Pickett Appeal

[agman]

The Supreme Court this AM rejected and will NOT hear the Pickett appeal- CASE 0VER.

 

[Sandhusker]

The Supreme Court this AM rejected and will NOT hear the Pickett appeal- CASE 0VER.

Good for you. Now you and your packer cronies can gloat over the fact that the PSA has been offically gutted.

 

[Econ101]

The Supreme Court this AM rejected and will NOT hear the Pickett appeal- CASE 0VER.

With Arlen Specter, John Cornyn and others on the Senate Judiciary overseeing two recent Supreme Court Nominations, this is totally predictable. The way Bush has run this govt., Senators no longer represent their constituents, they represent their party.

It still doesn't make it right, Agman. It just shows the fallability of man in all three levels of our government. There was a 100 year difference between the Civil War and Civil Rights. Lets hope it doesn't take that long to rectify the situation. Sometimes it takes quite a stench to get some attention at a rotting carcass.

Agman, you and SH have challenged me before on betting on the outcome that man comes up with. That is never a serious bet that I will make. That outcome has been proven time and time again. It is in the nature of man. It still does not make me waiver in my opinion of the final outcome.

 

[agman]

The Supreme Court this AM rejected and will NOT hear the Pickett appeal- CASE 0VER.

Good for you. Now you and your packer cronies can gloat over the fact that the PSA has been offically gutted.

You are right and ALL the judges, including the Supreme Court know less than you regarding the P&S. What law school did you attend and what courts have you served on? Give the world a break from your sandbox theories.

 

[agman]

The Supreme Court this AM rejected and will NOT hear the Pickett appeal- CASE 0VER.

With Arlen Specter, John Cornyn and others on the Senate Judiciary overseeing two recent Supreme Court Nominations, this is totally predictable. The way Bush has run this govt., Senators no longer represent their constituents, they represent their party.

It still doesn't make it right, Agman. It just shows the fallability of man in all three levels of our government. There was a 100 year difference between the Civil War and Civil Rights. Lets hope it doesn't take that long to rectify the situation. Sometimes it takes quite a stench to get some attention at a rotting carcass.

Agman, you and SH have challenged me before on betting on the outcome that man comes up with. That is never a serious bet that I will make. That outcome has been proven time and time again. It is in the
nature of man. It still does not make me waiver in my opinion of the final outcome.

You make an interesting point regarding fallability. Is it possilbe that your intrepation of the law was wrong in your haste and bias to blame packers? I believe any fallabiltiy rests with you and others like you who claim to know more than ALL the judges who reviewed this case. This case was without merit. If there was an error it was that this case should never have been allowed to go to trail.

 

[Sandhusker]

The Supreme Court this AM rejected and will NOT hear the Pickett appeal- CASE 0VER.

Good for you. Now you and your packer cronies can gloat over the fact that the PSA has been offically gutted.

You are right and ALL the judges, including the Supreme Court know less than you regarding the P&S. What law school did you attend and what courts have you served on? Give the world a break from your sandbox theories.

So you think they reviewed P&S before making their decision?

 

[agman]

Good for you. Now you and your packer cronies can gloat over the fact that the PSA has been offically gutted.

You are right and ALL the judges, including the Supreme Court know less than you regarding the P&S. What law school did you attend and what courts have you served on? Give the world a break from your sandbox theories.

So you think they reviewed P&S before making their decision?

Do you know that they did not review the P&S? I think it wise to realize that these judges and their clerks know alot more about the proper interpretation of the law than you or I. In all due respect, I will trust their judgment before trusting your judgment per this matter. All of the judges who reviewed this turned it down. I find it difficult to believe that they are all wrong and you, having no legal background, are right.

 

[Econ101]

You are right and ALL the judges, including the Supreme Court know less than you regarding the P&S. What law school did you attend and what courts have you served on? Give the world a break from your sandbox theories.

So you think they reviewed P&S before making their decision?

Do you know that they did not review the P&S? I think it wise to realize that these judges and their clerks know alot more about the proper interpretation of the law than you or I. In all due respect, I will trust their judgment before trusting your judgment per this matter. All of the judges who reviewed this turned it down. I find it difficult to believe that they are all wrong and you, having no legal background, are right.

