"F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:52611c08$0$32308$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>
> "Frank McCoy" <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote in message
> news:8vr169l2htib09ibjlbbvetojr3bm0mhij@4ax.com...
>> "F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Personally I don't think the judge should have
>>>taken so long to render his decision. SCOTUS hears much more elaborate
>>>and difficult cases and renders decisions within a couple of months. Why
>>>should your decision take years? Anyway, glad to see you back.
>>
>>
>> Appeals courts often take years; and the SCOTUS in some cases DOES
>> take years. It's only in "national emergencies" (as defined more by
>> politics than any real disaster) that they speed things up.
>>
>> But, I do tend to agree: Six years for a judge to rule on a case, even
>> one as complicated as mine, DOES seem a bit excessive. Especially so,
>> in light of what his final ruling was.
>>
>
> The judge probably made his decision two minutes after your lawyer began
> your defense.
>
Same decision as Pontius Pilot made. The judge washed his hads of the
matter. There's no "good" decision to be made.
>
>> _____
>> / ' / T
>> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
>> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 |
|