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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (159011)	1/27/2003 3:53:16 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580253

If you follow that line of reasoning, one would have to conclude that the 17 year old got off very easily and should have been given a jail sentence........and yet, Mr. Pickering does not appear to have minded or objected to that grave error in justice. You keep repeating this. Do you not understand what is meant by the term "jurisdiction"? Pickering had no jurisdiction with respect to the 17 year old when we know the sentence for the latter is bogus. And you keep missing the point........why compare Swan's sentence to that of the 17 year old's? You somehow have focused your attention in the Pickering matter to a case in which he was not involved. I believe you are totally confused and/or ignorant about the facts of the Pickering case, and probably about the general precepts of the law as well. Not at all.......I am sorry that you are having trouble following the discussion. ted