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.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BillHoo who wrote (45653)	5/30/2000 3:24:00 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Maybe that's how they do it in NYC, but that hasn't been my experience down here in Texas. Maybe having elected judges isn't so bad after all!

To: BillHoo who wrote (45653)	5/30/2000 3:45:00 PM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 74651

Bill - interesting analogy with traffic tickets. I have gotten 3 tickets in the last 10 years. In each case, I was guilty as charged - going too fast and caught on radar. The first time, I pled "not guilty" and requested a court date, mostly because I wanted to explain why I was going that fast in hopes of a lower fine - that was back when a few hundred was a lot of money to me. The arresting officer did not show up in court at the appointed time, and the judge was plainly irritated, told the prosecutor that if the state could not find the time in its busy schedule to arrange to have the witness appear they didn't deserve to have the case heard, and dismissed charges. After that, I figured "why not" and did the same thing again - and in both subsequent cases the officer did not appear and the case was dismissed. I don't happen to think that a landmark anti-trust case really has much in common with a speeding ticket, but at least on the question of judicial bias, at least here in Texas, it seems like the judges have a chip on their shoulder for the state, not the defendant.