Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY

[RJack]

On 8/22/2010 1:46 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss c_stuff<user@example.net>  wrote:
> > On 8/22/2010 1:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
> > > Of course not.  How is stating that you're mistaken got anything
> > > to do with Erik Andersen?  More precisely, you're probably
> > > mistaken about the applicability of the court decision you cited.
> > > Anyhow, as I've already said, if you're right, then the
> > > defendants will appeal and get their money back.
>
> > Besides thin air, what's your basis for stating I'm mistaken? Even
> > Hyman Rosen attempts to document a few of his assertions.
>
> When you disagree with an acknowledged expert in legal matters (the
> judge), something you do quite a lot of, it's likely you're mistaken
> rather than the judge.  Unless, of course, you are an acknowledged
> legal expert yourself, something I asked you which you failed to
> answer.

What happens when a district judge disagrees with three acknowledged
experts (panel of circuit judges) whose rulings must be followed and are
binding on the district judge?

Why is it that you always choose to attack the poster instead of
demonstrating the flaws in his arguments using logical reasoning and
demonstrable facts? Ad hominem attacks rarely convince anyone of the
strength of your assertions.

Sincerely,
RJack :)