|
Judge Stewart's New Book, "Seven Miracles That Saved America" - Updated (cases, recusal info) |
|
Friday, February 19 2010 @ 12:50 PM EST
|
Getting to know Judge Ted Stewart just became a little easier, because he and his brother Chris have written a book. Deseret News interviewed them for an article about the book, "Seven Miracles That Saved America: Why They Matter and Why We Should Have Hope," published by Shadow Mountain, which you can obtain here for $27.95). The article has a picture of Judge Stewart, and the second link takes you to a video of the brothers talking about the book.
The book focuses on seven incidents in the history of the United States, with the following theme:The Stewarts see in these particular events not the random whims of fate, however, but evidence of divine blessing, proof of divine providence at work, a hopeful conviction that God does indeed care about America. They see miracles.
They are not alone in that perception. "The people who were living these things all had doubts about how they would turn out," says Ted. "But what's remarkable is that every one of them, to some degree or another, acknowledged the help of Divine Providence."... As they began to think about a book and as they started researching stories, the Stewarts realized another very important thing: America has a unique role. "It is the source of democracy in the world. We believe that is important to God, and that is why he protects us," Ted says. "And if that is true, we have every reason to have hope for the future." The article also gives a little background on each:The brothers bring diverse backgrounds to the task. Chris was a record-setting Air Force pilot (he holds the record for the fastest nonstop flight around the world) before he retired to become president and CEO of The Shipley Group, a nationally recognized consulting and training company, as well as a best-selling author. His techno-military thrillers have been released in multiple languages in seven countries, and he's published a number of novels for Shadow Mountain.
Ted was appointed as a U.S. District judge in 1999 by President Bill Clinton. Before that, he served as chief of staff to Gov. Mike Leavitt, as a member and chairman of the Public Service Commission and as chief of staff to Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah. He has also taught university courses in law, the Constitution, the Supreme Court and public policy. So we can now get a bit of the measure of the man. It is true he was appointed by Clinton, but it was Senator Orrin Hatch who fought for him in what was at the time a controversial appointment. This is to help us understand his world view, consistent with prior articles on other judges, including Judge Dale Kimball, who was the original judge on the case. Here's a bit more background on Judge Stewart, from an earlier article, for any who are new here. This Salt Lake Tribune article called Stewart "a magnet for reversals": He isn't unique; the Denver-based 10th Circuit second-guesses federal judges in several states, including Utah. In 2001, according to a Salt Lake Tribune review, Utah's federal judges were reversed 14 times out of 115 cases. Over five years, Utah judges were overturned 18 percent of the time.
But when Stewart has been reversed, the cases are outrageous. The outcome seems more obvious, even to a nonlawyer. And his decisions look like evidence of either a personal bias or blatant disregard for the Constitution and legal precedent.
Four years ago, the appeals court forced Stewart to reverse himself and declare Salt Lake City's Main Street Plaza free speech rules unconstitutional. The limits, a chastened Stewart wrote, were "facially invalid under the free speech clause of the First Amendment." Pretty basic stuff there. But upholding the Constitution in the first place would have required Stewart to go against city leaders and his faith. I include that only for a complete picture. I don't endorse or know enough about that case to endorse or not that point of view, and what I notice is that when reversed by the appeals court, he accepted their decision. That's how the system works, and he showed respect for the system. And others in the article say he is fair: One attorney who has argued intellectual property and antitrust cases before Stewart says he's "no-nonsense, efficient, and, in my view, fair."
But at the same time, if that attorney were trying a case for the American Civil Liberties Union and could pick the judge, "I would never pick Stewart. I still suspect that with his philosophy and judicial temperament, I'm not going to get any breaks," the attorney says. This is all part of the whole story, some background color. Lawyers, when their case is assigned to a particular judge, usually do some research to see what he or she is like. And we are doing the same. It does help to understand rulings better if you know a person's world view. I've seen some comments about "the fix is in" that I'd like to respond to. A judge in a jury trial, which is what this is, can't fix the outcome. At worst he can make sure one side gets no breaks. But the jury is on its own, able to decide contrary to a judge's wishes or inclinations. That is one beauty of the US legal system, in my view, and it showed true foresight, and insight, on the part of those who created the system so many years ago that they designed a system where the common man, not those with positions of power, gets to decide the outcome. And as you saw in the article on reversals, there is also a fail-safe provision of appeals when something seems to go egregiously wrong. I'd rather go before a jury than a judge any day. Stay tuned, and we'll see one in action soon.
