[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 <user@example.net> wrote:
> 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?
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).
- Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY, (continued)
- Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY, RJack, 2010/12/08
- Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY, RayLopez99, 2010/12/09
- Message not available
- An uber drunken judge in the SDNY, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: An uber drunken judge in the SDNY, RJack, 2010/12/08
- Re: An uber drunken judge in the SDNY, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY, RJack, 2010/12/08
- Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY, Alan Mackenzie, 2010/12/08
- Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY, c_stuff, 2010/12/08
- Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY, Alan Mackenzie, 2010/12/08
- Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY, RJack, 2010/12/08
- Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY, David Kastrup, 2010/12/08
- Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY, RJack, 2010/12/08
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Buh bye, Chris Ahlstrom, 2010/12/08
- The 9th Circuit just made most of us criminals., RJack, 2010/12/08
- Re: The 9th Circuit just made most of us criminals., David Kastrup, 2010/12/08
- Re: The 9th Circuit just made most of us criminals., RJack, 2010/12/08
- Re: The 9th Circuit just made most of us criminals., David Kastrup, 2010/12/08
- Re: The 9th Circuit just made most of us criminals., RJack, 2010/12/08
- Drunken Ninth Circuit judges, RJack, 2010/12/08
- Re: Drunken Ninth Circuit judges, RJack, 2010/12/08