Originally Posted by Bugout4x4
Originally Posted by 4ager
Take your time on the argument.

As to the case you cited, it's no binding law. It's a dead case and without any legal merit at this point, just like the trial court decisions in Heller and McDonald that tried to say that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. It simply doesn't exist, legally.

Further, the trial judge that you "like" is discredited in numerous appeals court rulings to a degree that I've never seen before. He simply isn't trusted and his rulings are biased to a degree that the higher courts won't back him at all. Whether you "like" him or not, he's not a valid arbiter of fact or law.


Curious question? Please explain how this decision to overrule was NOT Biased? Because it was in favor of the Government it gets a pass on Bias? Honestly I'm not sure I have ever read a case where a Justice was not Personally Biased in what Arguments, Testimony and Evidence was allow to affect a Case...Honestly...have you?

They wouldn't even allow argument against it.

"The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument as to Appellant and Wayne N. Hage. Fed. R. App."

This is probably one of the most biased denials of Due Process in favor of the Government I think I have read yet. Please humor me and put the shoe on the other foot for couple minutes and read it again. There really are some unjust discrepancies in their argument for this decision.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf

I have been very busy here with responsibilities but if you don't mind I am going to put our original discussion aside for a bit and try to stay with this particular action. Now that you shared this current decision I am locked in with curiosity and find myself breaking this one down in detail.

Without a Staff I can only concentrate on one Case at a time. smile

Seriously...the Timeline of actions they use in this concerning the Statute of Limitations is Inaccurate. They could have probably also successfully done this without twisting these facts. I contend that this was a wrong decision based on even their own reasoning and assertions.

I think they stepped on their own feet in this if we want to argue bias...


When the judges rulings were counter to established law and court procedure, and the multitude of other factors that the Appeals Court (on different cases, with different reviewing judges and panels) cited not only in their recent decision but in other decisions overruling that judge for the several egregious breaches of judiciary conduct, the bias is easily established. It's not about which party is preferentially treated by a biased ruling; it's that there was a preferential treatment that goes against the established rules, procedures, and case law.

The Appeals Court decision that you say is a denial of Due Process had nothing to do with Due Process at all. A denial of Due Process means that the aggrieved party had no opportunity to voice their case before a fair, unbiased arbiter. In the multitude of Hage cases, the Hages have had numerous opportunities to have their cases heard at the Administrative level, trial level, and several appellate levels. If anything, they've had substantial Due Process for their claims. The Appeals Court found that the trial judge was unduly biased and his rulings were counter to the rules of Civil Procedure (and entire area of law unto itself), court procedure, and standing law. Any judge that does that on any case, regardless of which party benefits or is harmed, will have their ruling overturned. This judge clearly does it on a regular basis.

In fact, the Appeals Court decision is yet another opportunity for Due Process. The case is being remanded to a different judge, one that hopefully will avoid bias toward/against either party and apply the established rules and standing law fairly on the facts presented. The Hages haven't lost; they simply have to present their case to a neutral (and not biased) arbiter. In other words, they (and the other party) actually get the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process.

Take your time on the discussion; there's no rush.

Last edited by 4ager; 02/10/16.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.