how-to block ads
|
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
 ·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos...
said by amigo_boy  :They pursued criminal court first? How would you feel about the police punishing illicit drug makers in civil court, foregoing criminal court, just because it's easier? The Goldman's didn't do that, did they? The matter is quite a different one, as demonstrated by this adminstration's announcement that they *will not allow the DOJ to execute criminal contempt citations* issued by Congress in the Firingate investigation.
This administration, clearly, has no interest in allowing any oversight over its actions, even oversight that is provided for in the Constitution. So yes, let these cases go forward and let us see what comes of them.
What are you afraid of?
Like the Goldmans having their day in criminal court. Or, the police trying illicit drug makers in criminal court. So you would have to hold, in order to be consistent, then, that since the state tried a criminal case against O.J. and it failed, the civil cases should not have been brought forward, wouldn't you?
Look, like I said, the ability to take people to civil court in torte actions, in response to alleged damages, is a fundamental part of American jurisprudence, predating even the Constitution, going back into English common law. And like I said, if these people don't have cases or standing, the cases will be tossed. This, too, as I said, is the way the *law works in this country.*
*You* are the one who wants to deny these people their day in court without even a hearing to determine merit or standing, which is completely antithetical to American judispredential history. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| said by huntml :So you would have to hold, in order to be consistent, then, that since the state tried a criminal case against O.J. and it failed, the civil cases should not have been brought forward, wouldn't you? C'mon. Saying that trying a criminal case in criminal court before proceeding to civil court (or, worse, skipping criminal court all together) is the natural course one would expect. That doesn't mean one can't seek damages in civil court -- even as a result of criminal actions that can't be proven. The difference is that the Goldmans at least tried to prove criminality. They didn't skip to civil court just because it was "easy."
said by huntml : I said, the ability to take people to civil court in torte actions, in response to alleged damages, is a fundamental part of American jurisprudence, And I said AT&T customers have a right to sue AT&T for breach of contract. Why hasn't that happened? It seems like a lot of activists seeking to make political points rather than those in a contractual relationship seeking remedy.
The reason that won't happen is because the court would say nobody can prove damages, and that they can "vote with their feet" by walking to the clearly marked exits.
What the pro-civil court crowd wants is to try a criminal case in civil court. They don't care about damages to AT&T customers. They want to assert that *everyone* is a victim (of a broken contract they weren't a party to). They can't rise to the level of criminal court, so they sink to the lower standard of civil court.
Like I said, if the police used civil court to punish drug dealers because criminal court is "too haaaard," the same people screaming about that too.
Mark | |
|
