To: hobbes1
The Legislation required a De Novo review. That means New, from scratch to you and me Rusty, that didnt happen here now did it?No, it didn't.
It did not happen because the Schindlers' attorney did not present a de novo case, and instead rehashed the same procedural issues that had already been litigated to an unsuccessful conclusion.
435 posted on
03/29/2005 11:18:45 AM PST by
Poohbah
(If it's called "collateral damage," how come I can't use it to secure a loan?)
To: Poohbah
Whittmore said differently. They offered affadavits from medical Professionals, indicating a chance of success in a new hearing. Whittmore than upped the ante.
441 posted on
03/29/2005 11:19:59 AM PST by
hobbes1
(Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "For your AMUSEMENT..." ; ))
To: Poohbah
I wonder if they could sue their lawyer for malpractice? To blow a chance like that....
442 posted on
03/29/2005 11:20:04 AM PST by
Knitting A Conundrum
(Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
To: Poohbah
The Legislation required a De Novo review. That means New, from scratch to you and me Rusty, that didnt happen here now did it?
No, it didn't.
It did not happen because the Schindlers' attorney did not present a de novo case, and instead rehashed the same procedural issues that had already been litigated to an unsuccessful conclusion.
THIS needs to be repeated over and over. IF, IF, IF the Schindler's atty's had presented NEW evidence- the review would have gone forward and been legit. As it is- they went to court ill-prepared offering nothing DE NOVO for the court. Before condeming the judges involved it would do to understand the legal merits.
450 posted on
03/29/2005 11:23:22 AM PST by
SE Mom
(Debate, not hate.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson