Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY

[RJack]

On 8/22/2010 4:00 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> RJack<user@example.net>  writes:
>
> > 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?
>
> 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 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?

Sincerely,
RJack :)