Comments on: NOM’s filing was a mess

By: Theo

Theo — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 07:50:39 +0000

Was that filing another James Bopp, Esq. production?

By: Pender

Pender — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 01:47:07 +0000

Ha.

By: ebohlman

ebohlman — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 23:51:10 +0000

In legalese what happened is that the filing was dismissed “without prejudice” which means that the judge ruled that there were technical problems with the filing, problems that the plaintiff could correct. It happens all the time. That’s to be contrasted with dismissal “with prejudice” which means that the plaintiff didn’t present a substantive case and nothing could rescue the filing.

By: Rob San Diego

Rob San Diego — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:56:28 +0000

Why are the courts giving them more time for incompetency?

By: TampaZeke

TampaZeke — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:10:10 +0000

What, is this grammar school?

The teacher gives your book report on Lake Titicaca back so that you can correct all of the spelling and grammar errors and resubmit it on Friday?

By: beachewtoy75

beachewtoy75 — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 19:42:58 +0000

But Maggie Srivastav says that NOM spends money on very expensive lawyers.

I guess they need to spend more!

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 18:55:27 +0000

I want to see if Brian Brown calls this justice ‘activist’ too, for throwing out their case.
Her ‘bias’ I’m pretty certain, will be mentioned.
All the judges who don’t rule in NOM’s favor are all shills for the ‘militant homosexual agenda’.

Stay tuned.
He might not mention it at all. But considering that he writes a newsletter twice a week sometimes trumpeting what they think are triumphs just for FILING briefs, it’s always interesting to see how a failure on their part will be spun.