Please remember our comments policy precludes any comments on politics or religion. Also any ad hominem attacks. Our goal here is, always has been, and always will be civil speech. And just for fun, since we haven't heard from Darl McBride in a while, here he is telling stories about Ray Noorda. It's all part of the story of this litigation, the human side. You'll also find on that Rocky Mountain Voices page others remembering Noorda, including Ty Mattingly, David Bradford, Ransom Love, Ron Heinz, now heading up Canopy Group after Ralph Yarro's forced departure, and Drew Major.
Update: Here are the three cases mentioned in the SLC article where Judge Stewart was reversed on appeal, found for us by an anonymous reader, all PDFs: Thank you for finding these for us, anonymous contributor. One more example of why I will never block anonymous contributions.
Update 2: Two more: The last one will interest you, because it was affirming Judge Stewart's refusal to recuse himself in the case. It also tells us that in that case, where he was asked to provide information about his connection to his church, he said that he has no leadership position. It's really hard to get a judge off a case, as you will see. Or as the appeals court wrote: Disqualification under 28 U.S.C. Section 144 places a substantial burden on the moving party to demonstrate that the judge is not impartial, not a burden on the judge to prove that he is impartial. United States v. Burger, 964 F2d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 1992). 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a) provides no authority either. Under Section 455(c), the presiding judge must 'inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests.' (emphasis added). That duty continues throughout the litigation... The statute thus places the jude under a self-enforcing obligation to recuse himself where the proper legal grounds exist.... A judge must make disclosure on the record of circumstances that may give rise to a reasonable question about his impartiality.... Section 455 contains an objective standard: disqualification is appropriate only where the reasonable person, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality.... There must be a reasonable factual basis to question the judge's impartiality.
Thinking that a judge's mindset doesn't match your own is not a reason, in other words. If someone found out that the judge held stock in SCO Group, then we might have a conversation.
But I'm sure if that were the case, he'd have recused himself immediately, and he didn't, so we can rule that out. This issue of judicial bias is kind of a hot topic at the moment, although more about judges at the state level because they are voted into office, in part because... how to put it... because some haven't been as sensitive to the need for recusal as carefully as critics thought they should be. But the problem is, in the US currently anyway, there are such political divisions, with such animosity, that there are those willing to try to control events by controlling who gets to be a judge. Nothing new about that, but it's become very difficult to protect judges from that animosity and all the agendas. It's a huge problem, one Sandra Day O'Connor has spoken about often since leaving the U.S. Supreme Court to care for her husband. She is opposed to electing state judges: According to the Seattle Times, O’Connor believes Washington and other states need to completely overhaul the way that state and local judges are selected for the bench. Because lower-level judges are elected they are not immune from potentially being swayed by campaign contributions, said O’Connor on Monday. In Washington state, as in about two dozen others, judicial positions from state Supreme Court justice to municipal judge are elected positions.
O’Connor said the threat to judicial independence comes largely from corporations, attorneys and other interest groups that donate to campaigns with the hope of obtaining favorable rulings from the judge after the election.
The conference at Seattle U. started with a nearly two-hour discussion centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision in Caperton v. Massey Coal, which held that elected judges must step aside when large campaign contributions by interested parties create appearance of bias.
