> I'm already paying the mostly-lawyer political
> system -- why not start by asking them to earn
> a little of their inflated salaries and benefits
> before spending more on a private attorney?
There's nothing wrong with engaging elected officials into the dispute
process but be forewarned that: (1) empty promises are often given to
investigate and in my experience as an attorney, elected officials don't
spend much effort in the follow-through steps after the initial inquiry is
issued; and (2) elected officials have a habit of furthering damage to your
I often see letters of inquiry placed by my clients, but I've learned not to
expect the official, nor their staff to have an interest in tracking the
case toward resolution. If that escalation is used in the beginning and
follow-though does not develop, there may be little incentive for the
utility if they deem your attempt with an elected official to have failed.
(i.e., "if his Congressman and city councilman don't care, why should I?")
Also keep in mind that Congress has granted the regulatory enactment and
enforcement authority in RF matters to the FCC, and that authority has been
recognized and upheld by the state and federal courts.
> The law should require the legal fees be reimbursed
> by the party found responsible for violation of the
That argument can be extended to all areas of U.S. civil law in order to
compel the looser to pay. Only the strong cases would be taken into the
courts and we would see a radical reduction in frivolous claims being filed
in our U.S. society. The legal profession's argument to that change is only
society's wealthy would bring civil law suits into court and access to the
courts by the general population would become severely limited. My legal
work is all transactional anyway, and I'm one of the few attorneys who
believes in tort reform.
RFI mailing list