Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Solv Ex (SOLVD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: norwalk hawk who wrote (6674)	3/16/2000 2:23:00 AM
From: WTMHouston	Respond to of 6735

Mike: The decision making differences between judge and jury trials are amazing. If this case had been tried to a jury, they would have been expected to immediately take all the evidence, consider it, and reach a decision: so great is the desire and need for an immediate decision that they are not allowed to do anything else until they make a decision. Plus, if they do not or cannot make a decision quickly enough, a judge declares a mistrial and everyone gets to do it all over again. All of the applicable law is given to them in instructions that are prepared by the court and the lawyers, usually in hours and seldom, if ever, does it take days, much less weeks. However, in a court trial, the judge usually gets around to rendering a decision whenever they get around to it. Different standards from a jury trial: it is "Do as I say, not as I do." Frankly, it is one of the problems with most of our governmental institutions. The rules applicable to the citizenry don't ever seem to apply to the government. IMO, the double standard is one of the reasons so many folks have lost confidence in government. Generally, the longer it takes a judge to render a decision in a court trial, the more likely it is that the Plaintiff has won something. (I purposefully used "generally" and "more likely" because it is not always true. Some judges are just lazy and slow). It does not take nearly as much time to say, "I don't believe the Plaintiff has proved anything. There is nothing here; everyone go home." It takes much longer and involves more work to decide what was proven and what kind of remedy should be provided as a result of proven facts. Plus, usually, but not always, federal judges in these situations will render a written decision and deliver it to the parties rather than have them come to court to hear the decision. It could be days, it could be weeks, it could be months -- but months is unlikely. Regardless of how little or much time it takes and regardless of which way it goes, it will, in all likelihood be just as controversial as most other things involving SOLVD. Troy