Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: djf

The ramblings of a criminal don’t make for real legal scholarship.

(The Courts typically laugh at such ramblings as well: (Redman v. City of Columbus, Ga.) “In support of this contention, Plaintiff cites a law review article: Roger Roots, Are Cops Constitutional?, 11 Seton Hall Const. L.J. 685 (2001). Plaintiff points to no evidence or law to support his position that the Columbus police department is unconstitutional, and the Court thus rejects this claim.”)


3 posted on 01/09/2012 11:01:55 AM PST by willamedwardwallace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: willamedwardwallace
The ramblings of a criminal don’t make for real legal scholarship.

(The Courts typically laugh at such ramblings as well: (Redman v. City of Columbus, Ga.) “In support of this contention, Plaintiff cites a law review article: Roger Roots, Are Cops Constitutional?, 11 Seton Hall Const. L.J. 685 (2001). Plaintiff points to no evidence or law to support his position that the Columbus police department is unconstitutional, and the Court thus rejects this claim.”)

And conflation, exaggeration and contemptuous disingenuousness don't make for a legitimate rebuttal.

First of all, the rejection of the use of a work of legal research by a defendent does not invalidate that work, becuase the court is not ruling on its legitimacy, only its appropriateness to the case in point. That that distinction escaped you is clear evidence of your inability to grasp both the workings of the court, and the argument behind the work.

Even worse, however, is your attempt to multiply your false claim by pluralizing your deceit, through your implications of multiple courts and a supposedly common ruling against this work - none of which being true.

Above all, you obviously seek to hide in plain side the true nature of this analysis of police legitimacy by citing not only that it was a law review article, yet also quoting the judge as remarking that it provided "no evidence or law" to support the defense contention. How is this possible? Do you even know (it would be worse for you if you did). The fact is that the judge was commenting on the failure of the defense to link this article to the support of a defense of lack of administrative jurisdiction towards himself. The judges ruling, therefore, cited this article to point to that lack of link - not anything wrong with the article. In fact, the judge wasn't commenting on the article at all - do you even comprehend that?

"The courts typically laugh"? No - rather, I laugh at you, and your pretend knowledge of law.

14 posted on 01/09/2012 11:26:35 AM PST by Talisker (Apology accepted, Captain Needa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson