Engorgeous George

With Batson v. Kentucky having been decided in 1986 I would maintain the practice you mention here did not occur in the 1990's. I would not argue that it did not occur before the ruling in 1986, but after, I would argue otherwise.

Hogamous higamous, man is polygamous.

How about paying them for a good review.

Not Macau!

Unless you are catholic, then its wrong and shameful unless first blessed by the church in an archaic sacrament.

I don't think he wants to anger Randy Marsh fans by claiming he took a bigger dump than did Randy. Randy makes the biggest crap of the world and breaks Bono record - South Park s09e11 (youtube.com)

Standards for the Prosecution Function (americanbar.org)

He's gonna go get the papers, get the papers.

He clearly needs more water and more ruffage in his diet. Definately not a spinach and kale sort of fella.

So like a minor imp or demon, something short of The Devil.

Off to work out now. Then maybe some paddling depending on the weather. Have fun. Play nice.

Not an attorney anymore. I retired. I could have chosen to maintain my license but chose to not do so precisely because I did not want others believing I am currently an attonrey. It was the only way to get folks and institutions to stop asking me to come back and to represent them). I fish now, and I run whitewater. I may get one last dog to train. I am an observer, on the sidelines, a relic from another time.

I opened that with my sound off. At first i thought it was going to be another Jardiance commercial.

In my first post in this discussion I agreed there were six to eight reversible errors in the trial. Did I get into them specifically, no, because as the trial occured I got into them at that time. Do I disagree with you as to what the main issues are here for appeal, I do not. I simply disagree with your approach to raising them. As I have said, on appeal this is about whether the defendant recieved fundamental due process, it is not about attacking the trial court or the democratice party at large, it is about the constitution. You seem to view any view different from your own as an attack rather than a slightly different perspective in essential agreement. I find that less than fully rational. The due process violations here have you so conflated you are beyond rational discussion with at this time. In time you may clam down and decide not to push away those in essential agreement with your main points, those, who by the way, spent their careers arguing just such matters, not reading a few partisan republican blogs and then adopting the positions uncritically. You Trumplicans need to get a grip. He is not the way, the truth, and the light. He ws a dem 12 years ago. He saw a parade, jumped in front of it and is pretending he has been leading it all along. The blind support for this charlatan has destroyed the GOP which now stands for nothing but a cult of personality to a person with massive personality flaws. I do thank you for the discussion, however. It has crystalized for me I cannot vote for Trump as I cannot be on the same side of an issue as folks like you and Trump. As offended as I am at the trial process I will not show my disdain for that by supporting your candidate. I was considering doing so but you have reminded me what that would mean. I will continue to vote third party as I also cannot support the ongoing democratic redistribution of wealth to the indolent and stupid.

And yet that is exactly what you said in the post leading to my first comment to you in this particular discussion. You wrote: There were dozens of clear intentional errors ..."

I am not a flag pole guy. I am a Home Depot, buy a flag on a flimsy pole which gets bracketed to your house until the cheap plastic bracket breaks in the wind guy.

The entire process deeply offended my sense of fundamental due process. As a person who devoted his career to trial law the abuses I saw in this matter fundamentally offended and effected me. One way to register my consternation would be to vote in support of the defendant who was so abused. For pretty much any other defendant I would do so gladly. As Trump offends me I have not yet decided to give him the same courtesy and support I would others, and that too bothers me as due process should be worthy of protection no matter the merits of the accused.

And on appeal you argue that and you argue that in having done so the trial court did not provide the defendant with substantive and procedural due process. What you do not do is argue taht the tgrial judge made these errors intentionally. You do not ask the appeallat court to find that someone in their fraternity intentionally subverted justice. You would be guaranteeing yourself a hostile reception to your arguments. I am going to leave this portion of this discussion at this point. You do not seem amenable to my point which is fine. A back and forth between us will resolve nothing so no sense in me going further with you.

I'd have to go outside, pull my flag from its holder, unclip two clips, turn it over, reattach it and stick it back in its holder. Seems a bit of a bother.

Perhaps the gay men should ahve made it clear that by "perform" they meant only by singing of songs, spiritual songs at that.

You want to argue the facts. I am arguing the process. Good luck to anybody taking a matter up on apeal saying the trial judge intentionally rigged the outcome. The appeal occurs on the record, by reviewing the trial exhibits and the transcripts. There is no way to discern the trial judge's intent from that. Maybe he was simply incompetent or confused. Appelate judges historically are quite hostile to attacks on the trial judge. They are welcoming of pleas involving the due process rights of defendants. You are worked up right now and maybe don't see the process argument as you are stuck on the facts. I understand. I just happen to believe, based on my experience, that your argument would fail and mine would be well recieved. Now in full discosure i generally did not work on appeallate matters, though I did on some, including capital cases. Mostly my career was as a trial attorney forcing others, my betteers, to justify the crap i pulled in trials so you may be right. I am merely statting the commonly accepted legal belief that one does not attack the trial judge on an appeal.

Dozens, no. Maybe six to eight, but not dozens. Clear intentional errors, no. I would not even argue them as an abuse of discretion more less intentional errors. i would however argue them as reversible error having deprived the defendant of due process.

Swamp Thing.

The expression is: Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

Off for a sunset paddle around the Reservior. The verdict is unlikely to cross my mind out there and damn sure the animals out there do not care. It will be nice.