2 ms·

The idea that you can outspend someone on lawyers and beat them in court is nonsense that only works on the scale of <$1 million. And, yes, of course the gover

The idea that you can outspend someone on lawyers and beat them in court is nonsense that only works on the scale of <$1 million. And, yes, of course the government can make banks crack down on people who are breaking the law, but I'm talking about people who aren't.

HWR_14 4y ago
Money is an excellent proxy for legal muscle. the argument was that bigger banks are more susceptible to informal extra legal influence, but expensive lawyers make enforcing your rights easier to do. See also SEC enforcements and IRS actions, both of which are harsher on smaller actors. Heck, look at the Disney vs DeSantis history.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  The only way you can beat someone in a lawsuit with money alone (jurisdictions where you can bribe judges excepted), is by preventing the case from ever getting in front of a judge. It costs a certain amount of money to take a case to trial, and that can be a lot depending on the complexity of the case. But that's a lot to an individual, not to a corporation. Once you can spend that much, you actually have to go in front of a judge and win on merit. The reason that IRS and SEC enforcement actions are harsher on small actors is because they break the law in much more obvious and stupid ways. e.g. not declaring taxable income and writing off obviously personal expenses. Large companies do not do this because the IRS splits penalties with whistleblowers, and any major company hiding income this way would be snitched out in a millisecond by their employees looking for the multi million dollar payout. Large companies do things that exploit loopholes and gray areas in the law, and the IRS is much more inclined to settle when their is a chance they may lose in court if they take it all the way.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    There are other ways of using money to beat someone instead of delaying the trial. For instance, by making the cost of participating in the trial more than the cost of capitulating. See, for example, SLAPP suits. But my point, which I keep making and you keep missing is that the incredible legal muscle of big banks means they don't have to worry about giving in on gray areas because they can effectively fight back. Whereas smaller companies will find it a lot simpler to give in to government pressure on the edge cases.

HWR_14 4y ago

Money is an excellent proxy for legal muscle. the argument was that bigger banks are more susceptible to informal extra legal influence, but expensive lawyers make enforcing your rights easier to do. See also SEC enforcements and IRS actions, both of which are harsher on smaller actors. Heck, look at the Disney vs DeSantis history.

fallingknife 4y ago
The only way you can beat someone in a lawsuit with money alone (jurisdictions where you can bribe judges excepted), is by preventing the case from ever getting in front of a judge. It costs a certain amount of money to take a case to trial, and that can be a lot depending on the complexity of the case. But that's a lot to an individual, not to a corporation. Once you can spend that much, you actually have to go in front of a judge and win on merit. The reason that IRS and SEC enforcement actions are harsher on small actors is because they break the law in much more obvious and stupid ways. e.g. not declaring taxable income and writing off obviously personal expenses. Large companies do not do this because the IRS splits penalties with whistleblowers, and any major company hiding income this way would be snitched out in a millisecond by their employees looking for the multi million dollar payout. Large companies do things that exploit loopholes and gray areas in the law, and the IRS is much more inclined to settle when their is a chance they may lose in court if they take it all the way.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  There are other ways of using money to beat someone instead of delaying the trial. For instance, by making the cost of participating in the trial more than the cost of capitulating. See, for example, SLAPP suits. But my point, which I keep making and you keep missing is that the incredible legal muscle of big banks means they don't have to worry about giving in on gray areas because they can effectively fight back. Whereas smaller companies will find it a lot simpler to give in to government pressure on the edge cases.