4 ms·

> They'll say things without knowing that the words they're using are a term of art with a different meaning in the law than it has the way they're using And t

> They'll say things without knowing that the words they're using are a term of art with a different meaning in the law than it has the way they're using And this is what we need to change. We need a presumption that when a non-lawyer says “we should form a cartel with our competitors” that they aren’t implying anything illegal, even though cartels are illegal.

pixl97 3y ago
This is what the purpose of a trial is, hence the evidence gathering, and rebuttal in court. The best evidence against you is no evidence. Lets jump from civil to criminal law, where you do have the presumption of innocence. Let's say you send a message that says "I'm going to kill Jon with kindness" to someone else on your team . Then the next day Jon ends up violently murdered. Even though the content of your message is one that does not condone any particular violent act, you should 100% expect to be a target of the investigation. This is reasonable. In civil trials where it's not beyond a reasonable doubt, but a preponderance of evidence, these little things could tip the balance out of your favor.
- nullc 3y ago
  The issue is that sure you can fight that out in court-- at great cost and expense and risk of being unsuccessful for reasons of pure chance. Or you could just not retain the record and instantly avoid what is potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in cost for review and argument and millions of dollars of "loss in the expectation". A 1% chance of failing the win in your argument and taking a $100m loss as a result is a million dollar loss in the expectation, and even a darn good legal position will still often have a more than 1% chance of being lost. > these little things could tip the balance out of your favor. Yes, and out of the direction of justice... and certainly at a disproportional cost.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    I'm not sure you fully read what I wrote.... >The best evidence against you is no evidence. Hence, you were agreeing with what I said.
    - nullc 3y ago
      I did initially misread you but thought I had phrased my comment before saving it as a "yes, and!". It appears I failed!
salawat 3y ago
...Except the core problem is we've let legal language elevate itself in such a way as to become doublespeak. If you saying ”we should form a cartel with our competitors" somehow magically maps to a different sense than the form that'd be illegal, you've turned it into nonsense. Not to mention that I could say "Boop bop bleep zorp skippidy do da", and if every time I do, me and the chums go off and form a cartel; then it doesn't matter the words I'm using to describe it, it matters what I'm doing. If you can't put it in writing for fear of eDiscovery; you probably shouldn't be doing it.

pixl97 3y ago

This is what the purpose of a trial is, hence the evidence gathering, and rebuttal in court. The best evidence against you is no evidence. Lets jump from civil to criminal law, where you do have the presumption of innocence. Let's say you send a message that says "I'm going to kill Jon with kindness" to someone else on your team . Then the next day Jon ends up violently murdered. Even though the content of your message is one that does not condone any particular violent act, you should 100% expect to be a target of the investigation. This is reasonable. In civil trials where it's not beyond a reasonable doubt, but a preponderance of evidence, these little things could tip the balance out of your favor.

nullc 3y ago
The issue is that sure you can fight that out in court-- at great cost and expense and risk of being unsuccessful for reasons of pure chance. Or you could just not retain the record and instantly avoid what is potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in cost for review and argument and millions of dollars of "loss in the expectation". A 1% chance of failing the win in your argument and taking a $100m loss as a result is a million dollar loss in the expectation, and even a darn good legal position will still often have a more than 1% chance of being lost. > these little things could tip the balance out of your favor. Yes, and out of the direction of justice... and certainly at a disproportional cost.
- pixl97 3y ago
  I'm not sure you fully read what I wrote.... >The best evidence against you is no evidence. Hence, you were agreeing with what I said.
  - nullc 3y ago
    I did initially misread you but thought I had phrased my comment before saving it as a "yes, and!". It appears I failed!

salawat 3y ago

...Except the core problem is we've let legal language elevate itself in such a way as to become doublespeak. If you saying ”we should form a cartel with our competitors" somehow magically maps to a different sense than the form that'd be illegal, you've turned it into nonsense. Not to mention that I could say "Boop bop bleep zorp skippidy do da", and if every time I do, me and the chums go off and form a cartel; then it doesn't matter the words I'm using to describe it, it matters what I'm doing. If you can't put it in writing for fear of eDiscovery; you probably shouldn't be doing it.