4 ms·

> but this began with gang affiliation lists Civil courts have been able to exercise significant control of your life, including extended imprisonment without

> but this began with gang affiliation lists Civil courts have been able to exercise significant control of your life, including extended imprisonment without due process, for longer than these lists have been in effect. Frankly Americans have a lot fewer rights than they think they have, including the non-right of due process for being on a government list. Edit: To pre-empt some comments I know are coming, civil courts do not require due process in the way you probably think of due process: a civil court can act against you without giving you representation, without allowing you to have representation, without you present, in secret from the public, and even without notifying you EDIT2: While I'm soapboxing I'll note the power the civil court has over you isn't much different than the power three-letter agencies have over you (since they are usually given very broad mandates), it's just that civil courts have been around so much longer it's a good retort to people thinking they used to have rights. Whatever three-letters can't do to you is generally picked up by similar state agencies.

vmception 5y ago
I've never had a good experience "pre-empting" comments that will inevitably be used to derail your thread. In any case, I was mostly thinking that it has to be a form of privilege to feel like a particular slippery slope hasn't happened yet. I think about how the word "privilege" is used, and its more like "exemption from some inconveniences that aren't obvious". Your post about people not noticing that civil courts and agencies have these power over assumed rights is a decent example of that.
owl_troupe 5y ago
> a civil court can act against you without giving you representation, without allowing you to have representation, without you present, in secret from the public, and even without notifying you While there is no right to be afforded free legal representation in civil court in most US jurisdictions (some do) and a civil court can render rulings and judgments against parties who are not represented by counsel, a civil court cannot prohibit a party from having legal representation, which is what your comment seems to suggest. A civil court can render a ruling against a party if the party is not present, but it will typically go to great lengths to ensure that notice is given to parties before doing so (pleadings served to last address by process server, notice published, etc.). There are typically strict requirements that have to be met before civil court can render a ruling or judgment without a party present, especially where there is no indication that the party has received notice first. A lot of anecdotes about drastic judgments and rulings being handed down by civil courts happen when parties ignore notice of the proceedings. There are a lot of rules for handling cases in civil court and they are grounded in the constitutional right to due process. Notice and due process are taken really seriously in most US jurisdictions. Federal Courts are especially strict about following the rules. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp
- tinalumfoil 5y ago
  > a civil court cannot prohibit a party from having legal representation, which is what your comment seems to suggest. > https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp This is a good point for federal cases, but I meant my comment to cover civil action in state courts too. These are the courts that are most likely to affect someone's life. For instance in California small claims courts you are not allowed to be represented.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    That’s by design to make justice more accessible. IIRC, you can petition the judge to adjourn the case and move it to normal court. Also, I believe in small claims as a defendant you can appoint an attorney to represent you. I sued a tow operator in small claims court and the dude who showed up was definitely an attorney.
    - derefr 5y ago
      > I sued a tow operator in small claims court and the dude who showed up was definitely an attorney. That might be because you were suing a company, though. How would a company "represent itself"? Get the board of directors in?
      - true_religion 5y ago
        Lots of times they just send an executive. See the Uber civil cases.
      - owl_troupe 5y ago
        Correct -- In many jurisdictions, corporations cannot proceed pro se. They must retain counsel. As far as a company speaking for itself, a corporate representative is often designated to speak for and bind the company in any civil action. See, e.g., Federal Rule 30(b)(6): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_30 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_30
  - 5y ago
giantg2 5y ago
"Frankly Americans have a lot fewer rights than they think they have" Very true
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
  Classic George Carlin - "You have no rights!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4

vmception 5y ago

I've never had a good experience "pre-empting" comments that will inevitably be used to derail your thread. In any case, I was mostly thinking that it has to be a form of privilege to feel like a particular slippery slope hasn't happened yet. I think about how the word "privilege" is used, and its more like "exemption from some inconveniences that aren't obvious". Your post about people not noticing that civil courts and agencies have these power over assumed rights is a decent example of that.

owl_troupe 5y ago

> a civil court can act against you without giving you representation, without allowing you to have representation, without you present, in secret from the public, and even without notifying you While there is no right to be afforded free legal representation in civil court in most US jurisdictions (some do) and a civil court can render rulings and judgments against parties who are not represented by counsel, a civil court cannot prohibit a party from having legal representation, which is what your comment seems to suggest. A civil court can render a ruling against a party if the party is not present, but it will typically go to great lengths to ensure that notice is given to parties before doing so (pleadings served to last address by process server, notice published, etc.). There are typically strict requirements that have to be met before civil court can render a ruling or judgment without a party present, especially where there is no indication that the party has received notice first. A lot of anecdotes about drastic judgments and rulings being handed down by civil courts happen when parties ignore notice of the proceedings. There are a lot of rules for handling cases in civil court and they are grounded in the constitutional right to due process. Notice and due process are taken really seriously in most US jurisdictions. Federal Courts are especially strict about following the rules. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp

tinalumfoil 5y ago
> a civil court cannot prohibit a party from having legal representation, which is what your comment seems to suggest. > https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp This is a good point for federal cases, but I meant my comment to cover civil action in state courts too. These are the courts that are most likely to affect someone's life. For instance in California small claims courts you are not allowed to be represented.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  That’s by design to make justice more accessible. IIRC, you can petition the judge to adjourn the case and move it to normal court. Also, I believe in small claims as a defendant you can appoint an attorney to represent you. I sued a tow operator in small claims court and the dude who showed up was definitely an attorney.
  - derefr 5y ago
    > I sued a tow operator in small claims court and the dude who showed up was definitely an attorney. That might be because you were suing a company, though. How would a company "represent itself"? Get the board of directors in?
    - true_religion 5y ago
      Lots of times they just send an executive. See the Uber civil cases.
    - owl_troupe 5y ago
      Correct -- In many jurisdictions, corporations cannot proceed pro se. They must retain counsel. As far as a company speaking for itself, a corporate representative is often designated to speak for and bind the company in any civil action. See, e.g., Federal Rule 30(b)(6): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_30 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_30
- 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

"Frankly Americans have a lot fewer rights than they think they have" Very true

CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
Classic George Carlin - "You have no rights!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4