You And Yours

[connermt]

Christainity says we have 'free will'. Christianity says each person is responsible for their own actions, in regards to one's eternal life heaven/hell.
If both of these concepts are true, why do so many people feel the need to 'butt' into another person's business?
If a person wants to smoke pot in their own home, why do some christians care?
A person wants to go to a stip club, why the need for christians take pictures of them and put on social media to 'shame them'? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /13738537/
What's the point here, christians? You don't like the club, don't go to/support it. How does taking their pictures 'save their souls'?
Don't like gay marriage? Don't 'be gay' and/or get married to a gay person. How does not allowing gay marriage to be legal 'save their souls'?
Don't believe in evolution, don't teach it in your churches. How does trying to sneak in ID as 'science' in public schools 'save the souls' of the students?
The list is almost endless.

While it's not about one's 'rights' to protest or not, it's about 'winning souls for jesus!'
How do these activities bring more lost sinners to god?
How does shaming a pot smoker, alcohol drinker, strip club patron, preventing man made rights from a gay person (etc) win these people's souls?

Surely forbidding churches from teaching their beliefs at church would be worth a fight in the US, the vast majority of these things happen independent of church and church activities. Yet, some christians seem to think it's their 'job' to 'butt into' the lives of people, who have no interest in going to, looking at or participating in, a church or church activity.

What's the 'christian logic' here? How does interferring with one's personal life benefit the cause to win souls to god?

[Zzyzx]

.

..though nobody sues unless he thinks that he'll win in court

That is not correct. There can be many reasons to sue even if one knows that the likelihood of success is very small (i.e. does not think he will win).

(the government) and the judgment enforced (by the government).

That is not correct. The court ("government") does NOT enforce judgments – only allows the plaintive to execute the judgment.

That means if one wins a suit and is awarded a judgment of $1 million dollars they have a paper from the court that says the person owes them a million dollars. it is THEIR business to collect the money – not the court's. Depending on the court and various state laws they may be empowered to put a lien on real estate owned by the defendant, attach bank accounts, garnishee wages, etc. BUT the court does not do those things for them.

Nobody is harmed by simply being sued...if you don't count the hassle, the loss of reputation, the stress and the money it takes to defend a lawsuit. The harm comes when the judgment is rendered against him. That judgment is 'government."

The judgment is only a statement that one party owes another certain things.

And do not tell me that a verdict by the court means that what the court found is therefore 'right and good,' and thus constitutional and nobody should have any complaints.

Only the very naive would maintain such thing.


I am not an attorney but experience has taught me this much (which is accurate to the best of my knowledge – but subject to correction by those truly versed in law).

[Danmark]

.

..though nobody sues unless he thinks that he'll win in court

That is not correct. There can be many reasons to sue even if one knows that the likelihood of success is very small (i.e. does not think he will win).

(the government) and the judgment enforced (by the government).

That is not correct. The court ("government") does NOT enforce judgments – only allows the plaintive to execute the judgment.

That means if one wins a suit and is awarded a judgment of $1 million dollars they have a paper from the court that says the person owes them a million dollars. it is THEIR business to collect the money – not the court's. Depending on the court and various state laws they may be empowered to put a lien on real estate owned by the defendant, attach bank accounts, garnishee wages, etc. BUT the court does not do those things for them.

Nobody is harmed by simply being sued...if you don't count the hassle, the loss of reputation, the stress and the money it takes to defend a lawsuit. The harm comes when the judgment is rendered against him. That judgment is 'government."

That's a pretty big 'if.' In many cases it's a multi million dollar if. BTW, Z's description in general is accurate based on my experience. I've stated this before, but the reason it is flat wrong, if not dangerously misleading to call the court 'government' is that, that argument creates an impression of bias. How could one expect a fair hearing when being sued by the government if the government is also the judge and jury? As I say, to call the court 'government' is sophistry. An independent judiciary is vital to our system.

[dianaiad]

.

..though nobody sues unless he thinks that he'll win in court

That is not correct. There can be many reasons to sue even if one knows that the likelihood of success is very small (i.e. does not think he will win).

