Ninety percent plagiarism figure suggests that Dover ID-as-science opinion is one-sided
These final post-trial "proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law" briefs ought to be abolished because they contain nothing but the unrebutted and sometimes unsupported assertions of the parties. Where there is no courtroom trial, I believe that the usual briefing procedure is to have a plaintiff's "opening" brief which is answered by a defendant's "answering" brief which is answered by a plaintiff's "reply" brief (the parties are called appellants and appellees in the appeals courts and petitioners and respondents in the Supreme Court -- the appellants and the petitioners can be either the original plaintiffs or the original defendants). Jones allowed briefs rebutting the "proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law" briefs but the procedure that was used in the Dover case was still quite a bit different from the normal briefing procedure.
Labels: Judge Jones (1 of 2)
2 Comments:
Of course it's one-sided, doofus; it's chock full o' truth, and Jones filtered out the lies. Waht remains came from one side. Another victory for Truth, Justice, and the American Way!!
If the defendants wanted their claims included in the opinion, they should have eschewed their lies.
Anonymous said...
>>>>>Of course it's one-sided, doofus; it's chock full o' truth, and Jones filtered out the lies. Waht remains came from one side. <<<<<<
The problem is that it is too one-sided -- as I showed in my article.
Jones was supposed to answer the lies, not filter them out.
The claim that all judges do what Jones did is no defense. From personal experience, I know very well what judges do. For example, in my suit against California's unconstitutional "smog impact fee" in federal court, I argued -- citing Supreme Court precedent -- that the state had here lost its federal-court tax-suit immunity by "leaving the sphere that is exclusively its own" by basing a state tax entirely on California's special status under federal auto emissions laws and regulations. The state made no attempt to counter that argument. Judge TJ "Mad" Hatter then dismissed my case without an opinion or oral hearing.
Post a Comment
<< Home