5 ms·

Resisting unjust legal action (initiated either by officer or judge) can happen any number of ways, including telling the court to stuff it. Plea deals are the

Resisting unjust legal action (initiated either by officer or judge) can happen any number of ways, including telling the court to stuff it. Plea deals are the overwhelming number of convictions in the US, something like 90%. Most people do not have access to legal recourse and trusting any US court to operate sanely is a bad idea. Best to avoid it if you can.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> Most people do not have access to legal recourse This is a red herring. Telegram have access to lawyers.
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  It's not. They have access to lawyers, but can they outspend the SEC or any other agency that wishes to participate? One of the best predictors of whether a lawsuit succeeds is money spent.
  - nl 7y ago
    Another good predictor of lawsuit success is what the law says, and in this case it's pretty clear Telegram is in the wrong.
    - snagglegaggle 7y ago
      Ehh, no; and frankly, it's like you've not even read my comments at all. If you have please speak to some specific argument they bring up. Otherwise, repeating the opposing argument serves no point. It's almost always about money. On the defensive side, there are enough ways to stall that you can almost always outspend someone to win. On the offensive side, you can spend more time investigating and almost assuredly turn something indictable up. Have you really never heard of this?
      - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > It's almost always about money As someone who as gone through a fair deal of litigation and arbitration, this is wrong (or at the very least, inapplicable). It’s a common armchair lawyer’s myth. If your opponent has more than $100,000 the tables are fairly even; more than $1 million, totally even. There is a ceiling to court costs, and a finite amount of time before judges issue rulings. (Spending to try and get an outcome predictably pisses off judges.) Getting to a judge costs money; once you’re there, American courts are robust. At an individual level, these thresholds are prohibitive. At a corporate level, they’re not. Exhibit A for you should be the SEC’s win-loss record, even against individuals. (It’s mixed.)
        ggreer 7y ago
        Do you think there are any viable financial instruments that would allow the little guy to not be bossed around by the threat of ruinous legal fees? eg: Insurance that would cover up to $100,000 in legal fees in the event that you are sued. (If everyone were required to have such insurance, it would be quite cheap.) Another option could be to allow the defendant to "double the stakes" and say, "If I lose, I will pay 2x the amount you are asking for. If I win, you must pay the amount you are asking for... to me." That would allow innocent-but-nonrich people to secure loans for legal fees. Heck, some firms might even "invest" in the defendant by charging a percentage of the winnings (if they are judged not guilty).
        spiralx 7y ago
        Surely class actions cover this sort of thing? And I know court costs work differently in the US and UK, but there are plenty of "no-win, no-fee" legal firms over here - affectionately known as "ambulance chasers" lol.
        jki275 7y ago
        class actions exist solely to enrich lawyers. They generally do little to nothing for the people who are the parties to them.
    - jki275 7y ago
      That's an essentially totally misinformed view of the law -- especially civil law -- in the US. It's all about how much money you can spend on lawyers and experts, not whether you're right or not. Hell, the government doesn't even know what the laws they write say, and they rarely agree on what they mean.
      - nl 7y ago
        This just isn't true. Yes, if you have zero dollars it's bad news for you. But if you have enough money to have decent lawyers then things even out, even if the other person has much more money than you. Then what the law says is a big deal! See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21245365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21245365
        jki275 7y ago
        Most people don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on lawyers. My comment stands in the general case as a result.
        nl 7y ago
        Telegram does though.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> Most people do not have access to legal recourse This is a red herring. Telegram have access to lawyers.

snagglegaggle 7y ago
It's not. They have access to lawyers, but can they outspend the SEC or any other agency that wishes to participate? One of the best predictors of whether a lawsuit succeeds is money spent.
- nl 7y ago
  Another good predictor of lawsuit success is what the law says, and in this case it's pretty clear Telegram is in the wrong.
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    Ehh, no; and frankly, it's like you've not even read my comments at all. If you have please speak to some specific argument they bring up. Otherwise, repeating the opposing argument serves no point. It's almost always about money. On the defensive side, there are enough ways to stall that you can almost always outspend someone to win. On the offensive side, you can spend more time investigating and almost assuredly turn something indictable up. Have you really never heard of this?
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > It's almost always about money As someone who as gone through a fair deal of litigation and arbitration, this is wrong (or at the very least, inapplicable). It’s a common armchair lawyer’s myth. If your opponent has more than $100,000 the tables are fairly even; more than $1 million, totally even. There is a ceiling to court costs, and a finite amount of time before judges issue rulings. (Spending to try and get an outcome predictably pisses off judges.) Getting to a judge costs money; once you’re there, American courts are robust. At an individual level, these thresholds are prohibitive. At a corporate level, they’re not. Exhibit A for you should be the SEC’s win-loss record, even against individuals. (It’s mixed.)
      - ggreer 7y ago
        Do you think there are any viable financial instruments that would allow the little guy to not be bossed around by the threat of ruinous legal fees? eg: Insurance that would cover up to $100,000 in legal fees in the event that you are sued. (If everyone were required to have such insurance, it would be quite cheap.) Another option could be to allow the defendant to "double the stakes" and say, "If I lose, I will pay 2x the amount you are asking for. If I win, you must pay the amount you are asking for... to me." That would allow innocent-but-nonrich people to secure loans for legal fees. Heck, some firms might even "invest" in the defendant by charging a percentage of the winnings (if they are judged not guilty).
        spiralx 7y ago
        Surely class actions cover this sort of thing? And I know court costs work differently in the US and UK, but there are plenty of "no-win, no-fee" legal firms over here - affectionately known as "ambulance chasers" lol.
        jki275 7y ago
        class actions exist solely to enrich lawyers. They generally do little to nothing for the people who are the parties to them.
  - jki275 7y ago
    That's an essentially totally misinformed view of the law -- especially civil law -- in the US. It's all about how much money you can spend on lawyers and experts, not whether you're right or not. Hell, the government doesn't even know what the laws they write say, and they rarely agree on what they mean.
    - nl 7y ago
      This just isn't true. Yes, if you have zero dollars it's bad news for you. But if you have enough money to have decent lawyers then things even out, even if the other person has much more money than you. Then what the law says is a big deal! See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21245365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21245365
      - jki275 7y ago
        Most people don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on lawyers. My comment stands in the general case as a result.
        nl 7y ago
        Telegram does though.