However, federal judges are not voted into office. They are appointed. What's the difference you ask? Politics surely is in that picture too. Yes, but the appointment is for life. Once in, you are in to stay, and that really makes federal judges less vulnerable to outside pressures:O’Connor struck a historical note on Monday, stating that the nation’s founders believed it crucially important that federal judges have the freedom to make unpopular decisions without worrying about poll numbers. It was only after President Jackson’s election in 1828 that he persuaded states to begin adopting elections for judges, she said. A voting system does involve popularity, after all. So the system was designed to protect judges from the need to appeal to voters. She'd like to get away from voting on the state level too. If you read up on the facts in the Caperton v. Massey Coal case, you'll see why. Others would like to take away from judges the authority to decide for themselves whether or not to recuse themselves: A leading proposal in Congress would require that recusal motions be heard before a second judge, which is similar to what has been adopted by at least 21 states. Another idea, now used in at least 19 states, would give each side a "strike" mandating a judge step aside when there are questions about impartiality. I don't quite see how that last would work, in that only one side is likely to feel that bias is a bad thing in the particular case. The beneficiary won't be complaining. O'Connor says the US is the only country that votes in judges, saying it wasn't the original system, and that the basic concern is a fair and even playing field. I'll let her speak for herself: "The basic precept of equal justice under the law requires that neither side of the dispute has an unfair advantage," Justice O'Connor said. "I think you might be concerned if you were in court litigating some issue in front of a judge who had been given a bunch of money by your opponent."
Alan Page, a National Football League Hall of Famer and Minnesota State Supreme Court Justice, compared a lack of judicial independence to how football fans would feel if, before their favorite team took the field, they learned that the officials for the game had a stated preference for seeing one side or the other win. "Or if the referees had to campaign for their jobs while being funded by the opposing team -- that's what we're facing today," said O'Connor.
I guess you can tell from how I am describing it that I believe that judges must be isolated from political infighting to the degree possible. Although you don't want judges who can be bought and sold, obviously, judicial independence is foundational to the US system, and it's a crying shame to see politics take a position front and center stage. It is actually, in my opinion, a good thing that judges are free from frequent or easy challenges to their impartiality, therefore. I'd be worried about a system where recusal efforts more or less became a substitute for voting. I want judges to think about the law and the Constitition, without worrying about pleasing those with political agendas and a whole lot of money for FUD campaigns or even for running TV stations and other media outlets, so as to work up people into a frenzy over an issue without grounding them with enough information to make more than a surface, emotional decision. Any system has to be sturdy enough to deal with those gaming the system, because there will always be some trying. Judges make decisions every day that somebody disagrees with, and yet there has to be some way to settle disputes with finality and with both sides feeling they at least got a fair hearing, even if they don't like the outcome. Sometimes what is good in the short run for a particular case is a disaster in the long term for the system overall, and you do need to consider the complete picture. As always with humans, it's hard to get the balance just right, and law is a human process, made up of imperfect people, trying to point to true North, but never quite making it. Here's where you'll find the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, February 2007 version, which is about as close to true North as we have at the moment.
|
|
Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 12:58 PM EST |
Could someone please explain in what way Ray Noorda is "the father of
network
computing." I just don't get it at all.
---
Peter H. Salus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Novell NetWare, maybe? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 01:16 PM EST
- Noorda and Novell - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 02:20 PM EST
- Judge Stewart's New Book, "Seven Miracles That Saved America" - Authored by: complex_number on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 02:33 PM EST
- The actual words of the interview are more accurate than the summary blurb - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 03:14 PM EST
- Early Novel - Authored by: Hargoth on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 03:26 PM EST
- Noorda might be at least the stepfather - Authored by: Tolerance on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 09:09 PM EST
- Judge Stewart's New Book, "Seven Miracles That Saved America" - Authored by: Totosplatz on Saturday, February 20 2010 @ 10:26 AM EST
- the significance of Novell in networking - Authored by: Arthur Marsh on Saturday, February 20 2010 @ 11:29 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 01:02 PM EST |
And just for fun, since we haven't heard from Darl McBride in a while, ...
I'm still waiting for Darl to sue SCO for wrongful
termination.
Just when you think things couldn't get any crazier... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 01:12 PM EST |
No.. I'm not logged in. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: perpetualLurker on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 01:22 PM EST |
Thank you!
---
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." --
Mark Twain
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: perpetualLurker on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 01:23 PM EST |
There IS an anonymous entry.... maybe you can add 2
comments?
Thank you!
---
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." --
Mark Twain
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 01:58 PM EST
|
Authored by: perpetualLurker on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 01:25 PM EST |
Please identify the error in the title!
Thank you!
---
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." --
Mark Twain
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: perpetualLurker on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 01:26 PM EST |
Thank you for your support and help!
---
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." --
Mark Twain
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 01:34 PM EST |
It matters more not if God is on Steward's side, but Steward is on
God's side.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kevin on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 02:03 PM EST |
That is one beauty of the US legal system, in my view, and it showed
true foresight, and insight, on the part of those who created the system so many
years ago that they designed a system where the common man, not those with
positions of power, get to decide the outcome. Say, rather, "the
Anglo-Norman legal system." Trial by jury predates even Magna Carta.
One of the chief points that King John was forced to concede at sword's point
was that he had abrogated that right, which was well-nigh universally recognized
even among the Britons of his time. --- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My
surname is not McBride!) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 02:05 PM EST |
I'll leave Judge Stewart in peace, but I can't resist commenting on his core
thesis as described in the
article.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700009550/Saving-America-Uta
h-authors-examine-7-miracles-in-history-of-the-US.html
Our days are
filled with events that shape our lives, some more important than others — some
where we can look back and say if this had been different or if that had not
happened just as it did, everything would have
changed.
[...]
The Stewarts see in these particular events
not the random whims of fate, however, but evidence of divine blessing, proof of
divine providence at work, a hopeful conviction that God does indeed care about
America. They see miracles.
The seven events they focus on
are:
1. Christopher Columbus, who "against all odds" discovered
the New World — when it could very well have been found by the
Chinese.
The new world was discovered by Amerinds, Na-Dene, Inuit,
Norwegians, and possibly also Basques and Polynesians before Columbus
came along. Columbus did buy ships from the Basques for his voyage.
2.
The survival of Jamestown, despite untold hardship and starvation, ensuring
that America would be settled by a religiously oriented and religiously tolerant
people.
If by "religiously oriented and religiously tolerant" people
the Stewarts mean Christians, then it should be noted that before Jamestown
"survived," North America was already settled by French and Spanish Christians.
However, at the time, the natives were probably more religiously tolerant than
the Christians and without their help Jamestown probably wouldn't have survived,
though other English colonies would have.
3. How an unexplained
summer fog shrouded the East River on an August morning, allowing Gen. George
Washington and his army to escape annihilation at the hands of the British
troops.
The Continental side would eventually have won the American
War of Independence anyway. The British faced nightmarish logistics because they
didn't enjoy the support of most of the local population. In that sense, the
revolutionary war was more of a propaganda war than a military conflict: It was
about winning over the hearts and minds of the colonists. In that respect the
Brits stood no chance. King George III, besides being insane, was also very weak
on psychology. Now the Brits are our best friends next to Canada.
4.
The epic events that led to the creation of the United States Constitution,
forever establishing this country as "the shining city on the
hill."
I don't rate the US Constitution as a miracle, but it was a
very servicable and well-designed replacement for the Articles of Confederation
(other than its embarassing compromises over slavery). Yes, the document has
been a shining example to many in the world, and it is something of which we are
justifiably proud.
5. How, at a time when it looked like our
fledgling democracy was actually going to fail, God answered Abraham Lincoln's
desperate prayer for a victory at Gettysburg, literally changing the future of
the world.
In reality, the "southern way of life" of the CSA stood
no chance. Slavery and serfdom were outlawed in all of Europe by 1848 except in
Russia, where it fell in 1861. The CSA was a dinosaur. Even if the CSA had
managed to stay out of the Union after the Civil War, the place would have had
to change eventually, just as South Africa and Rhodesia did. As for the Battle
of Gettysburg itself, perhaps Napoleon was right when he said something along
the lines of "God is on the side of the stronger battalions." The Union side had
an advantage in position, numbers, and firepower. The Confederate attack was
foolhardy and a tragic waste of human lives.
