>From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: Re: judicial tyranny
>Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:02:08 -0400
>
>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
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com