RE: [dvd-discuss] Inexplicable

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

Which case was this?


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:33 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Inexplicable
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:41:23PM -0700, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> > Maybe true...but that is still no reason.....We'll try them 
> in absentia in 
> > the California Courts....and if they don't show up the 
> courts can find 
> > them all in contempt for not showing up! <sorry. I couldn't 
> resist. The 
> > Stupidity of the California Court system in the case of 
> Matt P. still 
> > ticks me off>
> 
> Why go to Matt when you're talking about germans and have a german who
> _was_ tried in that california court right here? :)
> 
> 
> The actual procedure was not a contempt of court thing, but rather a 
> so-called "entry of default" aka "we find you guilty because 
> you didn't 
> fly halfway across the globe for us". 
> In my eyes, that's at least as stupid.
> 
> -- 
> http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
> pub  1024D/2D7A04F5 2002-05-16 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
>      Key fingerprint = C731 64D1 4BCF 4C20 48A4  29B2 BF01 
> 9FA1 2D7A 04F5
>