Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (145083)	5/13/2001 7:19:34 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

No. Read his words carefully. He's twisting the story. My point was that any accused deserves counsel, not the best counsel. Not every accused can afford the dream team but in criminal matters, they will get court appointed counsel if they can't afford on on their own. (Gideon case) SEC proceedings are normally civil in nature. His implication was that the SEC nominee should have declined the request to help the company which was undergoing an SEC proceeding becasue it is an internet porno pruveyor. Its a short sighted way of looking at things IMO. JLA

To: ManyMoose who wrote (145083)	5/13/2001 8:16:43 PM
From: ThirdEye	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Unfortunately, Dave, I kid you not. It turns out the definition of "competent counsel" is open to a good deal of interpretation. In recent years a number of capital cases turning on just this point have been brought before the USSC. I don't have chapter and verse at hand but the Court has bent over backward to preserve state prerogative and to preserve the death penalty even when defendants got something way less than competent counsel, let alone the best available.