[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:00:47 -0000
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

Evening, RJ!

In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <> wrote:
> On 8/22/2010 1:46 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In gnu.misc.discuss c_stuff<>  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?

Presumably, the disagreement will get resolved, somehow.  You tell me.

> Why is it that you always choose to attack the poster ....

This from a person who starts off a thread by accusing a judge of being
drunk?  If you look again at my last few posts, you won't find me
attacking you or anybody else.  I attacked your argument.  I don't think
you understand your system of law very well, given the number of judges
you disagree with.

> .... 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.

I think expressing trust in the judgement of a judge _is_ logical
reasoning.  Judges tend to be right, most of the time.  Again, why should
I trust your interpretation of your laws above a judge's?  That isn't a
rhetorical question.

And no, you won't find me poring through the minutiae of your court
system, legal precedents, whatever.  I've got far better things to do
with my time.

> Sincerely,
> RJack :)

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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