On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> I object, this topic needs covered in more depth. I would agree to a >> judgment of REASSIGN. > > Can you describe what you mean by "more depth"? The judge's arguments > are detailed, there are precedents, and you offer no direction for > another judge to consider, other than a generic "more depth." Even if > you convince me that "more depth" is required, I would not support > reassign rather than remand as a solution to this judge's good faith and > good quality arguments. Note: while the arguments brought up by the > Appellant indicate that other judgements *might* be appropriate, they > do not show that the current judgement is actually *inappropriate*. > -Goethe >
You're too concerned with the facts of this case. To quote the American political left: "Its not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge!" We definitely need to get a new judge involved in this case to ensure a fair and unbiased opinion. BobTHJ
