Slashdot Mirror

Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?

Courts and judges are part of the legal system.

There IS NO 'justice system'.

Really, why? Is there somewhere this is defined? What principles of government specifically establish these contentions of yours? Nowhere?

Or are you just making a poor attempt at fallacious reasoning in order to ignore the problem? Nowhere are your terms used in either the US or Utah Constitutions, making any reference to them as a matter of distinction on your part into a purely arbitrary contention of no particular merit.

And in fact, FWIW, there are courts specifically referred to as "Courts of Justice" or "Justice Courts" such as Montana's, Kentucky's, and yes, even Utah.

So no, you can't even assert that they make a pointed effort to avoid such terms in their own usages just by their states names. Furthermore, by observing their statements of principles and moral axioms, of course, you can see that they do make a concerted and deliberate reference to actual justice.

Or how else am I supposed to take their oath of office: "I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." ?

There are further examples, both in historical reference and modern development, to establish the place of "Justice" in the provenance of the courts, and even int the executive (It is called the Justice Department, not the Law Department), but I think the mere existence of the oath shows that your argument lacks merit.

It does not exist and never did except as a set of moral goals and standards in the hearts of men. "Justice" is moral and relative, changing with individual circumstance and the opinion of the observer, and therefor can never be codified into law.

Oh, did you think that this is an inherent objection to justice then? If so, why? You seem to be troubled over circumstances and observations, as if it was not a known obligation of justice, which is accepted and recognized, but perhaps you can explain if you meant something else.

In order to achieve the closest thing to "justice" within the limitations of men, the law must be interpreted as written in all cases, because courts and judges are determiners of legalities, not warriors for someone's opinion on what is "just".

You left off your reasoning(which is a bad thing), and contrary to your asertion, if the law is written in some way that is not just, then it is actually going further from justice when you adhere to the law over justice and when you rely on the naive view that purporting to adhere to the law as written is superior, the only thing you are doing is subsuming your obligation to responsibility for your moral decisions by passing it others.

However, even if you had bothered to make such an argument, it would not do anything to undo how your first assertion rings false, to the contrary, judges and their courts are bound by their own statements to justice. That alone is severely discrediting to you. It comes across as if you are merely making slipshod, unconsidered statements to try to advance some pre-established narrative cause, rather than making a truly principled argument that can be weighed and measured on its own merits.

Sorry, Bluestrat, you may used to dealing with people ignorant enough to be fooled by your pomposity, but there are people who can point out the hollow

You can fax legal documents and keep the fax header as proof of service.

A quick search shows that the state of Utah allows alternate service by email or social media. A judge allowed the FTC to serve notice via facebook. New York allowed email service in 2006, and Australia allows it, and anther New York case of service via facebook was discussed on slashdot last month.

The old ways are dying. Requiring someone to buy a laser device to burn "stamps" onto envelopes and packages won't work.

Since that was 2006, I decided to see what they decided.. The Utah Supreme Court decision (pdf warning) wasn't nearly as imbecilic as the prosecutor, trial judge or appeals court.

Had to look it up myself...

amicus curiae - A friend of the court; a nonparty who interposes, with the permission of the court, and volunteers information upon some matter before the court.

If the RIAA doesn't fully explore evidence before suing people over then they have no right to continue suing people. It would be like the police bringing a case against a suspected murderer and asking, in the trial, to search the house, car etc. to find evidence.

That's not how the legal system is supposed to work. Trial is supposed to be the last thing in a long line of to do's, one of which is verifying that you've got the right person. The RIAA doesn't do that long list, which is horribly wrong but not quite illegal, and more and more often it's coming back to haunt them.

There are two kinds of fool. One says 'This is old therefore good.' And one says 'This is new therefore good'- Dean Inge

From their comments, a lot of people think that expungement is vindication. It's not.

After a certain time passes many crimes can be expunged if you apply to do so. Requirements and eligibility vary from state to state, but essentially you're saying, "I've been a good boy, so let me out of the corner." It's not the court saying you weren't guilty. It's the court saying they won't hold it against you any more.

What expungement is:
The removal of a discipline from a person's disciplinary record so that it is as though the discipline was never imposed. Link.

An order of the Court to seal the record of certain convictions if statutory criteria are met. The defendant must initiate the process by filing a petition through the Probation department. Link.

Official and formal erasure of a record or partial contents of a record. Link.

What a pardon is:

Action by an official of an executive branch of government relieving a criminal from a conviction. Link.

So yes, it's different from a pardon, but it's not just sealing the record, it's official forgiveness.

Did Novell indirectly create a monster? Caldera's 300 million winnings against Microsoft are now being used to fund lawsuits against Linux (and Novell).

Novell also was to receive a cut of any lawsuit awards in the form of so-called "royalties."

* * *

When Canopy prevailed against Microsoft and received the settlement, it tried to first deduct its attorney fees, court costs and other expenses, the judges found. Novell, believing its still-undisclosed cut of the award should have come on the gross amount, sued for breach of contract.

To accomplish this, Novell and Canopy executed two separate documents: the first was a contract of sale, obligating Canopy to pay $400,000 for rights to the source code; the second was a temporary license obligating Canopy to pay $600,000 in license fees and "royalties." The royalties included provisions for payment to Novell of a percentage of any recoveries from lawsuits.

For Beaver country, the applicable county. Note that the direct office addresses of the judges are available as well.

http://courtlink.utcourts.gov/dir/5th dist.htm

Below, someone mentioned that the press likes political controversy. If we start kicking-up enough dust, the *local* press (i.e. in the town where this is happening) will have no choice but to cover it. They won't want to look like bumpkins under the national spotlight, and as such will likely be on their best behavior.