6. The incredibly
unlikely scenario that played out during the Battle of Midway during World War
II, which in no small part contributed to the Allies' ability to win the
war.
The Japanese were already overextended by their military
adventures in Asia. Even if they had managed (in the worst case scenario) to
conquer Hawaii, they had no capability to invade and hold mainland North
America, and were bound to lose the war eventually, no matter what the outcome
of the Battle of Midway.
7. How a would-be assassin's bullet stopped
within an inch of Ronald Reagan's heart, thus allowing him to live and go on to
play a key role in the end of the Cold War.
It would be best if
crackpots and psychos dropped the habit of trying to assassinate our presidents,
but that said Ronald Reagan played only a minor part in the end of the Cold War.
What mattered most was Michail Gorbachev's unwillingness or inability to wield
terror against his disloyal subjects, terror having been the style of all his
Russian predecessors from Yuri Dolgoruky to Konstantin Chernenko.
"We
could easily have come up with far more than seven events," Ted says. "But these
make the point we are trying to make and cover a broad spectrum of events. And
every one of them could have turned out differently, with dramatic
results."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Maybe the Stewarts should have read - Authored by: sgtrock on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 02:34 PM EST
- The Ideas Expressed in Judge Stewart's New Book - Authored by: ka1axy on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 03:18 PM EST
- The Ideas Expressed in Judge Stewart's New Book - Authored by: darthaggie on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 03:45 PM EST
- The Ideas Expressed in Judge Stewart's New Book - Authored by: capt.Hij on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:19 PM EST
- The Ideas Expressed in Judge Stewart's New Book - Authored by: odysseus on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:29 PM EST
- hindsight - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:32 PM EST
- The Ideas Expressed in Judge Stewart's New Book - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:35 PM EST
- The Ideas Expressed in Judge Stewart's New Book - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:41 PM EST
- The Ideas Expressed in Judge Stewart's New Book - Authored by: Ed L. on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 05:03 PM EST
- The Ideas Expressed in Judge Stewart's New Book - Authored by: rsmith on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 06:05 PM EST
- The Ideas Expressed in Judge Stewart's New Book - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 08:15 PM EST
- Not quite right - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 10:27 PM EST
- Not quite right - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 20 2010 @ 11:50 PM EST
- The Idea I come away with - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 20 2010 @ 12:37 PM EST
|
Authored by: ChrixOne on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 02:20 PM EST |
Judge versus Jury?
The late Mike Royko wrote a column for the Chicago Tribune once about a
conversation he had with a criminal defense attorney. It stuck in my mind
because of an exactly identical conversation I had with a different criminal
defense lawyer.
My story goes like this:
Me: Tell me XYZ, I know that I have a right to a trial by jury, but do I have a
right to a trial by judge?
XYZ: That's a bench trial. Yes, you have a right to one, but you never choose
one.
Me: Um, XYZ, I am assuming that I am actually innocent of the charges.
XYZ: Oh, in that case you take the bench trial.
Me: So, XYZ, what you are saying is that the reason you choose a trial by jury
is that you believe your client to be guilty and you hope to bamboozle a jury
into letting him go?
XYZ: That's right.
Me: If I were summoned for jury duty, and I tell this story, will they dismiss
me from the jury?
XYZ: Not only would you get off of jury duty, everyone who heard you tell it
would be dismissed.
Are you sure you would rather have a Jury? After all, the SCO types certainly
fear judges.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 02:43 PM EST |
Yvonne Flitton
v. Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc.
Link goes to Appeals Court
ruling (pdf).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Leg on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 02:53 PM EST |
I, for one, am somewhat uncomfortable whenever I begin to believe that a person
in a position of authority confuses "my side won" with "my side
is blessed by divine approval" far to readily. The excerpts from these
book reviews are downright creepy illustrations of a self-absorbed personality.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 02:57 PM EST |
First
Unitarian Church v. Salt Lake City Corporation
Link goes to Appeals
Court ruling (pdf).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 03:06 PM EST |
United States
of America v. Kenneth Charles Rogers
Link goes to Appeals Court
decision (pdf).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The_Pirate on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 03:28 PM EST |
"...It is the source of democracy in the world...."
Frankly, i feel quite insulted now. This is arrogance beyond belief.
I won't even claim that we were the first, but before and during the Viking age
(800 - 1200 a.d.) we, in the Nordic countries, had a extremely well-functioning
democracy, thank you very much. It also worked well before some bloke missed
Greenland by a few hundred miles and ran aground in 'Wineland'.
And, it is still in very fine shape in this day and age. We're quite happy with
it.
Democracy in it's present form is not 'American' either, the shape was sortof
cut out in ancient Greece, and polished up to this day.
It sounds to me as this judge has some kind of blinders very firmly fixed to his
head. I find that attitude troubling.
----
...BTW, sortof off-topic - why do some U.S. citizens refer to themselves
(correctly) as 'Americans' - but balk if a Brazillian, Peruvian or Costa Rican
person does the same...?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- And India is the biggest democracy in the world N/T - Authored by: Winter on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 03:59 PM EST
- Americans - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:15 PM EST
- Americans - Authored by: PJ on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:19 PM EST
- Americans - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:38 PM EST
- Americans - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 05:03 PM EST
- SouthCanadians - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 05:20 PM EST
- Americans - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 21 2010 @ 12:05 AM EST
- Naughty Americano? n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 05:35 PM EST
- Americans - Authored by: inode_buddha on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 09:06 PM EST
- USians? - Authored by: tyche on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:27 PM EST
- Americans? - Authored by: The_Pirate on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 05:01 PM EST
- Americans? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 05:36 PM EST
- Americans? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 06:23 PM EST
- Americans - Authored by: mexaly on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 05:40 PM EST
- Americans - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 06:40 PM EST
- Californian, Virginian, Texican .... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 07:18 PM EST
- Americans - Authored by: Tolerance on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 09:35 PM EST
- "America has a unique role...." - Authored by: odysseus on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:41 PM EST
- "America has a unique role...." - Authored by: Wol on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 07:14 PM EST
- "America has a unique role...." - Authored by: electron on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 07:15 PM EST
- "America has a unique role...." - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 09:52 PM EST
- "America has a unique role...." - Authored by: Vic on Saturday, February 20 2010 @ 10:18 AM EST
|
Authored by: golding on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:08 PM EST |
Perhaps Stewart should learn that.
---
Regards, Robert
..... Some people can tell what time it is by looking at the sun, but I have
never been able to make out the numbers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:18 PM EST |
"when reversed by the appeals court, he accepted their
decision."
You mean he had a choice? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 04:25 PM EST |
You can present all the evidence you want, but if the jury instructions are
biased against you, your evidence may be worthless. Sure, the jury can ignore
the jury instructions just as they can ignore the law, but it is just asking for
the verdict to be nullified.
Have the jury instructions been decided yet in this case? If so, I'd like to see
them. Did Novell have any say in them?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 05:11 PM EST |
who have already had time to purchase, read, analyze and debunk the Stewarts'
book.
cpeterson, who hasn't even the money to buy it yet.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 07:05 PM EST |
Reading through the 3 cases that were overturned on appeal they seem to be a
stark contrast to Kimball's appeal results I looked at some time back while
there were comments floating about over Kimball's appeal record. I could not go
through them all and I did get the eyes glazing over but the ones I looked at
seemed to be adjustments with the main jist of the judgement upheld. These three
seem to be totally reversed with some force.
IANAL
Tufty
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 07:58 PM EST |
Such paucity of intellect and imagination indicates at most
a withered twig of the family tree that produced so many
Kings of Scotland and England. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 08:54 PM EST |
Link found at The Volakh Conspiracy.
http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/
uploads/2010/01/brand.pdf
"Judicial Appointments: Checks and Balances Practice"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 09:19 PM EST |
Saw a link on Investor Village to this Ripoff Report post:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/Court-Judges/Judge-Ted-Stewart-Fe/judge-ted-stewart-
federal-jud-bed85.htm
Given that the SCO crew, in the early days, were crowing about their devotion to
Mormonism, and considering that Stewart is also a flaming Mormon, is this also a
case of Mormon favoritism? Then add to that the relationships and it seems like
Stewart is showing favoritism to his tight-knit Mormon community. Maybe Stewart
should have read where God commanded not to administer justice with partiality.
