Legal Bumpkins

The judges decision stated that the petitions WERE altered. In the content of free election and the exercise of the democratic process an alteration is not a minor footnote.

Your implication that such an appeal is based on a vendetta or that a conspiracy somehow formed the basis for the initial action ignores the serious risk a democratic community faces from petition tampering.
If you understood the law half as well as you think you do, you might recognize the important issue behind the appeal and also be less inclined to skirt the fringes of libel in trying to denounce it.

I think this is probably the worst example of positional delusion I have ever read.

Harris can not be compared to the kid getting mugged for his lunch money because the situation was self initiating.

Had Harris not alterted the petitions in the first place they would never have been rejected either by line or by page and no lawsuit would have resulted.

Once again, we shall see what we shall see, and it's only about three weeks away. The appellate decision might not be handed down from the bench on the day of the hearing, but it will be available eventually.

Eric can not wait. He must press his agenda. He must do all he can to convince non-lawyers and non-participants that his view is correct. When all is said and done, his opinion amounts to, in Eric's own words, "... a bucket of warm spit."[/quote]

Because Judge Hoggatt said so? Somehow I didn't read the same decision you did. What I remember was a judge trying hard to be Soloman and split the baby. Yes Harris did tamper with the petitions and alter their content but the judge didn't want to disenfranchise voters either.

As to the implication that because Hoggatt said so, that makes it right or that no error of law was committed, flies in the face of other rulings by judges that have been wrong. There are innumerable cases that reached decisions that were wrong including decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States. Shall I remind you of decisions that backed slavery, or found that separate was equal, or upheld the law that women didn't have the right to vote. How about decisions that approved Japanese internment or that an employee had no right to organize?
These were all decisions that were at one time reached by honorable judges and that on appeal were found to be ruled later as without forethought to a higher and more important issue.

That isn't to say that this is one of those cases or that it will be overturned, only that your assumptions and assertions are not supported.

Finally, your assertion about Fahrner being in touch with MacKinnon, his discussion does not support that but he does have just as much right to assert the law with the same inconsistancy you do. Neither of you are ipso facto correct for any legal reason only the ever constant certainty that layman will misuderstand the law and make themselves sound like asses in the process.

I recommend that everyone go into the Oral Arguments thread on Topix and only read Eric's posts. They are reasonable and reserved.

The content of his posts do not support the allegations being made by Charo or Jeff.

It really is a shame to see some one as gifted as DM behave so erratically. This is what, the second time? The first time he went off on Jack and now he's losing it about Eric. What a waste of a gifted writer.

And I recommend that we cease running Topix posts on Under the B.
Those who wish to jump on the Topix bandwagon are welcome to.
Are we so bereft of ideas that we have to cut N paste junk from Topix?

Do you have a problem with discussing something from another source? Why? I don't mean to be dense but why is that an issue?

This is what I was talking about a couple of weeks ago. Aside from the "Say What, Jack?" thread, of which I was SO fond, you people here are all 'preaching to the choir'. There's no conflict, hence no real discussion.

Say what you will about topix, it does cause people to have to defend themselves. Over here, you have a nice comfortable little hidey-hole, in which most of you agree, most of the time (sometimes it's hard to tell). Over there, if you're gonna jump in the water, you better know how to swim! That's why I'm there, it's largely why Eric is so seldom here any more.

From time to time, one of you copies in a Topix post. There may be a couple of responses, and then some wimp says, "Why are we reading Topix?" and you all go back to sleep.

think about it.

That's your opinion Jack. This forum is great and I for one would hate to see it become like the others.

What Jack is saying is
there no discussion, no controversy, no fun, without Eric calling the shots.
Am I not on target?