4 ms·

Is there a societal benefit to US approach to lawsuits where anyone can sue anyone for anything? Is it something like MAD?

0xcde4c3db 3y ago
My understanding as a non-lawyer is that one can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything, but for it to actually go anywhere instead of being quickly dismissed, it needs to be within the court's jurisdiction and it needs to "state a claim", i.e. allege a violation for which the court could apply some relevant remedy.
trompetenaccoun 3y ago
Maybe one could use this analogy, but those with the WMDs are the rich, the right owners that can hire an army of lawyers. So it's legal warfare against regular people. Also unlike MAD large corporations do regularly engage in fierce IP battles. Like Apple vs Samsung. I do see the pro arguments, but overall I find it doubtful if if it's a net positive for humanity to have strict IP laws at all. The American approach is the world's approach as far as rule-of-law countries go btw.
qingcharles 3y ago
As someone who has moved from a non-litigious society to the USA I used to see it as insane. Then my rights were violated again, and again, and again, so I spent a decade getting legal smart and fighting back. Again and again I have forced government agencies into policy adjustments to stop their rights violations, and I am still in litigation now. The USA does make it very easy to sue someone, and when that someone is the government you can force practical changes that can affect a large number of people with your litigation. It might not get you any monetary benefit (it certainly hasn't for me), but that might also be a bonus.
- halfcat 3y ago
  How does one get “legal smart”? Or do you mean you become a lawyer?
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    Read. A lot. Go to court a lot. Sue a lot without a lawyer. I would love to be legally able to practice law because then I could represent other people who can't afford a lawyer, as it is I can only sue for myself without a lawyer. The issue is that people think you only need to pass the bar exam, which I'm pretty certain I could do tomorrow if I brushed up on real estate, trusts, wills etc (my suits are all civil rights, torts, criminal defense). BUT, only four states allow you to take the bar exam without a law degree. And those four states still need apprenticeships. Which makes it really hard to become a "real" lawyer these days.

0xcde4c3db 3y ago

My understanding as a non-lawyer is that one can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything, but for it to actually go anywhere instead of being quickly dismissed, it needs to be within the court's jurisdiction and it needs to "state a claim", i.e. allege a violation for which the court could apply some relevant remedy.

trompetenaccoun 3y ago

Maybe one could use this analogy, but those with the WMDs are the rich, the right owners that can hire an army of lawyers. So it's legal warfare against regular people. Also unlike MAD large corporations do regularly engage in fierce IP battles. Like Apple vs Samsung. I do see the pro arguments, but overall I find it doubtful if if it's a net positive for humanity to have strict IP laws at all. The American approach is the world's approach as far as rule-of-law countries go btw.

qingcharles 3y ago

As someone who has moved from a non-litigious society to the USA I used to see it as insane. Then my rights were violated again, and again, and again, so I spent a decade getting legal smart and fighting back. Again and again I have forced government agencies into policy adjustments to stop their rights violations, and I am still in litigation now. The USA does make it very easy to sue someone, and when that someone is the government you can force practical changes that can affect a large number of people with your litigation. It might not get you any monetary benefit (it certainly hasn't for me), but that might also be a bonus.

halfcat 3y ago
How does one get “legal smart”? Or do you mean you become a lawyer?
- qingcharles 3y ago
  Read. A lot. Go to court a lot. Sue a lot without a lawyer. I would love to be legally able to practice law because then I could represent other people who can't afford a lawyer, as it is I can only sue for myself without a lawyer. The issue is that people think you only need to pass the bar exam, which I'm pretty certain I could do tomorrow if I brushed up on real estate, trusts, wills etc (my suits are all civil rights, torts, criminal defense). BUT, only four states allow you to take the bar exam without a law degree. And those four states still need apprenticeships. Which makes it really hard to become a "real" lawyer these days.