Posted on 07/16/2009 2:26:31 PM PDT by kristinn
Has the Senate given a date for this vote, yet?
REALLY??????
I think the appeal was only heard earlier this year.
The original judgement was a couple/few(?) “years” ago.
Don’t know - I’m in the dark w/o TV or computer, stuck on a blackberry. It’s a slow way to keep up with the world.
I’ll check sorry.
Liberals NEVER recuse themselves. Judicial ethics is anathema to them.
Maybe. But usually bigname lawyers get on with their next cases and don’t dwell on disappointing outcomes. Greenberg apparently saw something in Sotomayor’s courtroom that disturbed him greatly. I give him the benefit of the doubt over her.
There is no “relationship” to report if you know the judge.
The mere “knowing” of a judge and a lawyer is not significant at all. What is significant is that Sotomayor as a private attorney worked with Mr. Fairhurst also a private attorney, in a common effort to represent large foreign automobile manufacturers with similar interests. They did so in the 1980’s for a trade organization which according to the NY Times “no longer possesses any records”. According to my adversary, he and the judge were on the same team as advocates. The nature and extent of their association will not, and can not be determined.
If a judge recognizes or ought recognize a former colleague and there is “even the appearance of impropriety” that judge is to notify the litigants who can elect to seek her recusal - or - the judge to avoid any appearance of bias recuses herself. That’s the way its done and it is quite common.
As to being “eccentric” you can watch my interviews on www.photoshopusertv.com, read any of my monthly articles in Photoshop User Magazine or ask any of my clients who range from celebrities to nobodies and judge for yourself. I admit that I was and am “eccentric” enough to sue the richest man in the world four times on behalf of four individual photographers whose historic images went missing - hundreds of thousands of them. I retrieved hundreds of thousands but not all - their whereabouts remain unknown (See articles in the Washington Post, NY Times and countless photo publications on the vanishing of valuable political photography created by photographers in the US and France)
Mr. Usher WON his case. The court found in his favor on 12,640 out of 12,644 images he claimed Mr. Gates company lost. The judge determined (like another Federal Judge in one of my other cases) that Corbis kept no records and its tracking system was “wholly inadequate”. The “software God” had no software to track these valuable images.
Your sympathies for Mr. Gates are inexplicable. If it takes eccentricity to represent David against Goliath, so be it. The outpouring of support for Mr. Usher has been huge, I am amazed by anyone who given the fact that Corbis/Gates was held negligent TWICE and these valuable images are gone (?) your sympathies lie with Bill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.