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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (105390)	3/22/2005 2:09:26 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793809

Are you a lawyer? Because, it seems to me that all you have to do is read the motion, and your complaints and objections would be answered. There is a reason that Justice is portrayed as being blind, holding a pair of scales. All the judges are supposed to do is look at the evidence and arguments which are put before them, and weigh them. Kind of like a computer. Garbage in, garbage out.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (105390)	3/22/2005 2:14:23 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793809

this judge has just followed the same path of procedural due process appeals and denials I think the point is that he responded to what he was given. What he was given was a suit addressing the conduct of the state procedures along with a request for a related emergency order. He dealt with that according to law, denying the emergency order because the suit, which was just a rehash, wasn't strong enough to eventually prevail. Had he been given a request for a new trial and a request for a related emergency order, he may have done something different.