5 ms·
I agree that money equates to access in the real world. I agree that a common tactic is "spend baby, spend". But I still fail to see how "selling your access
by John23832 10y ago
I agree that money equates to access in the real world.
I agree that a common tactic is "spend baby, spend".
But I still fail to see how "selling your access to justice", equates to having a bankroll or how it is fundamental. That was all I was asking, how? In the Peter Thiel case, Hogan didn't "sell" his access to justice, Peter was just bankrolling him because he both didn't like Gawker. Peter wasn't "selling" his access to justice, he used Hogan to accomplish a personal goal.
So I ask again, how is "selling your access to justice" fundamental? Or even in your case, so that we have an example and I can understand, how would you, or anyone else, sell their access to justice in order to benefit you in that case? Imo you would need a bankroll, same as Hogan.
- toss1 10y agoI guess I'm reading it as the plaintiff having to 'sell their access' to the system, as part of the potential proceeds, in order to get justice. If you don't have the requisite funds, you sell part of your potential proceeds (which become profits to the investor) in order to get access to the justice system. Or, in Hogan's case, sold his case (access to the justice system) to Theil so they could both achieve their goals. (so maybe, it's just a less-clear phrase than it should be?)