I realize PJ said to lay off the religion, but kind of hard to avoid in light of
the article and what's been coming to light.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo on Friday, February 19 2010 @ 09:49 PM EST |
...after Judge Stewart shuts it down in the USA after this
discussion?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 20 2010 @ 06:41 AM EST |
Getting to know Judge Ted Stewart just became a little easier, because he
and his brother Chris have written a book
And having read the
extracts from the book quoted here, it's clear to me that I don't want to know
this guy.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 20 2010 @ 08:11 AM EST |
There doesn't seem to be anyway to register a user account
on groklaw.
When I tried months or more than a year ago, there was a
message saying new account creation was disabled. Now I can
enter any username or email address and I always get a
message that the username or email is already registered.
If anonymous posting was ever disabled (I know you said it
wouldn't be), there wouldn't be any way for many people to
post.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Anonymous users - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 20 2010 @ 09:34 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 20 2010 @ 09:47 AM EST |
Now we are definitely down the rabbit hole. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mtew on Saturday, February 20 2010 @ 11:18 AM EST |
Both tSCOg and Novell have roots in Utah, but there seems to be quite different
political reactions to the different companies. Further, that difference seems
to be rooted in the 'Mormon' culture. Do the two companies have different
relationships with the 'Mormon' culture, and if so, what facts support this
interpretation?
Specifically, I am under the impression that Novell's operations center around
Provo. I am also under the impression the Provo is considered a 'gentile'
enclave by the 'Mormons', and viewed with something less than total affection by
them. On the other hand, tSCOg, not being associated with Provo, would be much
dearer to the 'Mormon' communities heart?
.
Please check that my geographic information is correct and comment on how if
might impact this whole case...
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 20 2010 @ 02:53 PM EST |
I guess this page became a study of opposites .
On one hand someone who writings seem like Daffy Duck wrote them.
On the other hand a brilliant jurist, and author, Sandra Day O'Conner.
A quote from wikipedia
As a Retired Supreme Court Justice (roughly equivalent to senior status for
judges of lower federal courts), O'Connor is entitled to receive a full salary,
maintain a staffed office with at least one law clerk, and to hear cases on a
part-time basis in federal district courts and courts of appeals as a visiting
judge. In 2003, she wrote a book titled The Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a
Supreme Court Justice.
end quote .
She has also written a children's book.
One could only wish that she would hear this case.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 20 2010 @ 07:03 PM EST |
Something that is bothering me is the rampant trashing of the judge in the last
two threads. I agree that there appears to be a bias on his part. But I also
remember comments here about the bias of Wells and Kimbal. Also keep in mind
that in five years Judge Stewart may be presiding over another trial and making
rulings which will be causing you to call him a genious!
Maybe Judge Stewart is
a big dufus, and I point out that that is a very big maybe. You may feel
that you have good criticisms of him. Fine, but make sure that you are
respectful and that you are correct in your facts. Most importantly make sure
that you don't exagerate your facts to make Stewart look worse.
If your sense
of decorum and fairness doesn't cause you to do this, consider the fact that SCO
is trying to prevent Novell witnesses from referencing this website. All SCO has
to do to be convincing is show the judge these last two threads. More
importantly after seeing these two threads, the Appeals Court would not overturn
his decision ( on this matter).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 21 2010 @ 12:04 AM EST |
PJ says: "A judge in a jury trial, which is what this is, can't fix the
outcome."
Absurd!!!!! Judges tell juries that they are obligated to rule in accordance
with what the judge tells them the law said ... and the judge can lie about the
law. Even though a jury can, in principle, rule however they want, most jurors
will feel an obligation to believe and follow whatever instructions they are
given.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|