amicus_curious wrote:
"Hyman Rosen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
amicus_curious wrote:
But when push came to shove, their injunction was denied
since they could not show any value for the non-monetary
issues.
No. A preliminary injunction was denied because the plaintiffs
did not demonstrate the likelihood of irreparable harm should
the preliminary injunction not be granted. And that's *did
not*, not *could not* - they didn't try, because they thought
they didn't have to:
Well, the District Court judge gave them a chance to re-file, but
they chose not to do so. Do you suggest that they just went
into the tank because they didn't feel like winning?
District Judge White was obviously at odds with the CAFC's ruling
interpreting Ninth Circuit precedential law. The plaintiff was
*never* going to receive his requested injunction.
There is more than one way to skin a skunk in the courtroom. Judge
White paid lip service to the CAFC's decision as the "trier of law".
But he was also the exclusive "trier of fact". A district court
judge can always find a way to see the facts as most favorable to
the defendant if he believes there is injustice in the law of the
decision (akin to the principle of "jury nullification").
You are grasping at straws.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
