5 ms·

Yes, exactly for that reason. Wealthy organizations have more than an equal share of resources, and should carry an increased burden of the process when in conf

by jes5199 12y ago

Yes, exactly for that reason. Wealthy organizations have more than an equal share of resources, and should carry an increased burden of the process when in conflict with individuals.

bmelton 12y ago
Is your intent to prevent companies from becoming successful, or would that just be a happy side effect of such a policy? Edit: The question was sincere, and I can't think of any reason for which a corporation of means should be in some way more responsible for frivolous lawsuits than one of lesser means, or of an individual. The logical outcome, to me, seems to be that if there were some inequal burden in the eyes of the law for "wealthy companies" that it would invite frivolous lawsuits on the grounds that suing wealthy companies is now a zero risk endeavor. If I, as an individual, could sue Google with zero fear of retaliation, I can't see why I wouldn't, on the off chance that I might land a pretty large windfall, if I were to win.
Natsu 12y ago
Can you explain more on why it's fair for a party who was judged to be innocent to bear the costs associated for claims judged as false?
- pyre 12y ago
  > who was judged to be innocent Because this was not a criminal trial and therefore the judgement does not determine "guilt" or "innocence?" Because monied interests always have more power whether they are the plaintiff or the defendant in a case?
  - Natsu 12y ago
    No evidence was found after lots of expensive legal discovery. If there was any evidence of guilt, they should have been able to find something that at least made them look bad, but they did not. You are correct that the proper term for a civil case is "not responsible" but frankly that sounds silly to non-lawyers, as it's too similar to "irresponsible."
    - obstinate 12y ago
      I don't think it's fair to characterize the amount of evidence as "no evidence." There are plenty of folks who think Kleiner looks bad in this case. There is not enough to reach the confidence level required for the plaintiff to succeed. That is a more accurate thing you could say.
      - Natsu 12y ago
        I saw lots of allegations but no real evidence. That was, essentially, why the case was lost: for all the things said, nothing of substance could be corroborated. I don't think they even found a bad review.... That makes it really hard for me to believe she was a victim of anything but her own imagination.
      - FireBeyond 12y ago
        "I don't think it's fair to characterize the amount of evidence as "no evidence." There are plenty of folks who think Kleiner looks bad in this case." There were a lot of people who decided Kleiner looked bad based purely on the word of Ellen Pao. Verbal recollections are not, however, evidence.

by jes5199 12y ago

Yes, exactly for that reason. Wealthy organizations have more than an equal share of resources, and should carry an increased burden of the process when in conflict with individuals.

bmelton 12y ago

Is your intent to prevent companies from becoming successful, or would that just be a happy side effect of such a policy? Edit: The question was sincere, and I can't think of any reason for which a corporation of means should be in some way more responsible for frivolous lawsuits than one of lesser means, or of an individual. The logical outcome, to me, seems to be that if there were some inequal burden in the eyes of the law for "wealthy companies" that it would invite frivolous lawsuits on the grounds that suing wealthy companies is now a zero risk endeavor. If I, as an individual, could sue Google with zero fear of retaliation, I can't see why I wouldn't, on the off chance that I might land a pretty large windfall, if I were to win.

Natsu 12y ago

Can you explain more on why it's fair for a party who was judged to be innocent to bear the costs associated for claims judged as false?

pyre 12y ago
> who was judged to be innocent Because this was not a criminal trial and therefore the judgement does not determine "guilt" or "innocence?" Because monied interests always have more power whether they are the plaintiff or the defendant in a case?
- Natsu 12y ago
  No evidence was found after lots of expensive legal discovery. If there was any evidence of guilt, they should have been able to find something that at least made them look bad, but they did not. You are correct that the proper term for a civil case is "not responsible" but frankly that sounds silly to non-lawyers, as it's too similar to "irresponsible."
  - obstinate 12y ago
    I don't think it's fair to characterize the amount of evidence as "no evidence." There are plenty of folks who think Kleiner looks bad in this case. There is not enough to reach the confidence level required for the plaintiff to succeed. That is a more accurate thing you could say.
    - Natsu 12y ago
      I saw lots of allegations but no real evidence. That was, essentially, why the case was lost: for all the things said, nothing of substance could be corroborated. I don't think they even found a bad review.... That makes it really hard for me to believe she was a victim of anything but her own imagination.
    - FireBeyond 12y ago
      "I don't think it's fair to characterize the amount of evidence as "no evidence." There are plenty of folks who think Kleiner looks bad in this case." There were a lot of people who decided Kleiner looked bad based purely on the word of Ellen Pao. Verbal recollections are not, however, evidence.