Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Really (Score 1) 515

Unless you live in a swing state, voting for Clinton or Trump IS throwing your vote away. The only way most voters can make any difference is by voting third party. It won't affect who wins this election, but then neither would voting a major party. It will, however, influence party policy the the choice of candidates next election.

Comment Re:Big surprise some jackhole Silicon Valley (Score 1) 241

"My pitch" is entirely "this other lawyer says I have a case, but he personally can't file it for me. Will you look at what he has prepared and consider filing it for me on contingency?" and the answer to that is "no". I personally don't know a fucking thing about the matter other than that someone else who's supposed to know better says I've probably been wronged and that he personally is barred from righting it for technical reasons I don't understand, and all I want is for someone to look at his pitch, and they won't even do that.

Comment Re:OMG, a months rent! (Score 1) 241

Like the poor schmuck living in a rented bedroom in someone else's house gets a choice of whether that house has TV or not, or could get a discount off their rent/utilities if they decided to forgo watching it.

Also, $300-$500 would cover the filing fees just to ask the judge a goddamn question pro-bono. Double that to also ask a lawyer whether he would ask the judge that for me in the proper way, to which he still might answer "no". Even if he did say yes, and (on contingency) asked the judge to order the relevant documents produced to settle the question, the judge then might say "no". Even if the judge said yes, and the documents were produced, and the question was answered, the answer might still be "no".

And nothing in a library is going to tell me the odds of that, because that outcome depends entirely on the contents of private documents. Just asking for those documents to be produced, in the afore-described way, which is a best case scenario, is several months' rent. The legal theory behind the case is sound, I'm assured, because I'm only aware of any of this happening because another lawyer brought it to my attention -- he's just not allowed to file the case. I just need someone else to look at his strongly-suggestive evidence, and ask the judge to order the production of definitive evidence. But I can't even get anyone to look at that evidence without paying them a crippling sum, and I can't even ask the judge myself without paying the court a crippling sum.

Comment Re:OMG, a months rent! (Score 1) 241

Or even more to the point, it's a matter of unavoidable expenses levied by those with the power to do so (like paying for the right to just exist somewhere) sucking up so much of whatever money someone can make.

A full time minimum wage job could fund quite a luxurious amount of actual consumption, if it weren't for things like rent sucking up so much of that money before it can even be spent on anything.

Comment Re:OMG, a months rent! (Score 1) 241

He did. I asked one of the other lawyers I went to talk to to call that first lawyer (while I was there talking to him) who said he'd send over the information and it should be open and shut and a safe bet for the other lawyer. Other lawyer nominally said "OK do that" while I was there getting my consultation, and said he'd be in touch. When I didn't hear back from the other lawyer I called to ask him if he had received the info and what he thought about the case. He said he thinks the info came in a while before but hadn't looked at it yet because I hadn't paid him yet.

Comment Re:OMG, a months rent! (Score 0, Flamebait) 241

Look here you little shittard, a month's rent is a devastating expense for the vast majority of Americans, who barely have enough to make it until next month. The loss of a month's rent once ruined an entire goddamn year and nearly left me homeless. I'm not in quite such dire straights myself anymore, but I still can't afford to risk that much fucking money; and more to the general point, the vast majority of Americans definitely can't.

As for false accusations, a fucking lawyer with more access to the evidence than anyone except the would-be-accused relative, and an official duty to be neutral to all parties involved, told me that it was extremely likely that my entire family had been wronged, and wanted to file suit to have a judge look at the complete evidence and decide one way or another, but because of his prior involvement couldn't. He tried, he asked the judge to order the relative to produce documents that would have settled the question one way or another, and the judge said he wasn't allowed to file that motion because of his prior involvement in the matter, and that I would have to file it myself.

All I needed was to formally ask the judge "is this apparent grievous wrongdoing against me that's been alleged true?" (because honestly, I have no idea; I barely know the relative in question, and I didn't know that money existed much was was supposed to be due to my family, until unusual circumstances brought it to the involved lawyer's attention, who brought it to mine), but that alone would have cost me a crippling amount of money just to ask that myself, must less to pay a lawyer to ask it in the proper way, and in principle the judge himself might have said "no, I won't answer that question" and that would have been that, wasted a crippling amount of money for nothing, never mind the possibility that he could have ordered the production of the relevant evidence and then found it exonerating.

All the would-be-accused relative, who is already filthy rich with a lawyer on retainer anyway, would have had to do is turn over the documents the judge requested, so he could look at them and make a decision. But because it would cost a crippling amount of money to even ask someone to make her do that, I've just got to take her word for it instead, and probably miss out on the last hope for a hand up out of poverty I'll ever get.

To me, honestly, you sound like some rich asshole who could afford to go on speculative lawsuits for profit, and has no fucking idea how most of the country lives and how inaccessible the barest semblance of justice is to them. You cuntfaced shithole.

Comment Re:Big surprise some jackhole Silicon Valley (Score 2) 241

You still seem to be missing the point.

This business looks at your case (the evidence and other factors), decides if it's a good investment (likely to win big) or not, and if so, funds it.

I couldn't get someone to so much as look at the evidence without first paying them.

Nobody said "I don't think you have a case here, so no, I won't take it on contingency". They said "pay me and I'll see whether or not you have a case here."

This business necessarily must do the "see if you have a case here" part first (rather, they have an algorithm to do that for them), in order to decide which cases to fund. So that alone would be much further than was getting. They still could have said "no" in the end, but they'd've at least considered the question first.

Comment Re:Big surprise some jackhole Silicon Valley (Score 1) 241

You've already consulted several professional lawyers on the matter. Why would the algorithm be any different?

I asked the lawyers if they would consider a contingency basis if they thought it was likely the case would be won, and they wouldn't even look to see if the case was likely to be won. This startup's entire business is looking to see which cases are likely to be won, and funding the ones that are. It's still possible that they would find my case unlikely to be won and I'd still be stuck, but (if they took individual and not only business cases) they would at least give me a "yes or no" answer rather than "show me the money first then I'll think about it".

Comment Re:Big surprise some jackhole Silicon Valley (Score 4, Interesting) 241

If something like this were available to individuals, it could have been very useful to me recently. Last year it came to light that a relative may have wronged the rest of my family to the tune of a possibly very large sum of money that I hadn't even known existed, but the lawyer informing me of this likelihood could not act on it himself (on my family's behalf) because of his prior involvement in the situation, so advised me to get another lawyer and file suit about it myself. But just the filing fees, never mind attorney's fees, would be about a month's rent, and I can't risk that kind of money just to find out whether there's a lot more money due to me or not. I asked several lawyers if they would look at the facts of the matter (neatly packaged by the involved lawyer), decide whether it seemed likely that they would win the case, and take it on a contingency basis if so, but none would even consider that.

With an algorithm like this, available to individuals, they (this new startup) could have made the assessment of whether I was likely to win the case, and funded it if so. Something like that could do miracles for justice, if it were available to individuals.

Slashdot Top Deals

I've got a bad feeling about this.