attorneys. This way, both sides are evenly matched and it's a fair fight; if Thiel wants to pump $10m into the other party's legal offense fund, that's fine, but he'll have to pump an equivalent amount into the legal defense fund.

true_religion 10y ago
This will lead to people using shell corporations so not only will you have to use an entity without assets but also have to pay for its defense.

internaut 10y ago

> The legal system has certain informal but crucial checks and balances in it. One of them is that the cost and uncertainty of litigation make it in everyone's interest to settle, and in addition insurance creates incentives to settle. A third party purposely removing those incentives distorts the process. Seems like distortion in the same way paying a friend's bail is corruption. Not at all! > Both of these are disincentives to filing a revenge based lawsuit -- as opposed to an action primarily to recover monetary damages -- and these were perverted as well by having a hidden third party who managed to evade that scrutiny during the proceeding. It is honestly news to me that the purpose of lawsuits is not to be revenge based but to be based on recovering the highest amount of monetary damages. Can you explain in more detail why you believe this to be so? You're aware that some people view settlements to be a form of corruption? i.e. Big Guy pays off little guy, continues to screw little guys using the superpower of inordinate amounts of money. It is a complaint I've heard many times before. > As an aside, if I were in Peter Thiel's camp right now I would hope to God he's all paid up with his taxes, doesn't have any angry lovers or ex-employees out there, and isn't engaged in any unethical or embarrassing activities, given that he now almost certainly has a lot of investigative journalism firepower pointed at him. Amen, I've been saying the same thing. I'd be advising Thiel to carry full body hidden camera/audio recording devices in future, as well as examining all my personal and financial affairs with a fine toothcomb before the enemy gets to them. It should not have to be this way, but you know, it is.