3 ms·

Yeah, that's trivial. But law has so many edge cases and seemingly it always favor either powerful or wealthy individuals. Plus, poor people cannot afford the

Yeah, that's trivial. But law has so many edge cases and seemingly it always favor either powerful or wealthy individuals. Plus, poor people cannot afford the litigation costs...

fernmyth 2y ago
[Written laws] were just like spiders' webs; they would hold the weak and delicate... but would be torn to pieces by the rich and powerful - Plutarch
zdragnar 2y ago
> seemingly it always favor either powerful or wealthy individuals Reality is in favor of the powerful and wealthy. It's practically a tautological statement that powerful people are more powerful than those who are not. Poor people do have the option of seeking pro bono, contingency (lawyers paid from winnings or settlements), or other means, but they will still not have things like daycare / nanny for children, free time (still need to work to pay bills while trial is pending), prepared meals, staff to handle shopping / laundry / cleaning, or a billion other things that make the stress of going through the court system easier to bear. You could probably say goodbye to pro bono or contingency work if you also had to prove you have the money to pay legal fees before you could go to court.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > Reality is in favor of the powerful and wealthy. It's practically a tautological statement that powerful people are more powerful than those who are not. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." -- Anatole France
- wavewrangler 2y ago
  Might as well buy a lottery ticket hoping to win enough money to fund your own case rather than cling to the faint hope of finding a pro bono attorney or even one working on contingency. My bitter experience stems directly from my father’s death, caused by gross, willful negligence at the hands of those entrusted with his care. Despite a formal DHHS investigation, which unequivocally substantiated my claims, and over 300 hours of undeniable audio, video, and documented proof illustrating the horrifying ordeal he endured, no one stepped forward to help. Justice wasn’t served, not in this life, nor, it seems, in any other. It’s not that lawyers told me there wasn’t a case. Instead, they said it was “too complicated.” One attorney spent a week supposedly weighing my meticulously prepared case, only to dismiss it with a curt email: “Regrettably, we have too many other cases to manage additional workloads at this time.” After that, my emails went unanswered, my pleas seemingly silenced by convenience. Apparently, lawyers today prefer the ripest, lowest hanging fruit, the easy cases promising easy profits. In our society, drowning in incompetence, there’s no shortage of simpler, safer bets. Yet, you’d think there would still be at least a few brave souls seeking justice, not only easy money, who would choose righteousness over profit, integrity over convenience. But I learned the hard way that righteousness rarely outweighs the bottom line. I handed them an almost complete case, indexed, transcribed, painstakingly timestamped. They didn’t even bother to read it. Beyond the injustice, what wounds me most deeply is the realization that my father’s profound decency, the quiet dignity and unwavering ethics that defined his life, ultimately meant nothing in a system indifferent to such virtues. His goodness didn’t offer him protection or redemption in death. Perhaps it was naive to believe that it ever could. This realization doesn’t just hurt, it isolates, minimizes, and disillusions. It deepens the bitterness of loss. Forgive me for venting my frustration this way, but it’s all I have left. I’m sorry, Dad. I truly tried. Turns out, you were right about lawyers, too. I’m writing this with just a few weeks remaining in the statute of limitations. It doesn’t have to be like this, but all indications are that decency simply costs too much for those in power.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Yeah, that's trivial. But law has so many edge cases and seemingly it always favor either powerful or wealthy individuals. Plus, poor people cannot afford the litigation costs...

fernmyth 2y ago

[Written laws] were just like spiders' webs; they would hold the weak and delicate... but would be torn to pieces by the rich and powerful - Plutarch

zdragnar 2y ago

> seemingly it always favor either powerful or wealthy individuals Reality is in favor of the powerful and wealthy. It's practically a tautological statement that powerful people are more powerful than those who are not. Poor people do have the option of seeking pro bono, contingency (lawyers paid from winnings or settlements), or other means, but they will still not have things like daycare / nanny for children, free time (still need to work to pay bills while trial is pending), prepared meals, staff to handle shopping / laundry / cleaning, or a billion other things that make the stress of going through the court system easier to bear. You could probably say goodbye to pro bono or contingency work if you also had to prove you have the money to pay legal fees before you could go to court.

FireBeyond 2y ago
> Reality is in favor of the powerful and wealthy. It's practically a tautological statement that powerful people are more powerful than those who are not. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." -- Anatole France
wavewrangler 2y ago
Might as well buy a lottery ticket hoping to win enough money to fund your own case rather than cling to the faint hope of finding a pro bono attorney or even one working on contingency. My bitter experience stems directly from my father’s death, caused by gross, willful negligence at the hands of those entrusted with his care. Despite a formal DHHS investigation, which unequivocally substantiated my claims, and over 300 hours of undeniable audio, video, and documented proof illustrating the horrifying ordeal he endured, no one stepped forward to help. Justice wasn’t served, not in this life, nor, it seems, in any other. It’s not that lawyers told me there wasn’t a case. Instead, they said it was “too complicated.” One attorney spent a week supposedly weighing my meticulously prepared case, only to dismiss it with a curt email: “Regrettably, we have too many other cases to manage additional workloads at this time.” After that, my emails went unanswered, my pleas seemingly silenced by convenience. Apparently, lawyers today prefer the ripest, lowest hanging fruit, the easy cases promising easy profits. In our society, drowning in incompetence, there’s no shortage of simpler, safer bets. Yet, you’d think there would still be at least a few brave souls seeking justice, not only easy money, who would choose righteousness over profit, integrity over convenience. But I learned the hard way that righteousness rarely outweighs the bottom line. I handed them an almost complete case, indexed, transcribed, painstakingly timestamped. They didn’t even bother to read it. Beyond the injustice, what wounds me most deeply is the realization that my father’s profound decency, the quiet dignity and unwavering ethics that defined his life, ultimately meant nothing in a system indifferent to such virtues. His goodness didn’t offer him protection or redemption in death. Perhaps it was naive to believe that it ever could. This realization doesn’t just hurt, it isolates, minimizes, and disillusions. It deepens the bitterness of loss. Forgive me for venting my frustration this way, but it’s all I have left. I’m sorry, Dad. I truly tried. Turns out, you were right about lawyers, too. I’m writing this with just a few weeks remaining in the statute of limitations. It doesn’t have to be like this, but all indications are that decency simply costs too much for those in power.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]