In my opinion, anybody who does is beneath contempt. People who sue when they know very well they won't win are only doing so to harrass unjustly, blackmail (if you give me a $2500 settlement, I won't sue you for a million bucks; and people, especially businesses, will hand over the money because it's cheaper to pay than to fight the lawsuit; it's extortion and an epidemic in California), People who sue when they KNOW they don't have a chance to win should be heavily penalized. People who threaten to sue when they know it's a frivolous lawsuit and are only after a short settlement....

Well, it's a legal 'protection racket." I can think of no honorable reason to sue when one has no expectation of winning. It's a waste of time, money, and resources that are needed for people who are seeking justice for questions that can be settled in a court of law.

................................hmnn. Do you think I expressed my opinion of this sort of thing strongly enough, or should I add something?

(the government) and the judgment enforced (by the government).

That is not correct. The court ("government") does NOT enforce judgments – only allows the plaintive to execute the judgment.

Under color of legal authority. Try NOT paying a judgement and see what happens to you. Legally.

That means if one wins a suit and is awarded a judgment of $1 million dollars they have a paper from the court that says the person owes them a million dollars. it is THEIR business to collect the money – not the court's. Depending on the court and various state laws they may be empowered to put a lien on real estate owned by the defendant, attach bank accounts, garnishee wages, etc. BUT the court does not do those things for them.

No, the court gives permission for the law enforcement arm of the government to enforce its rulings. What IS this? The courts ARE part of the government...we have separation of powers for a reason, and that reason is a checks and balances system. The courts are there to, mostly, put brakes on the legislative and administrative branches, and to try criminal cases. The administrative branch enforces the rulings of the court...but both are branches of GOVERNMENT. Once you enter the court system, you are dealing with all three: legislative, for the laws you are using to base your case on; the courts, to judge whether you are right, or your opponent is, and administration, which will enforce the ruling.

In the case of civil suits, that means that if the loser does not pay the fines, and you can't (by using government agencies to, say, garnishee wages or attach liens) recover them, then jail time may well be an issue. WITHOUT the government standing behind those rulings, they are nothing but opinions by private parties with no authority....and we know very well that this is not the case in an official court of law.

Nobody is harmed by simply being sued...if you don't count the hassle, the loss of reputation, the stress and the money it takes to defend a lawsuit. The harm comes when the judgment is rendered against him. That judgment is 'government."

The judgment is only a statement that one party owes another certain things.

....and they owe, because they have done something against the law, and the constitution. That they owe will be recognized by the government. Collection of the debt will be enforced by the government, if not done immediately and willingly, and it's not just money. There are injunctions, as well, that, if violated can result in jail time. Besides that, court decisions become precedents upon which others can force behavior changes.

And do not tell me that a verdict by the court means that what the court found is therefore 'right and good,' and thus constitutional and nobody should have any complaints.

Only the very naive would maintain such thing.


I am not an attorney but experience has taught me this much (which is accurate to the best of my knowledge – but subject to correction by those truly versed in law).

Ah, but it is amazing how often I am treated to the 'but its legal and the courts decided THIS" as if that settled the morality as well as the legality of something, when I take the 'other' side, (some of the rulings regarding businesses objecting to participation in gay marriage) but if the courts happen to rule in a way they don't like (Hobby Lobby) the cry is something like "well, that's just the Bush Court. It's a bad ruling and will be overturned."

I think it all depends upon whose ox is being gored, right?

[dianaiad]

.

..though nobody sues unless he thinks that he'll win in court

That is not correct. There can be many reasons to sue even if one knows that the likelihood of success is very small (i.e. does not think he will win).

(the government) and the judgment enforced (by the government).

That is not correct. The court ("government") does NOT enforce judgments – only allows the plaintive to execute the judgment.

That means if one wins a suit and is awarded a judgment of $1 million dollars they have a paper from the court that says the person owes them a million dollars. it is THEIR business to collect the money – not the court's. Depending on the court and various state laws they may be empowered to put a lien on real estate owned by the defendant, attach bank accounts, garnishee wages, etc. BUT the court does not do those things for them.

Nobody is harmed by simply being sued...if you don't count the hassle, the loss of reputation, the stress and the money it takes to defend a lawsuit. The harm comes when the judgment is rendered against him. That judgment is 'government."

