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

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I should have been...TIME = Money (or more 
precisely Money spent is proportional to time). The longer a trial drags 
on the more it is going to cost and I don't mean just court time-Throw in 
all the preparation it adds up. A speedy trial gets a quick resolution for 
the least amount of time,money, and pain. 

In the case of civil trials of corporations vs individuals (or much 
smaller corporations), the legal system does not understand the 
implications of the game that is played here (game as in game theory). The 
side with the larger amount of money and resources doesn't have to win the 
trial to achieve their end. They just have to keep the otherside tied up 
in litigation. As long as Judges don't recognize this fact, they are 
really being used as pawns.

WRT to the PDs. I don't believe that you get a PD even if you ask for one. 
It's only if you can't afford an attorney. Most criminal trials do not 
drag on as the McMartin or Simpson cases did but a few days or weeks. I've 
only seen a few PDs in action during my Jury service. They were competent 
but not dazzling. 




Jim Bauer <jfbauer@home.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
09/25/01 07:03 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] The Checks and Ballances are in the mail


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