Of course you file initially in Small Claims Court. The problem is that the corporate defendant will usually exercise its right to remove the case from SCC so that it can be represented by a lawyer.
What if you, and dozens of people like you, were ripped off for $1k - $2k by a small fraudulent corporation, and you have solid evidence to prove it? Lawyers typically charge at least $3k to go to trial, so they'll tell you that you have a good case, but that it doesn't make financial sense for them to represent you. Most lawyers (understandably) won't consider a class action lawsuit unless there are $ hundreds of thousands at stake and a high chance of winning.
But if you try to bring your good case to court without a lawyer against a company that has a lawyer, you have very low odds of winning, even if you are legally savvy. If you were going to be required to pay the other side's legal fees if you lose, you'd be crazy to even try. With a "loser pays winner's costs" system, the fraudulent corporation would have even less incentive to stop defrauding people.
Unauthorized practice of law is prohibited. OK, fine. But what is "practice of law"?
Merely telling someone what the law says is *not* practicing law.
Representing someone in court is *certainly* practicing law.
There's a lot of grey area in between.
How about analyzing a client's situation, reviewing applicable law, advising the client of their legal options, and recommending a course of action? That's what most lawyers do. That sounds like "practice of law" to me.
But if *that's* illegal (for a non-lawyer), then wouldn't it be illegal for me to tell my driving student, when he is approaching a red light, that red means stop, and that he should stop?
I bought it online, so my options were credit card, check, or wire bank transfer. The retailer's policy was to hold checks for 9 days to ensure that they cleared, and I wasn't willing to wait that long. Had I known what a hassle the credit card was going to be, I would have just paid the extra fee and wired the money. (In the end, that's what I did once I got my money back from the credit card company.)
I can't speak to DHS involvement, but I can personally attest to having my credit card frozen after making an unusually large payment. I wanted to buy my fiancee an engagement ring, but knew my line of credit was more than the cost of the ring. So, I called my credit card (issued by "Bank One First USA JP Morgan Chase" at last check) and asked if I can make a purchase over my credit limit by pre-paying the amount of the purchase. They said "Yes." So, I sent an electronic payment for $15k. The next day when trying to buy gas with the credit card, I found the card account frozen! This was the last thing I expected. I called the CC company and asked what was going on. They explained that due to the unusually large payment, they froze the account. (Why not just not give me access to the added funds until they can verify them?) It took me hours on the phone with the CC supervisor and a conference call to the bank from which I'd transferred in the money before they even unfroze my account. In the end, they _still_ wouldn't let me purchase the ring, regardless of the ample credit balance, because "the transaction amount is over your credit limit". (Apparently, the first CC customer service rep. that I had spoken with was wrong.)
Anyway, I don't have a problem with this because it was the CC's decision, not the goverment's decision, to freeze my account. I let the market forces go to work... and stopped doing business with that credit card company (as soon as I got my money back).
Why do mirrors reverse left and right but not up and down?
Why is that a rhetorical question? It's got a fascinating answer:
Your mirror image is not reversed left-to-right any more than it is reversed top-to-bottom! You only _think_ it is because your brain more easily recognizes an image of you reversed left-to-right than it does an image of you reversed top-to-bottom. It is just as correct to say that the image in the mirror is reversed top-to-bottom (and not left-to-right).
If you imagine yourself being rotated 180 degrees about the vertical axis in the mirror, the result has to be reversed about the vertical axis to match the image in the mirror.
Similarly, you could imagine yourself being rotated 180 degrees about the _horizontal_ axis in the mirror. The result would have to be reversed about the _horizontal_ axis in order to match the image in the mirror.
In fact, any axis you pick will work. Rotate 180 degrees about that axis and then reverse about that axis and you have your mirror image!
Psychologically, it's much easier for your brain to "parse" the image in the mirror if it does an implied rotation about the _vertical_ axis in the mirror, the result of which only mismatches your image by a simple left-to-right reversal.
Imagine a gravity-less world of aliens who were more symmetrical about the horizontal axis than about the vertical axis. It would be easier for them to visualize themselves rotated about the horizontal axis than about the vertical axis. Their mirror image would, then, only differ from this visualization by a top-to-bottom reversal. They would look in the mirror and say that the mirror had reversed their image top-to-bottom!
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you file initially in Small Claims Court. The problem is that the corporate defendant will usually exercise its right to remove the case from SCC so that it can be represented by a lawyer.
What if you, and dozens of people like you, were ripped off for $1k - $2k by a small fraudulent corporation, and you have solid evidence to prove it? Lawyers typically charge at least $3k to go to trial, so they'll tell you that you have a good case, but that it doesn't make financial sense for them to represent you. Most lawyers (understandably) won't consider a class action lawsuit unless there are $ hundreds of thousands at stake and a high chance of winning.
But if you try to bring your good case to court without a lawyer against a company that has a lawyer, you have very low odds of winning, even if you are legally savvy. If you were going to be required to pay the other side's legal fees if you lose, you'd be crazy to even try. With a "loser pays winner's costs" system, the fraudulent corporation would have even less incentive to stop defrauding people.
Merely telling someone what the law says is *not* practicing law.
Representing someone in court is *certainly* practicing law.
There's a lot of grey area in between.
How about analyzing a client's situation, reviewing applicable law, advising the client of their legal options, and recommending a course of action? That's what most lawyers do. That sounds like "practice of law" to me.
But if *that's* illegal (for a non-lawyer), then wouldn't it be illegal for me to tell my driving student, when he is approaching a red light, that red means stop, and that he should stop?
I bought it online, so my options were credit card, check, or wire bank transfer. The retailer's policy was to hold checks for 9 days to ensure that they cleared, and I wasn't willing to wait that long. Had I known what a hassle the credit card was going to be, I would have just paid the extra fee and wired the money. (In the end, that's what I did once I got my money back from the credit card company.)
Anyway, I don't have a problem with this because it was the CC's decision, not the goverment's decision, to freeze my account. I let the market forces go to work... and stopped doing business with that credit card company (as soon as I got my money back).
Why do mirrors reverse left and right but not up and down? Why is that a rhetorical question? It's got a fascinating answer: Your mirror image is not reversed left-to-right any more than it is reversed top-to-bottom! You only _think_ it is because your brain more easily recognizes an image of you reversed left-to-right than it does an image of you reversed top-to-bottom. It is just as correct to say that the image in the mirror is reversed top-to-bottom (and not left-to-right). If you imagine yourself being rotated 180 degrees about the vertical axis in the mirror, the result has to be reversed about the vertical axis to match the image in the mirror. Similarly, you could imagine yourself being rotated 180 degrees about the _horizontal_ axis in the mirror. The result would have to be reversed about the _horizontal_ axis in order to match the image in the mirror. In fact, any axis you pick will work. Rotate 180 degrees about that axis and then reverse about that axis and you have your mirror image! Psychologically, it's much easier for your brain to "parse" the image in the mirror if it does an implied rotation about the _vertical_ axis in the mirror, the result of which only mismatches your image by a simple left-to-right reversal. Imagine a gravity-less world of aliens who were more symmetrical about the horizontal axis than about the vertical axis. It would be easier for them to visualize themselves rotated about the horizontal axis than about the vertical axis. Their mirror image would, then, only differ from this visualization by a top-to-bottom reversal. They would look in the mirror and say that the mirror had reversed their image top-to-bottom!