jim_doki post=18.73955.819621 said:
dude, money cannot change the law. if you're being bullied, stand up! this isn't a playground, it's the legal system. if you haven't broken the law, or used something that you haven't got permission to use, then you are fine.
If you truly believe that you've never had a run-in with the law. If you actually get your case to a court and risk everything on the court's decision (ie, go the whole nine yards, and the whole $9000) then yes, the law will (hopefully) support you. The thing is, though, that the more draconic and convoluted laws are the easier it is for jumped-up lawyers with big money behind them to scare you into acquiescing. He knows you haven't done anything wrong, you know it, a judge/jury would know it, but if the cost to prove yourself right for what might be a very minor issue is thousands of dollars then of course you won't waste a hefty part of your savings on
principle. So you'll give in, and that's all that was demanded of you.
This is how the law works in practical cases. In my family and amongst friends, friends of friends and friends of the family I've only
ever heard of cases that operated like this or worse. The only time justice was ever (sometimes) served was when the little guy had was stubborn enough to choose principle over expense.
My parents own a block of land. One day they were asked to help the Water Corporation (Perth's catch-all Government Sponsored Enterprise for all water infrastructure) with their work on the block's street, just as a dumping ground for equipment. They agreed - on the condition that the block would be the same afterwards as it was before: untouched. The WC finished their work and all seemed fine, until my parents were approached by a man hoping to buy the block. He was a WC employee, and during his negotiations (in my understanding) he got out the most recent plans of the block and discovered, to his feigned surprise, that there was a newly placed water pipeline under the block. Whose pipe? The Water Corp's, of course. This GSE had invaded private property, without even notifying the owners. As it turns out, the WC is allowed to do this under certain circumstances: when it first notifies the owners and allows them to question the necessity of the pipe and its placement. The WC, though, had deliberately ignored this requirement in an effort to save itself time and money - it had essentially trespassed. I won't go into the sad details of the case from there, but I will say that it took 2 years, the legendary stubbornness of my father, and my mother's experience as a lawyer to get even the barest of concessions - compensation for the loss in value of the block (and don't think this wasn't quibbled over endlessly) and the concession that any protection the pipe may need from building activity on the block would be paid for by the WC. If this had happened to any other family - one without a man who will choose principle over money any day of the week, and a woman who knows how to go get things done within the legal system - the WC would have gotten away with breaking the law and giving no compensation back - and, judging by the calculated nature of the whole operation, it probably has elsewhere.
I also know of two cases in which academics - both friends of the family - were fired by a local university on what was, without a doubt, completely bogus charges. Both, again uncharacteristically, had both the money and the will to fight their sacking, but both lost in the final decision, despite the university frequently breaking the law and ignoring court orders (like, for example, being ordered by the judge to give particulars, any details at all, of the crime one was alleged to have committed - the crime that directly lead to the sacking. In the end they simply ignored the order and, incredibly, the judge didn't care and sided with them in the end, anyway.).
I don't think that these anecdotes prove that such a thing is widespread and systemic - though I think it is. I only mention them because they show the Alex_P at least has a point that money gets you a better outcome in legal disputes nine times out of ten. He also has a point that the stricter and more slanted to one side the law is, the easier it is for that side to abuse its legal protection.
