Defense Attorney has just spent the 5 minutes explaining to the judge why my interpretation of a statute is wrong and 15 minutes explaining to the judge why his interpretation of the statute is right. Then he points at me in, raises his voice, and voice quavering states in high dudgeon:
"And, judge, I don't think a representative of the executive branch has any business telling a representative of the judicial branch how to interpret something written by the legislative branch!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular entries
-
With the price of gas in the modern day, I've looked around at scooters/mopeds a little bit. An interesting thing out there is the 3 whe... -
This month's edition of The National magazine ( National (English) - October/November 2010 ) has a significant multi-page article on pri... -
Following in the footsteps of British Columbia and Alberta, bar owners in Halifax are talking about rolling out a "Bar Watch" prog...
-
In the "Street View" lawsuit with the Borings (see: Boring lawsuit over Google's "Street View" ), Google has filed a...
-
Every time I get on Facebook it tries to set me up with someone. Now, not to be too cynical about things, but girls who looked like that wer... -
New York City has lowest crime rate . Good, now maybe I can finally get somebody to buy that bridge I purchased last year.
-
A long-time friend of this blog just recently sent me a link to a new decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court ( R. v. Pickton , 201...
-
After a very long hiatus, I've been reinfected with the photography bug thanks to acquiring a new digital SLR (some of my recent work i...
-
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an interesting Op/Ed on privacy, highlighting contemporary expectations of privacy. Information Age ...
-
Apparently both the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and Facebook intend to hold separate press conferences tomorrow to discuss the outcome of...