Slashdot Mirror

You don't fight Google on Google's turf.

Exactly this:
1) Dont use any court that uses the medieval adversary system, it will break your bank account as the adversary system is run like a cartel *.
2) Make sure the court uses an investigative system like in Germany/France etc.. where the judges are not ex-lawyers. Court resolutions are quicker and much less expensive and tend to produce quantatively more accurate outcomes to reach the truth.

* For sources read: http://netk.net.au/Whitton/OCLS.pdf

IANAL

" require legal disputes be settled by a private arbiter"

The company has a relationship with the arbiter. They get repeat business. You are expendable. Common law has its problems, but when you sign an arbitration clause you strip yourself of your common law rights. You give up transparency and appeal rights. https://www.google.com/search?... https://www.google.com/search?...

Also a highly recommended read for anyone going to court or crossing paths with a lawyer: http://netk.net.au/whitton/ocl...

Well, it depends on the contract I guess. I've signed a number of contracts that stipulated arbitration first. The last one was for the loan on my vehicle and the one before that was a non-disclosure contract which was a condition of my current employment.

Where I always recommend you obtain legal advice (from an attorney) before signing any contract, I'm not so quick to dismiss binding arbitration. There are times it can be helpful and avoid costly legal fees if there is a dispute. Paying a lawyer is usually beyond expensive, even for a simple lawsuit. I paid nearly 7K getting a dispute over a Non compete contract resolved. We settled out of court before we even got halfway way though discovery. In that case, I believe arbitration would have been a whole lot cheaper and had exactly the same result.

Only Thiel had the financial resources to take on Gawker. Even Hulk Hogan couldn't afford to.

Money can also buy injustice http://rall.com/2016/08/16/ant...

Whoever can afford the best lawyer wins!

Good book by investigative journalist showing "magic lawyer tricks" http://netk.net.au/WhittonCart... http://netk.net.au/whitton/ocl...

Only Thiel had the financial resources to take on Gawker. Even Hulk Hogan couldn't afford to.

Money can also buy injustice http://rall.com/2016/08/16/ant...

Whoever can afford the best lawyer wins!

Good book by investigative journalist showing "magic lawyer tricks" http://netk.net.au/WhittonCart... http://netk.net.au/whitton/ocl...

Great book on the subject including a list of dirty lawyer tricks => http://netk.net.au/whitton/ocl...

> "The bill creates a regime under which digital communications causing 'serious emotional distress' are subject to an escalating regime that starts as 'negotiation, mediation or persuasion' but reaches up to creating the offenses of not complying with an order, and 'causing harm by posting digital communication.'

Lawyers are infamous for using dirty tactics in 'negotiation, mediation or persuasion' in 'digital communications' that cause 'serious emotional distress.' It's their job to make the other side so miserable and stressed out they beg them to stop and agree to their terms. Taunt. Harass. Threaten. They're not supposed to, but they do anyway. Will the bill cover them? http://www.civiljustice.co.nz/... http://netk.net.au/whitton/ocl... http://www.smh.com.au/comment/... http://angiemedia.com/2009/01/... http://www.dri.org/DRI/course-... http://www.hg.org/article.asp?...

> The bill covers posts that are racist, sexist, or show religious intolerance, along with hassling people over disability or sexual orientation. There's also a new offense of incitement to suicide (three years' jail).

Ha ha. of course not!!!

This was the actual text from Clayton Utz, the law firm acting for the Australian Department of Defence: "“The reason we believe your claim will fail is because you allege that the Commonwealth owes innovators submitting products or technology for evaluation a duty of care to ensure that the evaluations are either fair, proper and accurate or that the confidential information is respected. There is no such duty of care in Australian law.”

They are very disingenuous: The DSTO publicly solicits businesses to submit inventions to Defence under the "DSTO CTD Capability and Technology Demonstrator Program", and then screw them over behind closed doors.

Here the Defence Science Minister Warren Snowdon announced a DSTO Probity Board "to protect against conflict of interest" http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/news/6648/, while here he sends a letter to an independent MP in which he falsely claims the whistleblower didn't want the thefts from other companies to be investigated(!): http://victimsofdsto.com/doc/2011-02-28%20Letter%20from%20Defence%20Science%20Minister%20with%20false%20information%20to%20Independent%20MP%20(NAMES%20BLACKED%20OUT).pdf

Australia's Federal Police force, the AFP, are systemically corrupt. They ignore public service crime http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service-keeps-fraud-cases-private-20110923-1kpdr.html and terrorise whistleblowers: http://pastebin.com/tD8Vd6Vd http://victimsofdsto.com/psc/#kessing

You can't use the civil courts: Under the Model Litigant Policy the Australian government has to keep legal costs to a minimum, must offer alternate dispute resolution, etc. But the government lawyers simply ignore it, run up huge legal bills and threaten to bankrupt you with a costs order if you dare step foot into court. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/gillard-government-lashed-for-ignoring-breaches-of-model-litigant-rules/story-e6frg97x-1226325228917 Another department did actually bankrupt a guy. Not mentioned in the article, the DSTO also stole IP from some big defence companies (including an American one).

It costs about $2M to litigate the gov. I don't know of a single company who has seen litigation through: SMEs can't afford it, and the large companies said litigating their biggest customer would lose future contracts. The only law firms capable of taking on the government pro bono in Australia are all on retainer to them! Here's a very good book "Our Corrupt Legal System" by an investigative crime journalist; Page 157- describes all the dirty tricks lawyers play: http://netk.net.au/Whitton/OCLS.pdf . play.

Under the Inquisitorial system of justice used in Europe and Asia the judge (including lay judges) hear all the evidence.

Under the Anglo system lawyers get the judge to hide evidence from the jury because they are too stupid to understand it. Like prior convictions.

The Anglo system is the problem.

http://www.amazon.com/Corrupt-Legal-System-Evan-Whitton/dp/1921681071
"The lawyer-run adversary system used in Britain and its former colonies, including the US, India, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia does not try to find the truth. It is the only system which conceals evidence. 'Our Corrupt Legal System' explains why trial lawyers, famously economical with the truth, control evidence; civil hearings take weeks, months or years; in serious criminal cases, 24 anti-truth devices allow more than 50% of guilty accused to escape justice. By contrast, in the investigative system used in Europe and other countries, including Japan, trained judges control evidence and seek the truth; civil hearings take a few hours; 95% of guilty accused are convicted. It is the most widespread, accurate and cost-effective system. Russell Fox, an Australian judge who researched the law for 11 years, concluded: 'The public estimation must be correct, that justice marches with the truth.' The vast majority of voters will support change to a truthseeking system: trial lawyers are fewer than 0.2% of the population; the public are 99.8%. 'A masterpiece.' - Phillip Knightley, twice British Journalist of the Year."
http://netk.net.au/Whitton/OCLS.pdf free download