Member
| It's interpreting the federal identity theft statute. Here's a link. |
| Posts: 1243 | Location: houston, texas, u.s.a. | Registered: October 19, 2001 |
IP
|
|
Member
| quote: Originally posted by David Newell: It's interpreting the federal identity theft statute.
Here's a http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-108.pdf.
Mr. Newell, how is it that you know something about every case, law, statute, rule of evidence or procedure in both the federal and state systems? Do you follow the individual circuits as well? More disturbingly, how come you're right 99 and 9/10ths % of the time? Very impressive. You should be a judge. If Obama and the Senate would only put you and AndreaW up there with the Supremes... |
| Posts: 2578 | Location: The Great State of Texas | Registered: December 26, 2001 |
IP
|
|
Member
| quote: Originally posted by Greg Gilleland:
quote: Originally posted by David Newell: It's interpreting the federal identity theft statute.
Here's a http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-108.pdf.
Mr. Newell, how is it that you know something about every case, law, statute, rule of evidence or procedure in both the federal and state systems? Do you follow the individual circuits as well? More disturbingly, how come you're right 99 and 9/10ths % of the time?
Very impressive. You should be a judge.
|
| Posts: 2578 | Location: The Great State of Texas | Registered: December 26, 2001 |
IP
|
|