Where they come up with it is, making decisions that are most lucrative for corporate interests. If the case will not result in large fees for attorneys, it can be totally rigged by judges as to the outcome. That is why jury trials became more and more limited, as the judiciary became more and more a rogue branch of government.
They began narrowing the right to jury trial since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gained too much independence in 1968. This is just another example. If a whistleblower case is not beneficial to the members of the “legal industry”, i.e. will it generate huge fees that can be redistributed back into the political machine through law firm campaign contributions, it will be dismissed on a motion for summary judgment- by one biased judge.
The only good thing about this ruling, is that it gives some clarification of how they decide the right to a jury trial. But of course, they can always use their “discretion” aka pretzel logic – to deny you a trial anyway…which is 99% of the time if you are self-represented.
98 A.3d 672 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 19, 2014): per Olson, J., held in part that “there is no state constitutional right to jury trial on a whistleblower claim.” After denying the appellant’s statutory claims for a jury trial, the court determined that appellant had not met the “two requirements [that] must be satisfied for a jury trial to be guaranteed by our Constitution,” which includes “show[ing] that a right to a jury trial ‘would have been required in 1790, when the Pennsylvania Constitution was adopted,’ and that “the action must have a common law basis, not a statutory basis.”
321 total views, 1 views today