I have noticed that you have difficulty with a lot of things. You have no idea what my background is.

 

[Sandhusker]

You are right and ALL the judges, including the Supreme Court know less than you regarding the P&S. What law school did you attend and what courts have you served on? Give the world a break from your sandbox theories.

So you think they reviewed P&S before making their decision?

Do you know that they did not review the P&S? I think it wise to realize that these judges and their clerks know alot more about the proper interpretation of the law than you or I. In all due respect, I will trust their judgment before trusting your judgment per this matter. All of the judges who reviewed this turned it down. I find it difficult to believe that they are all wrong and you, having no legal background, are right.

You answered a question with a question.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

The Supreme Court this AM rejected and will NOT hear the Pickett appeal- CASE 0VER.

Just out of curiosity, what were the grounds given for not hearing the appeal? Any official release at all?

Rod

 

[agman]

So you think they reviewed P&S before making their decision?

Do you know that they did not review the P&S? I think it wise to realize that these judges and their clerks know alot more about the proper interpretation of the law than you or I. In all due respect, I will trust their judgment before trusting your judgment per this matter. All of the judges who reviewed this turned it down. I find it difficult to believe that they are all wrong and you, having no legal background, are right.

I have noticed that you have difficulty with a lot of things. You have no idea what my background is.

In the first place my comments addressed Sandhusker's question to me. However, my reply would apply to you as well.

Econ, I personally don't care what you do, if anything worthwhile. However, since you butted in I must say as often as you have been proven to be wrong with your unlimited list of accusations without any supporting facts you might want to keep your background to yourself. You need not embarrass yourself any further. Disclosing your background would not dismiss nor excuse your stream of errors and false accusations. The only thing you have proved adept at is making endless accusations with no supporting facts. In short - all foam; no beer. Your attempt at legal and economic prowess and dissertation has fallen short at every turn. Don't embarrass those professions.

 

[Econ101]

Do you know that they did not review the P&S? I think it wise to realize that these judges and their clerks know alot more about the proper interpretation of the law than you or I. In all due respect, I will trust their judgment before trusting your judgment per this matter. All of the judges who reviewed this turned it down. I find it difficult to believe that they are all wrong and you, having no legal background, are right.

I have noticed that you have difficulty with a lot of things. You have no idea what my background is.

In the first place my comments addressed Sandhusker's question to me. However, my reply would apply to you as well.

Econ, I personally don't care what you do, if anything worthwhile. However, since you butted in I must say as often as you have been proven to be wrong with your unlimited list of accusations without any supporting facts you might want to keep your background to yourself. You need not embarrass yourself any further. Disclosing your background would not dismiss nor excuse your stream of errors and false accusations. The only thing you have proved adept at is making endless accusations with no supporting facts. In short - all foam; no beer. Your attempt at legal and economic prowess and dissertation has fallen short at every turn. Don't embarrass those professions.

Okay, I hate to too much like SH, but where have you proven me wrong on anything? SH's quote on the bottom of his page? It is the basic understanding of markets.

The problem is not in the presentation of facts, but in your reluctance to accept them. You sound rather like Judge Strom on that one.

Go ahead, present them, or again you are the one with all foam and no beer.

 

[agman]

I have noticed that you have difficulty with a lot of things. You have no idea what my background is.

In the first place my comments addressed Sandhusker's question to me. However, my reply would apply to you as well.

Econ, I personally don't care what you do, if anything worthwhile. However, since you butted in I must say as often as you have been proven to be wrong with your unlimited list of accusations without any supporting facts you might want to keep your background to yourself. You need not embarrass yourself any further. Disclosing your background would not dismiss nor excuse your stream of errors and false accusations. The only thing you have proved adept at is making endless accusations with no supporting facts. In short - all foam; no beer. Your attempt at legal and economic prowess and dissertation has fallen short at every turn. Don't embarrass those professions.

Okay, I hate to too much like SH, but where have you proven me wrong on anything? SH's quote on the bottom of his page? It is the basic understanding of markets.

The problem is not in the presentation of facts, but in your reluctance to accept them. You sound rather like Judge Strom on that one.

Go ahead, present them, or again you are the one with all foam and no beer.

