You are part of the problem, so it's not surprise you would defend the problem. You've identified yourself as a Florida lawyer and personal friend of the corrupt judges in this case.
I've reviewed some of your recent posts, and frankly, I'm surprised you're here. You defend liberals and bash conservatives. You call the right "fanactics" (sic), and Rush Limbaugh "puke." You had to jump into a thread about Arthur Miller and start name-calling because someone pointed the truth that Miller was a liberal. Why that should be so upsetting to a "conservative" is beyond me.
You win the troll of the day award.
This is my first time here....
may I please say that
I WILL BE BACK!!
I like this much more than some of the other "big blogs" I usually hang out at.....
Ya'll are GREAT!
smart- thoughtful- full of facts- and (MY FAVE) FUNNY!
I LOVE IT!
Hope ya'll will help me feel at home....
Thanks
(was that too mushy?)
Among the many thousands of words on FR accusing the 34 judges of wanting only to kill a woman they don't know while trying to deal with a difficult issue of law interwoven with intricate facts, I've never seen any recognition that there just might be more to the case than the advocates here post. It should be recognized as axiomatic that every case in litigation contains at least two sides to the controversy; often more. It is the role and duty of the courts to weigh, consider and examine the conflicting assertions of fact while applying the governing law to the facts that are more likely true; the preponderance of the evidence. To suggest that the courts of Florida are predisposed to effectuating the death of a person out of a corrupt and malicious spirit is not only absurd, it's obscene and contemptable. And to assert that appellate courts, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, are in on the death fix is no less than outrageous. Courts are in the business of making hard decisions vis-a-vis placating the ideological polemics of a specific group.