From: Gary Howland <gary@kampai.euronet.nl>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 20:34:00 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: How's that again?
Message-ID: <199603131156.MAA00319@kampai.euronet.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Bill Stewart wrote:
> At 05:40 PM 3/12/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >Revise your statement to:
> >"doesn't want anyone who hasn't spent a few years in law school to pass
> >judgement on pending legislation and the effect of supreme court decision
> >thereon..."
> >and you'd be right on the money.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, though I've played a politician on TV.  I'll grant you
> that lawyers and other trained legal professionals can do a far better
> job of finding and analyzing cases than amateurs like myself, though I suspect
> a month or two's experience with Lexis would be enough to let many
> of "the rest of us" outsearch the average lawyer of 50 years ago
> who had to rely on his or her wits alone.  But if the average intellegent
> person _can't_ evaluate a law and have a reasonable chance of figuring
> out what it says and what it means, there's something seriously wrong
> with the way new laws are written, as well as enforced.

This is especially true in the UK, since the magistrates (the panel of
"judges") in the bottom level of courts (the magistrate courts) consist
of entirely of "respectable" members of the community (eg. headmasters
of local schools etc.).  They are very rarely legal professionals.

> [* Is it true that the reason Election Day is on the _second_
> Tuesday of November is to guarantee it never falls on Guy Fawkes' Day?]

Ah, Guy Fawkes, the only man to enter parliament with honest intentions ...


Gary