That's a pretty big 'if.' In many cases it's a multi million dollar if. BTW, Z's description in general is accurate based on my experience. I've stated this before, but the reason it is flat wrong, if not dangerously misleading to call the court 'government' is that, that argument creates an impression of bias. How could one expect a fair hearing when being sued by the government if the government is also the judge and jury? As I say, to call the court 'government' is sophistry. An independent judiciary is vital to our system.

Danmark, I like you. A lot, actually.

But there is a reason that our American school system teaches Civics. One of those is to talk about the 'three branches of government." You know them: Legislative, Administrative and Judicial. They are separate, and often times adversarial; the legislative body at the moment doesn't much like administration, and the courts don't much like either one of 'em....but that doesn't mean that they aren't all branches of the government.

the legislature passes the laws.
The administration enforces them.
The judicial system rules on their constitutionality, and judges whether citizens have obeyed those laws.

They ARE separate and sometimes adversarial, but they cannot exist without the other.

If the courts were not a part of government, the administration would not enforce their decisions. They would have no standing to rule on legislation.

But if you want to think that the courts are not 'the government," try running a red light sometime, or not paying your mortgage, and telling the courts that they have no power to make you pay the fines or see to it that you lose your house.

THEN tell me that the courts are not the government.

[Danmark]

.

..though nobody sues unless he thinks that he'll win in court

That is not correct. There can be many reasons to sue even if one knows that the likelihood of success is very small (i.e. does not think he will win).

(the government) and the judgment enforced (by the government).

That is not correct. The court ("government") does NOT enforce judgments – only allows the plaintive to execute the judgment.

That means if one wins a suit and is awarded a judgment of $1 million dollars they have a paper from the court that says the person owes them a million dollars. it is THEIR business to collect the money – not the court's. Depending on the court and various state laws they may be empowered to put a lien on real estate owned by the defendant, attach bank accounts, garnishee wages, etc. BUT the court does not do those things for them.

Nobody is harmed by simply being sued...if you don't count the hassle, the loss of reputation, the stress and the money it takes to defend a lawsuit. The harm comes when the judgment is rendered against him. That judgment is 'government."

That's a pretty big 'if.' In many cases it's a multi million dollar if. BTW, Z's description in general is accurate based on my experience. I've stated this before, but the reason it is flat wrong, if not dangerously misleading to call the court 'government' is that, that argument creates an impression of bias. How could one expect a fair hearing when being sued by the government if the government is also the judge and jury? As I say, to call the court 'government' is sophistry. An independent judiciary is vital to our system.

Danmark, I like you. A lot, actually.

But there is a reason that our American school system teaches Civics. One of those is to talk about the 'three branches of government." You know them: Legislative, Administrative and Judicial. They are separate, and often times adversarial; the legislative body at the moment doesn't much like administration, and the courts don't much like either one of 'em....but that doesn't mean that they aren't all branches of the government.

the legislature passes the laws.
The administration enforces them.
The judicial system rules on their constitutionality, and judges whether citizens have obeyed those laws.

They ARE separate and sometimes adversarial, but they cannot exist without the other.

If the courts were not a part of government, the administration would not enforce their decisions. They would have no standing to rule on legislation.

But if you want to think that the courts are not 'the government," try running a red light sometime, or not paying your mortgage, and telling the courts that they have no power to make you pay the fines or see to it that you lose your house.

THEN tell me that the courts are not the government.

I have been careful from the outset to say it is a matter of the 'definition of terms.' I disagree with your statement "The courts are the government." Yes, they are one of the 3 branches of 'government,' but they are distinct and they adjudicate disputes brought by and against the 'government.'

[dianaiad]

I have been careful from the outset to say it is a matter of the 'definition of terms.' I disagree with your statement "The courts are the government." Yes, they are one of the 3 branches of 'government,' but they are distinct and they adjudicate disputes brought by and against the 'government.'

Well, parsing and redefining the words might make a more interesting argument from your pov, but the guy who loses a lawsuit and is then forced to abide by the court ruling is going to understand quite well that the government is making him do it.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 44 by dianaiad]

People who sue when they KNOW they don't have a chance to win should be heavily penalized. People who threaten to sue when they know it's a frivolous lawsuit and are only after a short settlement....

