[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] The Checks and Ballances are in the mail
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The Checks and Ballances are in the mail
- From: Jim Bauer <jfbauer(at)home.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 23:33:57 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <F243IqtQvAauNjVuMhv00008802@hotmail.com>
- Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
"Chris Moseng" <underwhelm_org@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>From: Jim Bauer <jfbauer@home.com>
>
>>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.
>
>How can a person can sincerely believe both of these paragraphs
>simultaneously?
A similar thought crossed my mind when I wrote it. The "solution"
does obviously have some problems. How can things be fixed
without introducing other problems?
--
Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com