hodag

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by hodag 12y ago

   I don't believe I'm changing the target. I'm trying to explain that the way that you see the 7th Amendment -- as giving you an ultimate right to a jury trial in all civil cases over $20 -- is simply not what the 7th Amendment
2. 2.▲
   by hodag 12y ago

   As far as asserting more than $20 in damages and getting thrown out of court on jurisdiction: tons and tons and tons. Happens all the time. Here's an example: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=768942503267893
3. 3.▲
   by hodag 12y ago

   1) I'm assuming you're getting that $20 figure from the Seventh Amendment, and while your interpretation seems reasonable and natural, it's not how the Seventh Amendment has been interpreted. First, the Seventh Amendment has
4. 4.▲
   by hodag 12y ago

   I should add that what I'm trying to illustrate here is that arbitration clauses are a big problem. Arbitration is a stacked deck, and consumers always lose. They lose even when they win, since you can only arbitrate your individual cl
5. 5.▲
   by hodag 12y ago

   1) Negative. You do not. What you have is a right to a jury trial in a civil case, where a federal court has jurisdiction , that would have been brought before the courts of law (rather than equity) in England in 1789. In the case of class
6. 6.▲
   by hodag 12y ago

   That may well be true, but two things to think about in that regard: 1) You don't have a Constitutional right to have private companies not collect your data. You don't have a Constitutional right to sue those private companies if