I have great disdain for this type of rhetoric because even though a particular suit might have little success it might generate awareness to a particular issue. Like suing the government for example.

If I were to lets say sue the government over surveillance. I might not have huge success legally but I could bring awareness to an issue I care about that in the long term could generate change.

If a suit has no merit they can just as easily be thrown out by the judge with little to no effort on the defendants part other than filling a motion to dismiss.

the type of malicious frivolous lawsuits you describe are actually few and far between. Trying to PUNISH people over extreme examples seems frivolous to me.

It would create even more waste and inefficiency because then you would have to have some determine whether a case has merit or not. WHICH IS PRETTY SUBJECTIVE.

So in order to implement your punishment or whatever it is you would have to create a separate judicial system to judge the merit of cases. THIS COSTS TIME AND MONEY and would still be imperfect.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 46 by dianaiad]

So are you proposing anarchy?

Is no government the solution then?

Lets make a simple example to discuss on

A sues B for $1000

the court awards A $1000 from B

________________________________________


scenario 1. This settlement is enforced by the government indirectly

scenario 2. B just dismisses the settlement and ignores A

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 44 by dianaiad]

People who sue when they KNOW they don't have a chance to win should be heavily penalized. People who threaten to sue when they know it's a frivolous lawsuit and are only after a short settlement....

I have great disdain for this type of rhetoric because even though a particular suit might have little success it might generate awareness to a particular issue. Like suing the government for example.

I don't care. Notice that I made rather clear the sort of folks I am talking about here: those who know they do not have a chance to win, and are using the courts to inconvenience their targets and to harass them; to extort money and/or concessions from them.

If I were to lets say sue the government over surveillance. I might not have huge success legally but I could bring awareness to an issue I care about that in the long term could generate change.

Those folks have some hope that the courts will 'see it their way.' They aren't suing just to hear their ears rattle.

If a suit has no merit they can just as easily be thrown out by the judge with little to no effort on the defendants part other than filling a motion to dismiss.

You haven't had to defend yourself against one of those, have you?

I have. Trust me, it's not that easy. It takes time and costs money and if you aren't an expert, you can lose just because you don't know what to do. Even if the lawsuit IS frivolous.

Indeed, it sometimes happens that simply handing over the money the plaintiff wants, even though the suit is without merit, is often cheaper than spending the time and money to get the suit dismissed...and certainly cheaper than actually defending it.

the type of malicious frivolous lawsuits you describe are actually few and far between. Trying to PUNISH people over extreme examples seems frivolous to me.

They are not, unfortunately, 'few and far between." In California doing this is a booming business model.

It would create even more waste and inefficiency because then you would have to have some determine whether a case has merit or not. WHICH IS PRETTY SUBJECTIVE.

I thought you were arguing AGAINST my point, here? Consider the pov of the defendant in a threatened lawsuit, and repeat what you just wrote.

So in order to implement your punishment or whatever it is you would have to create a separate judicial system to judge the merit of cases. THIS COSTS TIME AND MONEY and would still be imperfect.

Actually, all you have to do is let the folks bringing lawsuits know that they can go to court, but when they do, if in settling the case the judge also finds it to have been frivolous, the loser pays twice the costs to the winner.

It should also be...and I rather like this idea...possible to sue someone for threatening lawsuits in order to extort. This should be easily proven; how many lawsuits does one person file a year? How many lawsuits does he threaten and get paid off if he doesn't go through with it?

But right now that sort of extortion is not illegal.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 46 by dianaiad]

So are you proposing anarchy?

Why, no. Though I am interested in the thought process that equates pointing out that the court system is part of the government with proposing anarchy.

Is no government the solution then?

Why, no...though I will admit to being a bit of a libertarian.

Lets make a simple example to discuss on

A sues B for $1000

the court awards A $1000 from B

________________________________________


scenario 1. This settlement is enforced by the government indirectly

scenario 2. B just dismisses the settlement and ignores A

It's enforced by the government.

A can use the law and government agencies (a court order, wow) to get B's wages garnisheed. He can put a lien on B's property.

That is not, by the way, an INDIRECT enforcement. That's pretty direct, insuring that A gets his money.

Now, and again, how is pointing this out in any way an advocacy of anarchy?

......because that is a leap of logic that completely escapes me.