SI
SI
discoversearch

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: mph who wrote (356659)3/30/2010 1:43:37 PM
From: Hoa Hao  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793868
 
Opps, here's a link to an article:

opposingviews.com



To: mph who wrote (356659)3/30/2010 2:16:55 PM
From: MulhollandDrive  Respond to of 793868
 
m...do you agree with the decision? i've been debating with someone on a different forum about this



To: mph who wrote (356659)3/30/2010 4:47:46 PM
From: Alan Smithee  Respond to of 793868
 
I heard the man interviewed on Megyn Kelly's show today. Came in mid-point in the discussion, but it sounds like the $16,000 is costs of the appeal only, not the other lawyer's attorney's fees. It's quite common for the losing party in an appeal to be taxed costs (filing fee, brief reproduction costs, etc.). He's going for Cert. next.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News