[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY

From: RJack
Subject: Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:00:48 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/22/2010 4:00 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
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

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

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 decisions.

Your irrational rant is hereby acknowledged and recorded.

Do you have a reasoned, rational response to the subject of Second
Federal Circuit precedent concerning 17 USC sec. 412 or is that all for now?

RJack :)

reply via email to

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