[118649] in Cypherpunks
Re: [Fwd: En Banc Review granted]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Secret Squirrel)
Mon Oct 4 20:22:40 1999
Date: 5 Oct 1999 00:04:24 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <secret_squirrel@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <4621aab3f8941b0f02051cbadc0bb07f@anonymous>
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
Reply-To: Secret Squirrel <secret_squirrel@nym.alias.net>
On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 07:01:27 GMT,
phelix@vallnet.com wrote:
> On 2 Oct 1999 06:19:21 -0500, pablos <pablos@fortnocs.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >We're losing big on Bernstein.
>
> Show of hands: Who here is actually surprised by this?
I'm not. I meant to say when this news first hit that it
seems the fix is in, but I didn't have time.
What surprises me is that the fix wasn't in with the
three-judge panel. Maybe two of the judges on the first
panel weren't "with the program." I've seen the fix put
in at that level, the decision made and written before
oral arguments, one of the judges adeptly misdirecting
the nongovernment attorneys and wasting all their
precious minutes to keep from alerting the attorneys
awaiting their turn to the fact that anything weird was
going on. I don't suggest they do this for run of the
mill cases, but I do believe there is an understanding
that they have to do what they have to do when the
correct decision would leave them, the legal system or
the government in a seemingly impossible position.
Perhaps one day someone will get religion and we'll
learn just how this kind of thing is cooked up and
just what felonies were committed in cooking it up.
Then again, perhaps we won't. That's why the Revolution
is starting to gather.
TruthMonger
