A civil suit is exactly the government sticking their dick in the problem. You're having a government employee (the judge) either decide the case themselves in a government building at taxpayer expense, or impanel a jury in a government building at taxpayer expense. Either way you're going to be using laws and rules of civil procedure decided upon by the government in order to try the case. Then the trial hands down a verdict that the government has the ability to enforce through seizure of things of value or by curtailing a person's rights.
The fact that the government is the arbitrating party in a civil suit is incidental to the nature of the dispute.
It may very well get settled out of court in as a result of mediation.
Regardless, it's quite possible that the parties in the wrong here make it right or right-ish somehow before this even lands in court.
I think the fact that everyone thinks the .gov needs to dogpile on with civil or criminal enforcement before that has had a chance to play out or not speaks volumes about the typical moral character around here.
But not without the court. The court is deeply involved in the pretrial process. The court's rulings will influence if and how much a settlement there will be.
Well, you see, we setup a system of private judges who decide cases like this. And of course, we need to monitor those judges, so we create a system of judge reviewers that, of course, you pay for to figure out if the judge being used is a good judge. But then you also need to make sure the reviewers are legitimate, so we make a private system of meta reviewers to make sure the reviewers are good.
And of course, in case the parties can't agree on the judges we put up a polymarket bet so we can crowd source which of the judges should be picked. And if that's disputed then we go out and hire a private police enforcement force to make sure the other party is complying with our desire for the right judges. Of course, we arm them just to be sure.
The poster needs to be identified, charged and sued
[flagged]
A civil suit is exactly the government sticking their dick in the problem. You're having a government employee (the judge) either decide the case themselves in a government building at taxpayer expense, or impanel a jury in a government building at taxpayer expense. Either way you're going to be using laws and rules of civil procedure decided upon by the government in order to try the case. Then the trial hands down a verdict that the government has the ability to enforce through seizure of things of value or by curtailing a person's rights.
The fact that the government is the arbitrating party in a civil suit is incidental to the nature of the dispute.
It may very well get settled out of court in as a result of mediation.
Regardless, it's quite possible that the parties in the wrong here make it right or right-ish somehow before this even lands in court.
I think the fact that everyone thinks the .gov needs to dogpile on with civil or criminal enforcement before that has had a chance to play out or not speaks volumes about the typical moral character around here.
> This is exactly the sort of thing that a civil suit is perfect for.
... who do you think decides the outcome of a civil suit?
>... who do you think decides the outcome of a civil suit?
The overwhelming majority of civil suits are settled out of court by an agreement between the parties involved.
The reason people settle out of court is because the threat of having it decided by court. No threat no settlement.
But not without the court. The court is deeply involved in the pretrial process. The court's rulings will influence if and how much a settlement there will be.
Well, you see, we setup a system of private judges who decide cases like this. And of course, we need to monitor those judges, so we create a system of judge reviewers that, of course, you pay for to figure out if the judge being used is a good judge. But then you also need to make sure the reviewers are legitimate, so we make a private system of meta reviewers to make sure the reviewers are good.
And of course, in case the parties can't agree on the judges we put up a polymarket bet so we can crowd source which of the judges should be picked. And if that's disputed then we go out and hire a private police enforcement force to make sure the other party is complying with our desire for the right judges. Of course, we arm them just to be sure.
/s