he made a defensible. And it is, legally. But good call, no, you can't draw that conclusion from that review.
On Apr 7, 2005 3:45 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Matthew wrote: > > There's no conspiracy, no real activism, and this is not > > the earth-shattering case that everyone would like to believe it is. This > > is simply a matter of guardianship. > > > > Well said. This also shows that the talk shows have brain washed > people into thinking that anyone who disagrees with them must be part > of a conspiracy or "biased". > > If the Supreme Court (who shouldn't have seen the case anyway and said > so) felt Judge Greer had made a mockery of law, as Sam implies, they > would've taken the case - or another court, maybe federal, would've > overturned. > > The fact that they didn't has everyone saying "they didn't see the > facts" but every judge I've talked to has said that Judge Greer did > see the facts, but didn't believe them and the subsequent judges found > he made a good call; which is why they didn't dig there. This also > goes for the supreme court. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:153180 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