You don't need to embarrass yourself any more than you have. Yes, you know more than Judge Strom per this case and you did not even read the testimony. Does anyone need any more proof of your shallowness? Give the world a break from your foolishness and deception.

 

[Econ101]

In the first place my comments addressed Sandhusker's question to me. However, my reply would apply to you as well.

Econ, I personally don't care what you do, if anything worthwhile. However, since you butted in I must say as often as you have been proven to be wrong with your unlimited list of accusations without any supporting facts you might want to keep your background to yourself. You need not embarrass yourself any further. Disclosing your background would not dismiss nor excuse your stream of errors and false accusations. The only thing you have proved adept at is making endless accusations with no supporting facts. In short - all foam; no beer. Your attempt at legal and economic prowess and dissertation has fallen short at every turn. Don't embarrass those professions.

Okay, I hate to too much like SH, but where have you proven me wrong on anything? SH's quote on the bottom of his page? It is the basic understanding of markets.

The problem is not in the presentation of facts, but in your reluctance to accept them. You sound rather like Judge Strom on that one.

Go ahead, present them, or again you are the one with all foam and no beer.

You don't need to embarrass yourself any more than you have. Yes, you know more than Judge Strom per this case and you did not even read the testimony. Does anyone need any more proof of your shallowness? Give the world a break from your foolishness and deception.

More foam. Judge Strom was not to decide questions of fact, the jury was. Give the world a break from your deceptions.

Why are you always against producers and for market power abuses against producers?

 

[agman]

Okay, I hate to too much like SH, but where have you proven me wrong on anything? SH's quote on the bottom of his page? It is the basic understanding of markets.

The problem is not in the presentation of facts, but in your reluctance to accept them. You sound rather like Judge Strom on that one.

Go ahead, present them, or again you are the one with all foam and no beer.

You don't need to embarrass yourself any more than you have. Yes, you know more than Judge Strom per this case and you did not even read the testimony. Does anyone need any more proof of your shallowness? Give the world a break from your foolishness and deception.

More foam. Judge Strom was not to decide questions of fact, the jury was. Give the world a break from your deceptions.

Why are you always against producers and for market power abuses against producers?

Evidently your lack of legal expertise is being demonstrated once again. Are you trying to tell readers that Judge Strom was not within his legal right to void the jury verdict-yes or no? Since you never answer a direct question I will answer for the readers. Not only was Judge Strom within his legal right he had a legal obligation to void the verdict knowing the jury verdict was not supported by court testimony. Who are you trying to deceive to suggest otherwise?

For you to charge someone of deception is truly more deception on your part. It is difficult for you to see knowledge crush intelligence. Get used to it, everyone has your phony game figures out. You are not the intellectual you attempt to convince others of. You are phony and as transparent as clear glass. Your demagoguery, endless and meaningless discertations fool no one.

I spend everyday working with and for producers. For you to suggest otherwise is another of your totally unsupportable accusations and deceptions in a dire attempt to prop your self-induced hypnotic belief of intellectual superiority.

 

[Econ101]

You don't need to embarrass yourself any more than you have. Yes, you know more than Judge Strom per this case and you did not even read the testimony. Does anyone need any more proof of your shallowness? Give the world a break from your foolishness and deception.

More foam. Judge Strom was not to decide questions of fact, the jury was. Give the world a break from your deceptions.

Why are you always against producers and for market power abuses against producers?

Evidently your lack of legal expertise is being demonstrated once again. Are you trying to tell readers that Judge Strom was not within his legal right to void the jury verdict-yes or no? Since you never answer a direct question I will answer for the readers. Not only was Judge Strom within his legal right he had a legal obligation to void the verdict knowing the jury verdict was not supported by court testimony. Who are you trying to deceive to suggest otherwise?

For you to charge someone of deception is truly more deception on your part. It is difficult for you to see knowledge crush intelligence. Get used to it, everyone has your phony game figures out. You are not the intellectual you attempt to convince others of. You are phony and as transparent as clear glass. Your demagoguery, endless and meaningless discertations fool no one.

I spend everyday working with and for producers. For you to suggest otherwise is another of your totally unsupportable accusations and deceptions in a dire attempt to prop your self-induced hypnotic belief of intellectual superiority.

Agman, I don't think you know the difference between foam and beer.