Re: [dvd-discuss] The Checks and Ballances are in the mail

[Jim Bauer <jfbauer(at)home.com>]

Ignore any right to a speedy trial for a moment.  What about
a right to afford a defense?  If someone like the MPAA sued
me, I would have no possiblity of defending myself unless a
lot of sympathic people sent in donations.  It would seem that
justice belongs only to those with the most money.

In a criminal case, I would at leat have the right to a free bargain
basement defence by a public defender who incedently is working
for the same government that would be prosecuting me.  Can you say
conflict of interest?

Back to the civil cases.  A while back I though of a way
to pay for the defense of the little guy.  If really-big-guy
sues little-guy, they really-big-guy must provide X% of the money
they spend on the suit to the defendent for their defense.  The exact
percentage would be dependent on how big the big-guy is and how
little the little-guy is.  This would be done no matter who wins.
This could go a long way toward reducing legal threats and intimidation.

Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
>You hit upon something I was pondering over the weekend-the right to a 
>speedy trial. Not just in criminal cases but civil as well. Our legal 
>system seems to have lost sight of the fact that people are not made of 
>infinite amounts of money, time or patience to straighten out these 
>messes. 
>
>MPAA spent $4.5M in the Eric Corley case. That's more than any possible 
>damages even indirectly attributable to him. Look at the Felton case. NO 
>damages and if the Federal Judge doesn't brand the RIAA attorneys with a 
>scarlet "FA" on their forheads he's clearly more patient than I -)
>
>
>
>
>Jim Bauer <jfbauer@home.com>
>Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>09/23/01 11:35 AM
>Please respond to dvd-discuss
>
> 
>        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>        cc: 
>        Subject:        [dvd-discuss] The Checks and Ballances are in the mail
>
>
>Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
>>The courts have many times declared policy set by Congress as 
>>unconstitutional and often set aside much of the implementation of 
>various 
>>policies because they violate the intent of policies. Look at 
>>environmental cases these days. Look at some of the land use cases. 
>>Congress cannot just vote something without ultimate review as you appear 
>
>>to be claiming. THere are checks and balances. Judicial review is one.
>
>It is a flawed checks and ballances.  Once a law passes that is one
>day declared unconstitutional, the dammage has already begun.  It will
>often take years or decades to undo the direct dammage.  But the
>indirect dammage will last forever.  It will cost millions of dollars
>and greatly affect, if not destroy, the lives of many innocent people.
>-- 
>Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com
>
>
>


-- 
Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com