Hacker News Reader

> a civil court can act against you without giving you representation, without allowing you to have representation, without you present, in secret from the public, and even without notifying you

While there is no right to be afforded free legal representation in civil court in most US jurisdictions (some do) and a civil court can render rulings and judgments against parties who are not represented by counsel, a civil court cannot prohibit a party from having legal representation, which is what your comment seems to suggest.

A civil court can render a ruling against a party if the party is not present, but it will typically go to great lengths to ensure that notice is given to parties before doing so (pleadings served to last address by process server, notice published, etc.). There are typically strict requirements that have to be met before civil court can render a ruling or judgment without a party present, especially where there is no indication that the party has received notice first.

A lot of anecdotes about drastic judgments and rulings being handed down by civil courts happen when parties ignore notice of the proceedings. There are a lot of rules for handling cases in civil court and they are grounded in the constitutional right to due process. Notice and due process are taken really seriously in most US jurisdictions. Federal Courts are especially strict about following the rules.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp

> a civil court cannot prohibit a party from having legal representation, which is what your comment seems to suggest.

> https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp

This is a good point for federal cases, but I meant my comment to cover civil action in state courts too. These are the courts that are most likely to affect someone's life. For instance in California small claims courts you are not allowed to be represented.

That’s by design to make justice more accessible. IIRC, you can petition the judge to adjourn the case and move it to normal court.

Also, I believe in small claims as a defendant you can appoint an attorney to represent you. I sued a tow operator in small claims court and the dude who showed up was definitely an attorney.

> I sued a tow operator in small claims court and the dude who showed up was definitely an attorney.

That might be because you were suing a company, though. How would a company "represent itself"? Get the board of directors in?

Lots of times they just send an executive. See the Uber civil cases.

Correct -- In many jurisdictions, corporations cannot proceed pro se. They must retain counsel.

As far as a company speaking for itself, a corporate representative is often designated to speak for and bind the company in any civil action.

See, e.g., Federal Rule 30(b)(6): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_30

Small claims courts have very limited powers though. They cannot impose any sanction except a small amount of remuneration.

"A civil court can render a ruling against a party if the party is not present, but it will typically go to great lengths to ensure that notice is given to parties before doing so"

In many types of cases, but not all. Protection from abuse order hearings generally happen without the knowledge of the target of the order.

For good reason, even starting the process can set off violence and it's not instant to complete.

I honestly don't see a good reason.

The process is commonly abused by divorce lawyers to gain control of the house for their client, and the bar for evidence is extremely low. The way our adversarial justice system is supposed to work is that the truth comes out in a fair fight. This process obviously ignores this foundation.

If there's really enough evidence to suggest immediate violence, then they should be arrested for terroristic threats and other stuff. And let's not forget that the protective order is just a piece of paper and won't stop any violence if the person is truly motivated.

Frankly, I think a lot of civil court actions have been created just to avoid the protections guaranteed in the criminal system.

> I honestly don't see a good reason.

I presume you're one of the fortunate majority who've never had domestic abusers injure (temporarily or permanently) or kill someone loved.

I think the brunt of their points are there are few protections and they tend to have far to much power over those who not in the 1% and can afford to drag a case out for years. Also judges are people too and quite often are affected by emotion. Statistically your are significantly more likely to get off with a better judgement if they've just had a good lunch. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/justice-is-ser...

"Frankly Americans have a lot fewer rights than they think they have"

Very true

Classic George Carlin - "You have no rights!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4

I've never had a good experience "pre-empting" comments that will inevitably be used to derail your thread.

In any case, I was mostly thinking that it has to be a form of privilege to feel like a particular slippery slope hasn't happened yet. I think about how the word "privilege" is used, and its more like "exemption from some inconveniences that aren't obvious". Your post about people not noticing that civil courts and agencies have these power over assumed rights is a decent example of that.