. wrote, [on 4/29/2009 9:25 PM]: >> What's the problem? It's the lawyer's duty to defend him to the best of >> his/her ability (wasn't the woman who was initially appointed forced to >> stand down because of a conflict?) within the law. She isn't allowed to >> put forward arguments that she knows (note: "knows", not "suspects") to be >> untrue, but as long as there is any uncertainty at all about his age, she >> can and should put forward any argument she can to save him. > > While a lawyer should defend their client(s), perjury is not exactly > the best way to wiggle out of a sticky case.
Perhaps you missed the second parenthetical bit that Badri wrote above? >> As for "terrorist enjoys state hospitality at taxpayer expense", I don't >> know where to begin. > > Then dont !! Can you expand on what you meant by this effusion? I'm curious. Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
