OK, I have had four experiences with the court system, one even made new law in Texas:
    http://dentonbar.com/newsletter/letters00/apr00.htm
    http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Politics/United%20States/Trust%20the%20Government/FAA%20Antics
 
So, it wasn't my idea, any of it, but, at least, no FAA Airworthiness Inspector will ever be able to do that again to anybody.  Neither will anybody else.  We went a long way toward the goal of fixing the law in Texas.  But that wasn't the only thing that needed fixing.  Not only is the law broken, but the other three indicate to me that judges in Williamson County need review:
 
    http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/ClaimAgainstNationwideInsuranceCompany.htm
    http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/JuryDuty.htm
    http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/Fair_trial_Williamson.html


So, it wasn't my idea, any of it, but, since I went through it, what were my conclusions on the whole experience?
 

The first thing that happens when you get sued is "discovery".  You have to answer all the questions in writing from the opposite side.  You have to show all of your evidence to the opposite side.  You have to declare all of your witnesses, and they have to do the same.
 
There will be troubling evidence that upsets the other side.  This must be done away with by the other side.  Here is how they do that:
 
Pictures and movies and tape recordings that you have, that upset the other side, will not be allowed into court.  Part of this is that the court system, much like the FAA, does not recognize technology that is younger than 100 years old.  Notice that the "official court reporter" is punching on a mechanical typewriter, that is producing a paper tape, that nobody but her can read.  How well do you know her?  Have you helper her with her life's objectives?  How accurate is she?  Can she record everything that happens, as well as a tape recorder?  What happens when the judge says "off the record"?  Can somebody, later, change the record?  How would you know that that hasn't happened, if, maybe, you need to appeal?
 
First, the other side will file motions.  Other side lawyer might take the judge to his hunting preserve.  Other side lawyer might make campaign contribution to judge.  Only after due consideration does other side lawyer file Motions To Quash.  These do not require any merit in the argument.  There is no penalty for other side lawyer lying to the judge.  You have to go to court for a hearing for each one of these.  If this doesn't work the first time, the other side lawyer will just wait six months and file it again; the court doesn't keep any records.  The other side can always get as many delays as they want during this "discovery" phase of the lawsuit.

The other side lawyer will go threaten your witnesses.  If your witnesses don't have evidence that the other side lawyer can't get quashed, then the other side lawyer is free to threaten your witnesses with a slander or liable suit, if they come to court to say what they saw.  If the other side lawyer was successful in quashing the evidence that your witness had about their testimony being true, then the other side lawyer is free to threaten your witnesses with a slander or liable suit, if they come to court to say what they saw.

The other side will make up witnesses and evidence to support them.  This is particularly easy if the other side is, or knows, government people.  The Freedom of Information Act is particularly helpful for getting at "whistle blowers" or "complainers". The other side can get a document that you wrote, and get the part that they do not want (your side and your evidence) blacked out, by the government, and use the remainder of anything else you said against you, with the full authentication and presumed honesty of government behind it.  If the other side is a company, they can threaten their employees to come and say what they want.  If they refuse, the other side can bring another employee, who wasn't involved, to say what they want said.  Something like: "Well, I wasn't here then, but what I found in the file clearly shows...".  Now, isn't that hear-say?  No, it isn't, not here!

Comes the day of court.  Prior to trial there is the last resort from the other side, in the motions department.  For that troubling evidence, that you have, that got through all of the array of excluding tactics by the other side lawyer, there is the tool called "Motion In Limine".  Day of trial comes other side lawyer and pleads to the judge to exclude the remaining your side damaging (to their side) argument and witness testimony.  Other side lawyer has had months to research this, find the esoteric law, gather case examples, all to foster his exclusion of your evidence (comes to court with 50 pounds of paper).  In Texas this is made easier with this "6 flags" inheritance - 6 completely mutually exclusive theories of law.  You had no idea that this was going to happen, the law does not require that your side be noticed, your attorney does not have case law and precedents, therefore the judge will not believe him.  Your attorney has to defend your case standing on his feet.  This is where you lose, if you didn't get a really really experienced trial lawyer.

Jury selection is next.  You notice that the jurors are in a sequential order, referred to not by name but by jury number.  First there is juror 677.  Next to her is juror 41.  Next to her is juror 84.  Next to him, juror 3.  You get the idea.  The jury has been sorted, prior to trial, ex parte (without) your attorney.  If you wonder what goes on during the formation of the jury pool, here is my experience.

Follows is pure gang warfare, nothing more than a "rumble".  He who brings the most witnesses wins.  There is no penalty for perjury.  The party that is the most dishonest will win.  The party that has the most liars will win.  It is a principle called "preponderance of the evidence", where all hard evidence has been excluded by the other side.  They can say anything, because they brought a liar to support it.  This is where you notice that court has absolutely nothing to do with what really happened.  The other side knows what you didn't see, so they are free to produce witnesses that did.  The other side knows what you saw, so, but where are your corroborating witnesses?  If you had some, why wouldn't they show up to testify (you can't talk about all of those motions to quash because of the motions in limine preventing that)?

If you ever thought that the jury gets to hear all of the "facts", have we adequately addressed that for you?  A mere hundred years ago, Texas was solving disputes, permanently, with the algorithm of whom hired the faster draw with a pistol.  A totally random outcome, perhaps influenced slightly by which has the more money.  Hasn't changed any.