Comment: What "dangers"?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: What if? (see in situ)

What "dangers"?

"Dangers"?? What dangers are these? You might lose the $100 fee? A counter-claim is made against you? (how can that happen???). Costs are only really awarded where the action process has been made difficult by the behaviour of one of the parties, or was frivolous.

On the positive side. If judgement is in your favour it means the Small Claims court has considered the facts and "on the balance of probability" has decided that cheating, fraud, material and substantial refusal (whether deliberate or not is not an issue) to follow the rules has taken place. That judgement, with others around the state and the country, may then enable the Paul Campaign to make a challenge to the overall process as being fatally flawed. It would certainly be useful publicity for the Paul Campaign.

So if somebody has $100, and consideres themselves (or their vote) cheated out of a delegate spot by people igoring proper rules - why not? Even if the opposition won, it seems to me a SCC action would keep the cheaters on their toes and much less likely to try things on in future for all the hastle it would cause them.