 The law courts that deal with recovery of damages are generally empowered to settle private disputes between citizens. In our current political and legal environment, this is a service to private citizens, and only secondarily to the large republic. It provides a means for those who use the system to have their disputes brought before a judge in terms of injuries suffered by the party and the acts of another that caused that injury. Where the concept is simple enough and the public purpose obvious, there is nothing obvious about the value this has to those who are in dispute. The first note is that it addresses a very narrow set of challenges, disputes where there are provable injuries. It does not address other disputes that might lead to breaches of public tranquility. The first warning sign on the general approach is that using the courts creates legal damages. It is not a benefit for those who use the system, but an additional cost and burden. That is troubling as it denies that this is a service to those in dispute. It claims a public purpose that is harmful to the public that comes within the legal jurisdiction of the court. In that, it is much like criminal law, but administering punishment to those who might disturb the peace because of their private quarrels. That would indeed be a valid service under sovereignty and concept of the English law. It is less clearly so in a government that exists only to serve the interests of a sovereign citizenry. With this admonition, we can look to the processes of tort as they are in effect in fulfillment of American law. We have a tort law approach that is economic in purpose. It supports and maintains a type of legal practitioner business through the way the courts approach tort law. It uses courts as a special arm of government that sees to the employment of tort law specialists. Tort lawyers are an effective necessity for making use of tort law. What we have is not any part of the common law. It is not a law for the common citizen. In this, it is not properly within our common law foundation. It thrives on special knowledge of legislation and legal principles that are not commonly understood. It is indicative that such laws and principles are not derived by leaders who represent the people. Laws that common citizens do not understand are not representative of them. Laws and principles created by action of the courts are through those who do not even get elected into their offices. So the first action of any citizen who has suffered a significant loss due to the acts of others is to seek accommodation from private insurance companies. The unfortunate truth is that these private businesses often give better public service than the courts that hear the actions in tort law. If accommodations cannot be made or damages greatly exceed the available insurance, then there is a secondary approach through review of the action with a tort lawyer. Again, the accommodation is more likely to be through the private attorney actions than through a citizen accessing the supposedly public courts. For the attorney, it is a business decision whether there can be sufficient recovery from available insurance, or will the wealth of the one who has caused the injury have to be tapped to pay for his legal services. There is the question of whether the injury can be proven, along with proving that the acts of the other party actually and materially cost the injury. Lacking this, the injured party can still hire the attorney under a separate financial service arrangement, noting that the action is going to be expensive in the outcome, not so sure that the attorney is willing to proceed on contingency of winning. For damage recovery actions, the next step is often contacting the party who caused the damage, suggesting that he be represented by a tort lawyer that they meet to see if the matter can be resolved without involving the courts. Another alternative is for the attorney to file papers with the court to bring the matter to official court notice, which is an option that can further encourage the accused tort feeser to get an attorney and come to the table for negotiation. It is not at all uncommon for the accused to contact his or her insurance carriers to raise potential for their joint interests, so he or she can gain tort lawyer support from that source. This can greatly reduce the personal cost for the one or both parties. The purpose of the first contact is not to heighten or better define the dispute, but to see if the matter is subject to resolution through the efforts of specialist attorneys. Encouraging use of damaging court process as a public service is the last thing most attorneys will try. It is far easier and less expensive to use the court action as a threat instead of as any part of a solution. If the threat is going to court, it may be sufficient to get the parties to agree the action is to then settle out of court. If the court has been notified, then the court is again contacted with resolution so that it can clear its files and cancel any actions that have been set. If accommodation cannot be reached, then the process of legal adjudication is activated and the prescribed actions are used to establish the dispute for resolution in court. It is often sufficient at this step to so define the dispute that the resolution becomes relatively certain and the parties are again urged to resolve their dispute without further court involvement. As noted in the aside reading, it is only those actions where the potential for finding legal damages far exceeds the threat of court expenses in time and effort and where reasonable accommodations have been rejected that the action gets into open court before a judge. The involvement of the insurance carrier attorney may well encourage the court action as the cost of any loss is spread over many customers and it can be beneficial to test out some new approach or way of limiting damages that is potentially beneficial to the business of insurance. Even if it only puts moderate time and expense on the representative party, it still can be justified. The action of the court is to receive the evidence of the cause and to deliberate on whether the evidence proves the loss and the legal responsibility of the accused. If proven, judgment will address the damages to be assessed along with reasonable attorney expenses. If unproven, the expenses may be assessed to the complaining party or absorbed by the court in its determination that the cause was properly brought before the court for adjudication. That is support for the use of private attorneys, which is a part of the existing legal system. The final act of a successful suit is usually for the tort-feasor to arrange payment of the judgment. If this is not done, the judgment may be taken to the appropriate police authority to seize upon the property to be sold at public auction in satisfaction of the debt. Normally, the attorney accepts the payment on behalf of his or her client and divides out and makes delivery of the payment to the client. This closes their contractual relationship. Again, avoidance of government official involvement is highly preferred due to the expenses in time and effort to use its services. Also, the service is not stable in the sense of operating rules for the court. It is, for example, currently vogue to start with the concept that the injured should be granted relief of some type. The courts react with an attempt to fine damages to redress, even if it is a bit of a stretch to find them. This is neither right nor wrong in any absolute sense, but rather acts as a statement of the lack of definition in what our law courts should be doing in pursuit of justice and domestic tranquility. Being favorable to the complaint is technically no different than being favorable to the defense. It is the court favoring one side or the other in a dispute because that is the general leaning of the law that is in vogue. The courts do try their best to satisfy the public sense of fairness and justice, no matter what the sense it might be. We also should look at the concept of legislation of tort law. Where does the private quarrel become a matter of public concern such that there is some need for legislation to define a cause of tort action or to set limits on damages and recoveries? It is not a question that has easy answers, especially not in a political arena. If there is some way that public law can be used to minimize the cost of legal actions while still assuring a high level of justice services, then we should pursue that. Can government engage in public insurance for citizens as through setting recoveries for common causes so that only a special case situation has to be addressed in court to find justice? Will this promote justice or injustice? We now have punitive system, but it does serve its basic purpose of providing citizens a means to address more serious causes of damage in a nonviolent way. It provides a safety valve that promotes people coming to resolution without the involvement of the courts, and that is also a value. It primarily fails for not being a service that gets delivered to the public. On the performance side, we have just two metrics. The first is what gets accomplished and delivered to the public customer. The second is what it costs the public to gain what the public receives. Of immediate note for performance, the required cost of attorney representation is part of the system cost, not some separate and external business. As it is required to achieve justice, it is a direct cost. The public service is in terms of having a nonviolent means for sovereign citizens to resolve their differences through damage recovery. This, of course, is not a public service. It is a service for those who have significant disagreements that are based on provable injuries and acts that cause those injuries. The public service is actually the handling of more serious injuries that sovereign citizens receive at the hands of private parties. The injuries suffered from government actions are addressed in accord with legislation, but are otherwise denied. This does provide a level of resolution, though generally not one that could be called just. It is also being paid for by the parties. More of a private service for the injured parties than a true public service. If you need court action or cannot afford it, the judicial system is in place to seek monetary restitution. This is your legal system for handling torts through damages. It is not the only way that courts deal with personal wrong, or we would probably seek to replace it with something that serves more effectively. It is backed up with an alternative tort law system that has traditionally been called Courts of Equity. This second side of tort law will be the subject of our next lesson.