Judge Gives Rationale for Tossing Hatfill Suit Against Times

The New York Sun ^ | 2 February 2007 | Josh Gerstein

[jpl]

Sorry, but under the law, in order to keep our strong heritage of free speech and public accountability alive, the issue of being a public figure is necessarily broad.

Oh, brother, you must really think you're talking to a bunch of fools or something.

This standard was invented out of judicial whole cloth in 1964 for Pete's sake, it's very much like Roe v. Wade. Congress never codifed this rubbish as a real law.

I can understand that it's probably natural for lawyers to think of Supreme Court as practically being Gods, but you might be surprised to learn that a lot of us rubes don't necessarily go along with this.

"If the law supposes that, the law is an ass".

[MindBender26]

>Oh, brother, you must really think you're talking to a bunch of fools or something.

No but since AmericaFirst and I are both hard core conservative lawyers, we do think we know what we are talking about on legal issues.

You take care of the interactive fiction you say you love, we'll take care of the legal issues.

[jpl]

We'll just see how the Appeals Court eventually rules. Don't gloat too much yet before it's all over.

[MindBender26]

It's sort of like Fox:

We report
You gloat.

:~)

[MindBender26]

Read the decison this morning.

In light of SCOTUS decision in "Masson v. The New Yorker Magazine Inc." (501 U.S. 496 [1991]) especially when giving weight AJ White's and AJ Scalia's partial dissents, there are no appealable issues.

[jpl]

OK, I guess we'll find out eventually, solicitor.

[EdLake]

OK, I guess we'll find out eventually, solicitor.

The docket for the Hatfill v The New York Times lawsuit shows that Dr. Hatfill has officially notified the court that he will be filing an appeal to Judge Hilton's decision.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com