|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
We need to know the legal procedure for correcting false assumptions of fact
which have been, *inaccurately*, embedded into legal precedents.
This has happened before: Victorian England had some astounding examples of
blatant untruths which were "precedent" and so which the courts
assumed were true. Dickens even talks about some of them. There must have been
a corrective procedure, because they did clean that mess up.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 08:45 PM EDT |
Above, in PoIR's treatise, a judge is quoted from 1974,
saying...
"I am quite familiar with the legal doctrine that a new
program makes an old general purpose digital
computer into a new and different machine.
This court has been through that many times..."
So if this was back in ' 74 and already established
doctrine, how much more thoroughly entrenched it
must be today. As solid as the Rock of Glbralter. How
many times must that have been stated by now in a
court
of law? That alone makes it into Truth.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|