A Couple Legitimate Questions
This one is going to stray a bit from the Earth and I apologize in advance. But at least it’ll be short, and — as a reward for your forbearance — I will try to keep the names of the usual suspects out of the narrative.
I’ve been thinking a lot about my mom lately — generally a pleasant memory — and how when I was still living at home, she would occasionally make a meal that none of the family really enjoyed (she was actually an excellent cook… most of the time).
Being who she was and Pennsylvania Dutch to boot, she would put the leftovers in the refrigerator and bring them out a couple nights later under a different name. If they still failed to be gobbled until the serving dish was empty, her next ploy would be to add them to a special container she maintained in the freezer.
Out of sight, out of mind to be sure, but the contents of the Tupperware would reappear weeks to months later as the basis of her world-famous Mystery Soup. The house I grew up in produced very little organic waste.
I think we’re seeing much of the same thing now with the overabundance of lawsuits that keep getting filed, and then dropped when it was realized the prosecution either didn’t have the receipts, or that the charges would never stand up in court… only to see them filed again within a week or two under a revised indictment.
And my God, the number of lawsuits! They never seem to end. They’re filed, then dropped without prejudice, then filed again under a different name, and then dropped again… over, and over, and over. It makes me dizzy…
I am obviously not qualified to make or pass judgment on any of these, but I am prompted to ask the question: Who’s paying for this? A lawyer is expensive!
To my simple mind, there are only two options: whoever is filing the suit, whether it’s the prosecution or a defendant’s counter-suit; or — if it’s our government (which seems to include many, if not most of them) — the taxpayers.
This means me… and you!
So, my question is: When a lawsuit is filed against XXX — fill in whatever name or entity you want — are you and I paying for the lawyers’ time, even when the suit is dropped because it was filed prematurely, or just to make a point (political or otherwise), and has no realistic chance of resulting in a conviction?
And what about the legal expenses of the party being sued? No matter the validity or potential for success in court, they will need to retain legal counsel. Does it seem appropriate that this is a burden to be covered by the defendant, no matter whether the initial suit was filed with legal justification, or merely as a way to inflict the maximum pain, inconvenience, and economic suffering on the target of the proceeding?
“I am your retribution” was a prophesy and promise that should have given all of us pause.
And while an ex-FBI director or District Attorney may (or may not) have the financial resources to weather the storm, how deep are the pockets of someone like a sixty-seven-year-old three-time Olympian, or a nurse protesting the arrest of a co-worker, or an immigrant hearkening to the invitation of Lady Liberty and looking for a better life for their family? Can they afford the legal fees they are sure to be responsible for, no matter how long the suit is in front of a judge?
Just askin’…
I would LOVE to see the courts sanction Department of Justice lawyers who bring shoddy cases, and in some cases felony indictments, against political foes who are clearly being targeted.
I would imagine that one would have to be able to come up with a definition for “clearly” that would be respected by all parties concerned! The regular inhalations and exhalations you are hearing are me not holding my breath.
It’s not only the legal expenses of the defendant (and we’re paying for the plaintiffs lawyers too), it’s also the time of the judge and court – the lost opportunity to deal with a real case with a real victim. In civil cases, the loser pays, but I think in criminal cases there’s no penalty for frivolity.
Yep, sounds about right. Seems to me that the most egregious part of your comment is what is being lost — those aspects of American justice that are being superseded by the apparently more important matters occupying the courts’ time, energy, and focus.
It’s kind of like professional sports. Who pays? That would be anybody who buys things that are advertised in and around a sports event. That would be EVERYBODY. That’s pickup trucks, food, energy, ideas, financial services, medications, gizmos, myriad services,… even political ads. There’s also the brain trauma of football players and observers who resent the waste involved. In the end, all consumers are forced to pay into the pockets of leagues, media corporations, advertisers, celebrity commentators, and players (who are branded with corporate sponsors’ logos). Joe Sixpack also pays to build sports venues and the infrastructure for them.
What do we get? The expense and spectacle of it all – televised, replayed, argued about competition. The expense and spectacle of our current political lawfare is similar. And on top of the expense, you are given head trauma for having to even think about the rank stupidity of it all.
Geoman alluded to the misappropriation of finite legal and court resources in connection with wasted law enforcement, lawyer, and court resources, which could have been spent on real cases.
The current administration has also added to or redirected the following government resources that could be better spent elsewhere or not at all:
1) added 10’s of billions of dollars to detain and dispose of undocumented immigrants.
2) imposed god knows how much in tariffs on US businesses, including farms – thereby displacing their profits and other resources – money that could have been used for capital projects or even to prevent business failures.
3) imposed god knows how much in tariffs that have been passed on to consumers – money that we could have spent on OUR personal priorities.
4) expended untold 10’s of billions in munitions, operating expenses, and personnel to bomb Iran – the only clear effect being death and destruction in Iran – thereby redirecting the hatred of their citizenry towards us.
5) redirected FBI resources towards political lawfare and deportation of immigrants – and away from counter-terrorism and corporate crime.
6) murdered hundreds of guys in boats in the Caribbean and Pacific with very expensive military resources – to no effect on our domestic drug scene.
7) and on and on and on.
What could possibly go wrong?
As with Mr. Henry (above) I think we’d need to clearly define some terms: in this case what is meant by “better spent.”
One more comment: As soon as you say “alluded to,” it goes from what GeoMan said to what you think he said.
No matter what, to quote Dalton (Patrick Swayze) in Roadhouse “Opinions vary.”