3 ms·

The ability to sell portions of your right to justice is both an important freedom and a check on the ability of those with power to trample on those without. I

The ability to sell portions of your right to justice is both an important freedom and a check on the ability of those with power to trample on those without. It is interesting that so many people who claim to champion the rights of the powerless are vigorously opposed to the concept.

John23832 10y ago
> The ability to sell portions of your right to justice is both an important freedom and a check on the ability of those with power to trample on those without. How? If everyone has equal access to justice and the justice system, there is no need to "sell portions of your right to justice".
- toss1 10y ago
  Yes, in a perfect world, everyone would have <equal access to justice and the justice system>. But it does not work like that. Not even close. Money equals access. Sure, technically, you can plead your own case, but it will require you to give up literally everything else in your life and you'll probably lose against the professionals (how well would you do against the professionals in your favorite sport if you dedicated the next 10 months of your life to it -- remember, they've been doing it for decades and make a living at it?). The fact is that you need serious funds to prosecute or even defend a case bigger than small claims court. I'm in such a case right now and need funding (which is how I got to this article); tho I won't post the details, the requirements will run well into six figures just to pursue what I already had in a written contract. Do you have that kind of pocket change lying around? I don't, and I don't think most of the rest of us do either. While I had a vague idea before, it has now become blindingly obvious that money is required for access to proper justice. While I have much better access than many people, it is also obvious that I also have much less access than others. So, yes, IFF everyone has equal access, there's no need. But we don't, so there is a real need.
  - John23832 10y ago
    I agree that money equates to access in the real world. I agree that a common tactic is "spend baby, spend". But I still fail to see how "selling your access to justice", equates to having a bankroll or how it is fundamental. That was all I was asking, how? In the Peter Thiel case, Hogan didn't "sell" his access to justice, Peter was just bankrolling him because he both didn't like Gawker. Peter wasn't "selling" his access to justice, he used Hogan to accomplish a personal goal. So I ask again, how is "selling your access to justice" fundamental? Or even in your case, so that we have an example and I can understand, how would you, or anyone else, sell their access to justice in order to benefit you in that case? Imo you would need a bankroll, same as Hogan.
    - toss1 10y ago
      I guess I'm reading it as the plaintiff having to 'sell their access' to the system, as part of the potential proceeds, in order to get justice. If you don't have the requisite funds, you sell part of your potential proceeds (which become profits to the investor) in order to get access to the justice system. Or, in Hogan's case, sold his case (access to the justice system) to Theil so they could both achieve their goals. (so maybe, it's just a less-clear phrase than it should be?)

John23832 10y ago

> The ability to sell portions of your right to justice is both an important freedom and a check on the ability of those with power to trample on those without. How? If everyone has equal access to justice and the justice system, there is no need to "sell portions of your right to justice".

toss1 10y ago
Yes, in a perfect world, everyone would have <equal access to justice and the justice system>. But it does not work like that. Not even close. Money equals access. Sure, technically, you can plead your own case, but it will require you to give up literally everything else in your life and you'll probably lose against the professionals (how well would you do against the professionals in your favorite sport if you dedicated the next 10 months of your life to it -- remember, they've been doing it for decades and make a living at it?). The fact is that you need serious funds to prosecute or even defend a case bigger than small claims court. I'm in such a case right now and need funding (which is how I got to this article); tho I won't post the details, the requirements will run well into six figures just to pursue what I already had in a written contract. Do you have that kind of pocket change lying around? I don't, and I don't think most of the rest of us do either. While I had a vague idea before, it has now become blindingly obvious that money is required for access to proper justice. While I have much better access than many people, it is also obvious that I also have much less access than others. So, yes, IFF everyone has equal access, there's no need. But we don't, so there is a real need.
- John23832 10y ago
  I agree that money equates to access in the real world. I agree that a common tactic is "spend baby, spend". But I still fail to see how "selling your access to justice", equates to having a bankroll or how it is fundamental. That was all I was asking, how? In the Peter Thiel case, Hogan didn't "sell" his access to justice, Peter was just bankrolling him because he both didn't like Gawker. Peter wasn't "selling" his access to justice, he used Hogan to accomplish a personal goal. So I ask again, how is "selling your access to justice" fundamental? Or even in your case, so that we have an example and I can understand, how would you, or anyone else, sell their access to justice in order to benefit you in that case? Imo you would need a bankroll, same as Hogan.
  - toss1 10y ago
    I guess I'm reading it as the plaintiff having to 'sell their access' to the system, as part of the potential proceeds, in order to get justice. If you don't have the requisite funds, you sell part of your potential proceeds (which become profits to the investor) in order to get access to the justice system. Or, in Hogan's case, sold his case (access to the justice system) to Theil so they could both achieve their goals. (so maybe, it's just a less-clear phrase than it should be?)