[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:00:47 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

RJack <> writes:

> 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?

As long as the "disagreement" is solely in your eye and not in that of
either the experts or the district judge, this is quite academical.

Your abysmal record in understanding legal matters apparently includes
recognizing equivalence.

Since equivalence again is ultimately decided by judges and not you,
it's just more water down the same bridge when you dig up higher court

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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