The Theft of Habeas Corpus

For those who may not know, a very crucial U.S. Supreme Court case is being argued as I write this.

The press hasn’t noticed because most of them have a fourth-grade reading level…..

But Microsoft Corp. v. Baker is a potentially landmark case about whether individuals who form a class [as-in, “class action suit”]can be barred from pursuing their claims on an individual basis when the class action suit has been dismissed with prejudice [against re-filing].
Remember all those class-action suit commercials?
Well, the reason they [attorneys]began doing that was so their class certifications would apply universally and they could directly cash the check and then “distribute” any awards due their clients.

The standard method is to establish a financial trust account.
Whoever establishes the trust makes the rules and with few outright exclusions,  they can make whatever rules they want, as long as they retain professional trust managers to do it. The trust fund managers cash their paychecks directly from the fund, so they have a major incentive to allow the fund to “mature.”

[READ: “Make it virtually impossible for the intended beneficiaries of the fund to ever draw from it.” Just ask the survivors of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, or any of the innumerable other people who SHOULD have been paid but due to this crooked crap pulled by some fund manager, have yet to see a dime.]

And of course, all that money doesn’t simply sit idle; it is used to backstop real investments[gambled]in the hope that it will “grow.”

Class action rules state that if you are suing a company over a claim at tort, [they did something which damaged you]whatever disposition was rendered in any class action suit preceding it applies to you as well, whether or not you were named in the original class or ever received any award from it yourself.

In order to get away with that, the law firms have to put those commercials up on public television at 3 a.m. telling you about how this or that company is being sued for whatever.

In theory, this is the foundation for a claim of “constructive notice,” which means you can be construed to have notice of a claim affecting you.

So if your heart medication gives you a heart attack and kills you, your survivors can’t sue the makers of the drug; even when it comes out they knew their medication was potentially fatal, as long as some other crooked attorneys got there first and already cashed a check.

As you can imagine, this is an abuse of the judicial process and a miscarriage of justice.
Habeas Corpus assures the right of a claimant to have their grievances heard by a court.

This is in fact one of our most fundamental rights.
Indispensable to the patient and prisoner alike, Habeas is one of the cornerstones of our entire judicial process: the right of a person to be heard by a court.
This right has suffered some erosion beneath the gavels of several prior Courts, first denying certain indigent petitioners who were incarcerated at the time the right to be heard upon a showing by the State that petitioner had “abused” the judicial process.
This limit was insufficient to stem the rising tide of incarcerated pro se litigants, however, since very few prisoners actually abuse the judicial process.
So it became necessary to restrict Habeas even further by inventing the “class action” mechanism, whereby a claim at tort can be barred because some other party already sued the people you’re suing for the same cause.
Which may sound reasonable….and let me tell you the COMPANIES really love it…..because why should a company have to pay twice for the same screwup, right?
Except it’s not the SAME screwup because it’s not the SAME aggrieved party.
Think about this just for a moment: If your company damages millions of people with its product, say, then you only have to pay for one court case over the issue.
This is MAJORLY flawed reasoning because it lifts the center of the claim from the actions of the parties to their resources; whoever can “last” longer through a trial will always win.

So now a Habeas claim can be dismissed not only for untimeliness, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, failure to properly name parties or failure to respond in a timely manner, but now also for not being aware of that commercial at three in the morning.

If the Court finds in favor of Micro$oft, anyway.

That case, again, is:
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s