The Great Reset of the Legal System

They set the world up in such a way that the mega-rich can hold power over the average person merely because of the wealth they have. If we truly want a more fair and level playing field where we all respect each other for being human, then surely the system of things as they are needs to change.

How many times throughout history is the less wealthy person prosecuted and brought to justice or threatened with court action so as not to stand up for themselves because of the costs and system involved? I would wager that most of the time, the costs and process of court action and the high-powered lawyers of the mega-rich walk and trample the rights of the average person.

Where is the justice in such a system? Well, it doesn’t exist. There is only an illusion of justice. The rich can pay for expensive lawyers and get the best legal advice and can thus hold sway over the average person.

Imagine a system where the average person had as much legal clout as the billionaires. Imagine that big money was not a guarantee of power over others.

We don’t stand up for ourselves legally, because of the costs of court cases. They rigged the system to favour the mega-rich.

What if there was a system that levelled the playing field?

What I am proposing is a model that evens out the power imbalance prevalent in societies the world over. How do we negate the financial power of any corporation or individual who holds that power over others, merely because of their wealth status?

The threat of any drawn-out legal action that will cost time and bankrupt an individual is the key stumbling block to the average person fighting for their rights.

What if we capped any legal case, and the fees paid to lawyers were capped at a maximum, so that both plaintiff and defendant had access to the same level of legal service?

What if we capped the legal fees and the legal case at a cost of up to 80% of the annual income of the lowest earning individual in the legal case? Further to this above, here is the kicker, the wealthier of the two in the legal case would have to fork out the same ratio, which is 80% of annual earnings. This will then go into a ‘legal fund’ to pay for the case, and auditing and court costs .

From the ‘legal fund,’ both parties, namely plaintiff and defendant,will receive the annual wage of the less wealthy party to the legal procedure, to continue living.

Then the law takes its course. Once they decide the case, the loser will lose 50% of their annual earnings to the winner. This will stop any potential profiteering from taking place by the less wealthy on the wealthy. For instance, a less wealthy person trying to take money from a more wealthy person would now lose half their living wage. This will also ensure that before each party files a legal case that both parties are sure that they have a strong case.

This will also stop the wealthy from threatening the less wealthy with legal action and holding power over them because of their wealth.

They would then allocate the excess money in the ‘legal fund’ to housing projects for the homeless and feeding and clothing the hungry and the unemployed

Auditors would audit the legal fund and ensure that the excess money is allocated to the housing and feeding projects, which will also be audited. The auditors themselves would have a set and capped audit fee, per legal case.

Any appeals to the initial ruling would start the process again as per the above process of payments and fees.

This is only a first draft of some of my thoughts and I will probably update this very rough topline model as I think more deeply. I understand there are many, many variables. What I am proposing here is merely a principle that could work. Let me know what you think about this?