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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (121965)	12/23/2003 11:12:11 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Did you read the decision I linked, Win? I know you did not because it is impossible to read the full decision, the footnotes, and the dissent by Black and others by the time it took for you to respond to my post....It takes a minimum of 15-20 minutes for an experienced lawyer to read it thorughly, think about it, and determine what it can be said to stand for. An unversed reader cannot possibly get it in the time it took to respond to my post. You again made a damn fool out of yourself. What's new? PS: Yes, I am a trained lawyer, have been reading court decisions for 27 years. Thirty, if you include law school. C2@sothere.com

To: Win Smith who wrote (121965)	12/23/2003 11:27:46 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hey, Win, why did the author of the FA article cite the Quirin case but failed to mention Johnson v. Eisentrager, which specifically references Quirin? Can you respond? Do you see a problem with not mentioning precedent that might be controlling? It's one of my criticism of the article. I should have ignored your comments. They are insubstantial and stupid. Except for the fact that they highlight your ignorance, they did not merit the time I gave to them.