Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kattracks
The 1 million award for attorney's fees is just waaaay too fishy. It smaks of a backroom deal. Not a valid setlement.


Too bad the judges are unlikely to disapprove the settlement.
2 posted on 01/19/2004 11:29:41 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: longtermmemmory
May be San Diago should hear from us,

http://www.sannet.gov/
3 posted on 01/20/2004 12:05:36 AM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: longtermmemmory; kattracks
Too bad the judges are unlikely to disapprove the settlement.

I think that the Connecticut case, if it goes to the Supreme Court, could be a good one.

What we have here is the Left NGO's playing tag-team wrestling with the BSA using money given them by tax-exempts.

The Supreme Court could have something surprising to say on political uses of tax-exempt dollars. Even better, they could even strip some of the parties to the Scouts' suit of their tax-exempt status, since what is going on, if the Court were to consolidate some of these cases and prorogate the pending local ones, would immediately become manifest "patterns and practices" that the Court could then rule is political not eleemosynary. They could bag all these assclowns' exemptions.

And that would be how you spell "relief".

4 posted on 01/20/2004 1:24:15 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson