[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:40:12 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

amicus_curious wrote:

"Hyman Rosen" <> wrote in message news:z5Sxl.45965$3S3.3834@newsfe22.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
But when push came to shove, their injunction was denied since they could not show any value for the non-monetary issues.

No. A preliminary injunction was denied because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the likelihood of irreparable harm should the preliminary injunction not be granted. And that's *did not*, not *could not* - they didn't try, because they thought they didn't have to:

Well, the District Court judge gave them a chance to re-file, but
they chose not to do so. Do you suggest that they just went into the tank because they didn't feel like winning?

District Judge White was obviously at odds with the CAFC's ruling
interpreting Ninth Circuit precedential law. The plaintiff was
*never* going to receive his requested injunction.

There is more than one way to skin a skunk in the courtroom. Judge
White paid lip service to the CAFC's decision as the "trier of law".
But he was also the exclusive "trier of fact". A district court
judge can always find a way to see the facts as most favorable to
the defendant if he believes there is injustice in the law of the
decision (akin to the principle of "jury nullification").

You are grasping at straws.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]