judicial tyranny

[Charles Brown]

All you have to do is adopt the arguments made by plaintiffs' attorneys in their briefs. If you don't have briefs, tell the judge to ask for briefs on the issues. Those arguments will be very colorable legally,and they won't contain an iota of what in common language is considered "political". Very few complaints filed by competent attorneys are frivilous or rejectable under ,is it Rule 23. 

CB


>>> jkschw at hotmail.com 05/16/01 05:49PM >>>
OK, there's no distinction. The judge just asked to me look up whether some 
plaintiffs can maintain a malicious prosecution action. Shall I say, Judge, 
you are a liberal Democrat, and these are plaintiffs suing a city that "we 
all know" is corrupt. Sure they can. I'll write it that way, because law is 
just politics. I don't need to worry about whether they have satisfied the 
elements of this cause of action, that's just window dressing, ideological 
folderal. Good idea? On the other hand, the plaintiffs are cops, and as 
liberals, don't we hate cops? So maybe we should find for the city because 
cops are bad. Oh, what fun, law is totally indeterminate.

--jks


>
>Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
>>This isn't politics. It's law.
>
>Fascinating distinction.
>
>Doug

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com