4 ms·

> Google asserted that its check, which it said covered its alleged overcharges for online ads, allows it to sidestep a jury trial whether or not the government

by Havoc 2y ago

> Google asserted that its check, which it said covered its alleged overcharges for online ads, allows it to sidestep a jury trial whether or not the government takes it. wtf. Since when does cutting a cheque allow you to directly dictate how legal process works? Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the judge and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit is 10 mph higher and then we hold the trial under those conditions. Gotta admire the balls on the google lawyers though.

lesuorac 2y ago
> Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the judge and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit is 10 mph higher and then we hold the trial under those conditions. Uh isn't that how it works? You plead no contest and pay a fine and don't even have to see the judge?
- pkaye 2y ago
  I think a defendant can ask for a judge to decide instead of a jury.
jjmarr 2y ago
To use the speeding ticket analogy, this is the equivalent of just paying the fine. The government can't sue you over an unpaid speeding ticket if you pay the ticket. The reason why this might work is the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a jury in federal lawsuits so long as the amount disputed is over $20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_Unite... > In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved If Google says "yep, we're not disputing that we owe the federal govt $1 million, here's a cheque for that amount", their argument is that the "value in controversy" is now $0. Since $0 is less than $20, that clause doesn't apply. I'd like to hear what an actual lawyer has to say on the odds this'll work, though.
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  The $20+ rule is about guaranteeing a jury trial. If one of the parties and the judge go for it it can still happen right?
  - foolswisdom 2y ago
    No, it's about a party's right to demand a jury trial.
- userbinator 2y ago
  I wondered about that $20 amount, and sure enough, from that page: The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six members for a jury in a civil trial. The amendment's twenty-dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly or judicial writing and still remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the late 18th century ($20 in 1800 is equivalent to $359 in 2023
- sundvor 2y ago
  This would be just if it was a Finnish speeding ticket fine.
- Havoc 2y ago
  > To use the speeding ticket analogy, this is the equivalent of just paying the fine. It’s just not. You don’t get to set your own damages amount in advance of a trial and you certainly don’t get dictate random conditions on modifying legal process to government when you do.

by Havoc 2y ago

lesuorac 2y ago

> Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the judge and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit is 10 mph higher and then we hold the trial under those conditions. Uh isn't that how it works? You plead no contest and pay a fine and don't even have to see the judge?

pkaye 2y ago
I think a defendant can ask for a judge to decide instead of a jury.

jjmarr 2y ago

To use the speeding ticket analogy, this is the equivalent of just paying the fine. The government can't sue you over an unpaid speeding ticket if you pay the ticket. The reason why this might work is the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a jury in federal lawsuits so long as the amount disputed is over $20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_Unite... > In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved If Google says "yep, we're not disputing that we owe the federal govt $1 million, here's a cheque for that amount", their argument is that the "value in controversy" is now $0. Since $0 is less than $20, that clause doesn't apply. I'd like to hear what an actual lawyer has to say on the odds this'll work, though.

EMIRELADERO 2y ago
The $20+ rule is about guaranteeing a jury trial. If one of the parties and the judge go for it it can still happen right?
- foolswisdom 2y ago
  No, it's about a party's right to demand a jury trial.
userbinator 2y ago
I wondered about that $20 amount, and sure enough, from that page: The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six members for a jury in a civil trial. The amendment's twenty-dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly or judicial writing and still remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the late 18th century ($20 in 1800 is equivalent to $359 in 2023
sundvor 2y ago
This would be just if it was a Finnish speeding ticket fine.
Havoc 2y ago
> To use the speeding ticket analogy, this is the equivalent of just paying the fine. It’s just not. You don’t get to set your own damages amount in advance of a trial and you certainly don’t get dictate random conditions on modifying legal process to government when you do.