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

To: justiceseeker93
That may sound farfetched, but Comcast is "regulated" by the Obama-controlled Federal Communications Commission. As you may know, there has been some concern among people in broadcasting about the possibility of O's FCC abusing its authority by shutting down outlets as political retaliation against perceived "enemies." I think that might her point, although I'm not sure.

So, if anything, Land should be biased against Obama, not in favor of him.

In any event, stock ownership doesn't disqualify a judge from any case unless the company whose stock he owns is a party or has a direct financial interest in the outcome.

Finally, if you think a judge's stock ownership disqualifies him, the law is that you have to say so before the judge rules on your case. Otherwise you can go into the hearing and say, "if I win I won't say anything but if I lose I'll say the judge is biased." Courts don't stand for that kind of gamesmanship.

38 posted on 10/13/2009 2:47:09 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: Lurking Libertarian
In any event, stock ownership doesn't disqualify a judge from any case unless the the company whose stock he owns is a party or has a direct financial interest in the outcome.

Yes, that's the general way that the judicial ethics rule is stated. But Ms. Taitz was possibly thinking of the (proverbial) unseen 800 pound gorilla in the room: Obama's FCC, which could possibly harm Comcast (and any shareholder's interest in it) in retaliation if Judge Land didn't dismiss her case against Obama quickly. This administration is capable of things more vindictive than that - it's called "the Chicago way."

39 posted on 10/13/2009 3:07:18 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian
In any event, stock ownership doesn't disqualify a judge from any case unless the the company whose stock he owns is a party or has a direct financial interest in the outcome.

Yes, that's the general way that the judicial ethics rule is stated. But Ms. Taitz was possibly thinking of the (proverbial) unseen 800 pound gorilla in the room: Obama's FCC, which could possibly harm Comcast (and any shareholder's interest in it) in retaliation if Judge Land didn't dismiss her case against Obama quickly. This administration is capable of things more vindictive than that - it's called "the Chicago way."

40 posted on 10/13/2009 3:22:03 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | 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